Assessing the level of social adaptation among young migrants in the megapolis

According to experts, there are currently 600– 800 thousand1 Kyrgyzstan citizens who work in Russia, and 16 thousand of those who study in this country – quota basis included2. Usually they are young people who could not find a job in the home country which would guarantee personal/professional growth and decent income. Some of them also want to get high-quality Russian education that gives broad employment opportunities in the post-Soviet countries.

Creation of the Eurasian Economic Union, which includes post-Soviet countries, provided Kyrgyzstan migrants with employment and education mobility rights equal to ones of other citizens of the EAEU countries. However, our studies show3 that this group has more difficulties in adapting to Moscow society in comparison with migrants from other EAEU countries. It is important to assess problems, put forward suggestions to create resources for the complete realization of their human capital, sustainable and complementary interaction with the Muscovites, and to understand how the social adaptation level impacts sentiments, ideas, and attitudes toward

Russia and the Muscovites, as well as support and development of the EAEU.

The novelty of the research is characterized by the necessity to clarify categorical apparatus for the empirical assessment of migrants’ social adaptation level. The theory of migrants’ adaptation has not really developed in the modern science. During the intensification of migration processes in the mid-20th – early 21st century period, which has been characterized by active emigration and mass immigration of citizens, the inclusion of many researchers from different countries and scholars from various scientific areas into studying migrants’ social adaptation led to the formation of new schools and concepts that use diverse categories and put opposite meanings into the same terms. Considering the complexity of this process and its features, different countries developed many theoretical models that explain adaption of migrants in host communities (assimilation, segmental assimilation, cross-cultural adaptation, multiculturalism, transnationalism, methodological nationalism, multiculturalism, interculturalism). Eventually, a lot of synonyms, or categories used as such, emerged within them during an analysis of migrants’ social adaptation and integration: acculturation, absorption, accommodation, assimilation, inclusion, incorporation, etc.; there were differences in defining the structure, functions, and factors of social adaptation. Researchers use different definitions, which range from simple ones to complex abstract-theoretical constructions.

In this regard, the purpose of our research is to develop a methodology for a sociological analysis, to evaluate Kyrgyzstan migrants’ social adaptation factors, to reveal issues, to work out suggestions for creating environment for the fullest realization of the human potential of Kyrgyzstan migrants. The scientific novelty could be characterized by filling the methodological content of the theory of migrants’ social adaptation, conceptually ensuring the implementation of further empirical research of social adaptation of migrants from the EAEU member states in Russia, and assessing the level of social adaptation, their impact on attitudes, values, and behavior.

Methodology and methods characteristics

In this research, the sociological analysis of the adaptation level of young Kyrgyzstan citizens is based on basic ideas of sociological theories on a person’s adaptation to changing social environment. E. Durkheim [1] reviews social adaptation as the assimilation (interiorization) of social norms by an individual in the “norm – pathology” continuum; M. Weber [2] argues that a rational person is better adapted than a normative one; T. Parsons [3] understands adaptation as the balance of mutual expectations of an individual and social environment; R. Merton [4] records the imbalance (contradictions of general cultural and institutional norms) in the structure of the society’s normative system and believes that adaptation does not necessarily mean the assimilation of social norms by a person, and it is directed not from society to an individual, but vice versa; Chicago sociologists – R. Park, W.I. Thomas, and F. Znaniecki [5; 6] – initiated the study on the issues of migrants’ adaptation in a host society and proved the importance of developing an adaptation strategy; American scholars R. Redfield, R. Linton, and M.J. Herskovits [7] understood adaptation as a result of social interaction between groups, activity, when both parties adopt – migrants and members of a host society, and they also proved the necessity to distinguish between “acculturation” and “assimilation”.

The research methodology is based on our idea that social adaptation forms a semantic field that encompasses a wide range of interaction with phenomena like accommodation , acculturation , within which the interaction of certain individuals and entire social groups with a foreign cultural environment emerges, and integration , as a result of successful adaptation, integration into the structures of host societies, adaptation to norms and ideas of the majority [8–19].

We study social adaptation in a broad social context and in different areas of social life, because it can be selective and have selective effects. Despite the fact that the article analyzes the level of social adaptation among Kyrgyzstan young migrants, it is assumed that social adaption of each individual and its features are the basis of the study.

The methodological strategy includes a survey of young migrants from Kyrgyzstan living in Moscow (structured interviews with migrants from Kyrgyzstan within the project “Monitoring of integration processes in the EAEU”, project manager G. I. Osadchaya), conducted in October– December 2019 and January–February 2020. 823 people were interviewed, selected by the snowball method using certain characteristics: Kyrgyzstan citizens, aged 17–30, who arrived in Moscow after 2015 and lived there for more than a month. The choice of an empirical object is determined by socio-demographic characteristics of migrants from Kyrgyzstan, and a number of respondents – by the need to identify statistically significant groups of young migrants from Kyrgyzstan in terms of the social adaptation.

Discussion of the results

In recent years, researchers have explored the social adaptation of migrants from Kyrgyzstan in the context of positive and negative consequences of labor migration from the KR for sending and host countries – Kazakhstan and Russia [20], assessment of the developing conditions and transitional provisions for the application of the Kyrgyz Republic legal framework of the Eurasian Economic Union, including free movement of labor in the EAEU [21].

Some articles are devoted directly to the problems of adaptation of labor migrants from Kyrgyzstan in specific Russian regions: for example, Siberia and Saratov. Their authors identify the “adoption conditions” of migrants [22], determinants of changes in social attitudes and value orientations, and they substantiate the factors of ethnic and cultural identification of Kyrgyz people, taking into account local specifics [23]. The works about the adoption of migrants in Moscow analyze its specific aspects: possible “career trajectories” – from the position of a bed-renter to an “owner”; models of migrant residence – each implies a different degree of attachment to a place of living [24]; infrastructure of migrant workers (ethnomigrant associations, “ethnic” cafes and medical centers, intermediary firms and migrant networks) [25]. The scientists analyzed the Kyrgyz diaspora in Russia as a new stage of intercultural interaction. It is noted that the issues of the modern Kyrgyz diaspora formation, which emerged as a result of migration processes in the post-Soviet period, have not yet been studied [26]. Thus, the problems of the social adaptation of young Kyrgyzstan citizens in Moscow were not systematically studied.

Research results, their analysis, and explanation

Coming from Kyrgyzstan to Moscow, a young person changes a predictable and understandable environment, where common behavior patterns guarantee the achievement of a set goal, to uncertain one. In this regard, an initial adaptive need of an individual is to bring the conditions for everyday life in accordance with his capabilities and ideas: it includes search for accommodation and work, arrangement of leisure. Then, relatively quickly, young people learn dress manners and practices of everyday behavior. Value systems are the most difficult to change.

Newcomers from Kyrgyzstan solve all these problems with different results and speed, showing personal levels of the social adaptation. The analysis of obtained empirical data allowed us to distinguish four groups of migrants: with a high level of adaptation represented by approximately 25% of respondents, with a medium level – 52%, with a low level – 18%, and a small group with current adaptation – 5%, characterizing behavioral responses of respondents and unresolved key problems of adaptation to new environment.

The adaptation level is closely related to the migrants’ assessment of various aspects of everyday life in Moscow: financial situation, quality of food, clothing, organization of leisure, satisfaction with the results of relocation. It characterizes the asymmetry of migrants’ opportunities in the adaptation process. The higher it is, the more it helps to align the way of life of migrants with the youth of a host society ( Fig. 1 ) .

The adaptation level impacts social sentiments. Young Kyrgyzstan citizens who have successfully integrated into the Moscow society are three times more likely to have a good and optimistic mood than migrants with a low level of adaptation (high level – 36.6%, average level – 21.4%, low level – 12.3%); they are less likely to experience anxiety, irritation (high level – 8.4%, average level – 9.8%, low level – 19.9%). Special social sentiments exist in the current adaptation group. Here, in comparison with the third group, the proportion of respondents-optimists is higher (20.0%), but a number of those who are restless or irritated is nearly the same (17.8%).

Migrants from the group of the most adapted ones more often feel confidence in the future (respond options “Yes”, “More likely yes than no”: high level – 78.2%, average level – 70.4%, low level – 56.9%, current adaptation level – 51.2%). They are more likely to feel a sense of pride in Russia (high level of adaptation – 13%, average – 8.0%, low – 3.4%) and satisfaction with activities of the Russian government (high level – 42.0%, average – 33.0%,

Figure 1. Young Kyrgyz citizens’ assessment of different aspects of life in Moscow depending on the level of adaptation, % of respondents

0.00                                                                           0.00

High level Average          Low level Current of adaptation level          of adaptation level of adaptation                      of adaptation

^^^^^^^^^^^ Financial situation improved

^^^^^^^^™ Eat well

:       - Dress well

^^^^^^^^^ Opportunities for spending free time are good

^^^^^^^^ш Expectations from coming to Moscow were met

Source: own development.

low – 26.0%, current adaptation – 13.3%); they more often speak positively about young Muscovites. 82% of migrants with a high level of adaptation, as well as 74.2% with average adaptation level, 53.4% with low adaptation level, and 57.8% with current adaptation level, had a very positive and generally good impression of Muscovites.

The adaptation level of migrants also affects the attitude to the Eurasian integration problems. The most successfully adapted respondents are more likely to support the creation of the Eurasian Economic Union in the post-Soviet space (“Yes, I approve” – 51%), which is about 20 p. p. more than in the group with average (31.9%) and low (28.8%) adaptation. The rating of those who answered “Rather yes than no” should be added to these ratings. In general, the approval of the construction of the EAEU is at the level of 69%, the highest is in the groups with a high adaptation level – 77.8% – and the current adaptation – 73.4%. These informants more highly rate a mutually beneficial process of uniting states in the Eurasian Economic Union (“Yes” and “Rather yes” for migrants with a high level of adaptation – 75.2%, with a low adaptation – 65.7%) and Kyrgyzstan’s entry into it (“Yes” and “Rather yes” for migrants with a high adaptation level – 78.2%, with a low adaptation – 63.7%), as well as the results that they personally achieved in the process of functioning of single and common markets of the Economic Union (“Yes” and “Rather yes than no” responses for migrants with a high level of adaptation – 67.4%, with a low adaptation – 42.4%; fig. 2).

The adaptation level affects the ideas of young people about the essence of Russia’s adaptation strategy. According to 44.1% of respondents representing a group with a high degree of adaptation and 32.9% – with a low adaptation, the harmonization of an individual and an environment, ensuring the alignment of needs, interests, attitudes, and value orientations, is associated with the assimilation policy. At the

same time, they understand assimilation not “as a complete dissolution, but as the weakening of ethnic separation and subsequent reduction of cultural and social differences, the crossing of social borders of a host society” [27] due to the adoption of a new identity’s attributes. These migrants are ready to meet a host society, which increases their adaptive capacity and ensures integration.

40.1–45.6% of respondents believe that migrants should be included in a life of a local community, recognizing their national and cultural identity. They are focused on the policy of biculturalism, which means assimilation of dominant norms in interaction with old ones and construction of their own system that everyone accepts on this basis. 3.0–6.7% of respondents believe that the most productive interaction between Muscovites and Kyrgyzstan migrants is possible within the segregation policy. Consequently, the better adapted a migrant is, the more likely he is to support Russia’s policy of adapting migrants in the assimilation regime. We would like to note that with a lower level of adaptation of an informant, the proportion of those who found it difficult to answer this question was greater.

The study shows that the image of Russia depends on the level of migrants’ adaptation. For Kyrgyzstanis with a high and medium adaptation level, Russia is primarily associated with opportunities for a good income (51.5–54.2%) and a comfortable life for them and their family members (26.7–23.7%). Among migrants with a low adaptation level, the share of responses “With certain difficulties and challenges to provide for myself and my family” was higher (16.3%). The image of Russia among migrants with a current adaptation is more often associated with obtaining a high-quality education (33.3%), opportunities to move to other countries (8.9%), constant problems and general unsettlement conditions (6.7%).

However, there are variables that are not determined by the adaptation level. They are first associated with value orientations, which are the most conservative and difficult to change. Migrants came to Moscow with their own norms, ideas, and behavior patterns, lifestyle standards, adopted in Kyrgyzstan or constructed by migrants themselves or preferred by them, which, due to their short stay in Moscow, could not change quickly.

The level of adaptation, for example, does not affect the choice of a country or association of countries to live in. The preference rating is as follows: Russia (36%), Kyrgyzstan (34%), the Eurasian Union (14.5%), with the exception of a small group of current adaptation. Here the preferences are as follows: Kyrgyzstan (51.1%), Russia (24.4%), and the EAEU (13.3%).

The adaptation level does not affect the identification either. Only 11.5% of respondents consider themselves to be a citizen of their country and a citizen of the Eurasian Union or a citizen of the Eurasian Union and a citizen of their country, regardless of their success. It should be noted that a dual identity (national and pan-Eurasian) is the most important condition for a viability of the Eurasian idea, an indicator of the integration processes effectiveness in the EAEU.

The focus of migrants on a degree of mastering a host society’s culture, which affects the adaptive potential of young Kyrgyzstanis, is interesting. The assessment of migrants’ strategic preferences in relation to the balance between the adoption of the dominant culture and the preservation of the old one justifies distinguishing three types of attitudes toward acculturation. The first type (about 20%) is the orientation toward their own culture and lack of acceptance of a new cultural environment (“I believe that all people in the world share or should share the same values: ones accepted in my country” + “I believe that the values of a foreign culture threaten a usual order of things for me and my way of living”). If it does not change, this attitude may contribute to non-recognition of a host society’s values by such respondents. In the future, it may not allow them to adapt to the Moscow society and cause conflicts. This attitude generates a personal strategy, which can be called a marginalization strategy in the Moscow society.

The second type of attitudes is associated with a unifying opportunity of different cultures and features of intergroup contact, including the assimilation of a host society’s culture by migrants. Nearly 42% of respondents consider it important to keep in touch with a native culture while adopting basic values of a host society’s culture (“I believe that every culture has something in common, you should always look for features that unite different cultures” + “I can say that I know Russian culture well and ready to accept its fundamental values”). This type is focused on preserving the connection with a native culture and mastering elements of a host society’s culture. This strategy can be called a “complementarity strategy”.

38% of young Kyrgyzstanis share the third type of migrants’ perception of the balance between accepting a dominant culture and preserving an old one. Nearly 23% of them believe that they can live in peace, following the rules, norms, and values of Russian culture; another 15% do not divide Kyrgyz and Russian culture: one might say that they are already members of Russian culture. This strategy can be called the strategy of assimilating dominant norms.

Social adaptation is ensured by a variety of factors and schemes. In our case, the adaptation process of young people from Kyrgyzstan is positively influenced by the closeness of values, value orientations, and meanings of life among young Kyrgyzstanis and the Moscow youth. In some way, this could be explained by the transfer of the values’ significance by older generations, who have Soviet socio-cultural experience, to younger ones ( Tab.1 ) .

Table 1. The most important values and value orientations of young Kyrgyz people, % of respondents, ranking

	High adaptation level	Average adaptation level	Low adaptation level	Current adaptation level
Values
Family	65.3 Rank 1	70.7 Rank 1	64.4 Rank 1	55.6 Rank 1
Health	49.0 Rank 2	56.0 Rank 2	50.7 Rank 2	40.0 Rank 2
Money	28.2 Rank 3-4	24.0 Rank 3-5	28.8 Rank 3-4	26.7 Rank 3-4
Career, work	30.7 Rank 3-4	25.6 Rank 3-5	26.7 Rank 3-4	28.9% Rank -4
Ideas about living well
To be financially secure	53.5 Rank 1-2	57.2 Rank 1-2	58.2 Rank 1-2	53.3 Rank 1
To have a good family, children	54.0 Rank 1-2	59.3 Rank 1-2	54.1 Rank 1-2	42.2 Rank 2-3
To have an interesting job, to work honestly	37.1 Rank 3-4	37.1 Rank 3-4	20.5 Rank 5-6	20.0 Rank 5-6
To live in peace and social justice	20.3 Rank 5-6	17.0 Rank 6	19.9 Rank 5-6	6.7
To be healthy, have healthy loved ones	40.1 Rank 3-4	43.0 Rank 3-4	39.7 Rank 3	39.7 Rank 2-3
Important for a respondent personally
Strong family, good children	55.4 Rank 1	67.3 Rank 1	56.6 Rank 1	60.0 Rank 1
To have an interesting job that allows you to show your abilities and talents	41.1 Rank 2	34.1 Rank 3-4	25.5 Rank 5-6	42.2 Rank 2
To be a rich man, not to deny yourself anything	32.2 Rank 3-5	27.6 Rank 5-6	33.1 Rank 3-4	22.2 Rank 4-6
Respect from others	33.2 Rank 3-5	32.0 Rank 3-4	31.7 Rank 3-4	20.0 Rank 4-6
Confidence in the future, presence of favorable prospects	31.2 Rank 3-5	42.3 Rank 2	48.3 Rank 2	24.4 Rank 4-5
Source: own development.

A significant factor of adaptation processes is the emphasis on Russian media in communication with the ethnic community and members of the host society. Young citizens of Kyrgyzstan, while in Moscow, are 1.5–2 times more likely to look through Russian Internet news resources and 2.5–3 times more likely to watch Russian television programs, compared to Kyrgyz ones ( Tab. 2 ) .

At the same time, the adaptation potential of migrants is somewhat reduced by a relatively high association of migrants with members of their diaspora. It does not contribute to eliminating cultural and ethnic boundaries between migrants and a host society and may lead to selective adaptation. 47.0–61.0% of respondents mostly maintain friendly relations with their compatriots. At the same time, the lower the adaptation level is, the greater the share of informants who maintain a communicative connection with their cultural group.

Around 15% of respondents visit Kyrgyz clubs (organizations) or places (restaurants, etc.), where Kyrgyz people like to meet during their current stay in Moscow. It provides additional support for close communication with their compatriots.

Table 2. Characteristics of communication among Kyrgyzstan young citizens in Moscow, % of respondents

	High adaptation level	Average adaptation level	Low adaptation level	Current adaptation level
Visit Russian Internet news resources during their stay in Moscow
Daily	62.4	47.9	50.0	57.8
Do not visit	12.4	20.5	21.2	11.1
Visit Kyrgyz Internet news resources during their stay in Moscow
Daily	29.7	32.8	37.0	48.9
Do not visit	25.2	24.2	25.3	17.8
Watch Russian television during their stay in Moscow
Daily	54.5	47.7	47.9	48.9
Do not watch	20.3	17.2	23.3	35.6
Watch Kyrgyz television during their stay in Moscow
Daily	18.8	16.5	15.1	28.9
Do not watch	52.0	52.1	55.5	48.9
Source: own development.

The most important factor in the adaptation process is a common social context, i.e. the relationship between Kyrgyz and the host community. The Moscow society essentially has a migration origin: it is multi-ethnic, and its ethnic structure is diverse. It is tolerant of multiple memberships, overlapping collective identities that had previously existed as mutually exclusive, dual citizenship, and the institutionalization of immigrant religions, including their public recognition. Despite the fact that the dominant values in Russia, as a host society, are Christian, there are four large mosques and a cultural center in Moscow, so Kyrgyzstanis can publicly show their religion preferences and not feel alienated from their culture. According to their self-assessment, from 25.7% (high level of adaptation) up to 33.6% (low level of adaptation) of respondents often or regularly visit a mosque in their free time. If the immigrant culture does not contribute to the adaptation of young citizens in Moscow, then the fulfillment of migrants’ religious and cultural needs may make it difficult to adapt. According to scientists, the more migrants are alienated from the national Muslim religion, the more effective their adaptation and integration are [28].

Despite the fact that many respondents think that Muscovites and government officials (46.9 and

30%, respectively) treat them amicably, and only 6.4 and 15% (respectively) do it unfriendly, nearly half of informants experienced emotional pressure, psychological discomfort, and received insults and threats. The lower the level of adaptation was, the more often such events with young Kyrgyzstanis occurred. It could be explained by the growing distance between the host society’s everyday culture and migrants’ cultural standards in the identified groups.

Aforementioned adaptation factors are common (favorable or limiting) for the integration of migrants into the Moscow society. However, we also record personal differentiating factors that determine success. These include orientation to selfrealization in work and independence, activity, openness to a host society and communication with people of different nationalities ( Tab. 3 ) .

The adaptation level among migrants from Kyrgyzstan is determined by education, professional status, language proficiency level, age, and time of residence in Moscow. It should be noted that the study on young Kyrgyzstanis does not record, unlike among older migrants, the influence of a population number of a respondent’s homeland locality.

The key to understanding and explaining success of the first group of young migrants is a large proportion of respondents who have a higher

Table 3. Personal factors of successful/unsuccessful adaptation of migrants in Moscow, % of respondents

	High adaptation level	Average adaptation level	Low adaptation level	Current adaptation level
What is important to you personally?
To have an interesting job that allows you to show your abilities and talents	41.1	34.1	25.5	42.2
Your friends in Moscow are mostly
Russians	41.6	27.7	21.9	37.8
I do not have friends in Moscow	2.0	3.3	6.8	6.7
Are there any people of other nationalities among those you constantly communicate with?
Yes, there are, and I communicate with them with pleasure	73.3	70.2	61.0	62.2
Yes, there are, but this communication is not pleasant	8.9	8.1	11.0	6.7
Yes, there are, but it all depends on nationality: I like to communicate with some people, but not with others	14.4	18.4	24.0	22.2
There are no members of other nationalities in my social circle	3.5	3.3	4.1	8.9
Do you consider international marriage?
Yes	37.6	25.1	19.2	17.8
Can you imagine that you would call your child by a Russian name?
Yes	35.6	21.6	17.8	17.8
You arrived in Russia
By yourself	64.9	56.7	50.0	44.4
Your relatives and friends took you with them	12.9	19.3	21.9	17.8
You were invited by relatives and friends who are already in Russia	14.9	16.7	21.9	26.7
Where do you live in Moscow?
In a rented room or apartment	67.8	51.9	47.9	35.6
With friends or relatives	16.3	24.4	19.9	15.6
In a dormitory	14.9	22.8	31.5	48.9
Source: own development.

education, high professional status, better knowledge of the Russian language, and a longer time of residence and employment in Moscow. More optimistic assessments, on the one hand, and anxiety, on the other, among the respondents of the fourth group are explained by a larger share of respondents (two times more as compared to the first group), aged 17–21, who have little experience of living in Moscow (group 1: 53% of respondents have lived and worked in Moscow for 3–5 years; group 4 – 26.7%). A third of them came to the Russian capital only in 2019.

The third group is the most problematic in terms of adaptation. The respondents, representing it, gave the most pessimistic assessments of their everyday life in Moscow. Their adaptation is hindered by the limitations of their personal competencies, existing skills, and opportunities to ensure sufficient or expected living standards in accordance with the standards adopted in the Russian capital. They more often perform unskilled work; they do not have a higher education, although they have been living in Moscow for a relatively long time (from 3 to 5 years – 44.5%).

A successful adaptation of young migrants is defined by actions of social institutions of Kyrgyzstan, Russia, the Eurasian Economic Commission, which have done much over the past five years to enforce the guarantees of movement freedom provided by the Treaty on the EAEU.

However, the majority of migrants still face many problems in Moscow, which hinders successful adaptation. Only a third of respondents who successfully adapted to the metropolitan society (group 1), nearly 15% of respondents from the average-level adaptation group, and 7% of the low-level adaptation group did not face any difficulties.

The main problems are related to getting a job, finding a place to live, and the lack of information about rights and responsibilities, with increasing importance as the adaptation level decreases. Every seventh respondent noted discriminatory behavior of authorities, including the police; about 15% of respondents in groups 2 and 3 mentioned problems with healthcare; 15% of respondents in group 3 discussed strained relations with neighbors; and 18% of members of the first group spoke about difficulties in developing their own businesses.

The solution of these problems is possible by creating sets of services that are convenient for economic entities and citizens, interactions regarding the provision of interstate electronic services, with rules, requirements and obligations that are transparent to a consumer, i.e., the formation of a digital platform for the single labor market [29].

Conclusion

The proposed methodology for the empirical assessment of migrants’ social adaptation level, which is based on the idea that social adaptation forms a single semantic field that encompasses a wide range of interaction with such phenomena as accommodation, acculturation and integration, allowed us to distinguish four groups of migrants. They are characterized by the solution of key adaptation issues to the conditions of a host society, respondents’ special behavioral responses, social sentiments, ideas of young people about the nature of the Russian adaptation policy for the harmonization of an individual and environment, dependence of Russia’s image on the level of adaptation successfulness, support of integration processes in the EAEU, type of migrants’ attitude toward acculturation, which generate personal adaptation strategy in the Moscow society. The group with a high adaptation level in the study included approximately 25% of informants, averagelevel group – 52%, low-level group – 18%, and current adaptation group –5%. Favorable factors of social adaptation should include the closeness of values, value orientations, meanings of life among young Kyrgyz citizens and the Moscow youth, focus of young Kyrgyz people on Russian media in communicating with the ethnic community and members of the host society, overall positive social context of Moscow, tolerance between Kyrgyzstan people and the Muscovites.

The adaptation potential of migrants somewhat deteriorates due to their relatively high association with members of their diaspora, which increases as the level of adaptation decreases. Emotional pressure and psychological discomfort in Moscow, which nearly half of respondents experienced when they received insults and threats, as well as problems and difficulties related to getting a job, finding a place to live, and lack of information about their rights and obligations which increase as the level of adaptation decreases, hinder successful adaptation. The adaptation level among young migrants from Kyrgyzstan is determined by education, professional status, language skills, age, time of residence in Moscow, as well as personal characteristics that differentiate a degree of success: orientation toward self-realization in work, activity, openness to the host society, communication with people of different nationalities.

The conducted work creates conditions for expanding the study on social adaptation peculiarities among young Kyrgyzstan citizens, adds new methodological content to the theory of migrants’ social adaptation, and allows conceptually ensuring the implementation of further empirical studies on social adaptation problems of migrants from the EAEU member states in Russia. The identification of adaptation levels among migrants and characteristics of these groups will allow social institutions of Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and the Eurasian

Economic Commission to ensure a differentiated approach to creating productive conditions, developing adequate tools and mechanisms for social adaptation.