Shifting senses of solidarity and belonging in the internal migration pathways of citizens in ger areas in Ulaanbaatar: A social work perspective

Abstract

Mongolia has witnessed an ongoing internal rural–urban migration and urbanization process in recent decades, resulting in families settling informally in suburban ‘ger’ areas and in areas with concentrations of social and environmental problems in the city of Ulaanbaatar. In social policy and social work practice in Mongolia, there is a critical lack of understanding and information regarding the experience of ger residents in shaping their lives. This article explores and examines evolving meanings and mechanisms of solidarity and senses of belonging in ger residents’ internal migration pathways. It aims to contribute to a deeper understanding that may assist social work practice and policy to embrace ger residents’ strengths and capability to aspire.

Keywords

Internal rural–urban migration pathways Mongolia poverty and social inequality sense of belonging social work solidarity

Introduction

During recent decades, the Asia-Pacific region has increasingly been considered a strategic area in the global field of social work education, research, policy and practice development (Tiong, 2006). The eminently diverse countries of the Asia-Pacific region vary considerably in terms of their histories, ‘economic conditions, socio-cultural backgrounds and political systems’ (Tsui and Yan, 2010: 307), yet some of these societies are caught in a policy-driven desire for rapid economic growth and development, leading to a drastic transformation of traditional social structures and an extensive (re)production of social inequalities and poverty (Shek, 2017). These developments are currently resulting in rapidly emerging and particularly challenging social issues (see Garrett, 2019; Shek, 2017). The social work profession in this region is therefore involved in a constant reconsideration and (re)negotiation of its mission and identity, and as such is also challenging ‘many of the assumptions of the global social work community’ (Shek, 2017: 4; Gray and Goates, 2010). As Tiong (2006) has aptly argued,

for this part of the world, there is a need to move beyond traditional social work practice and develop new social work approaches [. . .] in dealing with the social, economic and political realities. To be of greater relevance to society, social work needs new links and visions for the massive problems and challenges facing these emerging societies. (p. 278)

In this contribution, we have a specific interest in Mongolia. Like many other countries in Asia, Mongolia has to deal with uneven socio-economic development between urban and rural areas and has witnessed an ongoing internal rural–urban migration and urbanization process during recent decades (United Nations Human Settlements Programme [UN-Habitat], 2010). This development has resulted in a rapidly increasing number of families settling informally in suburban areas of Mongolian cities (Narantulga, 2010) and is consistent with the national Constitution of Mongolia (1992), which enables its citizens to freely choose a temporary or permanent place of residence within the country’s territory. Since 2002, Mongolian citizens have also had the right to own land for family needs and agricultural purposes in the location of their residence (The State Great Hural, 2018). Based on this law on the allocation of land ownership for Mongolian citizens, each citizen is entitled to 0.07 hectares of land in the city for free, after paying minimal procedural costs (The State Great Hural, 2018).

Mongolian citizens who have migrated from rural to urban areas distribute themselves in traditional and mobile Mongolian felt tents (ger) for housing across hillsides and valleys (Narantulga, 2010). This phenomenon is particularly apparent in the capital city of Ulaanbaatar. Approximately 64.2 percent of the total population of Mongolia (3.4 million) reside in Ulaanbaatar, and 56.7 percent of the population in Ulaanbaatar live in these suburban areas (Integrated Statistics Fund, 2018). The official population growth prediction made in 2017 forecast that the number of inhabitants in Ulaanbaatar would reach 1.7 million by 2025, a target that was in fact realized in 2018 (Integrated Statistics Fund, 2018). The Mongolian government refers to these suburban areas in Ulaanbaatar as ger areas, or peri-urban informal settlements.

In research, in policy and in wider Mongolian society there are major concerns about the ger areas in terms of the concentration of social and environmental problems arising from this rapidly increasing urbanization (UN-Habitat, 2010). They include increasing environmental pollution, notably smog and soil contamination, and consequently generate health and life hazards for residents (Lhamsuren et al., 2012). The ger areas are also often framed as deeply problematic in relation to the lack of modern infrastructural services, such as piped water, electricity, sanitation, proper roads, waste management and public transportation, and to the impact of this deficiency on the basic living conditions of ger residents (UN-Habitat, 2010). Furthermore, the lack of employment opportunities and health and education services feeds into high rates of poverty and social inequality in ger areas (World Bank, 2015). A recent United Nations (UN) report argues that this massive internal rural–urban migration is negatively affecting Mongolia’s aim of achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, such as poverty reduction and embracing sustainable cities and communities (Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific [ESCAP], Ministry of Environment and Tourism Mongolia and National Development Agency, 2018). As a measure for dealing with these problems, the Ulaanbaatar City Mayor recently issued a decree discontinuing migration to Ulaanbaatar until January 2018, with a recent extension until 2020 supported by the National Security Council of Mongolia (Ulaanbaatar, 2017). This decree includes an exception for people who need long-term medical treatment in the city and those who have a residential property mortgage.

In this article, we agree with the above-mentioned UN report’s conclusion about the Mongolian government, which has been falling short in realizing the citizenship rights of its ger residents (ESCAP et al., 2018). The majority of newly arrived migrants who settle in ger areas find it difficult to establish a socio-economic position in the city and lack a sense of belonging to Mongolian society (Terbish and Rawsthorne, 2016). The main objective of this contribution is therefore to consider the potential role of social work in supporting ger residents. However, a review of the international literature and of topics being discussed at international research conferences shows that up until now the ger areas have rarely been discussed from a social work perspective (see Adilbish et al., 2018; Tsendsuren, 2017). Social work research in Mongolia has also given relatively little attention to the dynamics of the ger area (Namdaldagva et al., 2010). This article therefore aims to develop a social work research perspective on the ger areas while embracing the strengths and aspirations of ger residents. Indeed, the limited research evidence shows that the expectation of these migrants to own land is not the only motive for moving to the city; they also aspire, for example, to educate their children, to access better services and to find employment in the city (Terbish and Rawsthorne, 2016). In this context, our aim is to contribute to the knowledge of what is considered meaningful by ger residents themselves in shaping their lives and in developing a sense of belonging in the new urban environment.

This article therefore first describes the existing gap between government policies and social work interventions. We argue that existing social policy and social work are mainly deficit-oriented and that therefore Mongolia would benefit from indigenization and culturally sensitive social work interventions. Second, we discuss how we address the contested concept of ‘a sense of belonging’ based on the international body of research in citizenship studies. Third, through a contextual literature review (see Van Hove and Claes, 2011), we identify how meanings and mechanisms of solidarity evolve in ger residents’ internal migration pathways so as to gain an in-depth understanding of how this affects ger residents’ sense of belonging when they live in ger areas in the capital city. Finally, we address implications for future social work research.

Top-down and deficit-oriented social policy and social work

Neither facilitating internal migration nor dwelling in a ger is new to Mongolia. Balancing the labour force and rural-urban economies, an internal migration was “organized” by the national government from the 1930s to the 1960s. From the 1960s to the 1980s, construction development and economic opportunities in Ulaanbaatar city attracted the rural population like a magnet, and newly named Ulaanbaatar (previously Niislel Huree [Нийслэл Хүрээ]) was structured with and surrounded by ger settlements (Narantulga, 2010). Rapid urbanization was exacerbated with the arrival of the 1990s’ democratic movement in Mongolia when the centrally regulated economy was weakened and privatization processes commenced (Smith, 2015).

In the current body of research, scholars indicate that the national government of Mongolia clearly recognizes the social, economic and environmental problems at stake in ger areas (Anderson et al., 2016). For example, the central policy solution for ger areas is one of rehousing, thus turning central ger areas into high-rise apartment zones and middle ger areas into mid- to low-rise apartments, while building semi-detached houses in peripheral zones (City Mayor’s Office, 2014). These decisions have been financially and technically supported by international organizations in Mongolia and Ulaanbaatar City. In that sense, the municipality has adopted ‘apartmentization’ as a measure of ger area improvement (Anderson et al., 2016: 219).

When place attachment and belonging are taken into account, however, research shows that inhabitants living in ger areas are attached to the place where they are living and not everyone is receptive or willing to moving into new neighbourhoods offered by the government for them to integrate into apartmentized living (Anderson et al., 2016). Ger residents refuse to live in apartments and many are not capable of buying semi-detached houses (Terbish and Pluekhahn, 2018). Moreover, due to their so-called ‘unfit’ behaviour in the city, a widespread stereotyping of people who live in ger areas has developed in public discourses, framing ger residents as ‘lazy’, ‘welfare dependent’ and ‘neglectful’ of performing their citizenship obligations. Newly migrated residents, in particular, are the subject of mistrust and contempt, with people tending to call them ‘orcs’, a reference to evil creatures that disrupt everything and follow no rules (Zoljargal, 2015). Such social stigma, social exclusion and discrimination against internal migrants living without proper registration and in substandard housing also occur in other countries. Similar dynamics have, for example, been described in several Central Asian countries, in particular with regard to their access to services (Sanghera et al., 2012), while residents of Brazilian favelas or shantytowns have also been the subject of ‘othering’ and treatment without dignity (Wheeler, 2005: 109).

In addition to modernizing the provision of tenancy in ger areas, the government supports social work interventions to deal with residents in these areas. Professional social work services have been increasingly enabled by the government in Mongolia as a response to social problems emerging in the aftermath of the political regime change in the 1990s (Adilbish, 2017). Social work is mainly mobilized for the implementation of state-led programmes for target groups, such as people with disabilities, elderly people, homeless individuals and families in poverty (Social Welfare Law of Mongolia, 2012). In accordance with the Social Service Standard Normative of Mongolia, one social worker is employed to work with 4000–5000 people at unit (horoo) level. A unit, or horoo, is the lowest administrative division of Ulaanbaatar Municipality. If the unit population is above 5000, the unit administration is encouraged to employ both a social welfare officer and a development social worker with distinct job descriptions (Mongolian Agency for Standardization and Metrology (MAFSAM), 2009). Regardless of the distinct job descriptions, most social workers at unit level understand that their main role is to work with vulnerable groups or people at risk (Erdenechimeg and Amargarjal, 2007).

Such a social policy and social work approach promotes top-down solutions for ger areas and residents. The approach reproduces deficit-oriented and stereotypical attitudes towards ger residents among the general public. At the moment, there is a mismatch between government policies and social work interventions and ger residents’ meaning-making and sense of belonging.

Towards indigenization and culturally sensitive social policy and social work

With a more in-depth understanding of what is considered meaningful for ger residents themselves in shaping their lives, we argue that social work would be in a stronger position to develop more socially just responsive strategies and policies. The global definition of social work has nonetheless provoked a debate in social work research, based on the argument that social work should promote indigenization, with reference to a call for the profession ‘to engage more broadly within global discourse, while increasingly acknowledging and integrating the values, knowledge and contributions of indigenous peoples in each region, country or area’ (Ornellas et al., 2018: 225). Along the lines of the debate about the relationship between the global and the local, this definition implies that social work knowledge should address historically, politically and socio-culturally relevant and context-specific problems while taking into account indigenous knowledge (Gray and Coates, 2010). In the most recent revision of the global definition, the core principles of social work refer to pursuing social justice and human rights and are combined with the aspiration to take into account local indigenous knowledge to address life challenges (see International Federation of Social Workers [IFSW], 2014; Ornellas et al., 2018). This in-depth understanding of what is considered meaningful by ger residents themselves in shaping their lives and in developing a sense of belonging to the new urban environment is therefore vital for social work.

Sense of belonging: A contested concept in citizenship studies

In the existing body of research in citizenship studies, citizens’ sense of belonging broadly refers to the opportunity to experience recognition in social interactions and the social world (Wright, 2015). In the dominant European discourse on rights and responsibilities, for example, the discrepancy between political citizenship (embodied as an entitlement and status in a particular society, often based on nationality) and social citizenship (constructed through the experience of being a member of a particular community and society) is widely discussed (Lietaert et al., 2015; Roets et al., 2013). Rooted in Western discourse, theories and discourse about citizenship still predominantly reflect formal rights and responsibilities and complexities in relation to constructions of ‘us and others’ (with reference to the distinction between so-called deserving and undeserving citizens) according to a legal framework of nation states, in which informal dimensions of state–citizen interaction have sometimes been located (Anderson and Hughes, 2015). Nonetheless, the concept of a ‘sense of belonging’ and its connection to citizenship are contested, as has been discussed in a global context in cases of disadvantaged and indigenous groups in diverse societies in which no formal state intervention secures citizenship rights (Kabeer, 2005). To conceptualize citizenship issues holistically, researchers in citizenship studies have argued that it is critical to pay attention to how a sense of belonging is experienced in informal grass-roots relations, practices and interactions in addition to, or irrespective of, formal understandings of citizenship of nation states (Berenschot and van Klinken, 2018). In a study of nomadic communities in Rajasthan, India, for example, Pant (2005) discussed how violations of citizenship entitlements are normalized due to the caste system, with nomads being actively excluded from common services and discriminated against. Wheeler (2005) studied ways in which family, group and community interactions can play an important role for low-income communities in favelas to realize their citizenship rights in Brazil through their social relations. In a swathe of neoliberal reforms under which state attention is increasingly based on market mechanisms, territorial segregation is more distinct between privileged neighbourhoods and poorer suburbs, communities, villages and informal settlements. Finding manoeuvrability in poorer neighbourhoods, Brazilian people in favelas approached the formal employment market and other social services as a family instead of applying individually, while other people took steps within their community to start small income-generating activities as a way of practising their citizenship and better belonging to their lived environment (Wheeler, 2005). By accessing the market and services as such, people in favelas experienced feelings of belonging as citizens.

Furthermore, researchers have argued that social affiliations and the quality of personal connections matter in the realization of citizenship and one’s belonging to the social world (Berenschot and van Klinken, 2018). According to Wright (2015), the meaning of individual and social connections, relations and affiliations needs to be respected in order to gain a proper understanding of a sense of belonging. Consequently, belonging can be constructed positively or negatively in consistency with an individual’s role in the market, job or property ownership, irrespective of state intervention (Brace, 2015). In summary, a sense of belonging in a global sense is conceived as one’s location in the social world and as an interactive and relational experience in everyday practice (Warming and Fahnoe, 2017; Yuval-Davis et al., 2005). The sense of belonging is therefore conceptualized as the intimate feeling of being ‘in place’ in a particular geographical, social and temporal space and, as such, is a feeling that is always bound to a geographical place (Antonsich, 2010). A sense of belonging also refers to experiences and mechanisms of solidarity, which evolve based on relations such as larger social and informal networks, structures and contexts (Kabeer, 2005). In the second part of this article, we therefore rely on a contextual literature review (see Van Hove and Claes, 2011) to identify how meanings and mechanisms of solidarity evolve in ger residents’ internal migration pathways, and offer an in-depth understanding of how this affects ger residents’ sense of belonging when they start living in ger areas in the capital city.

Shifting meanings, dynamics of solidarity and belonging among migrant ger residents

Historical background

Pastoral livestock herding has been a pivotal livelihood pattern in Mongolia that nurtured communal living and collective responsibilities based on solidarity between familial kin and neighbours. From the 1930s an agricultural collective movement (negdeljih hudulguun) started, and by 1959 most herders had become members of communal herding collectives (Logi and Altantsetseg, 2005). The collectives brought positive changes in rural Mongolia in this period with comprehensive human and technical arrangements for its members. It also led to a creation of productive community dynamics in the socialist era (Bruun, 2006). Even the poorest herders managed to collaborate collectively under the leadership of a leading herder family. Young herders dedicated their leisure time to cultural and educational activities, which was a valuable point of solidarity among the younger generation (Gundsambuu, 1984). Based on these initial developments, by 1960 the state had decided to broaden the collectives into complex entities where social infrastructure was established for the wellbeing of herders (Bat-Ochir, 1983). The social infrastructure, including boarding schools for children, was provided by the state, and herders belonged to a herding encampment with an increased communal solidarity (Stolpe, 2016).

Soon after, neoliberalism emerged in Mongolia during the 1990s through the implementation of ‘shock therapy’ (Rossabi, 2010: 62) as proposed by major international donor organizations, which advocated the curbing of government intervention and the privatization of state enterprises. Due to unpreparedness for privatization and lack of policy for the liberal market, not only did animal husbandry lose its productivity but other factories were closed down in urban and rural provinces (Batsuuri, 2014). Transitional changes that took place between 1989 and 1994 also had an effect on herding collectives (Logi and Altantsetseg, 2005). Herds were privatized towards the end of the 1980s, and herders had to rely on their private family ties in the absence of public and collective resources and support, which increased the vulnerability of herders to harsh winters and natural disasters (Nickson and Walters, 2004). During the harsh snowstorms or ‘dzud’ of 2000–2002, for instance, herders could not rely on governmental support but rather had to rely solely on their own strengths, supported strongly by their familial and kin relationships (Baival, 2012). With herds being privatized, herders had to care for their own herds with the assistance of their private family ties and resources (Baival, 2012), since their collective solidarity had been disturbed by the structural changes. Inevitable natural calamities and a lack of governmental support, however, did not erode traditional solidarity mechanisms and cohesion among herders, but bolstered diverse survival strategies, such as camping together to overcome the hardships (Barcus, 2017; Ichinkhorloo and Yeh, 2016). As such, it has been argued that collectives can re-emerge in rural Mongolia as a revival of mutual support, solidarity, resilience and survival mechanisms, with vulnerable herders pooling savings to compensate for their lack of social and economic resources (Logi and Altantsetseg, 2005).

Sense of belonging rooted in pre-migration solidarity mechanisms

Having been influenced for several decades by this systemic shift from socialism to neoliberalism, former herders are currently predominantly migrants who dwell in Ulaanbaatar and settle in ger areas, where they are considered a minority group when they arrive and are frequently pictured as an archetype of urban cultural negligence (Bruun, 2006; Stolpe, 2016). When migrant residents arrive in ger areas, they tend to bear a lingering nostalgia for the well-planned roles set by the agricultural and territorially bound collectives in their original village, or soum in Mongolian. Generally, in herder encampments a traditional philosophy of ‘nutag’ (homeplace) is deeply embedded within them, which helps in embracing a common sense of belonging to the village and of bearing a common collective identity (Baival, 2012: 228). Nutag is a ‘living thing’ that sustains both humans and animals and is influential in forging an alliance against natural disasters (p. 229). Spatial, psycho-social and personal feelings towards certain spaces or nutag generate a common sense of belonging to a place of birth. In current times, nutag is not only associated with territory but also enables access to natural and socio-economic resources in a specific locality (Ichinkhorloo, 2017: 45). The closer the territorial bond, the better the feeling for nutag and strong solidarity among herders. The existing body of research therefore indicates that, after this migration transition in their lives, many ger residents maintain a sense of belonging to their social networks of origin and, consequently, maintain their nomadic cultural identity (Smith, 2015). Among migrant ger residents, a sense of belonging to their original social networks stretches beyond the territorial boundaries of the ger areas, extending throughout the country to better access resources and opportunities and to develop survival strategies in overcoming hardships (Ichinkhorloo and Yeh, 2016). In some cases, in addition to their relationships with extended family members in both rural and urban areas, ger residents stay in contact with their old networks in rural areas and with their provincial administration, even after moving to the city of Ulaanbaatar (Plueckhahn, 2017). For them, it is, for instance, common practice that meat for winter and cash from selling animal raw materials are sent by rural relatives to those who are newcomers in the city. After a while, however, the sense of belonging of newly arrived ger residents shifts and changes.

A mixed sense of belonging between nomadic and sedentary living

The sense of belonging among migrant ger residents is challenged by a new sedentary existence following the move to the city (Castrillon et al., 2016), which leaves their sense of belonging somewhat stretched between nomadic and sedentary life. Being confronted with a rather capitalist urban lifestyle in Ulaanbaatar, sensing nutag in ger areas becomes implausible, as various inhabitants of ger areas have differing provincial origins and adjust their lifestyle to living on a small plot of land fenced only for a particular family and with limited communication with one another. Moreover, the adjustment process is more challenging during the first few years in Ulaanbaatar, when ger residents’ social network in the city is limited and little socio-economic support is provided by the local administration. Being socially excluded from services and facing barriers to social relationships and participation induce precarity for many who are trying to adjust to sedentary living, irrespective of their willingness (Terbish and Rawsthorne, 2016).

At this stage, government policy rationales and strategies are challenging for migrant families instead of supportive. The process of becoming a city resident starts with formal registration at the destination and is a critical prerequisite for benefitting from social and health services (Lindskog, 2014). However, new migrants to ger areas tend to delay registration at their local administrative office or horoo due to a lack of information and unclear bureaucratic procedures, especially if they are visiting the office for the first time (Terbish and Rawsthorne, 2016). As a result, it is estimated that nearly 20 percent of ger area residents in each district are not registered formally at their destination horoo offices (Lhamsuren et al., 2012). Strikingly, approximately 73 percent of these residents settled in the city without appropriate residential and land permissions (Byambadorj et al., 2011: 166). In regard to benefitting from health services, Lindskog (2014: 884) noted that unclear information and the requirement to pay for 2–3 years of accumulated health insurance may even serve a clandestine agenda of the Mongolian government to slow the flow of migration.

At the community level, it appears that unit leaders or community outreach officers play a pivotal role in helping migrant families find their way along the long path to becoming city residents, while social workers are busy with never-ending administrative welfare and programme implementation tasks (People’s Representative Hural, 2016). Unit leaders first take note of a newly arrived family in their designated area and provide information regarding land availability and residential registration. Unit leaders also play a significant role in promoting camaraderie among residents by initiating community and solidarity mechanisms, such as collective cleaning days, sports events and collecting household data for further welfare programme implementation (People’s Representative Hural, 2016). However, it is challenging for unit leaders to visit newly arrived migrant families at home to learn of their needs and concerns, particularly when the average workload of each unit leader has risen from 300 to 450 households (Terbish and Pluekhahn, 2018).

At an individual level, most Mongolian people would still define themselves as ‘free-spirited, independent and resilient’ (Myadar, 2011: 361) while they pursue a new identity in ger areas. A community representative argued that it was difficult to bring people together during neighbourhood activities, as every single person might have an ‘independent’ view and may not appreciate being told what to do (Terbish and Pluekhahn, 2018). In other words, the collectivist cultural identity of the traditional herder community is blurred in urban settings, and even adjacent neighbours find it difficult to trust each other and collaborate for the sake of community dynamics. People are cautious, claiming that it is difficult to get to know each other when they are from different provinces and different districts (Terbish and Rawsthorne, 2016).

Sense of belonging as urban residents

Social networks and flows of unofficial word-of-mouth information undeniably assist migrant ger individuals and families even beyond the first 5 years of living in Ulaanbaatar. Instead of inter-city or inter-provincial movement, human mobility continues between districts and from one friend’s home to another, even by sharing the same address in some cases (Plueckhahn, 2017). A study by Anderson et al. (2017) revealed that recent migrants find opportunities to rent homes in central ger areas as opposed to the common belief that they mostly dwell in fringe ger areas. Beyond rural–urban migration, Plueckhahn (2017) also observed more human movement within and between ger areas as people move from one fenced plot or hashaa to another based on their social networks until they find the most affordable and comfortable destination. It is common to find two households at the same address and two to three gers built within one fence for each family or couple, sharing some utility costs. Traditional family ties and reliance on kin relationships still remain essential elements of solidarity, facilitating movement by information sharing and social and economic support even after settling in the city (Plueckhahn, 2017).

At this stage, however, support from the local administration is still insufficient for the development of sustainable livelihoods. Possessing a piece of land creates a significant value for migrant herder families, as it means more than a material property to Mongolian people; it creates a sense of spatial belonging and community that ties people together to a social space (Myadar, 2011). Governmental executive bureaus overtly emphasize the importance of mapping and recording as part of their routine functions in enforcing land law, which creates an obsession among people with fencing their land individually before others claim it (Plueckhahn, 2017: 104). This obsession has created a ‘fenced city’, as Castrillon et al. (2016: 233–236) would argue, and it contradicts the spirit of the Mongolian character of nomads and the image of the steppe. In this sense, owning land can be an important factor in belonging to the city. However, within a fenced environment neighbours barely know each other.

In addition to space being fenced, people perceive fencing as a starting point for initiating communication with unit leaders and social workers regarding other social entitlements, including social support, employment and children’s school registration. Focusing on ‘land talks’ and relying on family and people from the same provincial origins, ger residents tend to develop creative strategies or plans for building more supportive social relations at this stage (Plueckhahn, 2017: 107). Some migrants, for instance, look for some connections who may help them with enrolling their children in kindergarten once they have found a job and properly managed their city registration, whereas others become victims of the shadow economy, which exploits their labour as probation without pay (Public Lab Mongolia, 2018). In this later stage of sedentary life, some families still feel nostalgic about rural living as well. Castrillon et al. (2016) observed that some families breed cattle in fringe areas of Yarmag, where livestock breeding is tolerated if distanced far enough from the city centre. In addition, for example, some families living in Tahilt areas wish to breed cattle as a backup food source for when meat prices increase in spring in Ulaanbaatar. This desire is a reasonable aspiration related to a person’s former lifestyle while unemployed in the city, but clashes with ‘city culture’ (Castrillon et al., 2016). A recent study also shows that if an individual is asked whether she/he would go back to her/his province and continue herding in an open space, the answer is that they prefer to stay in the city, as family life has already become attached to the city, with children getting married in the city, grandchildren joining kindergartens and migrant ger residents finding seasonal jobs (Terbish and Pluekhahn, 2018). This way of life constitutes city living in spatial and territorial terms, but social and spiritual respect for the value of nutag remains in the minds of many migrants.

Conclusion for social work

Ger localities in Mongolia are currently regarded as highly problematic areas that are delaying the sustainable development of cities and communities in Mongolia (ESCAP et al., 2018). Individuals who migrate from rural areas and settle in the fringes of Ulaanbaatar are expected to change their attitudes and behaviours and adapt to an urban lifestyle, and are therefore targets of numerous stereotypical labels in the social and cultural realm. This phenomenon in relation to people involved in internal migration occurs not only in Mongolia (see Sanghera et al., 2012), yet the concentration of social, economic and environmental problems in the capital city of Ulaanbaatar creates a challenging situation. Policy responses have focused on economic and environmental strategies, including the provision of infrastructure within the geographically bound ger areas. However, the local resources, relationships and life worlds of ger residents have not been considered in the development of such measures. Along the same lines, professional social work practices in Mongolia are employed as a response to social problems (Adilbish, 2017), yet continue to be deficit-oriented and have not brought progressive changes in ger areas until recently.

We therefore argue that social work in Mongolia needs to renew its current strategies, shaping social work as a form of ‘policy-in-the-making’ (see Rawsthorne and Howard, 2011: 54). We are convinced that such a critical reconsideration of the identity of social work in the Asia-Pacific region, and more specifically in Mongolia, requires further research that captures ‘local wisdom’ (Tsui and Yan, 2010: 308). In the global realm, social work knowledge is indeed encouraged to take into account historical, political, socio-economic, cultural, context-specific and indigenous local knowledge in the development of a socially just agenda and identity (Jones and Truell, 2012). Our contribution shows the vital necessity of grappling with the sense of belonging of ger residents, seeking indigenous knowledge from ger residents themselves while being embedded in the grassroots social relations and formal and informal practices and interactions of ger residents (Brace, 2015). The sense of belonging of ger residents in their pre-migration period has a spatial connotation, when they have a strong connection with their birth territory and rely on a collectivist mutual support tradition. Research shows that the pastoralist lifestyle of Mongolian herders requires migratory moves from one location to another (Castrillon et al., 2016). However, the herding community has developed strong ties of solidarity, and herders still continue to camp together for mutual assistance when necessary, perpetuating their unofficial mutual support system. This sense of belonging erodes and shifts into mixed feelings of belonging, with former herders experiencing an ‘in-between’ sense of belonging after moving to Ulaanbaatar, where the attitude of city residents is hostile and makes migrant households feel discriminated against and stereotyped by negative labels. Once migrant individuals integrate into city life, they develop their own strategies in an attempt to belong. This is expressed through material gains, such as owning and fencing land based on family and kin connections, even as they experience complexity in the development of new relationships and social networks (Plueckhahn, 2017). For those who have lived in the ger areas in Ulaanbaatar for more than 5 years, the resources and support to sustain their livelihoods socially and economically are still insufficient, and they experience limited support from the local administrations. Except for some administrative welfare services, social work support is not clearly available for ger residents who have a mixed sense of belonging, as professional social support services are still underdeveloped.

The demarcation between citizens and minority groups of so-called ‘orcs’ who have adapted to an urban lifestyle negatively affects societal solidarity and social justice mechanisms overall. In the vein of the global definition of social work that focuses on social justice (IFSW, 2014), this article thus makes a call for gaining an in-depth understanding of the sense of belonging of newly arrived populations in the city as a critical prerequisite for the development of locally meaningful social work practice. Scenarios for future social work research, therefore, include in-depth empirical and qualitative fieldwork to investigate the strategies of meaning-making and agency of ger residents, which may reveal different strategies for coping and survival that evolve over years of living in a new location. In this effort, we need to develop social work research and knowledge so as to explore the meaning of the capability of ger residents to have aspirations and to do justice to indigenous knowledge and the experiences of migrants who have recently arrived in the ger areas (Appadurai, 2004; Carling and Collins, 2017). The capability to have aspirations refers not only to ger residents’ hopes, plans, ambitions and dreams that they aim to achieve through migration, but also to how these aspirations are developed in relation to historical, socio-cultural and systemic forces after settlement in ger areas (Roets et al., 2013).

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Bayartsetseg Terbish

Griet Roets

Author biographies

Bayartsetseg Terbish is a doctoral student at the Department of Social Work and Social Pedagogy, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ghent University, Belgium.

Ine Lietaert is an assistant professor at The United Nations University Institute on Comparative Regional Integration Studies and the Department of Social Work, Ghent University. She researches migration governance, return migration and reintegration, internal displacement and social work practices.

Griet Roets is an associate professor of Social Work, affiliated to Ghent University, Belgium. Her research interests include social work, theoretical conceptualizations of citizenship and social rights, and qualitative research methodologies.

References

Adilbish

(2017) ‘Research Results on Social Workers’ Job Satisfaction’, in Proceedings of the International Conference Social Work, Social Wellbeing (ed. Tsendsuren

), Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 4–5 May, pp. 76–93. Ulaanbaatar: Munkhiin Useg Publishing.

Adilbish

Tumeekhuu

Surenjav

Baldoo

Sukhbaatar

Gelenkhuu

(2018) Development of the Asian Buddhist Social Work Activities: International Conference Proceedings. Ulaanbaatar: TotoPress LLC.

Anderson

Hughes

(2015) Citizenship and Its Others. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Anderson

Hoover

Tuvshinbat

(2016) ‘Towers on the Steppe: Compact City Plans and Local Perceptions of Urban Densification in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia’, Journal of Urbanism 10(2): 217–30.

Anderson

Hoover

Tuvshinbat

(2017) ‘Towers on the Steppe: Compact City Plans and Local Perceptions of Urban Densification in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia’, Journal of Urbanism 10(2): 217–30.

Antonsich

(2010) ‘Searching for Belonging – An Analytical Framework’, Geography Compass 4(6): 644–59.

Appadurai

(2004) ‘The Capacity to Aspire: Culture and the Terms of Recognition’, in Rao

Walton

(eds) Culture and Public Action, pp. 59–85. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Baival

(2012) ‘Community-Based Rangeland Management and Social-Ecological Resilience of Rural Mongolian Communities’, PhD Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Barcus

H.R.

(2017) ‘Contested Space, Contested Livelihoods: A Review of Mongolia’s Pastureland Management and Land-Tenure Reform’, Geographical Review 108(1): 138–57.

10.

Bat-Ochir

(1983) БНМАУ-д ХАА-г Социалист Ёсоор Хоршоолсон нь: Туршлага, Сургамж, Хэтийн Төлөв [Shifting to Collectives in the People’s Republic of Mongolia]. Ulaanbaatar: The State Print House

11.

Batsuuri

(2014) ‘Economic Disorientation and Structural Confusion’, The Analyst [Shinjeech]: Socio-Economic Journal 3: 6–28.

12.

Berenschot

van Klinken

(2018) ‘Informality and Citizenship: The Everyday State in Indonesia’, Citizenship Studies 22(2): 95–111.

13.

Brace

(2015) ‘Reflections on the Good Citizen’, in Anderson

Hughes

(eds) Citizenship and Its Others, pp. 10–28. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

14.

Bruun

(2006) ‘Nomadic Herders and the Urban Attraction’, in Bruun

Narangoa

(eds) Mongols: From Country to City. Floating Boundaries, Pastoralism and City Life in Mongol Lands, pp. 140–62. Copenhagen: NIAS Press.

15.

Byambadorj

Amati

Ruming

K.J.

(2011) ‘Twenty-First Century Nomadic City: Ger Districts and Barriers to the Implementation of the Ulaanbaatar City Master Plan’, Asia Pacific Viewpoint 52(2): 165–77.

16.

Carling

Collins

(2017) ‘Aspiration, Desire and Drivers of Migration’, Journal of Ethics and Migration Studies 44(6): 909–26.

17.

Castrillon

R.D.

Kummel

Ershuu

(2016) ‘Social Development and Space Patterns in Ger Settlements: Fencing, Water and Festivities in Yarmag, Ulaanbaatar’, Inner Asia 18(2): 223–44.

18.

City Mayor’s Office (2014) Development Strategy for Ulaanbaatar City - 2020 and development trend till 2030. Ulaanbaatar. Available online at: https://uda.ub.gov.mn/?p=972 (accessed 18 March 2020).

19.

Constitution of Mongolia (1992). Available online at: https://www.legalinfo.mn/law/details/367 (accessed 25 April 2018).

20.

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), Ministry of Environment and Tourism Mongolia and National Development Agency (2018) Sustainability Outlook of Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar: United Nations Publications/Munkhiin Useg Printing.

21.

Erdenechimeg

Amargarjal

(2007) Condition of Social Work at Horoo Level. Ulaanbaatar: Save the Children UK.

22.

Garrett

P.M.

(2019) ‘Looking East: (Re-)creating a Social Work “Industry” in the People’s Republic of China’, Critical Social Policy. Epub ahead of print 5 June. DOI: 10.1177/0261018319853492.

23.

Gray

Coates

(2010) ‘“Indigenization” and Knowledge Development: Extending the Debate’, International Social Work 53(5): 613–27.

24.

Gundsambuu

(1984) Малчин Залуучуудын Нийгмийн Төрх [Social Profile of Young Herders]. Ulaanbaatar: The State Print House.

25.

Ichinkhorloo

(2017) ‘Environment as Commodity and Shield: Reshaping Herders’ Collective Identity in Mongolia’, in Ahearn

Sternberg

Hahn

(eds) Pastoralist Livelihoods in Asian Drylands: Environment, Governance and Risk, pp. 41–71. Winwick: The White Horse Press.

26.

Ichinkhorloo

Yeh

E.T.

(2016) ‘Ephemeral “Communities”: Spatiality and Politics in Rangeland Interventions in Mongolia’, The Journal of Peasant Studies 43(5): 1010–34.

27.

Integrated Statistics Fund (2018) ‘Population’. Available online at: https://www.1212.mn/Stat.aspx?LIST_ID=976_L03&type=tables (accessed 25 April 2018).

28.

International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) (2014) ‘Global Definition of Social Work’. Available online at: http://ifsw.org/policies/definition-of-social-work/ (accessed 15 June 2018).

29.

Jones

D.N.

Truell

(2012) ‘The Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development: A Place to Link Together and Be Effective in a Globalized World’, International Social Work 55(4): 454–72.

30.

Kabeer

(2005) Inclusive Citizenship: Meanings and Expressions. London: Zed Books.

31.

Lietaert

Broekaert

Derluyn

(2015) ‘The Lived Experiences of Migrants in Detention’, Population, Space and Place 21(6): 568–79.

32.

Lindskog

B.V.

(2014) ‘Natural Calamities and “the Big Migration”: Challenges to the Mongolian Health System in “the Age of Market”’, Global Public Health 9(8): 880–93.

33.

Lhamsuren

Choijiljav

Budbazar

Vanchinkhuu

Blanc

D.C.

Grundy

(2012) ‘Taking Action on the Social Determinants of Health: Improving Health Access for the Urban Poor in Mongolia’, Journal for Equity in Health 11(15): 1–15.

34.

Logi

Altantsetseg

(2005) Малчдын Монголын Бэлчээрийн Мал Аж Ахуйн Тогтвортой Хөгжлийн Үндсэн Нөхцөл [Herder’s Collective - Conditions for Sustainable Pastoral Animal Husbandry in Mongolia]. Ulaanbaatar: Ulaanbaatar Press.

35.

Mongolian Agency for Standardization and Metrology (MAFSAM) (2009) Social Service Standard Normative of Mongolia. Available online at: https://masm.gov.mn/masmj/ (accessed 20 October 2019).

36.

Myadar

(2011) ‘Imaginary Nomads: Deconstructing the Representation of Mongolia as a Land of Nomads’, Inner Asia 13: 335–62.

37.

Namdaldagva

Myagmarjav

Burnette

(2010) ‘Professional Social Work Education in Mongolia: Achievement, Lessons Learned and Future Directions’, Social Work Education 29(8): 882–95.

38.

Narantulga

(2010) ‘Historical Perspective on Mongolia’s In-Country Migration’, Journal of Mongolian Population Studies 23: 7–19.

39.

Nickson

Walters

(2004) ‘Privatization, Income Distribution and Poverty: A Case of Mongolia’, Report, Manchester University, Manchester, January.

40.

Ornellas

Spolander

Engelbrecht

L.K.

(2018) ‘The Global Social Work Definition: Ontology, Implications and Challenges’, Journal of Social Work 18(2): 222–40.

41.

Pant

(2005) ‘The Quest for Inclusion: Nomadic Communities and Citizenship Questions in Rajasthan’, in Kabeer

(ed.) Inclusive Citizenship, pp. 85–96. New York: Zed Books.

42.

People’s Representative Hural (2016) Regulation for Selecting a Unit Leader in Chingeltei District Khoroos. Ulaanbaatar: Administrative Office of the Chingeltei District Governor.

43.

Plueckhahn

(2017) ‘The Power of Faulty Paperwork: Bureaucratic Negotiation, Land Access and Personal Innovation in Ulaanbaatar’, Inner Asia 19: 91–109.

44.

Public Lab Mongolia (2018) Urban Migrant Vulnerability Assessment. Ulaanbaatar: Public Lab Mongolia.

45.

Rawsthorne

Howard

(2011) ‘Framing Our Work’, in Rawsthorne

Howard

(eds) Working with Communities: Critical Perspectives, pp. 47–62. Champaign, IL: Common Ground Publishing.

46.

Roets

Roose

De Bie

M.B.

(2013) ‘Researching Child Poverty: Towards a Lifeworld Orientation’, Childhood 20(4): 535–49.

47.

Rossabi

(2010) Modern Mongolia: From Khans to Commissars to Capitalists ( Gendendaram

, Trans). Ulaanbaatar: Institute of Philosophy, Sociology and Legal Studies.

48.

Sanghera

Satybaldieva

Rodionov

Serikzhanova

Choibekov

Sultanmuratov

(2012) Illegal Settlements and City Registration in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan: Implications for Legal Empowerment, Politics and Ethnic Tension (Occasional Paper Series No. 5). New York: Open Society Foundations.

49.

Shek

D.T.L.

(2017) ‘A Snapshot of Social Work in the Asia-Pacific Region’, British Journal of Social Work 47(1): 1–8.

50.

Smith

(2015) ‘Ending Poverty in Mongolia: From Socialism to Social Development’, International Journal of Social Welfare 24: 159–69.

51.

Social Welfare Law of Mongolia (2012). Available online at: www.legalinfo.mn (accessed 15 May 2018)

52.

Stolpe

(2016) ‘Social Versus Spatial Mobility? Mongolia’s Pastoralists in the Educational Development Discourse’, Social Inclusion 4(1): 19–31.

53.

Terbish

Pluekhahn

(2018) ‘Negotiation, Social Indebtedness and Making of Urban Economies in Capitalist Ulaanbaatar’, Central Asian Survey 37: 438–456.

54.

Terbish

Rawsthorne

(2016) ‘Social Exclusion in Ulaanbaatar City, Mongolia’, Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development 26(2–3): 88–101.

55.

The State Great Hural (2018) ‘The First Parliamentary Session: Law on Allocation of Land to Mongolian Citizens for Ownership’. Available online at: http://www.parliament.mn/n/ypeo (accessed 7 June 2018).

56.

Tiong

T.N.

(2006) ‘Regional Perspectives . . . from Asia-Pacific’, International Social Work 49(2): 277–84.

57.

Tsendsuren

(2017) ‘Social Work, Social Wellbeing’, in Proceedings of the International Conference (ed. Tsendsuren

), 4–5 May, pp. 10–17. Ulaanbaatar: Munkhiin Useg Publishing.

58.

Tsui

M-S.

Yan

M.C.

(2010) ‘Developing Social Work in Developing Countries: Experiences in the Asia-Pacific Region’, International Social Work 53(3): 307–10.

59.

Ulaanbaatar (2017) ‘Migration More Valuable than Human Life’. Available online at: http://www.ulaanbaatar.mn/Home/newsdetail?dataID=18897 (accessed 7 June 2018).

60.

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) (2010) ‘Mongolia’. Available online at: https://unhabitat.org/mongolia (accessed 30 June 2017).

61.

Van Hove

Claes

(2011) ‘How to Review the Literature and Conduct Ethical Studies’, in Geert

V.H.

Claes

(eds) Qualitative Research and Educational Sciences: A Reader about Useful Strategies and Tools, pp. 91–131. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

62.

Warming

Fahnoe

(2017) Lived Citizenship on the Edge of Society: Rights, Belonging, Intimate Life and Spatiality. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

63.

Wheeler

J.S.

(2005) ‘Rights without Citizenship? Participation, Family and Community in Rio De Janeiro’, in Kabeer

(ed.) Inclusive Citizenship, pp. 99–113. New York: Zed Books.

64.

World Bank (2015) Land Administration and Management in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. Washington, DC: World Bank.

65.

Wright

(2015) ‘More-Than Emergent Belongings: A Weak Theory Approach’, Progress in Human Geography 39(4): 391–411.

66.

Yuval-Davis

Anthias

Kofman

(2005) ‘Secure Borders and Safe Haven and the Gendered Politics of Belonging: Beyond Social Cohesion’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 28(3): 513–35.

67.

Zoljargal

(2015) ‘Orcs’. Available online at: http://www.trends.mn/n/3032 (accessed 11 April 2018).