Challenge and response in the East-West migration,
in times of crisis
Dumitru Sandu
University of Bucharest
Slides for intervention in the Debate on East-West migration, Dutch Scientific Council for Government
Policy/ Hollands Spoor , Hague, October 10, 2013.
The only responsible for analysis and points of view is the author. Slides could be circulated and used
with proper citation. Data on the slides will be presented function of the course of the discussions.
Questions
LANCES TO
USE
How to address mobility/migration between East and West Europe
as to be policy effective? And especially, what about Romanian migration in this
context?
DESCRIPTIVES
How many are they?
MIGRATION
SYSTEMS and
FIELDS
•
TOWARDS
POLICIES
How to meet the challenges?
How the streams of
migration are changing?
Volume or composition?
How is structured the Romanian and Polish migration system towards Western Europe?
• What are the key migration fields of Romanian emigration by subnational regions at
origin and clusters of countries at destination?
Where are the Roma in
the picture?
2
Answers in a nutshell (1)*
LANCES TO USE
1.
2.
3.
DESCRIPTIVES
Contextualising the reference migration stream by including it into
- clusters of streams, defined as migration system or as migiration fields,
- their own trend or history of change
- competing migrants **
Specification of streams by passing from ethnic or national approaches to those distinguishing
among migrants by skill level and deprivation level (high skilled, medium skilled, low skilled ,
low skilled and with cumulative deprivations etc.).
All the available data to do cross-national comparisons are rather week, underestimating
migration. Their consideration in dynamic series, in as parts of migration structures and
inmultivariate models works well.
1.
Romanians, Polish and Bulgarians are the dominant groups of immigrants in the current
migration system from East to West.
2.
Their preferred destinations, shares and rhythms of demographic increase/decrease to a given
destination are highly different. Predictions are better if one considers these differences.
3.
Increase rates of immigration to Netrherlands in 2008-2013 compared to 2004-2008 are
consistently higher for Bulgarian, Polish and Somalian immigrants compared to the Romanian
ones.
4.
Three major transnational field of Romanian work emigration in Europe (SOUTH, NORTH EUROPE
, CENTRAL-WEST) and three minor ones (BRITISH, HUNGARIAN, NORTH-AMERICAN) are clearly
revealed by 2011 national census in Romania. Each such field has defined regions of origin in
Romania. Circular migration for specific national groups firmly rooted in such fields.
• See slides for details and support
• ** Stouffer, Samuel A. (1960). Intervening opportunities and competing migrants. Journal of
Regional Science, 2(1), 1-26.
3
Answers in a nutshell (2)
DESCRIPTIVES
5. The popular view that Romanian immigration increases significantly after lifting
restrictions is not supported by the way process evolved in Spain, Denmark and Italy .
6. The networks supporting recent migration to Netherlands are supported in those
communities or regions from Romania that are: more developed , with tradition in
migration towards Nertherlands, in communities where from migration is also directed
towards North countries (especially Scandinavian ones and Czech republic), Belgium
and Irelands. Origin communities with large share of Roma are not specific for
Romanian emigration to Netherlands (see slide with streams of emigration that have
common origin in Romania).
MIGRATION
SYSTEMS
1.
Romania and Poland are the key sending countries in the East-West migration system.
Their migrants are in competition especially in Germany. Otherwise, there is a specific
domination of the Poles on the labour markets in Germany and UK and for Romanians in
Spain and Italy. In all the EU15 destinations there are also very large segments of
competing migrants from Latin America, Africa and Asia. France is another important
player in this system but necessary data for analysis are not available.
2.
Any prediction on a national specific group of immigrants (Romanians, Poles, Bulgarians
etc.) is better founded if considering the whole system integrating the refernce stream
and the competing migrants for the immigration country.
3.
There is a high inertia of each migration system that is working even in change moments as
those of lifting/imposing work restrictions.
4
Answers in a nutshell (3)
TOWARDS
POLICIES
1. Joint development projects for the countries and regions that are involved in the
dynamics of the reference migration system.
2. There is no miraculous solution to Roma challenge in European circular migration.
Only joining efforts cound be effective: of origin and destination countries, national
and regional policies, labour integration policies and settlement policies etc.
3.
Comparing diffrent migration policies to see their impact on meeting migration
problems, e.g: comparison of the settlement patterns of Romanian Roma immigrants in
Italy and Spain as favoured by local rules.
4.
National and EUROSTAT statistics are useful but do no capture the essential dynamics of
the migration processes. It would be very useful to devise a kind of migration observatory
for the East-West migration integrating the data sources of relevant institutions.
5
DESCRIPTIVES: East-West migration in Europe dominated
by Romanians, Poles and Bulgarians
Italy
Spain
United Kingdom
Germany
Ireland
Norway
Netherlands
Belgium
Sweden
Austria
Denmark
Switzerland
Portugal
Finland
Total
Main group of Eastern European immigrants
in Western Europe
Romanians
Poles
Bulgarians
1,072
111
55
866
83
174
95
700
12
171
504
100
18
124
2
6
67
3
9
65
17
43
56
21
10
32
9
7
37
2
2,377
43
37
24
14
1
2
1,831
Figures underestimate the
volume and intensity of
migration. At least for Romanian
emigration, the hierachies by
countries of immigration are
rather stable.
Circular migration that seems to
be more and more intense is hard
to measure and is more visible
than the rather long time one.
4
9
4
4
8
1
414
Data source: EUROSTAT. Data for 2012, thousands immigrants by citizenship . Unreported data
for immigration in France.
6
DESCRIPTIVES: Share of interviewed Romanians declearing that they are
having al least one relative or close friend in the specified country
Figures are relevant for
the density of social
networks abroad, by
destination countries.
Hierarchy consistent
with the one referring
to the number of
emigrants in the
previous slide.
43
29
25
12 10
7 7 6 4 4
3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Italy
Spain
Germany
USA
France
United…
Canada
Austria
Belgium
Greece
Hungary
Netherlands
Sweden
Portugal
Cyprus
Switzerland
Denmark
Ireland
Australia
Turkey
Asian country
50
40
30
20
10
0
Data source: EUCROSS survey, 2013, weighted data
7
DESCRIPTIVES: Highly differentiated rates of increase for
non-western groups of immigrants to Netherlands (%)
2013/2008
1.4
1.8
1.9
2.0
0.2
2.1
0.7
2.7
1.2
3.6
0.9
3.8
Tunisia(9)
Morocco(368.8)
(form.) Nether.Antill.&
Aruba(145.5)
Afghanistan(42.3)
Iraq(53.7)
Iran(35.4)
5.0
2.6
6.3
15.0
8.9
11.3
20.0
15.4
25.0
13.1
17.8
30.0
10.0
Large groups of high rate
of increase POLISH and
SOMALIANS
29.3
27.0
2008/2004
35.0
Largest group of low rate
of increase –
MORROCCANS
Bulgarians and Romanians
, similar size but much
lower rate of
democraphic increse for
Romanians
Figures in parenthesis
indicate the size of the group
in 2013, in thou.
Bulgaria(20.8)
Poland(111.1)
Somalia(34.6)
Romania(17.8)
-10.0
China(61.9)
-5.0
Sudan(6.3)
0.0
Data source: CBS Statistics Netherlands
8
DESCRIPTIVES: How large is the increase of net immigration of Roamanians after
lifting the work restrictions : Italy, Spain and Denmark cases
2004
2005
2006
2007
Italy
87.1
40.0
19.6
Spain
68.3
51.1
35.3
Denmark
4.6
5.7
11.2
83
71
49
absolute Italy
77
97
101
increase, Spain
thou.
Denmark
0.1
0.1
0.2
Data source: Eurostat
Shadow indicate the lifting of work restrictions period.
relative
increase
(%)
2008
15.0
38.9
7.0
45
151
0.1
2009
82.7
36.2
42.7
283
195
0.7
2010
27.4
8.8
56.9
171
64
1.4
2011
11.5
3.0
35.6
91
24
1.3
2012
9.1
2.5
36.6
81
21
1.9
10.7
2.6
36.3
104
22
2.5
There is not a clear support of the hypothesis that lifting work restrictions for Romanian
immigrants generates waves of such incoming immigrants.
•
In the period without restrictions in Spain, 2009-2010 was a decline in the rates of
immigration increases.
•
Anual increse of net immigration of Romanians in Denmark ,a fter lifting restrictions
was between 1.4 to 2.5 thou.
•
The increse of about 20 thou. in the Italian case is not relevant for only one year. It is
very likely that part of this increase is nothing else than a conversion of irregulated
9
into regulated work.
SYSTEM: Migration fields of Romanian recent migration
Romanians that left the country for the destination fileld in
2011 (%)
Main migration fields of
recent Romanian migration
abroad
0
10
20
ITALY
40
50
47
SPAIN
20
CENTRAL-WEST EUROPE
12
NORTH EUROPE
11
UNITED KINGDOM
5
HUNGARY
NORTH AMERICA
30
4
1
Data source: NIS, census 2011. Central-West Europe: France, Belgium, Portugal, Austria. North Europe: Sweden, Denmark,
Norwey, Germany, Netherlands, Ireland. N=363 thou migrants. 22 thou are migrants dispersed in other fields. The
hierarchy with the the migrants that left the country for more than onbe year at the census moment was similar with
50% in Italy and 25% in Spain.
10
SYSTEM: A highly regionalised Romanian migration
by origin and destination
•
There is a high stability in time for migration
fields.*
•
The Eastern part of the country is dominated
by the Italian field.
•
The South is an interaction between Spanish
and Italian fields.
•
The Northern fields integrates mainly
counties from the West and Center of the
country.
•
The Hungarian field is rooted into the
counties with larger shares of ethnic
Hungarians
Data source: NIS, census 2011,
Migrants that left the country of less
than one year. Capital letters are for
the origin county.
Percentages indicate the share of
emmigrants from a certain cluster of
counties towards a certain European
destination. Map design and data
computations – D.Sandu.
*Sandu, D. (2005). Emerging transnational migration from Romanian villages. Current Sociology, 53(4),
555-582.
11
SYSTEM: How the main fields
of recent Romanian migration abroad are connected at origin, in Romania
HUNGARY
NORTH AMERICA
NORTH EUROPE
UK field of Romanian migration is mainly
connected to Central-West, North America ,
Hungary and Italy fields.
CENTRAL-WEST
EUROPE
North Europe field (mainly Germany,
Scandinavia countries , Netherlands and
Ireland) is mainly connected by Romanian
migration networks to Central-West
Europe,North-America and Hungary.
UNITED KINGDOM
SPAIN
Fields of migration that have overlaped
regional origins in Romania are, very likely,
connected by dense migration networks.
ITALY
Data source NIS, data matrix of Romanians that left the country of less than one year, by
origin county and destination country, census data 2011. Each destination has a profile
given by the number of emigrants by counties (log transformation). A correlation matrix
among all the vectors is the basis for the diagram. Correlations that are significant for
p=0.01 are marked by marked lines. Thin lines indicate significant coiefficients for p=0.05.
It is very likely that the Romanian
immigrants in this field come mainly
through the medium of the network
mentioned before.
Central-West Europe field (with France,
Belgium, Portugal, Austria, mainly) is the
most dense in linkages with other fields of
12
Romanian migration.
POLICY: Inputs in the discussion on Roma immigrants in EU coming from Romania
More than half of the Roma have only primary education or less
40.0
35.7
35.0
30.0
24.4
34.2
27.0
25.0
20.0
20.2
14.4
14.2
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.7
4.9
3.2
3.0
0.2
0.0
higher
education
Data source:
NIS, census 2011
post-high
school
high school gymnasium
primary
no
graduation
Total population
Roma
•
How many Roma in Romanian resident population?
622 thou. according to 2011 census.
Comment: they are very likely, slightly under-recorded
due to their high mobility and the fact that some of
them do not have Ids.
• Cumulative deprivations related to employment,
housing, education , health and poor communities they
live in.
• Discrimination.
• Culture of high territorial mobility for some groups.
13
Annexe 1: Share of emigrants from Romania by origin and destination
regions
Origin counties in
CENTRAL WEST NORTH
Romania
ITALY SPAIN
EUROPE
EUROPE
Counties from
Moldova +TC VL
70
11
7
6
BC BV
64
9
6
11
UK
NORTH
HUNGARY AMERICA
5
6
0
3
1
2
100
100
MM
GJ OT DJ AG BZ GR
HD
49
21
19
4
5
1
1
100
48
29
10
8
4
0
1
100
IL CL TR PH DB
CT IF B
30
36
48
17
9
16
6
18
5
8
0
0
1
5
100
100
TM CS MH AD SB
BN CJ AB
SM
31
22
29
16
33
4
22
10
47
25
25
5
3
4
10
1
3
5
2
3
1
100
100
100
CV HG BH SJ MS
20
47
14
20
12
18
5
30
2
12
11
5
4
1
Capital letters are acronyms for counties of origin.
100
100
Data source: NIS
14
Annex 2: Age structurer of temporary emigrants for less then one year
from Romania and of country population, 2011
100%
90%
19.2
80%
70%
1.0
10.0
Age category
20.0
50-64
23.8
40-49
60%
50%
65 and
over
31.1
16.7
30-39
40%
30%
18.1
33.2
20%
10%
0%
20-29
15.8
15-19
6.5
4.7
resident population
temporary emigrants
Data source: National Institute of Statistics (NIS), 2011
15
Annex 3.Similarities in terms of the migration profile in postcommunist countries1
Gap between migration profiles
0
5
10
15
20
25
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
Slovakia
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
─┬─────┐
Reduced immigration, high level
─┘
├─┐
of remittance input
───────┘ ├───────────┐
─┬───────┘
├─────────────────┐
─┘
│
│
Czech Rep.
─────────────────────┘
Russia
Ukraine
Slovenia
Hungary
Belarus
FRYMacedon.
───┬─────────┐
├─────────┐
Low
level
of
───┘
├─────┐
│
│
───┬─────┐
│
│ remittance input
│
│
───┘
├───┘
│
│
│
───┬─────┘
├───────────────────┘
│
───┘
│
│
Albania
Georgia
Estonia
Latvia
Croatia
Moldova
───┬─────────────┐ │
───┘
├─┘
─┬───┐
│
Low level of remittance exiting
─┘
├───────────┘
the country
─┬───┘
─┘
Bosnia_Herze
─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
The external migration profile
of Romania resembles most
that of Poland, Lithuania,
Bulgaria and Slovakia
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
The more the
junction
segments of the
branches
starting at the
country name
are closer to
the 0 value on
the scale, the
more those
countries have
a more
resembling
migration
profile
1. The profile of each country is given by the emigration rate, the immigrant weight, inputs-remittances per capita, volume of input
remittances (ln), outputs – remittances per migrant. Cluster analysis, normalized variabiles with z, the methods of the farthest neighbour,
Euclidian gaps raised to square
16
Annex 4:Main streams of East- West migration system in European Union
ITALY, compet.migr.
Morrocans, Albanians
1072
191
517
Compet.immig from
171
ROMANIA
866
Data source: EUROSTAT
Figures indicate thou. Citizens
Turky
185
SPAIN, compet.immig. 120
Lat.Amer.&Morocco
living in a destination one
504
95
370
73
UNITED KINGDOM
of the origin country
111
GERMANY
competing migrants
Diagram construction: D.Sandu
97
83
POLAND
700
from Pakistan , India
Volume of the streams
124
very high
Streams of insignificant volume, of less than 50 thou. are not
represented in diagram
France is part of the system. Lack of data.
Data source: EUROSTAT
high
low
very low
Romania and Poland are the key sending countries in this migration system system. Their migrants are in
competition especially in Germany. Otherwise, there si a specific domination of the Polish on the labour
markets in Germany and UK and for Romanians in Spain and Italy. In all these EU15 destinations there are
are also very large segments of competing migrants for Latin America, Africa and Asia. France is another
important player in this system but necessary data for analysis are not available.
17