The role of geographical distance in transnational institutional engagement of the Czech diaspora: a comparative study

Abstract

Engagement with institutions from migrants’ country of origin, both in the destination country and in the country of origin, is distinct transnational behaviour. This study investigates the impact of geographical distance on the institutional engagement of migrants from Czechia in five global regions. We examine how geographic (physical) proximity to Czechia shapes institutional engagement with the country of origin and identify factors beyond distance influencing institutional engagement. We analyzed survey data from Czech emigrants (N = 940) in neighbouring countries, Western and Northern Europe, Southern and Eastern Europe, overseas Anglo-Saxon countries, and other countries. We found that respondents from all more distant regions have higher levels of institutional engagement in the destination country than those from neighbouring countries. Length of stay and education were relevant factors for all selected regions, while place of residence (living in a metropolis) and the level of transnational behavior had varying impacts across regions. Concerning institutional engagement in origin country, the level of transnationalism was consistently the strongest predictor across. Transnational studies should incorporate geographic variables, such as physical distance into their conceptual frameworks. We expect our findings to be generalizable to other countries similar to Czechia, i.e. high-income countries whose citizens benefit from liberal visa regimes.

Introduction

Do migrants engage differently with state, economic, and civil society institutions based on how far they migrate? Transnational behaviour of migrating people covers a wide range of practices, including political, social, cultural, or economic activities (e.g., Vertovec, 2009; Østergaard-Nielsen, 2003; Itzigsohn & Saucedo, 2002), with the potential to shape individual lives or societies through e.g. economic and social remittances, political activity or cultural exchange (e.g. Price, 2016; Lewitt, 1998, Ahmadov & Sasse, 2016). Some of the institutions mediating these activities are located in the destination countries (for instance, diaspora associations, schools, consulates, and other diasporic institutions). Other institutions important for migrants’ transnational practices are found in the countries of origin (for example, tax and other state authorities, civil society associations or business grants for “repats”). To what degree migrants interact with these institutions varies. Contemporary transnational studies literature offers a host of reasons why migrants’ ties to their country of origin may differ, including political factors such as relations between the two countries, or individual socio-economic and cultural factors, demographic characteristics and migration histories (e.g. Tan et al., 2018; Zhou & Liu, 2016; Jones, 2020; Vertovec, 2009).

In this paper, we investigate an often-neglected factor potentially explaining migrants’ differential institutional engagement: the geographical (physical) distance of their destination country from their country of origin which matters and shapes transnational behavior (e.g. Castañeda et al., 2014), yet it is not commonly included in the (predominantly sociological) transnational studies literature. We test the hypothesis that the geographically farther the country of origin is to the migrants’ destination country, the higher their institutional engagement in the destination country, for instance via state institutions or grassroots diasporic institutions. This hypothesis is based on the experience of Czech and Czechoslovak migrants to the USA at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Due to the high transport costs (both financial and time-related), their connections to Czechoslovakia (Austria-Hungary) were very sporadic. As a result, they sought opportunities to meet and connect with each other in the destination country instead, and thus established various compatriot associations and organisations (e.g. Dubovický, 2003).

More generally, the immigrants’ need to fulfil one of the secondary human needs - belonging and love (see, for example, Maslow 1943) - does not diminish with increasing distance from the country of origin. This need is then realised, in line with e.g. social identity theory (Burke, 2006), by the fact that immigrants gravitate towards others of their ethnic background to reinforce a sense of belonging, shared identity and cultural connections also through more intensive institutional engagement.

We study emigrants from Czechia, a high-income country, migrating to five different regions of the world: neighbouring countries (mostly Germany and Austria); Western and Northern Europe; Southern and Eastern Europe; English-speaking overseas countries; and other countries. For the most part, existing literature on diaspora populations focuses on the experience of immigrant populations from developing countries who have settled in relatively more developed countries. For example, there is a great deal of research on the Latin American population settled in the USA (Price, 2016; Jones, 2020; Jones & Torre, 2011; Lewitt, 2001a) and the Chinese and Vietnamese in Southeast Asia and the USA (Han, 2021; Dufoix, 2003). Relatively few studies focus on migrants coming from countries of more developed regions, like Eastern Europe (Brinkerhoff et al., 2019; Ahmadov & Sasse, 2016). For this reason, we focus on developing our knowledge about the institutional engagement of diasporas originating from high-income countries. Their engagement in institutions located in both destination and origin country differ because of their relative wealth (as compared to migrants from lower-income countries) and the relatively free movement across borders, which enables them to more frequently travel back and forth. In the case of Czechia, this easy movement is facilitated by the country’s membership in the European Union (EU) and liberal visa regimes for Czech citizens in many countries (e.g. the United States), as well as by the existence of affordable transport connections, especially within Europe.

By comparing Czech diasporas in the five geographically different regions, we address two main questions: How do geographically (physically) close and distant (vis-a-vis Czechia) Czech diaspora groups differ in their institutional engagement in Czechia? And which factors, besides geographical distance, are behind the differential levels of their institutional engagement?

Our study draws on the transnational studies literature, specifically on its goal of understanding the complex relations migrants have with their countries of origin and destination. We focus on migrants’ engagement with country-of-origin institutions as a practice of transnational behaviour similar to, but distinct from sending remittances, visiting the country of origin or making plans to return. By seeking to explain different levels of institutional engagement not only by the numerous individual-level characteristics common in the literature, such as socio-economic status or migration histories, but also by geographical distance, we contribute from a perspective of (social) geography to transnational studies.

Czech diaspora: origins and the most important destinations

Czech diaspora, unlike other Central and Eastern European countries including Poland (Ahmadov & Sasse, 2016) and Hungary (e.g. Kovács 2020), has not yet been analysed in depth in the social geography literature. Nevertheless, it is an interesting case of a diaspora from a wealthy country, mostly emigrating to even wealthier regions of the world, many of which are closely connected through economic and political institutions as fellow EU members.

Emigration from Czechia

According to various estimates, there are currently 2.5 million people of Czech origin living abroad (Ministry of the Interior, 2020), including over 900,000 people who were born in what is now Czechia (UN DESA, 2022). This situation is the result of a long-term development, as the Czech lands were for centuries - and until the 1990s - predominantly an emigration region, which gradually led to the creation of a number of Czech diaspora communities abroad. The first such significant communities were established in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in connection with economically motivated migration to some European countries (especially today’s Austria) and to traditional overseas immigration areas (the USA, Canada). By the First World War, about 1.2 million people had emigrated from the Czech lands (Vaculík, 2007). Another significant period from the late 1930s onwards was the politically motivated emigration associated first with the German occupation (emigration of about 30,000 Jews) and then, more importantly, with the communist coup in 1948 and ‘Soviet occupation’ of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Between 1948 and 1989, more than half a million people left Czechoslovakia, most of them the present-day Czechia (e.g. Kučera, 1994) and expanded existing diasporas mainly in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, and Australia.

The political and economic changes after 1989 and the associated accession of Czechia to the EU and the Schengen area have fundamentally affected the conditions for migration. The gradual minimization of migration barriers, including the subsequent opening of the European labour market, has led to new migration behaviours. Economic factors, educational aspirations, and other personal reasons prevail in the motivation for migration (Nešpor, 2002).

Key destinations

There are three concentrations in the contemporary Czech diaspora: neighbouring countries (especially Germany and Austria), countries in Western and Northern Europe (with the highest proportion of Czechs living in the United Kingdom), and overseas countries (dominated by the United States, Canada, and Australia). These groups of countries are mainly characterised by their geographical distance from their place of origin, but also differ in terms of migration history, migration and integration policies and other economic, social and political factors that influence migration and the emergence and functioning of diasporas.

The Czech diaspora is most concentrated in those overseas countries with a long history of immigration. There are currently over 1.2 million people of Czech descent living in the U.S., and another 220,000 claim Czechoslovakian ancestry; 64,000 were born in what is now the Czechia or Slovakia (U.S. Census, 2021). In Canada, 99,000 people claim Czech ancestry and another 33,000 claim Czechoslovak ancestry, of whom 19,500 were born in what is now the Czechia (Statistics Canada, 2022). It is estimated that up to 35,000 people of Czech origin live in Australia and up to 6,000 in New Zealand (Ministry of the Interior, 2020). In the Western and Northern Europe region, the countries with the most significant Czech diaspora include the UK (about 100,000 people), followed by Switzerland (40,000) and France (30,000) (Ministry of the Interior, 2020). In other countries in the region, the size of the community does not exceed 10,000 people. The long-term population development of the Western and Northern European region has not been primarily determined by immigration, yet in recent decades this process has played an increasingly important role.

The region of neighbouring countries is in a specific position, where, in addition to geographical (physical) distance, the changes in the territorial delimitation of states that have taken place there throughout history also play a role. The territory of Czechia was part of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy until 1918, which significantly affected the development of Czechs in the territory of today’s Austria. Similarly, Czechia and Slovakia formed a common state until 1993. Today there is a large Czech diaspora living in Germany (some 80,000), as well as in Austria and Slovakia (35–40,000) (Ministry of the Interior, 2020), all members of the EU.

One notable feature of the so-called overseas countries is their relatively strong network of diaspora organisations and associations, which emerged at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries due to mass migration from Europe to the USA, and continued with subsequent emigration waves in the 1940s and 1960s to Australia and Canada. Conversely, a common factor for all destination countries is the current Czech policy towards the Czech diaspora, which primarily focuses on cultural aspects, such as supporting Czech schools abroad and cultural events organised by Czech diaspora organisations (e.g., Janská 2024).

Theoretical framework

The boundaries between transnationalism and diaspora

The definition of diasporas used by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Migration Policy Institute (MPI) is based on length of stay and ties. Diasporas include ‘[e]migrants and their descendants, who live outside the country of their birth or ancestry, either on a temporary or permanent basis, yet still maintain effective and material ties to their countries of origin’ (Agunias & Newland, 2012: 15; see also Baldassar et al., 2017). Dynamic changes towards greater flexibility in diaspora behaviour in the current globalised world, such as living in more than one place (e.g. dual home bases) and the mixing of culture (hybridity and creolization), have expanded the concept of diaspora (e.g. Cohen, 1997; Brubaker, 2005). Diaspora is an important aspect in transnational analysis (Faist, 2010). Researchers have studied the dispersion of emigrant populations to two or more locations, ongoing orientations toward the ‘homeland’ and group boundary maintenance (Gamlen, 2011; Brubaker, 2005). Dufoix (2003) recommends focusing on how and why diaspora communities emerge and dissipate, rather than on whether or not they conform to an ideal type at any given moment.

Using the concept of diaspora in contemporary transnational studies enables us to, on the one hand, consider the maintenance of active relations and ties with the country of origin through processes of interacting with a variety of origin/destination state institutions and, on the other hand, to focus on institutional engagement in the destination country (Tan et al. 2018; Gamlen, 2011). This brings greater dynamism and flexibility to studying diasporas through attention to transnational communities and transnational territories, etc. see Bruneau, 2010). We also investigate more intensive transnational practices of migrants (e.g., Jones, 2020) that occur through the transnational social field, such as social interactions and exchanges that transcend the political and geographical boundaries of one nation (Itzigsohn, 2000). Transnational practices are described as a wide range of phenomena, including political (e.g., Østergaard-Nielsen, 2003), social, cultural, or economic activities (e.g., Vertovec, 2009; Itzigsohn & Saucedo, 2002). Many migrants have a deep involvement in these links and exchanges, whereas others participate in them only occasionally. Some members of this transnational diaspora engage in economic exchanges, some are part of its political or socio-cultural links, and others only experience the transnational field in a symbolic way. However, we recognize that a diaspora may be transnational, and transnational communities may not necessarily form a diaspora.

Transnational practices can be considered broad or narrow as opposite ends of a continuum of different practices (Itzigsohn et al., 1999) or, similarly, ‘core’ and ‘expanded’ (Levitt, 2001a; Østergaard-Nielsen, 2003). Østergaard-Nielsen (2003) refers to the transnational political practices of Turks and Kurds in Europe, whereby narrow means actual membership in political parties or hometown associations, while broad refers to the (occasional, sporadic) participation in meetings or events. We argue that analysing the institutional engagement of diaspora members in organisations linked to their country of origin (settled in the country of origin and destination) enables a better understanding of their transnational practices in geographically diverse regions and the conditions of this engagement.

Institutional diaspora engagement as an integral part of transnational practices

The term ‘diaspora engagement’ refers to the bottom-up, grassroots, and trans-local activities of migrants and their associations. In this sense, it refers to things that members of a diaspora do, to a greater or lesser extent, that are connected to the economic, political, or social life of their country of origin. At the same time, however, the term is also used in the context of top-down attempts by national states, aid agencies and international organisations to encourage this kind of engagement (Gamlen, 2011).

Similarly, there are two influential theoretical approaches to analysing transnational practices: from above and from below. Transnationalism from above is a state-centric approach; it accentuates the role of the origin countries in maintaining and strengthening ties with their diasporas in the transnational social fields (by reforming policies, establishing institutions, and initiating programs) (Zhou & Lie, 2016; Chin & Smith, 2015). Despite some relevance of this approach, we focus our attention on transnationalism from below. This agency-centric approach expresses the varied ways in which expatriates relate to their country of origin in economic, cultural, and political terms and their local and grassroots activities across nation-state borders (Smith & Guarnizo, 1998; Portes, 1999). These various forms of cross-border practices describe how migrants maintain strong ties to their families and communities in their country of origin and how they proactively and effectively use these ties to mobilize economic resources in both the origin and destination countries (Smith & Guarnizo, 1998). Svasek (2010) confirms the important role of migrant/diasporic organisations in shaping migrants’ sense of belonging to their country of origin. Nevertheless, there is still insufficient knowledge about the role of diasporic institutions (in the both destination and origin countries) in regards to diasporic ties and transnational behaviour.

Explanatory factors behind the level of migrants’ institutional engagements

Based on the literature (e.g., Ahmad&Sasse 2016), explanatory factors affecting the level of institutional engagement can be summarized along three dimensions: socioeconomic and cultural factors (Guarnizo et al., 2003; Itzigsohn & Saucedo, 2002), transnationalism (Levitt, 2001a; Vertovec 1999), and geographical proximity (Simandan, 2022; Kutor et al.2021, Castañeda et al., 2014).

Socio-economic and cultural factors

The quality and intensity of transnational activities are connected with factors such as education, occupational status, and marital status. Education, income, and professional employment increases voluntary membership in ethnic associations, as documented by the example of the Lithuanian diaspora (Brinkerhoff et al., 2019).

As for the diaspora–education relationship nexus, Brooks and Waters (2021, p. 558) define an important concept of the ‘knowledge diasporas’, that is, ‘communities of highly educated, highly skilled citizens living overseas, maintaining significant ties with their home country’. Highly skilled and highly educated people are among those who are willing and able to live transnational lives and be actively engaged in the mother country’s societal development while effectively transferring various novelties (i.e., social remittances) back to their countries of origin (e.g., Levitt, 1998). At the same time, these people are often well-integrated into the host society, including having a good position in the labour market. As for the role of gender, evidence is not consistent. For example, Guarnizo and Chaudhary (2014) studied the determinants of transnational political engagement among contemporary Latin American migrants in Spain and Italy. Their results indicate that it is a gendered process dominated by highly educated men and that incorporation and transnational engagement are opposite processes. Distinct gender dimensions, social identity, integration, and transnationalism were also emphasized on Polish migration to the EU (Erdal & Lewicki, 2016).

There is a rich accumulated knowledge of the relationship between language and ethnic identity (Jaspal & Coyle, 2010). Generally, it is evident that most diaspora communities see the native language as an important identity marker and essential means of maintaining their social and cultural identity (Gharibi & Mirvahedi, 2021). Of course, knowledge of the mother language also makes any possible contact with the country of origin itself easier (Hundt, 2019) – it also affects personal and formal contacts, and, indeed, the probability of potential return to the country of origin as well.

Transnational socio-cultural activities (such as homeland-related festival events and sport and music events) also strengthen diaspora linkages with their countries of origin. Apart from widely documented negative relation between transnationalism level and length of stay (Smith, 2001; Jones & la Torre, 2011), participation in these activities is also influenced by immigrants’ demographic characteristics, employment, and experience of discrimination in destination countries (Itzigsohn & Saucedo, 2002).

Transnational practices of the diaspora

Migrants’ transnational engagement with their country of origin is related to a host of other transnational behaviours and practices they may engage in. Depending on the aim of their research and the target group, different authors conceptualize migrants’ transnational practices differently, from emotional ties to the country of origin to the frequency of sending remittances. For instance, Baldassar et al. (2017), for example, measured identity and community identification of the Vietnamese diaspora through visits (at home), political involvement, and remittances. While the example of the Vietnamese diaspora is characterized by lateral ties to fellow diaspora members in other states rather than vertical ties to their origin country, a different picture comes from a Chinese example. Zhou and Liu (2016) found that social forces at the macro (the nation-state) and meso-levels (diasporic communities) are intertwined to affect the transnational processes of immigrants. Those, who actively engage themselves in the transnational fields tend to do so through diasporic organizations. The new Chinese diaspora maintains emotional and tangible ties with China even though they are oriented toward resettlement in the destination country.

Nevertheless, some behaviours are commonly seen as transnational practices by much of the literature, mainly visits to and contacts with the home country, remittances, participation or interest in political life in the home country (Ahmadov & Sasse, 2016; Jones, 2022]. In this paper, in order to study transnational institutional engagement, we separate institutional engagement from other transnational behaviours and practices, such as visits and contacts or interest in political affairs of the country of origin (as e.g. Castañeda et al., 2014).

Drawing on the research discussed in the previous two subsection, our first proposition states that migrants’ institutional engagements in their destination and origin country are influenced by their (1) personal characteristics (education, employment, family status, age, gender, frequency of using Czech language), (2) migratory characteristics (citizenship, length of stay, migration reasons), and (3) the level of their “lived” transnational behaviour.

Geographical (physical)distance/proximity

Interdisciplinary research questions the traditional linear relationship between distance and interaction. This covers various thematic contexts, including transportation or (tele)communication, digital technologies, social structures, or urban and economic clustering (see, e.g. Simandan 2022; Burger et al., 2009; Nilles et al., 1976; Boschma, 2005). Tobler (1970) formulated already in 1970 the First Law of Geography which emphasizes the importance of spatial relationships and distance in geographic studies and is foundational to the field of spatial analysis: “Everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things”. This principle highlights the concept of spatial autocorrelation, where phenomena closer to each other tend to be more similar or related than those further apart. Simandan (2016) further explores the multifaceted nature of the concept of distance. Although the relationship between distance and interaction is not linear, there is an important underlying connection accompanied by complexity. The construal-level theory (Trope & Liberman, 2010) has pointed out a fact of ”fundamental importance about the relation between the distance we travel from our reference point and the quality of our mental representations: the more distant (in time, space, sociality, or hypotheticality) the world conjured up in our imagination is, the more abstract is our mental representation of it.“ (Simandan, 2016, p. 251). The subjective experience of human beings thus implies attention to not only „physical distance“ - but also three non-spatial dimensions – temporal, social and hypothetical. In this way, distance (or proximity) works through an “integrated unity” to impact mental processes and, indeed, human behaviour¹.

Here, to compare diasporas in two differently distant regions, we consider not only the absolute (physical) distance² (from the country of origin) and transport cost, but also other structural factors like historical, cultural, and social specificities, including the type of welfare model as well as migration and integration experience and policies and practices.

More widely, the relationship between “geography” and diaspora is materialized via the ideas of space, home, territory, and identity. Geographers often focus on the real and imagined identities produced through diasporic processes and spatial practices (Rios & Adiv, 2010). Some of them describe a diversity of relationships to the country of origin homeland. Pascual-de-Sans (2004) proposes (in addition to physical distance) the analysis of ‘place history’ in order to promote a global understanding of the interrelationship that people weave with places. The behaviour of migrants going to different destinations is influenced by geographical position as well as cultural and historical circumstances in the countries of destination. Following Tobler and others (Trope & Liberman, 2010; Simandan, 2016), we formulate a second proposition only in relation to the geographical (physical) distance and engagement of Czech compatriots: a shorter distance from the country of origin and easier direct connections to the destination country result in their higher transnational behavior (materialized via direct visits) and fewer contacts to the country of origin via institutional engagement in the country of destination.

Data and methods

Data

Data in this article derive from an online survey of 940³ Czechs living in 51 destination countries. Data was collected between May and September 2021. Inclusion criteria for taking part in the survey were: (1) being a Czech (including first and further generations); and (2) living in the destination country outside of Czechia for a minimum of six months.

The questionnaire was in the Czech language in order to find only those respondents who could have a higher potential to keep transnational ties with Czechia. It was available online, distributed through a link via email, social media and on the project website. Completing the survey lasted on average some 40 min.

Four methods were used to find respondents. First, we gathered data from the websites of various relevant institutions like the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic. Then, we utilized our own databases from previous research and a database of experts and scientists available from Czexpats in Science, an association of scientists working abroad. We also used the crawling method, a machine data collection of websites in which we extracted as many relevant contacts as possible from pre-defined areas on the Internet. From these efforts we collected approximately 91,000 contacts in total. However, this method of data collection led to only about a thousand contacts being relevant for inclusion. An email with the information on the project and a request to fill in the questionnaire was sent to the contacts. The last data collection method involved a Facebook campaign. This entailed distributing the survey link through Facebook advertisements specifically directed at individuals living abroad who were using the Czech version of Facebook on an iPhone. Respondents recruited directly from Facebook or other social media were able to complete the online questionnaire using the link provided. As the survey was anonymous, we could not identify how many people were eventually reached by which method (i.e. where respondents found the link to the survey).

Our sample is not representative. First, only those respondents willing to fill the questionnaire appear in the sample. Second, we were better able to reach some specific groups (e.g., scientists working abroad⁴) that have very different characteristics compared to the total population. This resulted in a higher proportion of females and highly educated respondents, such as those with a postgraduate education. Third, having a questionnaire in the Czech language necessarily shifted the sample towards those whose connections towards the country of origin were still relatively strong. However, as there is no official or unofficial database of Czech diaspora, self-selection was the only data gathering option. A lack of data for the total diaspora population prevents us from comparing our sample with that of the ‘reference total’. This limits the generalizability of our results, which should thus be treated with high caution (particularly when comparing results for various diaspora groups).

The respondents of our sample can be divided into five groups, which represent the largest areas of concentration of the Czech diaspora. These are groups of countries with different migration patterns (impacted by migration history, migration and integration policies and practices, socioeconomic, political and institutional settings etc.) and also groups of countries with different physical distance/proximity from Czechia (see Scheme 1):

• 1. Neighbouring countries (N = 215), mostly from Germany (163) and Austria (49)

• 2. Western and Northern Europe (N = 336), mostly from Great Britain (166), Switzerland (45), and France (39)

• 3. Southern and Eastern Europe (N = 68), mostly from Spain (23)

• 4. English-speaking overseas countries (N = 276) USA (143), Canada (58), Australia (45), and New Zealand (30)⁵

• 5. Other countries (N = 38), including countries of Latin America, Africa, and Asia

It should be noted that despite the efforts to maximize the inner homogeneity of regions, the division is rather gross and there may be substantial differences between diasporas within the same region.

Scheme 1:

Groups of countries according to different migration patterns and physical distance

Independent and dependent variables

Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the respondents appear in our analysis as socio-economic and demographic independent variables (see Table A1 in the online Appendix) and attributes associated with respondents’ migration history (Table A2).

Our final independent variable – respondents’ lived transnational practices – as well as our dependent variables – their engagement with diasporic institutions in the destination country and with institutions in Czechia – are latent variables and could be measured only indirectly through a number of items (Table 1). The first latent variable examines the level to which respondents behave transnationally (Table A3 in the Appendix). Next, institutions related to Czechia where migrants are engaged in the destination country (Table A4) indicate voluntarily involved Czechs who want to keep their ties with Czechia, the Czech language, or Czech culture. Finally, homeland institutions are those established in the country of origin to assist diaspora members in maintaining narrow relations through active engagement, including activities and assets in Czechia and contact with various institutions (Table A5).

Table 1 Operationalization of transnational practices and engagement indices

All three latent variables were measured by aggregate indexes. Variables in the questionnaire (Table 1) were standardised as a scale from 0 to 1, and the obtained values were then averaged. This led to the derivation of three indexes, where 0 denotes the minimal theoretically possible transnational practices/engagement, and 1 denotes the maximum.

Analytical approach

The empirical section consists of two parts corresponding to the two research aims of the paper. In the first part, we analyse how respondents in different destinations differ in terms of their main demographic, socioeconomic, geographical, and migration characteristics, as well as in their transnational practices and engagement parameters. As all of these characteristics are categorical, Cramer’s V was used to show us the extent of differences between all five regions. The values can range between 0 and 1. Although there is no consensus about thresholds above which the values of Cramer’s V denote relevant associations, we follow Lee (2016) who considers associations between 0.1 and 0.2 as weak and associations between 0.2 and 0.4 as moderate.

In the second part, two sets of models were calculated using multivariate linear regression analysis to determine the relationships between the variables of interest. In the first set, the index of engagement in the destination country was the dependent variable, while in the second set, this variable was set as the independent variable, and the index of engagement in Czechia was the dependent variable. Each set of models consists of four distinct models: one for the whole sample including regional dummies (allowing to assess differences in the engagement level) and three models for each of the main destination regions (allowing to assess different predictors of the engagement level).⁶

The transnational index and other selected relevant respondent characteristics as discussed in the theoretical section were included in the models as independent variables. Before the analyses, standard procedures were performed to check that the assumptions of the linear regression analysis were met; as a result, two variables (economic sector and age) were dropped due to multicollinearity. Only variables that exhibited some relationship to the dependent variables in the preliminary bivariate analysis entered the regression analysis. Standardised regression coefficients are reported in the final tables. Due to the non-representative character of the sample, we do not present the statistical significance of the results.

Results: Czech diaspora engagement

Similarities and differences between diasporas from different regions

First, we investigated the similarities and differences between the five geographically distinct groups of respondents in our sample. According to Cramer’s V values, the differences among selected socio-economic and demographic characteristics are rather moderate with one exception of economic parameters (Fig. 1). Those are relatively homogenous (very small differences) for all the respondents of the whole sample.

Fig. 1

Effect sizes of differences between regions – socio-economic and demographic characteristics

Regarding migration characteristics (see Fig. 2), we observe several differences between diasporas from various regions. The most different picture is tied to the Czech citizenship whereas the highest similarity is linked to the plans to return back to Czechia. Political reasons for leaving Czechia and dual citizenship in the destination country were characteristics with the highest differences, being much more common among respondents from English-speaking overseas countries (for exact figures see Table A2 in the Appendix).

Fig. 2

Effect sizes of differences between regions – migration characteristics

In the case of transnational practices (Figure 3), there is an obvious relationship with the physical distance from Czechia. This particularly concerns visiting Czechia and remittance frequency. We especially observe a very typical transnational behavioural pattern (represented by visits to Czechia and most of other indicators) by respondents from neighbouring countries and to some extent by other European respondents compared to respondents from English-speaking overseas countries (Table A3).

Fig. 3

Effect sizes of differences between regions – transnational characteristics

Differences among variables characterising institutional engagement in the destination countries are conclusive especially regarding Czech organised activities. Voluntary involvement in the destination country institutions is least typical for respondents from the neighbouring countries, while it is most common for those residing in overseas countries (Table A4). This is apparent for all variables with some exceptions of visiting Czech cultural centers (Fig. 4). The main reason is probably the greater geographical (physical) distance, which prevents members of Czech diaspora from overseas countries from frequent direct contact with the home country and, as a result, encourages the fulfilment of this need through greater contact with other Czechs and Czech institutions in the country of residence. For respondents from neighbouring countries, conversely, there is some possibility of direct contact with Czechia due to its proximity, even for short time intervals.

Fig. 4

Effect sizes of differences between regions – level of institutional engagement in destination country

In the case of involvement in institutions in Czechia (Fig. 5), the differences between the respondents of all country groups are generally smaller. One could perhaps pinpoint more intensive contacts of respondents in neighbouring countries to Czech municipal institutions in comparative perspective (Table A5).

Fig. 5

Effect sizes of differences between regions – level of institutional engagement in Czechia

Factors influencing migrants’ institutional engagement

We present standardised regression coefficients to detect factors associated with the engagement levels. The relatively high coefficient of determination in the last row shows that all models have a relatively satisfactory predictive power (23–36% of the explained variability of the dependent variable). Regarding engagement in the destination country (Table 2), more frequent use of the Czech language,⁷ higher education level, and longer stay are vital variables in explaining engagement across all geographical contexts. Logically, individuals who sustain a connection with their original culture through their knowledge and use of its language, and who can recognize and justify this connection (presumably those with higher education), increasingly become oriented towards reinforcing a sense of belonging and shared identity. This is also achieved through more intensive engagement with institutions in the host country (see text above).

Living in a metropolis is also important, although it seems to play a lesser role in the case of four English-speaking overseas countries. This fact testifies to the generally higher density of “ethnic institutions” in metropolitan areas, but also to the tradition of ethnic grouping and the presence of Czech compatriots also in more rural areas of English-speaking overseas countries (see e.g. Boruta, 2015, Dubovický 2003). Finally, geographic (physical) distance seems to be crucial as respondents from all regions have higher levels of institutional engagement in the destination country than those from neighbouring countries, especially respondents from four English-speaking overseas countries. In this group of countries, the distance from Czechia is the greatest, making the effect of more intensive ethnic grouping in the host country as a substitute for the challenging geographical (physical) distance to Czechia most apparent (e.g., see Janská 2024; Dubovický 2003).

Table 2 Factors associated with institutional engagement in destination country

Higher levels of transnational behaviour and higher education are the only variables universally associated with the level of institutional engagement in the country of origin (see results of the regression analyses in Table 3). Higher frequency of speaking Czech and more institutional engagement in a destination country has some relevance in selected overseas countries. Another important result is the rate of decline in engagement associated with length of stay, which is considerably higher in geographically (physically) more distant regions compared to neighbouring countries. These results are significant and can greatly influence Czech policy towards the diaspora. This policy is primarily shaped from the grassroots level and addresses all generations of Czechs abroad, with a recent emphasis on the so-called ‘new wave’ who emigrated after 1990 - see more below (eg. Janská 2024). The importance of gender is apparent in the case of neighbouring countries, as men are more involved in Czech institutions. Finally, in this case the analysis showed virtually no differences in the level of engagement across diasporas from various regions.

Table 3 Factors associated with institutional engagement in Czechia

Discussion and conclusions

An online questionnaire survey conducted in 2021 on a sample of 940 respondents provided important information on the structure and principal features of attitudes and behaviour of the Czech diaspora in five groups of countries. Although the sample was not representative, we believe this analysis is the first of its kind to describe Czech diaspora in detail and to find factors influencing its institutional engagement. The analysis supported our first proposition: linear regression models investigating the conditioning of migrants’ engagement in destination countries pointed to frequency of Czech language use (cf. Hundt, 2019), educational attainment (Brinkerhoff et al., 2019; Zhou & Liu, 2016; Brooks & Watres, 2021), length of stay abroad (Agunias & Newland, 2012) and living in a metropolis as important for all sample regions. This suggests that the urban environment likely enhances institutional engagement through the existence and direct utilisation of social networks (e.g. Levitt, 2001b). Moreover, the conditionalities of migrants’ institutional engagements in the country of origin are dominated by the importance of transnational practices, which is reflected in the overall model as well as in all country groupings. In the case of the neighbouring countries, the relationship with Czechia is more intense for men.

The analysis also supported our second proposition regarding physical distance to the country of origin. Overall, physical proximity to Czechia leads to a suppression of the need to share Czech culture (in the broadest sense) through voluntary engagement in the destination country. Conversely, physical proximity – additionally facilitated by free movement between Czechia and many countries– allows for frequent direct contacts with Czechia. This is also demonstrated by our analysis, which shows that respondents from the neighbouring countries demonstrate higher levels of transnational behaviour compared to the overseas countries, particularly in the frequency of visits, frequency of remittances, but also for instance regarding important contacts with Czech local authorities (see tables A4 and A5). It would seem that migration of respondents in geographically (physically) close countries (neighbouring and other European) is more economically based and oriented; compared to the overseas countries, it has a higher representation of work and personal reasons for migration. Diaspora members in the English-speaking overseas countries, more distant from Czechia, reported political and educational reasons more frequently. Moreover, the complexity of direct visits forces them to replace direct contacts with Czechia with ties to diaspora members through voluntary engagement in destination country (such as participation in diaspora associations and visits to Czech events, as well as informal contacts with other diaspora members).

We could hypothesize that these differences reflect differences in the length and continuity of the Czech diaspora’s existence in the different groups of countries. Macrostructural (historical, cultural, and social) differences in the overall concept of migration and integration – traditionally more welcoming in the English-speaking overseas countries and less welcoming in the neighbouring ones (i.e. Germany and Austria) – may, to some extent, come into play. Construal-level theory (Trope & Liberman, 2010) might mirror the complexities projected in migrants’ and diasporas’ subjective experiencing of distance. Intertwined dimensions of distances, namely, the temporal, social, and hypothetical, create “imaginative geographies” that could explain behavioural patterns (cf. Simandan, 2016).

Our findings aim at influencing diaspora policy practice. Although ‘Czechs living abroad for a long time’ are often portrayed as a homogenous group, we argue that we should always take into account their differences and the way their transnational practices are conditioned by various factors or factors of varying intensity, including political considerations (see e.g. Østergaard-Nielsen, 2003; Ahmadov & Sasse, 2016), as well as their social, cultural, or economic activities (Vertovec, 2009; Itzigsohn & Saucedo, 2002). While certain measures may be universal, others should be customized to suit the specific characteristics of the destination region. This conclusion is likely generalizable to diasporas around the world; the outcomes of our analyses thus have the potential to inform the development of enhanced policies and practices pertaining to diasporas not only in Czechia but also in other high-income countries. In lower-income countries or countries with radically different geopolitical contexts, we would still expect a differentiated approach to diaspora members to be meaningful, but engagement is likely to vary along different variables. For instance, geographical distance is likely to be less important for diasporas whose citizens do not benefit from as liberal visa regimes as the Czechs. In these countries, where citizens can travel to and from easily (political distance) may affect their transnational practices, including institutional engagement, more than physical distance in kilometers.

An important objective of diaspora policies includes the activation and fostering of relations between the diaspora and their country of origin. With higher levels of education and frequency of use of the Czech language, the engagement or intensity of the connections in various formal and informal forms to Czechia and Czechs in the destination country of migration increases – albeit with different final effects among different Czech diaspora members (e.g. Janská 2024). In the case of English-speaking overseas countries, the analysis clearly showed that the educated, Czech-speaking people who have been living in the target country for a shorter period of time and are actively engaged in the Czech ethnic institutions in the target country seem to be “ideal partners” for the Czech state to intensify and improve cooperation with the diaspora.

One may consider that education and the use of Czech language are universals that strengthen the diverse and living relationship between Czech diaspora and their country of origin. Highly educated migrants act as ‘agents of change’, in the sense of spreading Czech culture and intensive ties to Czechia, and drive engagement with Czechia. In addition to maintaining and disseminating Czech culture abroad, the potential and “wisdom” of the diaspora (Kutor, 2022) in the country of origin must also be harnessed and activated, for example through the effective use of financial and social remittances (Lewitt, 1998), incentives to return, or instruments of intensive transnational cooperation. In parallel, Czech language teaching and related education, a traditional part of Czech diaspora policy, acts as another factor. Together, they could, among others and after further examination, become important pillars of future Czech diaspora policy and practices. After all, it seems that the Czech government is on the right track when it aims at supporting cooperation with Czech expatriate communities, including providing assistance to them, supporting the preservation of their Czech linguistic and cultural identity, as well as maintaining immovable monuments related to Czech cultural heritage abroad (Janská et al. 2024).

Here, our findings contribute to an already existing, rich literature on the role of language and culture of the country of origin as a factor of transnational engagement (Hundt, 2019; Brinkerhoff et al., 2019; Guarnizo & Chaudhary, 2014; Gharibi & Mirvahedi, 2021) and have the potential to inform diaspora policy making around the world.