yugoslavia || yugoslavia and international migration

Canadian Slavonic Papers

Yugoslavia and International MigrationAuthor(s): LESZEK A. KOSIŃSKISource: Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes, Vol. 20, No. 3,YUGOSLAVIA (September 1978), pp. 314-338Published by: Canadian Association of SlavistsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40867338 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 21:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Canadian Association of Slavists and Canadian Slavonic Papers are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.154 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:35:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=canassocslav

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40867338?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


LESZEK A. KOSINSKI

Yugoslavia and International Migration

International migration has been affecting Yugoslav society since the late nineteenth century but its impact has dramatically increased during the last decade with the development of massive flows of temporary migration. The importance of this factor cannot be overlooked by a researcher who may discover not without surprise that foreign experience (i.e., temporary work abroad) becomes a significant diversifying social criterion since it is usually associated with income and life-style differentials. Migration, however, is not a new phenomenon in Yugoslavia. In fact, the outflow from the present territory of the country began during the previous century; expatriates of Croat, Serbian, Montenegrin, Slovene and Macedonian origin have not infrequently distinguished themselves in various host countries. In addition, international migration included members of ethnic minorities leaving of their own accord or otherwise. The purpose of this essay is to discuss international migration as it affects society in present-day Yugoslavia with the emphasis on the more recent period. Since comprehensive and comparable data are not easy to obtain, considerable effort has been spent to establish the data base.

Data and Research Large-scale migration in Yugoslavia was resumed in the 1960's and it

is not surprising that soon thereafter increasing interest in and concern for the consequences of emigration was reflected in the growing literature on the subject. In 1967 a special research and documentation centre was established in Zagreb, the capital of the republic most affected by the trend. This Centar za Istrazivanje Migracija is headed by Ivo Baució, one of the prominent figures in this field of research, and is presently concerned with migration study for all of Yugoslavia. Its publications include monographs ( Vanjske migracije, formerly Migracije radnika), a monthly bulletin (Buten Centra za istrazivanje migracija) and two series of reports (Rasprave o migracijama and Teme o Iseljenistvu). The centre relies on various official and private data sources from both Yugoslavia and abroad.



International Migration | 315

The concern of Yugoslav scholars and decision-makers with the external migration is also reflected in the organization of special meetings. In 1976 at least two major conferences were held: one in Belgrade (2-6 August) and another in Zagreb (2-4 December). The former was in fact the fifth such seminar in Yugoslavia; this time its focus was the problem of children of migrants. The Zagreb meeting was an international conference devoted to international migration. Yugoslavia actively participates in various international projects and programs concerned with foreign workers and other international flows. Probably the most important of these is SOPEMI.1

International Migrations Prior to World War II When Yugoslavia was created in 1918 as a Kingdom of Serbs, Croats

and Slovenes, her territory included large numbers of ethnic minorities who had settled in these areas in past centuries. The most prominent among these were Hungarians, Germans, Turks and Albanians. Massive emigration from Austro-Hungary, which developed in the last two decades of the nineteenth century and lasted until World War I, affected areas which later became parts of Yugoslavia. As a result, many Yugoslavs (who initially maintained regional rather than national identity) were found outside their national territory. It is estimated that from 1903 to 1913 484,000 persons left for overseas - 44,000 from Serbia and Montenegro and 440,000 from Austro-Hungary. Since there was a very considerable return, the net loss may have amounted to 80,000.2 The total migration loss before World War I was undoubtedly higher. In the United States there were 169,000 Yugoslav-born in 1920.3 Principal countries of destination were the United States and those of western Europe with minor flows to Chile, Australia and New Zealand. Emigration consisted mostly of unskilled and poorly educated people from rural areas.

During the inter-war years economic emigration from Yugoslavia continued, particularly in the early 1920's. Total overseas overflow from

1. SOPEMI (Système d'Observation Permanente des Migrations) is a monitoring program organized by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1973. Fourteen participating countries submit annual reports which are later summarized by the OECD staff in Paris and published by its Directorate for Social Affairs, Manpower and Education. Translations of the OECD documents together with the original Yugoslav submissions were published by the Zagreb centre in the Rasprave o Migracijama series, nos. 6 and 7 (1974), no. 13 (1975), no. 26 (1976), no. 32 (1977).

2. W.J.. Langrod, Emigracja Jugostowiañska. (Warsaw, 1932). The figures for emigration are available for the whole period 1903-13. Repatriation data for three years only ( 1 908- 1 0) imply that the rate of return was 83 per cent. This proportion has been accepted as a base for the above estimate of net migration loss.

j. J. veiikonja, emigration, in Jugoslawien, edited by K.-D. urothusen (Oóttingen, 1975), p. 370.



316 I Canadian Slavonic Papers

1919 to 1940 was estimated at 203 ,000 but at the same time 11 4,000 persons returned to Yugoslavia.4 In addition, European migration led to a net loss of 50,000 for the period 1930-39 alone.5 Migration quotas introduced in the United States reduced the importance of this destination. France and (shortly before the war) Germany became rather important destinations. In 1939, 58,000 Yugoslav citizens, including 37,000 ethnic Germans, lived in Germany.6

Migrations Caused by World War ¡I Upheavals of the last world conflict were reflected in several large-

scale flows of population from Yugoslavia. The labour-hungry German war economy relied to a great extent on forced labour, including several hundred thousand Yugoslavs.7 Most of those who survived returned subsequently to their homes. Some, however, remained abroad and were soon joined by the new refugees unwilling to accept the far-reaching social and economic changes that were shaking Yugoslav society. The most drastic shocks affected Yugoslav Germans, many of whom initially welcomed the Nazis and later paid dearly for it. Of some 70,000 who volunteered or were drafted into the German armed forces, hardly any returned to their homes. German authorities undertook several transfers which included at least 36,000 ethnic Germans and 60,000 Yugoslavs. Since Yugoslavia was dismembered at that time and different parts were administered by various national governments, these flows can be considered as international, particularly since the moves were regulated by international agreements. In fact, some people moved between different regions.8

By the end of the war most of the remaining Yugoslav Volksdeutsche

4. Bitten (Centar za Istrazivanie Migratila). 1977. no. 1, d. 13. 5. Registration of European migration was introduced only in 1927. According to

official data for 1935-39, there were 132,144 emigrants and 49,863 re-emigrants. An additional 38,523 persons emigrated between 1927 and 1929 (Statist icki GodiSnjak Jugoslavi/e [Belgrade, 1940], pp. 1 37, 144). Unfortunately, 1 was unable to find the data for European re- emigration for these three years.

6. Die Bevölkerung des Deutschen Reichs nach den Ergehnissen der Volkszählung 1939, no. 5 (Berlin, 1943), pp. 6-7.

7. According to Velikonja (Jugoslawien, p. 378), there were 480,000 workers and 95,000 prisoners of war. These figures seem to be grossly exaggerated. A confidential source ("Arbeitseinsatz im Grossdeutschen Reich") mentions 103,000 Yugoslav workers as of 30 June 1944 (cited in E. Seeber, Rohotnicy Przymusowi w Faszystowskiej Gospodarce Wojennej [Warsaw, 1972], pp. 101-102) which seems to be a rather low figure as compared to later UNRRA statistics. E.M. Kulischer's figures for early 1943 refer to 250,000 civilian workers and 133,000 war prisoners {The Displacement of Population in Europe [Montreal, 1943], p. 160).

8. Three major transfers carried out during the war included the following: (i) 15,800 Volksdeutsche from the Italian part of Yugoslavia, mostly from the Kocevje: (Gottschee)



International Migration 1317

had fled the country. Their number may have approached 300,000.9 The remaining Germans were subject to rather harsh treatment, particularly during the first post-war years. Some 27,000-40,000 were deported by the Soviet authorities.10 The survivors of this group later arrived in Germany and Austria. According to the 1946 German census, there were 122,000 Yugoslav Volksdeutsche in occupied Germany. By 1950 their number had increased to 163,000 and the flow has continued since then. Austria has also become a country of asylum for 128,000 Yugoslav Germans.11

Other ethnic minorities were also affected by population transfers both during and after World War II. According to data from the Nürnberg trial, 58,000 Yugoslav Jews fell victim of deportations.12 The Hungarian government carried out the evacuation of 30,000 Hungarians from Belgrade and 30,000 from Croatia.13 These, together with 18,000 repatriates from Romanian regions of Bukovina, Bessarabia and Moldavia, were settled in northern Yugoslavia (part of present-day Vojvodina) which during the war had been incorporated into Hungary. By the end of the war all these settlers fled to Hungary proper. In September 1946 an agreement was signed by the Yugoslav and Hungarian governments providing for the exchange of 40,000 persons on each side but it is likely that in reality much smaller numbers were involved.14 Bulgarian incorporation of Yugoslav Macedonia was followed by the expulsion of those Serbs who settled there in the inter-war period.15 Boundary changes in coastal regions and the acquisition by Yugoslavia of

region, were transferred on the basis of the Italian-German agreement of 31 August 1941 to the nearby area from which some 35,000 Slovenes had been evicted. Two-thirds of these German transferees ended up in Austria. According to other sources, 13,100 ethnic Germans from Kocevje and some of the expelled Slovenes were settled in western Poland and General Gouvernement in January 1944. (ii) 17,900 Volksdeutsche from newly created Croatia (mainly from its Bosnia region) were transferred on the basis of the German-Croat agreement of 30 September 1942. (iii) 26,000 Slovenes and Croats from areas incorporated into Germany were moved to Croatia on the basis of the German-Croat agreement of 1 1 August 1943. In addition, 2,900 ethnic Germans from Serbia were transferred to General Gouvernement in 1941. These statistics are derived from A. Bohmann, Bevölkerung und Nationalitäten in Südosteuropa, Bd. 2 (Cologne, 1969), pp. 266-75; and J. Sobczak, Hitlerowskie Przesiedlenia Ludnosd Niemieckiej w Dobie II Wojny áwiatowej (Poznan, 1966), pp. 320-22.

9. G.C. Paikert, The Danube Swabians (The Hague, 1967). d. 285. 10. /bid., p. 288; and Bohmann, p. 275. J.B. Schechtman's figure of 100,000 deportees

( Postwar Population Transfers in Europe [Philadelphia, 19621, p. 272) is highly exaggerated. 11. Bohmann, p. 307. These figures are for 1950. 12. J. Levai, Eichmann in Ungarn (Budapest, 1961), p. 32. 13. J.B. Schechtman, European Population Transfers. 1939-1945 (New York, 1946), p.

436; and Bohmann, p. 31. 14. E.M. Kulischer, Europe on the Move (New York, 1948), p. 292. IX àome 43,000 Macedonian retugees were registered in Serbia in 1944. Schechtman,

European Population Transfers, p. 417.



318 I Revue Canadienne des Slavistes

the former Italian areas in Istria, cities of Rijeka (Fiume) and Zadar (Zara) and zone B of Trieste resulted in the outflow of hundreds of thousands of people to Italy.16

With the exception of 20,000 refugees from the Greek Civil War,17 the population flow during the early post-war years was largely out of Yugoslavia. The internal conflict of the war years and of the communist take-over produced a wave of political refugees who either fled the country or did not return from abroad. The composition of refugee flow was very heterogenous. It included some Russians who had settled in Yugoslavia after the October Revolution and who during World War II had sided with the Germans. The number of those who fled, has been estimated at 1 0,000. 18 Among the Yugoslav refugees there were active participants in the pro-Nazi Croat government, Serbian royalists and skeptical individuals who did not see eye-to-eye with the new régime. Their number has been estimated by western scholars at 100,00019 and by Yugoslav sources at 200,000.

Refugees and displaced persons found after the war in Europe were first taken care of by the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Agency (UNRRA). Of the 390,000 Yugoslavs registered by this organization, some 210,000 were repatriated before mid-1947.20 The International Refugee Organization (IRO), which operated between 1 July 1947 and 31 December 1951, repatriated 6,900 persons to Yugoslavia and resettled 82,100. Australia, the United States, Argentina, the United Kingdom and

16. Western estimates of the number of refugees bound for Italy vary from 30,000 (V. Niksa, "Population of Yugoslavia from Demographic, Sociological and National Point of View," manuscript prepared for Mid-European Studies Center, New York, 1953) to 350,000 (P.F. Rocchi, "Unterbringung der Flüchtlinge aus Istrien, Fiume und Dalmatien in Italien/' AWR Bulletin, XIV [1967], nos. 2-3, 102). One reason for this discrepancy is that some authors include only pre-war Yugoslav Italians; others talk about the total outflow from the area acquired by Yugoslavia after World War II. Another reason is that refugees from Zone B of the former Free City of Trieste are not always included. Finally, some authors include Italians only while others take into consideration Yugoslavs as well. The generally accepted figure is 300,000. See for example, C. Gini, "570,000 National and International Refugees in Italy," Integration, I (1954), no. 1, 21; and G. Valussi, "La Fonction Internationale de la Frontière Italo- Yougoslave," Cahiers de Géographie de Québec, XVIII (1974), no. 43, 65. Yugoslav estimates range between 160,000 and 200,000. This figure includes Croat refugees (50,000-80,000) who fled the area and 1 10,000-120,000 persons (two-thirds of them Italian and one-third Croats) who opted for Italy between 1945 and 1964. The number of Slovenian optants did not exceed 20,000.

17. Kuhscher, Europe on the Move, p. zV3. 1 8. Niksa, p. 1 27. This represents a considerable proportion ot the 26,800 Russians wno,

according to the 1931 census, formerly lived in Yugoslavia. See International Labour Office, World Statistics of Aliens, no. 6 (1936), p. 138.

19. Kulischer, Europe on the Move, p. 303. 20. H. Harmsen, Die Integration Heimatloser Ausianaer una rNicniaeuiscner

Flüchtlinge in Westdeutschland," Intergration, V (1958), 123.




Canada were the principal countries of destination for Yugoslav refugees and displaced persons.21

The net result of all these movements was a migrational loss of some 800,000 which compounded civilian and military losses of an estimated 1 ,800,000 persons during the war.22 In only a few years, high fertility was to compensate for these losses and eventually to produce a surplus.

Post-war Migration Immediately after World War II various countries of Europe

attempted to call back former emigrants in order to compensate for war losses. Yugoslavia apparently attracted some 16,000 between 1945 and 1951, of whom 24 per cent came from France, 11 per cent each from Argentina and Canada, 9 per cent from Germany, 8 per cent from Australia, 7 per cent from Belgium and 5 per cent from the United States.23 On the other hand, some 18,000 Polish settlers, some of whom had been residing in Yugoslavia since the late nineteenth century, moved to Poland on the basis of an international agreement signed in January 1946.24 In the late 1940's and early 1950's, the outflow from Yugoslavia was insignificant and mostly in the form of illegal political emigration. The earlier refugees and displaced persons concentrated in various camps (mostly on German and Austrian soil) were transferred to countries of second asylum which explains the large inflow of Yugoslavs into Canada, the United States and Australia at that time.

Despite the massive outflow of ethnic Germans, some still remained in Yugoslavia. Their legal and economic position was most precarious, especially prior to 1948, and the tendency to emigrate was quite understandable. The special program initiated in 1952 and executed under the auspices of the International Red Cross provided for the legal emigration of the remaining Volksdeutsche, apparently against a high fee for each exit permit. Several thousand persons took advantage of this opportunity.25 According to a special agency which looks after German refugees (Spätaussiedler), and which maintains camps for those seeking assistance, almost 86,000 ethnic Germans from Yugoslavia registered between 1950 and 1976 (Table I). Another ethnic group enjoying special

21. L.W. Rolborn, The International Refugee Organization (London, 1956), pp. 363 and 439.

22. D. Vogelnik, "Demografski Gubici Jugoslavie u Drugom Svetskom Ratu," Statistica Revi/a, I (1952), no. 2, 30.

23. Bitten, 1977, no. 1, p. 14. 24. K. Kersten, "Ksztaltowanie Stosunków Ludnosciowych," in Polska Ludowa 1944-

1955 (Wroclaw, 1974), p. 144. 25. Paikert, p. 290.




TABLE I Immigrants from Yugoslavia in Selected Countries

after World War II (in thousands)

Country of Yugoslav Yugoslav Yugoslav Ethnic destination Data Years born citizens residents Yugoslavs

Canada A 1945-1965 62.5 34.5 25.7 53.0 A 1966-1975 45.4 43.0 32.3 - A 1945-1975 107.9 77.5 58.0 -

USA A 1946-1974 143.7 - 46.0 -

Australia A Jan. 1945-June 1976 - 177.6 111.8 - A Jan. 1959-June 1976 - 140.5 93.9 - C Jan. 1959-June 1976 - 133.2 89.0 - C Jan. 1959-June 1973 135.7 124.3 80.0 -

Israel A May 1948-1975 8.4* - - -

Turkey A 1946-1972 - - 183.4 -

FR Germany B 1954-1975 - 1487.8 1487.8 - C 1954-1975 - 641.6 641.6 - E 1950-1976 - - 85.7 -

Austria D 1956-1975 - 48.7 48.7 -

France B 1951-1974 - 111.8 111.8 -

Sweden C 1963-1976 - 31.6 - -

UK C 1951-1975 - 9.5 9.5 -

Notes: A - immigrants admitted B - total arrivals (including workers) C - net gain (difference between arrivals and departures) D - refugees admitted E - ethnic Germans admitted to refugee camps in the Federal Republic * - including potential immigrants

Sources: Canada -immigration Statistics, 1954-75 (title varies), and data obtained in 1977 from the Canada Employment and

Immigration Commission USA -Statistical Abstract, 1954-58, and Annual Report of the

immigration and Naturalization Service, 1966-74 Australia -Australian immigration: Consolidated Statistics, 1973, and

Overseas Arrivals and Departures, 1973-76 Israel - immigration to Israel, 1948-72, and data obtained in 1976

from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics

Turkey - Türkiye ¡Statistik Yilligi 1953, 1959, 1960-62, 1973 FR Germany -Statistisches Jahrbuch, 1955-77, and data obtained from

Bundesausgleichsamt in 1976 Austria - Statistisches Handbuch für die Republik Österreich, 1957-76 France - Annuaire statistique de la France, 1966-76 Sweden - Bilten, 1976, no. 11, prilog p. 6. UK - Control of immigration Statistics, 1939-75 (title varies)




rights to emigrate were the Turks. The Turkish-Yugoslav protocol of 5 January 1950, followed by an agreement of 31 July 1954, provided a legal base for this outflow which, according to Turkish data, numbered 183,400 persons from 1946 to 1972 (Table I). Although the agreement specifically concerned the Turks and not the Slavic Muslims, some of the latter apparently took advantage of this opportunity.26

The only exceptional inflow of foreign refugees came in 1957 when some 20,000 Hungarians left their country. Most of these refugees subsequently left Yugoslavia.

Permanent migration accounts for only part of the international flow. Another important component is represented by a temporary migration of workers.

According to official statistics, 371,000 persons left permanently for abroad between 1953 and 1971 as compared to 23,000 arrivals which resulted in a net loss of some 348,000 (Table II).27 The major component of this flow was the emigration of the remaining ethnic Germans and the Turks. The net migration loss represented 7.7 per cent of the natural increase during the same period. My own estimate, however, based on comparison of census/ registration data and the number of births and deaths, seems to indicate that the actual loss was twice as high, i.e., 17.5 per cent of the natural increase during this period (Table II). Similar comparisons made for the intercensal period 1953-61 by the Yugoslav authors have led to similar conclusions: the net loss of 228,000 persons established by emigration statistics was considerably lower than the loss implied by the residual estimate - 545,000. It has been suggested that the difference could be explained by three factors: undercount of emigration (50,000), under-registration of population by the 1963 census (130,000) and overestimates of fertility (137,000).28 Whatever the reasoning, there is no doubt that Yugoslavia suffered a considerable loss of population as a result of external migration and that the official emigration data do not fully reflect this loss.

26. The number of Turks in Yugoslavia declined between the 1953 and the 1961 censuses by 76,500 but at the same time Turkey accepted nearly 152,000 Yugoslav immigrants. This difference is too great to be explained bv natural increase alone.

27. It should be emphasized that the distinction between temporary and permanent migrants is a difficult one to make and that the accuracy of the official estimates has been questioned even in Yugoslav literature. See, for example, I. BauSié, Radnici u Inozemstvu Prema Popisu Stanovniïtva Jugoslavie 1971 (Zagreb, 1973), p. 25.

28. Institut DruStvenih Nauka, Migraci/e Stanovnistva Jugoslavije (Belgrade, 1971), p. 41.




TABLE II

External Migration in Yugoslavia, 1953-71

Years . . . . . . - Offici statistic ' Immigration

. . Emigration

. . Net migration

. .

1953 350 13,450 -13,100 1954 500 17,925 -17,425 1955 1,612 51,543 -49,931 1956 2,489 54,862 -52,373 1957 5,459 57,070 -51,611 1958 1,133 41,426 -40,293 1959 980 27,840 -26,860 1960 900 23,182 -22,282 1961 739 11,418 -10,679 1962 618 7,891 - 7,273 1963 932 8,661 - 7,729 1964 728 7,107 - 6,379 1965 1,207 9,071 - 7,864 1966 907 10,684 - 9,777 1967 1,154 8,774 - 7,620 1968 1,034 9,205 - 8,171 1969 992 6,665 - 5,673 1970 503 3,804 - 3,301 1971 (provisional 485 514 - 29

data) Total 1953-71 22,722 371,092 -348,370

Estimate based on residual method 1953-7 11 x x -790,000

'Migration loss was estimated as a difference between total change of population (3,727,000) and natural increase during the same period of time (4,517,000).

Source: Statisticki Godisnjak Jugoslavie (Belgrade, 1972), p. 77.

Large-scale temporary migration began in the mid-1960's when the Yugoslav government officially opened the borders for temporary labourers. This decision was influenced by increasing unemployment linked with the new economic reform introduced in 1965 which increased the efficiency of labour and reduced the demand. In addition, over 1 10,000 young people were entering the labour market every year between 1960 and 1969 while the number of new jobs was less than 30,000.29 Germany, Austria and France became the principal countries of destination, but very

29. I. Baucié, Porijeklo i Struktura Radnika iz Jugoslavie (Zagreb, 1970), p. 108.




soon eager Yugoslav workers found their way to other European as well as overseas countries. Officially they were considered temporary migrants and consequently are not included in the statistics on foreign migration.

Outflow of temporary workers is regulated by a number of agreements between the Yugoslav and other governments. In fact, national employment agencies in cooperation with foreign employers, were recruiting Yugoslav workers for jobs abroad. Difficulties on the domestic labour market and a sizable wage differential provided powerful incentive not only for the unemployed but also for the skilled and employed personnel. The number of Yugoslav workers employed in western Europe increased rapidly from 90,000 in 1963 to a peak of 830,000 in 1973.30 There was, in addition, increasing emigration overseas.

According to the 1971 census, there were 672,000 Yugoslavs abroad; contemporary estimates based on statistics from the countries of destination, however, put this figure at 790,000. The apparent undercount was thus in the order of 1 5 per cent: 48 per cent for overseas countries and 8 per cent for Europe (Table III). Over one-half of all migrants originated from two republics - Croatia (34 per cent) and Bosnia-Herzegovina (19 per cent) with the former over-represented in West Germany, Switzerland and overseas (over one-half of Yugoslav immigrants to Canada came from Croatia), and the latter in Austria and West Germany. While migrants from Serbia proper accounted for 17 per cent of all leavers, they made up 58 per cent of Yugoslavs leaving for France. This indicates that the traditional ties between Serbia and France still persisted. Among enumerated absentees, nearly two-thirds have left since 1969. This may indicate a recent acceleration of migration (confirmed by other sources) and a return of most migrants after two or three years, but it may also reflect under-enumeration of those who left earlier and severed all ties with their place of origin.31 The proportion of women employed abroad (31.4 per cent) was similar to that at home but the age composition differed markedly with one-quarter of the migrants in the 20 to 24 age group. It appeared that at the time of the census over 10 per cent of all Yugoslavs between the ages of 20 and 29 were abroad.32

30. I. Baucié, "Some Economic Consequences of Yugoslav External Migration," in Demographic Developments in Eastern Europe, edited by L.A. Kosiriski (New York, 1977), p. 272.

31. Baucic, from whose extensive analysis of the 1971 census these figures are derived, is highly critical of the census information concerning date of departure and has suggested that contrary to requirements many enumerators listed the date of last departure (after for example a holiday in Yugoslavia) rather than the date of leaving for employment. See Radnici, pp. 38-40.

32. /bid., pp. 45-46.




TABLE III

Yugoslav Workers Abroad in 1971 (in thousands)

According to Apparent the Yugoslav Estimate of Undercount

Countries of Destination Census, 1971 I. Baucic %

Austria 83.0 90.0 7.8 Benelux 7.4 11.0 33.1 FR Germany 411.5 436.5 5.7 France 37.0 39.5 6.4 Sweden 16.4 22.5 27.3 Switzerland 21.2 25.0 15.2 Other European countries 14.1 15.5 9.2 Unknown European countries 64 7J0 8.0

Total in Europe 596.9 647.0 7.7

Australia 40.2 60.0 33.1 Canada 13.6 41.0 66.9 United States 16.4 33.0 50.4 Other overseas countries 4.1 8.0 48.6 Unknown overseas countries CL8 L5 46.0

Total overseas 75X) 143.5 47.7

Grand total 671.9 7905 15.0

Source: Ivo Bauoié, Radnici u Inozemstvu Prema Popisu Stanovnistva Jugoslavie 1971 (Zagreb, 1973), p. 26.

Insofar as their educational status was concerned, persons with secondary and post-secondary education and those without formal schooling were under-represented, but qualified workers were over- represented. It appeared that the activity rate of migrants increased as a result of the move. There was also a considerable shift from agricultural (57 per cent of migrants were farming prior to their move) to non- agricultural activities. Since almost 170,000 migrants held various industrial jobs prior to emigration, their departure undoubtedly left a gap. Ivo Baucié has pointed out that even the less developed regions of Yugoslavia have supplied considerable numbers of highly qualified personnel.

Comparison of various ethnic groups (regardless of their residence) indicated that Romanians and Croats were the most mobile (9 per cent and 5.8 per cent respectively were abroad as compared to the national average of 3.3 per cent) while the migration rate of Montenegrins and Serbs was



International Migration I 325

the lowest (1 per cent and 1.1 per cent respectively). Migration rates, destinations and composition of migrants differed markedly between the communes. The highest proportion of emigrants was found in central, eastern and coastal Croatia (maximum of 18.6 per cent was reached in the commune of Imotski), eastern Slovenia, north-eastern Serbia and western Macedonia. It appeared that recent migrants came from the central and south-eastern parts of Yugoslavia, previously less affected by the outflow. This would suggest changes in the spatial pattern and diffusion of migration propensity throughout the country.33

According to Baucié, the total number of Yugoslavs employed reached 4.7 million in 1971 of whom 860,000 or 18.3 per cent worked abroad. This proportion varied considerably between the republics from about 10 per cent in Montenegro, Slovenia and Serbia proper to over 25 per cent in Croatia and Bosnia- Herzegovina (see Figure I34). This variation explains the differences in the concern of the various republics with the problem of migrant-workers.

About the same time a survey was carried out among the Croatian workers spending their 1970 Christmas holidays at home.35 This survey provided insights into the motives of the migrants and their further plans. It appeared that only one-quarter were unemployed before emigrating and over one-half had quit their jobs at home in order to take advantage of higher earnings abroad. Although most of the latter possessed marketable skills, many complained that their qualifications were not sufficient for foreign employment. The desire to improve their housing conditions was given as a chief motive for emigration by 38 per cent of those interviewed. It appeared that many of the houses subsequently built at home were uneconomic, frequently erected on unsuitable sites, and then abandoned after construction was terminated. The authors suggested that often construction was prompted by reasons of social prestige rather than by actual needs. Only 8 per cent of the emigrant workers invested their savings in buying land or improving farm production.

Wage differentials continued to be an important motive for emigration. In 1970 the net monthly earnings of emigrant workers ($264) were two and a half times higher than average earnings in Croatia. Asked about their future plans, 8 per cent indicated that they were planning to spend the rest of their active lives abroad; 16 per cent did not know when they would return; and 76 per cent gave precise or approximate dates of

jj. /ma., p. y«. 34. This figure comes from I. Baucic, The Effects of Emigration from Yugoslavia and

the Problem of Returning Emigrant Workers (The Hague, 1972), p. 13. J!>. I. Bauõic and Z. Maravié, Vracanje i Zaposljavanje Vanjskih Migranata iz S.R.

Hrvatske (Zagreb, 1971).




o ^ ^ 2 § s. S S: * 2- §" S" 3 ?

1 5" &*

tí

»O _ (^ I.J OwO<û«yi<û-4

is^ o s^ s;- Sì §

OB3> m -H ¿H g O O "2. 5. 5.

S- i t /), pi Äff1

"* /c

S. /O--,

M'

m 3

- o

S- S = 2 5- % p- ■< -

c

s* - » - i în. y'




planned return. Apparently they were prepared to accept an average wage at home 45 per cent lower ($145 per month) than their present average earning, but this was still 45 per cent more than the existing level of wages in Croatia. At the time of the survey, various Croatian employers offered jobs to the visiting migrant workers. Out of 12,400 offers (at an average monthly pay of $115), only 134 had been accepted by the end of February 1971 (an additional 260 workers agreed to accept employment at a later date). This situation pointed out an imbalance between the shortage of

TABLE IV

Yugoslav Workers in European Countries 1969-75 (in thousands)

Principal destination

countries 19691 19722 19743 19754 19774

FR Germany 265 472 470 455 400 Austria 45.5 165 166 145 140 France 43 50 60 65 70 Switzerland 21 n.d. 26 26 30 Sweden 14 24 28 25 30 Netherlands 3 9 9.5 12 10 Denmark n.d. 4.3 n.d 4.65 5 UK 2.5 n.d 3.5 n.d 3

Belgium 3J> ruj 3 n.d 5

Total (including other 420 730 (?) 770 (?) 770 705 European countries)

Total according to the estimate of Narodna 430 760 790 n.d. n.d. Banka Jugoslavie6

Sources: 1. Total: estimate of Centar za Istrazivanje Migracija, Rasprave o Migraci jama, no. 6 (1974), p. 28; figures by countries, M. Livi-Bacci and H.rM. Hagmann, Report on the Demographic and Social Pattern of Migrants in Europe (Strasbourg, 1971), p. 7.

2. Estimate by Organisation de la Coopération et de Développement Economiques, Les Ministres du Travail et les Problèmes de l'Emploi, I (Paris, 1976), 128.

3. SOPEMI estimate in Rasprave o Migraci/ama, no. 26 (1976), p. 73. 4. Data obtained from the Centar za Istrazivanje Migracija. 5. Bitten, 1976, nos. 8-9, p. 5. 6. Baució, Demographic Developments in Eastern Europe, p. 272.




labour (especially skilled) in Croatia and a high rate of emigration. The existing vacuum was partially filled by migrants from less developed regions of Yugoslavia. However, migrants from these regions also preferred to go abroad rather than to other regions of the federation.

The number of temporary workers abroad has increased somewhat since 1971 but subsequent economic difficulties in the receiving countries have resulted in a reverse flow and a reduction of their number (Table IV). The total number of Yugoslavs in various European countries by the end of 1977 was estimated by the Centar za Istraíivanje Migracijaat 1,018,000, including 705,000 workers.

A special type of arrangement for temporary workers deserves particular mention. Some Yugoslav companies undertake projects for foreign customers and execute these projects (mostly construction) employing their own labour. The number of workers involved in these projects increased from 12,900 in 1969 to 22,000 in 1974 and later declined to 19,700 in 1976. Of these, 13,500 were employed in various European countries (5,000 in West Germany, 4,300 in Czechoslovakia, 2,100 in the Netherlands and 800 in East Germany). Over 6,000 worked overseas: 2,400 in Asia and 3,400 in Africa. One-third of these workers came from Serbia proper and one-third from Croatia.36

Principal Countries of Destination After World War II the overseas emigration went mostly to Australia,

the United States and Canada. Among the European countries, West Germany, Austria and France have attracted most Yugoslav migrants (see Table I).

By far the largest flow of the Yugoslav migrants went in recent years to West Germany. It began even before the formal agreement was signed with Yugoslavia. The numbers have increased rapidly, particularly in the late 1960's with over 200,000 arrivals per annum, and reached their peak in 1974 when 708,000 Yugoslav citizens were resident in Germany.37 The decision taken in November 1973 to discontinue further hiring of foreign workers from non-Common Market countries led to a reduction in the number of Yugoslavs to 585,000 in September 1976.38 However, the flow did not stop completely and the numbers involved are still quite considerable (Table IV).

Despite the rotation of workers, the greater stabilization and gradual

36. Bilten, 1977, no. 5, pp. 7-10. 37. Statistisches Jahrbuch für Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Wiesbaden, 1975), p. 65. 38. Wirtschaft und Statistik (Wiesbaden, 1976), p. 764*. German policy, as announced

in June 1976, envisaged an extension on the ban on hiring foreign labour, encouragement to return migrants, and facilitation of integration for those who stay (Bilten, 1976, no. 10, p. 12).




aging of Yugoslav (and other foreign) populations lead to interesting demographic and social consequences. Mixed marriages as well as marriages of Yugoslavs contracted in Germany are increasing. From 1965 to 1975 the number of marriages with Germans increased from 990 to 3,282, wherein two-thirds represent couples with a German bridegroom. In 1975, 2,473 children were born in mixed families, nearly two-thirds with German fathers, as compared to 644 in 1965 when Yugoslav fathers predominated. In addition there were 13,389 children born to Yugoslav parents (ten years earlier there were 697) and 322 illegitimate children to Yugoslav mothers.39 The increasing number of foreign-speaking children call for appropriate measures in the field of education. In September 1975 there were 97,000 Yugoslav children in West Germany.40 At the beginning of 1976, 31,300 Yugoslav children attended German schools (26,100 primary and 5,200 secondary schools) of whom 53 per cent were enrolled in bilingual schools where Serbo-Croatian was used to a considerable degree.41 Nine-tenths of all children were from three republics - Croatia, Serbia and Macedonia. The number of Yugoslav children in German schools increased recently, partly as a result of restrictions on the further impact of labour but more liberal attitude to the immigration of families. In 1968-69 there were only 3,700 children enrolled.42

Austria is a neighbouring country linked by common history with northern regions of Yugoslavia and her foreign workers come mainly from that country. Proximity makes it easy to commute and the number of workers fluctuates from one month to the next. Their number reached its peak at the end of 1973 (195,500) and declined to 130,400 in December 1976. This represented 70 per cent of all foreign workers in Austria. One- half of the Yugoslavs are concentrated in Vienna.43

In the early post-war years Austria became a meeting ground for many refugees from the Balkan area. According to official Austrian sources, 171,000 refugees from Yugoslavia were registered at the beginning of 1948 as compared to 131,900 in mid- 1951 and 54,200 in mid- 1956. Most of them were German-speaking. The number of foreign speakers was estimated at 31,500, 15,500 and 9,500 respectively.44 This decline can be explained by emigration, death and naturalization. Refugees, however, continued to arrive after 1956 and some 49,000 have been admitted during the last twenty years. Many of these subsequently

39. Wirtschaft und Statistik, 1977, p. 137*. 40. Bitten, 1976, no. 12, p. 12. 41. Ibid., 1977, no. 1, p. 6. 42. ihid., IV/5, nos. cw, p. W. 43. Ibid., 1977, no. 1, pp. 1 1-12; no. 3, p. 3. 44. H. Helczmanovszki, "Flüchtlinge und Heimatvertnebene in der österreichischen

Statistik," A WR Bulletin, XIII (1975), nos. 2-4, 170.




left but some were integrated into the host society. In fact, nearly 13,000 Yugoslav citizens were naturalized in Austria after 1948 (Tables I, IV, V).

France attracted Yugoslav workers during the inter-war years but their numbers were insignificant. After World War II, only 2,100 Yugoslav refugees were settled there by the International Refugee Organization.45 Some refugees were obviously admitted without the offices of IRO since their number was estimated at 14,100 in 1963 and 7,080 in 1973.46 Before 1963, the number of Yugoslav workers admitted to France was minute; a certain increase was noticeable in 1963-64, but it was only after the 1965 Franco- Yugoslav agreement that the numbers of newly admitted began to exceed 10,000 per annum. The total number of arrivals was close to 112,000 (1951-74), including family members but not including 4,060 seasonal workers admitted from 1964. Most workers are concentrated in the Paris region. In 1973 France stopped the immigration of workers and their families except for those from Common Market countries. As a result, inflow of Yugoslavs declined from 7,300 in 1972 and 9,000 in 1973 to 2,100 in 1974 and 800 in 1975.47 Further measures were adopted in September 1977. The granting of work permits to foreigners is to be definitely stopped and cash inducements to get unemployed immigrants to go back to their countries are to be extended to all foreign workers who have been in France for a minimum of five years.48 At the beginning of 1976 there were 77,800 Yugoslav citizens in France.49 Over 9,000 Yugoslavs were naturalized between 1961 and 1974 (Tables I, IV and V).

Very few Yugoslavs resided in Sweden until the mid-1960's. In fact, in 1960 there were only 1,500 Yugoslav-born of whom 1,300 kept Yugoslav citizenship. As a result of rapid immigration, the number of the latter increased to 40,400 in 1974.50 Generous social provisions and a generally positive attitude facilitates integration. Between 1959 and 1975, 4,500 Yugoslavs acquired Swedish citizenship. For the first time foreign workers, including 24,400 Yugoslavs, were permitted to vote in the local and regional elections of 19 September 1976. Voting participation of Yugoslavs was lower than that of Swedes (55 and 92 per cent respectively). It is interesting that the Yugoslav vote went to the left to a much greater degree than the Swedish vote. Among the Yugoslavs, 93 per cent of the workers and 87 per cent of the middle class voted for communist and socialist parties (Swedes 69 per cent and 41 per cent respectively).51

45. Holborn, p. 439. 46. Velikonja in Jugoslawien, p. 380. 47. Bitten. 1975, no. 4, pp. 1-2; 1976, no. 5, p. 1. 48. U Monde, 29 September 1977. 49. Bitten, 1977, no. 3, p. I. 50. Statisti.sk arshok for Svenge (Stockholm, ivoo ana iv/dj. 51. Bitten, 1977, no. 3, pp. 6-7.




Switzerland is another major destination for Yugoslav workers; in 1975, 34,300 Yugoslavs resided there.52 Unlike Sweden, Switzerland does not encourage full integration and prefers the guest workers to maintain temporary status. Restrictions on recruitment of foreign workers were introduced in July 1975.

53 Only 670 Yugoslavs were naturalized during the

last decade (Table V). Turkey is a special case. Although herself a major supplier of

temporary labour, Turkey has traditionally admitted Yugoslav Muslims. After Bosnia and Herzegovina came under Austrian rule, some 170,000 Muslim Slavs left this area from 1878 to 1901. 54 United Yugoslavia discouraged emigration of Slavs but allowed the outflow of her Turkish minority. Nearly 20,000 emigrants left Yugoslavia for Turkey during the inter-war years (1927-39).55 A Yugoslav-Turkish agreement of July 1938 provided for the repatriation of 150,000 Turks in the course of the next six years but the war prevented its implementation. Emigration picked up after 1953 as a result of inter-governmental agreements expressed in the initial protocol of 5 January 1950 followed by a final agreement signed 31 July 1954. From 1956 to 1958 more than 30,000 emigrated each year and the outflow has continued into the 1970's. The total number of Yugoslav immigrants admitted by Turkey after World War II exceeds 180,000 (Table I). It is widely believed that in addition to Turks the outflow includes gypsies and some Muslim Slavs.56

Israel was reached by some 8,000 survivors of the Yugoslav Jewish community (Table I).

The United States was the principal overseas destination prior to World War I and her attraction has been maintained until the present time. Velikonja distinguishes four principal flows: massive economic migration from 1880 to 1914 (some 350,000); reduced economic migration after World War I from 1918-24 (some 50,000); refugees and displaced persons admitted on the basis of special legislation passed in 1948, 1953, 1960 and 1965 (some 50,000) most of whom came from 1950-52 and 1956- 57; and economic migration after 1966.57

52. Ibid., 1976, no. II, p. 8. 53. G. Klemt, "Wohnungs- und Raumordnungsprobleme Ausländischer Arbeit-

nehmer in Europäischer Licht," A WR Bulletin, XIV (1976), nos. 2-3, 62. 54. N. Mirkovich, "Die Bevölkerungsentwicklung Jugoslawiens und das Problem der

Agrarischen Übervölkerung," Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, L (1939), no. I, p. 133. 55. Statist ick i GodiXnjak, 1940, p. 137. 56. Velikonja in Jugoslawien, p. 381. 57. /hid, p. 370. Some of the figures cited by Velikonja are open to question since he

does not seem to appreciate the size of return flows. According to Yugoslav official statistics, total outflow to the United States from 1919 to 1939 amounted to 74,500 but at the same time return flow was estimated at 81,800 which suggests that there was a net gain by Yugoslavia. See Statisticki GodiSnjak, 1940; and Langrod.




The total number of Yugoslav-born immigrants amounted to over 140,000 after World War II, but only 46,000 gave Yugoslavia as their former residence (Table I). This discrepancy can easily be explained by the following factors: Yugoslav-born included members of ethnic minorities, particularly ethnic Germans; and, a considerable number of immigrants spent some time in another country before moving on to the United States. In fact, in 1971-72 only 47 per cent of Yugoslav-born came directly from Yugoslavia. Over 60,000 Yugoslav citizens became naturalized after World War II (Table V).58

TABLE V

Naturalization of Yugoslav Citizens after World War II

Country of naturalization Years Numbers

Canada 1945 - 1975 54,830 USA 1946 - 1974 60,461 Australia Jan. 1945 - June 1975 68,879 Austria 1948 - 1975 12,766 (no data for 1952) France 1961 - 1974 9,274 Sweden 1959 - 1975 4,903 Switzerland 1966 - 1975 670 UK 1946 - 1975 4,149

Sources: Canada -Canada Year Book, 1947-52/53, and Canadian Citizenship Statistics

USA - Statistical Abstract, 1950-58, and Annual Report of the

Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1966-74 Australia - Year Book Australia, 1975-76 Austria - Statistisches Handbuch für die Republik Österreich, 1951-76 France - Annuaire Statistique de la France, 1962-74 Sweden - Bilten, 1976, and Statistisk arsbok, 1964-75 Switzerland - Statistisches Jahrbuch der Schweiz, 1969-76 UK - Annual Abstract of Statistics, 1955-75

During the post-war period Canada has admitted over 100,000 Yugoslav-born. Canadian immigration sources allow a more detailed analysis (Figure 2). This in turn will make it clear how the discussion is influenced by the available data. Immigrants to Canada have been classified according to the country of birth, country of last permanent

58. The US census in 1970 enumerated 153,700 Yugoslav-born and 293,500 American- born of Yugoslav-born parents. Velikonja in Jugoslowien, p. 370.




residence, citizenship and (until 1966) ethnic origin. None of these criteria is fully satisfactory and reliance on any of them gives somewhat different results. Of the 106,000 Yugoslav-born, some were members of ethnic minorities. Not all Yugoslavs entering the country came directly from Yugoslavia and not all retained their citizenship; hence the number of Yugoslav residents (56,000) and of Yugoslav citizens (75,000) are undoubtedly too low. There were 53,000 ethnic Yugoslavs admitted but these data are not available after 1967. Comparison of all four sets of statistics suggests that in earlier years Yugoslav-born were nearly all citizens (until 1953) but not necessarily ethnic Yugoslavs (before 1958). Most of them declared Yugoslavia as a country of last permanent residence. Between the mid-1950's and the mid-1960's, there was a considerable discrepancy between the number of Yugoslav-born (and ethnic Yugoslavs), on one hand, and Yugoslav citizens on the other hand. The number of citizens was closely related to those coming directly until 1963. By 1971 two criteria (birth place and citizenship) yielded similar results. However, there was always somewhat fewer direct movers and the difference is increasing. A sizable proportion of Yugoslavs comes from other countries (mostly Austria and Germany). Of those who settled in Canada, 55,000 became naturalized during the three post-war decades (Table V).

In Australia, Southern Slavs first appeared in noticeable numbers at the end of the nineteenth century. By 1947 there still were only 5,900 Yugoslav-born in the country. C. A. Price, in his detailed study,59 provides data on regional origin of Mediterranean migrants. It appears that of 6,000 men admitted between 1890-1940 the majority came from coastal Dalmatia (3,230), 640 from Croatia-Slavonia, 150 from Slovenia, 140 from Montenegro, 90 from Bosnia-Herzegovina and only 80 from Serbia. The other relatively strongly represented region of emigration was Macedonia with 1,290 migrants. The large-scale inflow began after World War II when Australia opened its doors to war refugees and displaced persons. The first post-war waves consisted mostly of Catholic Croats and Slovenians as well as minority members (Italians and Hungarians); Serbs represented only about a quarter.60 After 1953 the refugees were replaced by free economic migrants whose flow continued throughout the next two decades. Total net migration gain was 112,000 Yugoslav residents or 178,000 Yugoslav citizens (Table I). Sixty-nine thousand took up Australian citizenship (Table V).

59. C.A. Price, Southern Europeans in Australia (Melbourne, 1963), pp. 22-23. 6U. fc.K Kunz, Refugees and hastern huropeans in Australia, in Australian

Immigration: A Bibliography and Digest, edited by C.A. Price (Canberra, 1970), p. A55.




Figure 1

Yugoslav immigrants admitted to Canada 1946-1975 Source: Canadian immigration statistics

• • According to birthplace a a According to country of citizenship x x According to ethnicity (1946-1966) e • According to last permanent residence (1954- )

Number of immigrants 7000 r • •

/' A

/ ,4 /'

1 6000 - |'

/ ; '' ! '

I '' i V 5000 - ¡H M?

/Í / :

4000 - lì I ' . I i : A

IMA Jn 'i, *>oo- f''! h;{'n v i ; *'

J 'l ' ' /»-«■ 1000 - f x ' ' ^^.-.^^A-'.ê-.ê:^/

o ^^ . . ■ i i i i i i ■ i i ■ i i i i i i ■ ■ ' ' i ■ » ■ ■ *

1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 Year

Neighbouring New Zealand also has a Yugoslav community, albeit a very small one. The first Dalmatians arrived in the nineteenth century, but prior to 1920 there was a considerable return migration.61 In 1976 there were 3,870 Yugoslav-born in the country.62

Some Consequences of Emigration and Return of Migrants Space does not permit a full discussion of the economic, demographic

61. A.D. Trlin, "The Yugoslavs," in Immigrants in New Zealand, edited by K..W. Thomson and A.D. Trlin (Palmerston North, 1970), pp. 65-99.

62. Bilten, 1977, no. 5, p. 17.




and social consequences for both Yugoslavia and the receiving countries. It is hoped, however, that the selective discussion which follows will highlight the complexity and diversity of this problem.

Contrary to expectations, the outflow of temporary workers, which is the most conspicuous component of post-war migration did not include just the unemployed but also affected skilled personnel. This gave rise to considerable concern among Yugoslav experts.63 Emigration first affected urban areas and only later spread into rural regions - a fact which does not surprise migration scholars, but is nevertheless not necessarily desirable from the Yugoslav point of view. The outflow was socially disruptive; separated families were adversely affected. President Tito was concerned about the "hostile ideological influences" which workers could be exposed to abroad and about the loss of 300,000 potential conscripts which represented "three full armies."64

On the other hand, remittances sent from abroad have played a very important role in the balance of payments. They increased from $41,000,000 to $1,696,000,000 between 1963 and 1975; in 1974-75 they represented close to 22 per cent of all foreign currency earnings as compared to 4.4 per cent in 1963. Since 1969 remittances have consistently exceeded income from foreign tourism, a not inconsiderable item in itself, and recently they have been more than twice as high.65 Nevertheless, the eventual return of most migrants has always been deemed desirable and public debates as well as various government actions have been aimed at maintaining contact with temporary emigrants. The recent growth of unemployment in western Europe has caused a drastic decline in demand and, in fact, more Yugoslavs return than leave for abroad. The exact figures are difficult to obtain since not all flows are fully controlled but the following estimates have been made.66

1973 100,000 left 30,000 returned 1974 20,000 left 80,000 returned 1 975 1 5,000 left 65,000 returned 1976 20,000 left 55,000 returned The domestic economy cannot cope with this inflow and, despite an

increase in totar employment, the numbers and rates of unemployment

63. I. Baucié, "Yugoslavia as a Country of Emigration/* in International Migration (Paris, 1974), p. 262.

64. G.W. Hoffman, "Migration and Social Change," Problems of Communism, XXI 1, no. 6 (November-December 1973), 30.

65. Baucic in Demographic Development in Eastern Europe, p. 272; Rasprave o Migraci/ama, no. 32 (1977), p. 19.

uu. t'uòpruvtr u migraci/ama, nu. zo 1 1 y /o;, p. oz; no. jz 1 1^ ' ' )-, P- jo; ana aaia ouiainea from the Center za Istrazivanje Migracija.




keep increasing.67 Number of Percentage of job seekers unemployment

1973 381,600 8.9 1974 448,600 9.9 1975 540,100 11.6 1976 636,000 11.8

It has been emphasized, however, that returning migrants do not necessarily swell the ranks of officially registered unemployed. Apparently, of 65,000 who came in 1975, 66 per cent returned to their small private farms, 25 per cent to cooperatives, 3-5 per cent established their own small businesses and 3 per cent ceased working.68 Undoubtedly, further massive return will cause disruption on the labour market since not all are bringing back capital while others are unwilling or unable to use it effectively. The Yugoslav government has recently taken several steps to deal with returning migrants but since Yugoslavia is very likely going to have large labour surplusses in the near future,69 emigration will have to continue or else excessive pressures will build up in the country.

Both positive and negative consequences can also be listed for the countries of immigration. Many European countries are experiencing a drastic decline in the birth rate of the native population. In this situation, the high fertility of immigrants is not without significance. In Austria, in 1975, births among foreigners represented 8.4 per cent of all births (in Vienna 19 per cent and in Vorarlberg 26 per cent). In West Germany, 15 per cent of all births were attributable to foreigners.70 Comparative studies of age specific fertility of Yugoslav women in Sweden indicate that in nearly all age groups Yugoslav women had higher fertility than Swedish women. Moreover, their fertility was also higher than women in Yugoslavia.71

Host countries have altered their policies vis-à-vis guest workers over time. On one hand, there have been attempts to make the best use of them without offering access to all services available to the native population. On the other hand, pressures have been applied - not so much by the workers themselves as by employers, who wanted to stabilize the work force, and by concerned citizens, who did not accept the second-class status of immigrants.72 Generally speaking, workers do not enjoy the same

67. Rasprave o Migraci/ama, no. 32 (1977), pp. 1 1 and 24. 68. ¡bid., pp. 14-15. 69. The OECD has estimated this surplus to be 2.7 to 3 million by 1980. Bitten, 1975, no.

1 1, prilog. 70. ¡bid., 1977, no. 4, pp. 4 and 9. 71. ¡bid., 1976, no. 10, prilog. 72. The "Solidaritetskongress," held in 1975 in Bochum, is one of many examples ot




living standard as the host population. The high cost of providing additional infrastructure tends to delay

improvements. In Germany this cost was estimated at 50,000 to 200,000 DM and in Switzerland 75,000 Swiss francs per person.73 Foreign workers tend to concentrate in already densely populated areas and this aggravates the regional imbalance and increases the problems facing these areas. Some countries attempt to alleviate these problems by introducing regional restrictions. In West Germany foreign workers have not been allowed since 1 April 1975 to settle in congested areas which are defined as those where the foreign population exceeds 12 per cent or where services are over-taxed. This restriction affects Nordrhein-Westfalen, Hessen, Baden- Württemberg and Bavaria.74

Growing unemployment affects foreign workers as well as native- born. Some of them are forced to return home; others stay on and in some cases draw on unemployment benefits. In West Germany the rate of unemployment has become consistently higher among foreign workers than the national average. Yugoslavs, however, usually have had low rates of unemployment when compared to other national groups except for the Portuguese. Italians, who enjoy all rights of citizens of the Common Market (including unemployment benefits), always have had relatively high rates. Unemployment and developing pressures cause changes in policy pertaining to guest workers. Although policies differ among host countries, they share such common characteristics as restrictions and limitations on new recruitment of foreign workers; improvement in housing conditions and social services and benefits for those already in the country, in some cases facilitation of full integration; bonuses for those guest workers who decide to return home.

Conclusion Throughout the present century, Yugoslavia has remained a country

of emigration, both permanent and temporary. The return flows have generally been exceeded by the outflows and immigration into Yugoslavia of foreign stock has not taken place (with the three insignificant exceptions of the white Russians, Greeks and Hungarians). Emigrants have included political refugees, ethnic minorities and, most of all, economic emigrants. The massive outflow of temporary workers, particularly to western Europe, was a conspicuous feature of the late 1960's.

actions aimed at improving relations between guest workers and the host society. Ibid., 1975, nos. 6-7, p. 13.

73. Klemt, A WR Bulletin, XIV (1976), nos. 2-3, 63. 74. Ibid., p. 64.




Future trends cannot be safely predicted. It is very likely, however, that the pressure for emigration will continue in the Mediterranean countries with their surplus populations and that the natives of northern and western Europe will continue to suffer deficits of manpower. In this situation, the migration of labour will tend to be perpetuated albeit at a reduced rate. The outflow of ethnic emigration has probably been terminated unless in the unlikely event that Hungarians, Albanians and Romanians are affected in the future.

As long as overseas countries accept settlers, Yugoslavs will participate in transoceanic movements. Existing and future pressures will most likely favour a liberal attitude on the part of the Yugoslav government toward emigration.



yugoslavia || yugoslavia and international migration

Documents