Challenge and response in the East-West migration, in times of crisis

Dumitru SanduUniversity 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

2

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? How the streams of migration are changing?

Volume or composition?

MIGRATION SYSTEMS and FIELDS

• 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?

TOWARDS POLICIES

How to meet the challenges? Where are the Roma in the picture?

Answers in a nutshell (1)*

3

LANCES TO USE

1. 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 **2. 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.).

3. 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.

DESCRIPTIVES 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.

Answers in a nutshell (2)

4

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.

Answers in a nutshell (3)

5

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.

DESCRIPTIVES: East-West migration in Europe dominated by Romanians, Poles and Bulgarians

6

Romanians Poles BulgariansItaly 1,072 111 55Spain 866 83 174United Kingdom 95 700 12Germany 171 504 100Ireland 18 124 2Norway 6 67 3Netherlands 9 65 17Belgium 43 56 21

Sweden 10 43 4Austria 32 37 9Denmark 9 24 4Switzerland 7 14 4Portugal 37 1 8Finland 2 2 1Total 2,377 1,831 414

Main group of Eastern European immigrants in Western Europe

Data source: EUROSTAT. Data for 2012, thousands immigrants by citizenship . Unreported data for immigration in France.

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.

DESCRIPTIVES: Share of interviewed Romanians declearing that they are having al least one relative or close friend in the

specified country

7

43

29 25

12 10 7 7 6 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10

1020304050

Italy

Spai

nG

erm

any

USA

Fran

ceU

nite

d…Ca

nada

Aust

riaBe

lgiu

mG

reec

eH

unga

ryN

ethe

rland

sSw

eden

Port

ugal

Cypr

usSw

itzer

land

Denm

ark

Irela

ndAu

stra

liaTu

rkey

Asia

n co

untr

y

Data source: EUCROSS survey, 2013, weighted data

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.

DESCRIPTIVES: Highly differentiated rates of increase for non-western groups of immigrants to Netherlands (%)

8

1.4 1.9

0.2 0.7 1.2

0.9 2.

6

8.9

13.1

29.3

1.8

2.0

2.1 2.7 3.6

3.8 6.

3

11.3 15

.4 17.8

27.0

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0Su

dan(

6.3)

Tuni

sia(9

)

Mor

occo

(368

.8)

(form

.) Ne

ther

.Anti

ll.&

Arub

a(14

5.5)

Afgh

anist

an(4

2.3)

Iraq(

53.7

)

Iran(

35.4

)

Chin

a(61

.9)

Rom

ania

(17.

8)

Som

alia

(34.

6)

Pola

nd(1

11.1

)

Bulg

aria

(20.

8)

2008/2004 2013/2008

Data source: CBS Statistics Netherlands

Large groups of high rate of increase POLISH and SOMALIANS

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.

DESCRIPTIVES: How large is the increase of net immigration of Roamanians after lifting the work restrictions : Italy, Spain and Denmark cases

9

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 into regulated work.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Italy 87.1 40.0 19.6 15.0 82.7 27.4 11.5 9.1 10.7Spain 68.3 51.1 35.3 38.9 36.2 8.8 3.0 2.5 2.6Denmark 4.6 5.7 11.2 7.0 42.7 56.9 35.6 36.6 36.3Italy 83 71 49 45 283 171 91 81 104Spain 77 97 101 151 195 64 24 21 22Denmark 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.7 1.4 1.3 1.9 2.5Data source: Eurostat

Shadow indicate the lifting of work restrictions period.

relative increase

(%)

absolute increase,

thou.

SYSTEM: Migration fields of Romanian recent migration

10

47

20

12

11

5

4

1

0 10 20 30 40 50

ITALY

SPAIN

CENTRAL-WEST EUROPE

NORTH EUROPE

UNITED KINGDOM

HUNGARY

NORTH AMERICAMai

n m

igra

tion

field

s o

fre

cent

Rom

ania

n m

igra

tion

abro

ad

Romanians that left the country for the destination fileld in 2011 (%)

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.

SYSTEM: A highly regionalised Romanian migration by origin and destination

11

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.

• 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

*Sandu, D. (2005). Emerging transnational migration from Romanian villages. Current Sociology, 53(4), 555-582.

SYSTEM: How the main fields of recent Romanian migration abroad are connected at origin, in Romania

12

HUNGARY NORTH AMERICA

CENTRAL-WEST EUROPE

SPAIN ITALY

NORTH EUROPE

UNITED KINGDOM

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.

Fields of migration that have overlaped regional origins in Romania are, very likely, connected by dense migration networks.

UK field of Romanian migration is mainly connected to Central-West, North America , Hungary and Italy fields.

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.

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 Romanian migration.

POLICY: Inputs in the discussion on Roma immigrants in EU coming from Romania

13

high

er e

duca

tion

post

-hig

h sc

hool

high

sch

ool

gym

nasiu

m

prim

ary

no g

radu

ation

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

14.4

3.2

24.427.0

14.2

3.00.7 0.2

4.9

35.734.2

20.2

Total population RomaData source: NIS, census 2011

More than half of the Roma have only primary education or less

• 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.

Annexe 1: Share of emigrants from Romania by origin and destination regions

14

Origin counties in Romania ITALY SPAIN

CENTRAL WEST EUROPE

NORTH EUROPE UK HUNGARY

NORTH AMERICA

Counties from Moldova +TC VL 70 11 7 6 5 0 1 100BC BV 64 9 6 11 6 3 2 100

MM 49 21 19 4 5 1 1 100GJ OT DJ AG BZ GR HD 48 29 10 8 4 0 1 100

IL CL TR PH DB 30 48 9 6 5 0 1 100CT IF B 36 17 16 18 8 0 5 100

TM CS MH AD SB 31 16 22 25 3 1 2 100BN CJ AB 22 33 10 25 4 3 3 100SM 29 4 47 5 10 5 1 100

CV HG BH SJ MS 20 14 12 18 5 30 2 10047 20 12 11 5 4 1 100

Data source: NIS Capital letters are acronyms for counties of origin.

Annex 2: Age structurer of temporary emigrants for less then one year

from Romania and of country population, 2011

15

6.5 4.7

15.833.2

18.1

31.116.7

20.0

23.8

10.019.2

1.0

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

resident population temporary emigrants

65 andover

50-64

40-49

30-39

20-29

15-19

Age category

Data source: National Institute of Statistics (NIS), 2011

Annex 3.Similarities in terms of the migration profile in post-communist countries1

Gap between migration profiles 0 5 10 15 20 25 +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ Slovakia ─┬─────┐ Bulgaria ─┘ ├─┐ Lithuania ───────┘ ├───────────┐ Poland ─┬───────┘ ├─────────────────┐ Romania ─┘ │ │ Czech Rep. ─────────────────────┘ │ Russia ───┬─────────┐ ├─────────┐ Ukraine ───┘ ├─────┐ │ │ Slovenia ───┬─────┐ │ │ │ │ Hungary ───┘ ├───┘ │ │ │ Belarus ───┬─────┘ ├───────────────────┘ │ FRYMacedon. ───┘ │ │ Albania ───┬─────────────┐ │ │ Georgia ───┘ ├─┘ │ Estonia ─┬───┐ │ │ Latvia ─┘ ├───────────┘ │ Croatia ─┬───┘ │ Moldova ─┘ │ Bosnia_Herze ─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

161. 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

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

Reduced immigration, high level of remittance input

Low level of remittance input

Low level of remittance exiting the country

Annex 4:Main streams of East- West migration system in European Union

17

ITALY, compet.migr.Morrocans, Albanians GERMANY 111

1072191

517 Compet.immig from

171 TurkyROMANIA 185

866 SPAIN, compet.immig. 120Data source: EUROSTAT Lat.Amer.&Morocco 504Figures indicate thou. Citizens 95of the origin country 370 73 97 83living in a destination one UNITED KINGDOM POLANDDiagram construction: D.Sandu competing migrants 700

from Pakistan , India Volume of the streams124

very high lowStreams of insignificant volume, of less than 50 thou. are notrepresented in diagram high very lowFrance is part of the system. Lack of data.Data source: EUROSTAT

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.