Carte_migratiei_EN_ final

Transcription

THE IMPACT OF THE ECONOMIC CRISIS
ON THE LABOR MIGRATION FROM
ROMANIA
Authors:
Manuela Sofia Stănculescu
Victoria Stoiciu
Collaborators:
Iris Alexe
Luminiţa Motoc
Manuela Sofia Stănculescu is senior researcher at the Research Institute for the Quality
of Life (ICCV) and at the Institute for World Economy (IEM), of the Romanian
Academy, professor at the Faculty of Sociology and Social Assistance, University of
Bucharest, and president of the Romanian Centre for Economic Modeling (CERME).
Victoria Stoiciu is project coordinator at the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung from Romania
and coordinator of the on-line platform Critic-Atac. She published articles in Dilema
Veche and Romania Libera newspapers and at www.criticatac.ro.
© Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 2012
Neither the publication nor parts of it may be reproduced without permission
of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung or the proper citation of the source.
Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung
Office Romania
Str. Porumbaru Emanoil 21
RO-011421 Bucuresti
Tel.: 0040 21 2 11 09 82/-83
Fax: 0040 21 2 10 71 91
E-Mail: [email protected]
www.fes.ro
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ANOFM – National Agency for Employment
BNR – National Bank of Romania
CCSB – Sociological Research and Branding Company
CERME – Romanian Centre for Economic Modeling
CNA – The National Audiovisual Council
CNPS – National Center for Statistical Training (part of INS)
EEA – European Economic Area
EU – European Union
ICCV – Research Institute for the Quality of Life (Romanian Academy)
IDC – Community Development Index
ILO – International Labor Organization
INS – Romanian National Institute of Statistics
INE - Instituto Nacional de Estadística (Spain)
IOM – International Organization for Migration
ISCO – International Standard Classification of Occupations
IT – Information Technology
MADR – Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
MAI - Ministry of Administration and Interior
OECD – Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
USD – United States Dollar
INTRODUCTION
The global economic crisis has strongly affected the labor markets all
European Union (EU) member states. For each of these countries, the
repercussions of the economic transformations have visibly affected the
migrant labor force. The sectors predominated by migrants, such as
constructions and services, were the most affected by the crisis, which
determined job loss and high unemployment rates among migrant workers.
In the context of this economic recession, which manifests both at origin and
destination countries, the current dynamics of international mobility for labor
migrants represents a complex and multi-dimensional phenomenon.
Migration comprises a variety of social and economic issues that intensify
and bears impact especially on labor migrants, as they represent one of the
most vulnerable categories in this time of crisis. Moreover, for most
destination countries, there is also the matter of the ‘undesirable migration’
trends which become prominent during economic crisis periods. These trends
give way to hostility, xenophobia, racism and support to restrictive
immigration policies, as well as protectionist measures at the national labor
level. These circumstances can be encountered across all countries which are
either recent or old-fashion migration hubs.
In the case of the Romanian labor migration, these transformations are
detrimental as Romanians are among the most numerous groups of workers
at the European level and the majority of member states hold or have
reintroduced labor restrictions for migrants which originate from Romania.
Furthermore, the economic and financial crisis had immediate consequences
on Romania and its migrants, given the newly arisen facets of the Schengen
integration process and the displacement from the territory of some member
state of Romanian citizens (i.e. Roma ethnics).
This study aims to assess the impact that the economic crisis over the
Romanian labor migration through analyzing the repercussions both on the
overseas migrants and their families. The study presents the consequences of
the crisis on the returning migrants, estimates the amplitude of the
phenomenon in the studied regions, and it pinpoints the micro/macro factors
which determine the return of the Romanian migrants.
The first part of our study presents an overview of the current context given
the crisis’ effects on migration flows and labor mobility within the EU, while
taking into account the participation rates of Romanian migrants on the labor
markets and remittances evolution. Following, we identify the coping
mechanisms adopted by migrants and the measures implemented by
member states in the context of the economic crisis. Additionally, we outline
the situation of Romanian migrants at the two main destination countries
(Spain and Italy), and the manner in which the crisis affected the origin
country (Romania).
However, the core of the study is dedicated to the analysis of the impact of
the economic crisis on the Romanian labor migration. The second part will
present the results of our extensive social research (August-November 2010)
based on both qualitative and quantitative data. Thus, the following chapters
will bring in focus topics such as: economic crisis effects on migratory flows,
namely the departures and returns of the Romanian migrants; the sociodemographic profile of the returning migrants and their motivations for
return; factors that determine the propensity for return and the measure in
which the development level of the origin community influences the return
phenomenon; the extent to which professional skills and qualifications are
important for the process of adaptation to the crisis or the returning decision;
the impact of the crisis on money transfers operated by Romanians who work
abroad and the structure of their origin households’ consumption
expenditures; the positive and negative consequences of migration and the
ways in which migration could be used as an instrument for poverty
alleviation and development for Romania; the degree in which the Romanian
economic crisis is an accelerator for migration that might determine a
potential wave of departures for work abroad; the importance of factors such
as social networks and professional mobility in the migrant’s adaptation
process to the new conditions of destination countries labor markets as a
result of the economic crisis.
Research on migration for work abroad from Romania presents a rich body of
literature, bringing contributions which describe and analyze in-depth the
phenomenon developments and trajectories post-1990. If in the early 2000s,
migration research mainly focused on questions such as ‘who’, ‘where’, ‘how’
and ‘how many’, after 2007, interest shifted to study of the effects of
migration. Thus, topics such as: the raise of labor migration after 2002 as the
main type of emigration from Romania (Sandu, 2005, 2007), the evolution of
remittances sent home by Romanians migrants (Dăianu, ed., 2002; Roman &
Ileanu, 2011), the abroad temporary living 1990-2006 (Sandu, ed., 2006), the
problem of children left behind by migrant parents (Toth et al., 2007), the
effects of international migration on the labor market (Şerban & Toth, 2007),
the integration of the Romanian workers on the labor market of destination
countries previous to the global financial crisis, the case of Spain (Brădăţan
and Sandu, 2012), the integration of Romanian migrants in the destination
society – specifically, Italy and Spain (Metro Media, 2007; Sandu, ed., 2009),
the migration abroad as way of thinking, action mode and identity assertion
(or as "social worlds"), the effects on the origin household or the returned
migrants, as well as over the migration policies (Sandu, 2010) have been
thoroughly analyzed.
The research presented in this book brings into discussion a topic of high
interest both for academics and policymakers, namely the impact of the
global economic crisis on Romanian workers abroad, with a special focus on
the migrants who returned to the origin country. Beyond ‘fresh’ data, based
on a complex and innovative methodology, the study analyzes not only the
perceptions and expectations of the Romanian migrants in the context of the
recession, but also the main coping strategies, present and future plans.
PART I.
THE ECONOMIC CRISIS
AND LABOR MIGRATION
IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
14 • GENERAL
THE IMPACT
CONTEXT
OF THE ECONOMIC CRISIS ON LABOR MIGRATION • 13
CHAPTER 1.
GENERAL CONTEXT.
THE IMPACT OF THE ECONOMIC CRISIS
ON THE MIGRATION PHENOMENON
1.1. Effects of the crisis on migration flows, access and
participation of migrants to the labor market
In the last decades, within the OECD states, various studies showed that the
relation between labor migration and the economical context is neither linear
nor mechanical, but it is complex and difficult to forecast.
In this respect, the OECD (2009) or the IOM
reports (e.g. Koehler et al., 2010) prove that
... it is
the previous economic recessions, from
improbable
1973-'74, 1981-'82 to the 1997 Asian crisis,
that the
did not prevent the growing trend of the
propensity for
migration for work, as people continued to
migration to
search for jobs outside their home countries
decrease as
even during these periods. According to
result
of the
OECD (2009), it is unlikely that the
economic
motivation to migrate will disappear
crisis ...
because of the economic crisis: the income
gap between the developed and the
emerging economies will be preserved regardless of the crisis, and once the
growth resume, those who postponed their decision to work abroad will join
the already existing migrant population.
THE IMPACT OF THE ECONOMIC CRISIS ON LABOR MIGRATION • 15
Moreover, the IOM points that, overall, since the beginning of the crisis in
2007, the net migratory flows have remained positive at the EU level (Koehler
et al., 2010).
For illustration, we discuss the Spain and Italy cases, countries with a large
number of migrants and, at the same time, the main destination countries for
the Romanian labor migrants. The OECD report (2009) shows that in the case
of Spain, the migration flow remained unchanged from 2008 to 2009.
However, the number of family reunification suffered a significant decrease
in 2008 in comparison with 2007 – less then 100,000 cases as opposed to
128.200 in 2007. The same data indicate that for Italy the economic contraction
decreased the job vacancies available for migrants as in 2008 approximately
10,000 employers (5.6%) withdrew the offers handed in December 2007.
In terms of labor market participation, young people, men and migrant
populations were the most affected by the crisis. Even if the impact on
different categories varies from one country to another, and among economic
sectors, it is certain that the deterioration of the economic situation affected
more the migrant workers than native workers. In addition, there is a clear
difference between the workers originating from the EU space and those
from non-EU countries. Whilst the unemployment rate for the EU migrants
rose with an average of 2.8 % during 2008-2009, for the non-EU migrants it
increased with 5%. A possible explanation is the higher propensity of the EU
migrants to return to their origin countries once they experience job loss
(Koehler et al., 2010).
The rise of unemployment among migrants is also the result of the
concentration of migrant work in sectors that are closely related to economic
cycles or are seasonal jobs. This is confirmed by the difference between the
unemployment rates among migrant and native populations as calculated for
several countries (OEDC, 2009). Furthermore, out of the migrant workers, the
unskilled and illegal ones were the most affected by the crisis. Skilled migrant
workers are protected from job loss as they have a qualification and, often,
due to the investment that employers do by training and employing them
(Papademitriou et al., 2010).
16 • GENERAL CONTEXT
TABEL 1. Concentration of the migrant workers within the economic sectors that
employ unskilled labor
Greece
Spain
Portugal
Italy
Austria
France
32,0%
21,0%
15,9%
14,8%
10,0%
10,1%
Source: Date OECD, processed by ILO (Koehler et al., 2010).
Studies show that the unemployment rate among migrants could have been
even bigger at the EU level, if the return migration of certain groups of
migrants from the Central and Eastern Europe would have been smaller.
On one hand, it has been noticed that the EU migrants are inclined to return
to their origin countries once they loose their jobs. These returns are
predominantly temporary as the migrant strategy targets the return to the
destination country in case some
economic opportunities appear and
... EU migrants, when
the labor market recovers. On the
they experience job
other hand, non-EU migrants prefer
loss abroad, tend to
to remain in the destination countries
return to their origin
even if they loose their jobs.
countries... non-EU
This decision is determined by the
migrants prefer to
difficulties linked to visa or work
remain at the
permits procurement, administrative
destination, even if
barriers, costs and lack of alternatives
they face
regarding the re-entry in the
unemployment ...
destination country. Even more,
adding to high travelling costs, the
survival of the family left at home
which depends on the money earned abroad and the total lack of
perspectives in the origin country, where the crisis determined severe and
diverse problems, make the non-EU migrants to leave the destination more
difficult.
Apart from statistics that confirm the number of returned migrants in several
states, there are no in-depth studies to describe or explain the phenomenon of
return migration. There is no exact data regarding the duration of the return
period, or whether the return is temporary or final, or the extent to which it is
caused by the crisis or it represents an evolving natural cycle of migration,
which is only exacerbated by the crisis. It is known that once migrants
achieve, partially or fully, their financial aims, the propensity to return
becomes higher. However, given the crisis, it is more likely that the return to
be predominantly temporary. Moreover, we should take into account the
hypothesis that it is easier to cope with the crisis at the destination than in the
origin country.
The effects of the crisis are different for men and women both regarding
migration and the labor market situation at the destination. The migration
rate for women increased during the crisis, mainly as a result of the constant
demand at destination for labor in sectors such as household work (e.g.
cleaning, elderly and child care) compared to the increase in unemployment
in the sectors in which labor is predominantly masculine (e.g. constructions)
(OECD, 2009).
One manner to reduce the negative impact of the economic crisis is the
occupational (professional) mobility of migrant workers. Thus, it is to be
expected an increase of the inter-sectoral mobility from the domains most
affected by the crisis to the less affected ones. For example, in Spain, the
agricultural employment increased with 15% in 2009 compared to 2008
Other coping mechanisms employed by migrants are independent activities
and entrepreneurship. Consequently, the evolution of this indicator can offer
precious insight regarding the effects of the crisis on labor activities
predominant among migrants. The Eurostat statistics (for 2009) show that
self-employment is higher among migrants than it is among the native
population with similar qualification.1
However, the relation between the economic cycles and the self-employment
rate is unstable: according to some studies, the correlation is negative, while
others consider it positive. Constant and Zimmermann (2004), in their study
1
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home
IMPACTUL CRIZEI ECONOMICE ASUPRA MIGRAŢIEI • 19
on Germany, consider that self-employment is one of the most important
migrant strategies to prevent unemployment, thus confirming the hypothesis
that self-employment is a powerful coping mechanism in times of crisis or
changing labor markets. Moreover, Markus Gonzales Bleifuss (September
2010), the general manager of the Spanish Immigration Service, supports this
hypothesis. In his opinion, the migrants develop independent activities as
part of the adaptation process to the needs and requirements of the
destination labor market. In this respect, in addition to the prevention and
control the illegal labor, Spain aims to simplify the procedure of switching
from employee to self-employed.
Nevertheless, the OECD (2009) finds that there is little evidence to support
the idea that this type of behavior is successful in times of economic decline.
In the same time, contrasting situations might be observed in various
European countries. For instance, in Spain, the number of self-employed
migrants decreased from June 2008 to February 2009 with 24,000
(approximately 10%), while in Italy, the number of self-employed EU
migrants has slightly increased in 2008 compared to 2007 (with 15,079)
BOX 1. Romanian migrants caught in between two crises
Dâmboviţa is one of the counties with the highest migration rate to
Spain, but destinations such as Italy or Germany are also popular.
Curious to speak to someone who had lost their job abroad, I went
for a ride through some communes in this county, in the hope of
finding a returned migrant. The Lady Mayor and the Deputy Mayor
of Nucet commune struggled for about a quarter of an hour until
they could recommend to us a young man, Radu B., who previous
to becoming unemployed, had worked on a Spanish construction
site. Apparently, he was the only one of this kind that they knew. At
the indicated address, we met by a woman dressed in paintsmeared overalls, with hands also covered in paint, namely Radu’s
mother: he had already left for Spain just five days ago. His sister,
who had remained in Spain, managed to find him a job at the
slaughterhouse where she was working. Three months earlier, the
young man had come prepared to stay in his village and start a new
life. After some searching, he managed to find a job at a private
security company in Bucharest, where he had been offered a salary
of 900 lei [t.n.: about 200 euro], out of which only the one round trip
to the capital would cost 20 lei per day [t.n.: about 4 euro]. At the end
of the month, he noticed that half of his salary was being spent on
commuting. Thus, he decided that however bad the crisis may be in
Spain, he would still get by better there, even if just on the salary of
slaughterhouse worker. Out of all five communes explored on our
trip, this young man, at whom we arrived too late to interview, was,
it seems, the only migrant who returned home due to the economic
crisis. An even worse crisis drove him away from home and back to
Spain.
In fact, the Romanian migrants find themselves in the position of
choosing between two evils – and the crisis at home seems to be
worse than the crisis abroad. It is true that, in the county of
Dâmboviţa, the unemployment rate has increased by two
percentage points, from 5% (in September 2009) to 7%, while in
Spain unemployment is around 20%. Yet, a closer look at the figures
shows that the situation is much more dramatic than it seems at first
glance – in fact, the increase in the number of unemployed in the
county from 10,562 (in September 2008) to 15,698 is due to the new
Box 1 (continuation)
wave of unemployment beneficiaries, namely people who have
recently lost their jobs.
Their number has increased from 1,485 to 6,919, which represents
an actual four-fold increase in the number of unemployed during
the past year. This situation is not characteristic only to Dâmboviţa
County, as this pattern can be observed throughout the whole
country. At the same time, job offers have decreased drastically. If
before the crisis, the County Agency for Employment (ANOFM),
located in Târgovişte, had advertised a monthly average of 800 job
vacancies, in 2009 the number of job vacancies decreased to 150. At
the national level, the job vacancies advertised last year through
ANOFM decreased by almost half compared to 2008.
In this context – although there is no statistical support data – the
migrants’ decision to stay in the countries of destination does not
astonish anybody any more, and contradicts the fear, intensely
exploited by the mass media, that the hordes of migrants are ready
to return home only to swell the ranks of the already numerous
unemployed. On the contrary, those who return seem to be rather
few, and their return is often just temporary. For instance, in the last
months of 2009, the same County Agency for Employment
registered approximately 100 applications for release of forms
required for granting rights to unemployment benefits in Spain, in
accordance with the 1408/71 Regulation regarding to the application
of social security schemes to employed migrants and their families
moving within the EU borders. This means that, if given the
opportunity, Romanians would rather live in Spain on Spanish
unemployment benefits than come back home. In addition, there
were only three applications for unemployment benefit transfer
from Spain to Romania – in accordance to 1408/71 Regulation, any
EU citizen who is entitled to unemployment benefit in one of the
member states can export social benefit when seeking work in
another country, for a maximum period of three months. Most of
those who opt for this solution usually end up by not finding the
desired job, and then they direct their hopes, once again, to Western
Europe.
(Excerpt ‘Romanian Migrants Caught in Between Two Crises’,
signed by V. Stoiciu and published in Dilema Veche newspaper)
1.2. Evolution of remittances in times of economic crisis
According to World Bank (Ratha et al., 2009), remittances followed a
declining curve starting with the second half of 2008, after a period of growth
during 2007-2008. Thus, in 2009, remmitances reached 328 billion USD at the
global level, which exceeded the World Bank forecast. Table 2 shows that
remittances for 2009, after two years of economic crisis, still were higher than
in 2006, previous to the economic turmoil.
TABEL 2. Evolution of remittances, 2006-2009, by region, in USD millions
Region/ Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
East Asia and the Pacific
Europe and Central Asia
Latin America and Caraibeans
Middle East and North Africa
South Asia
Sub-Saharian Africa
57,598
37,341
59,199
26,112
42,523
12,629
71,309
50,777
63,239
31,364
54,041
18,646
86,115
57,801
64,717
34,696
73,293
21,139
84,785
49,279
58,481
32,212
71,955
20,525
Source: World Bank, Remittances Data Watch, 2010.
On the other hand, the remittance remained relatively stable in the EU with
significant variations from one country to another. Regarding Spain and Italy,
the two top destinations preferred by the Romanian migrants, the IOM report
(Koehler at al., 2010) registers between 2008 and 2009 a year-to-year decrease
with 9% in Spain (for June-September) and with 7.4% in Italy (for JanuaryMarch).
The statistics (Figure 1) of the Romanian National Bank (BNR) indicate a
sudden decline of remittances sent by Romanian workers. The remittances
volume started to decline in November 2008 and by January-May 2009 it
reached 1,8 billion euro, with 30.4% less than in the same period of the
previous year.
FIGURA 1. Remittances of the Romanian workers abroad by quarter
Source: BNR, presented in Capital newspaper (2011). Note: T – quarter.
Despite the optimistic forecasts which anticipated for 2010 an increase of
remittances with 6%, and 7% in 2011 respectively, these continued to
decrease. In 2010, Romanians migrants sent home two times less money than
in 2008. In the first quarter of 2011 the amount sent home by those who work
abroad was with 10% less than the same period of 2010, with 37% less than in
2009 and with approximately 50% less than the first quarter of 2007 and 2008.
In the first quarter of 2011, the amount of money sent home by the
Romanians working abroad summed up to 758 million euro, which
represents the smallest total registered in the last six years. In 2005, the
amount of money transferred home was of 769 million euro, noting that at
that time there were less Romanian migrants working abroad.
This decline in remittance transfers is due to the difficult situation on the
labor market of destination countries, as in the case of Spain. 2
Pirloiu, M. ”Se adâncește criza banilor trimiși acasă de românii care lucrează afară”, Capital, 18
mai 2011.
2
1.3. Developments on the Romanian labor market.
How migration becomes a way of life
In the last 20 years, the Romanian labor market was strongly influenced by
the economic, political and social transformations. After eight years of solid
economic growth and significant poverty reduction, the shock of the global
economic and financial crisis has brought to surface the disparities and
vulnerabilities of the Romanian economy, characterized by the lack of sturdy
economic management policies and insufficient reforms (Montagnana, 2010).
Throughout the recession, Romania has suffered a massive decrease of the
economic output. The crisis struck in the third quarter of 2008 and
heightened in 2009. Although the economy showed signs of improvement in
2011, the economic output is still down given the major shrinkage of GDP in
comparison with the previous year, of 7-9% (in 2009),3 which is significantly
higher than the EU-27 average.
In comparison with the third quarter of 2008, the total employment rate has
decreased with 3.5% (in 2010), one of the smallest values in the European
context. Nevertheless, the situation looks much more severe, if we focus
solely on employees which represent the majority of non-farming labor force.
The number of employees declined by 14.4%, meaning almost 700 thousands
persons, by the fourth quarter of 2010. Therefore, in Romania, the reduction
of the non-farming employment (employees) is much more pronounced than
the decline registered by the GDP. Moreover, the lessening of the nonfarming employment is much larger than the EU-27 average (by -2.5% of all
non-farming employment)4.
Other member states which present the same issue: Slovenia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Finland and
Ireland. (European Commission, Employment in Europe 2010).
4 Out of all Member States, Spain registered the highest decline of the employment rate by 9.2%
between the second quarter of the 2008 and the mid-2010 (European Commission, Employment in
Europe 2010).
3
With the fourth quarter of 2008, the number of employees continually
decreased from the topmost value of 4,83 million in September 2008 to 4,1
million in December 2010. The employees number has considerably
diminished in the private sector, with over half a million, especially in
manufacturing, constructions, retail trade and transportation industries. In
the public sector, the number of employees followed a different trend as it
amplified until January 2009 and started lessening only in February 2009
(Voinea, 2010).
In 2009, the economic recession affected men more than women, in Romania
like in other EU countries. The male unemployment rate peaked 8.3% in
December 2009 in comparison with the 4.5% of December 2008, whereas
female unemployment rate went from 4.4% to 7.1% in the same period. The
rise of unemployment rates is a direct result of the high impact of the crisis
on certain industries (such as constructions and manufacturing), in which the
majority of employees are men (Montagnana, 2010).
The youth labor market (15-24 years) offers scarce job opportunities and
presents disturbing signs in Romania, as well as in most European states:
youth unemployment increased from 18.6% in 2008 to 22.9% in the third
quarter of 2010 (ILO, 2011). 5
The job crisis has severly hit young (including faculty graduates) and people
over 45 years, especially in rural areas and small cities, where the
employment opportunities for these categories were already scarce. In most
cases, their only options are in the informal sector. The Social Inclusion
Barometer suggests that in 2010 youth and persons over 40 years of age
encountered the greatest difficulties in assuring a job (Observatorul Social,
Universitatea Bucharest, 2010).6 Difficulties to find a job differ for men and
women. On one hand, young (under 25 years) and men over 40 years present
an accentuated risk of not securing a job in comparison with men between 2639 years of age. On the other, for women, the job refusals are motivated by
ILO Department of Statistics, Romania: country profile, February 2011.
Social Observatory, University of Bucharest, 2010, Social Inclusion Barometer, survey
representative at the national level for employers and employees from Romania.
5
6
arguments such as age (over 40 years), motherhood (especially when the
children are minors), commuting requirements or simply being a woman.
In this context, the idea of living and working abroad became attractive for
more and more Romanians. The internal job market opportunities are
insufficient in comparison with the demand and the salary packages are
much lower than in previous years. Thus, for Romanians, migrating to
countries with sufficient and satisfactory jobs that assure a decent life
represents a viable solution.
... emigration is
not motivated
just by possible
earnings, but it is
also influenced by
mistrust in the
institutional
system and
political leaders...
In this way the economic crisis
transforms emigration from Romania
into a way of life. Not only people with
relatives or connections abroad wish to
emigrate, but also people with divers
ethnic and professional backgrounds, of
all ages and generations, because
emigration is not solely determined by
income expectations, but it reflects the
lack of trust in the national institutional
system and political leaders (e.g. Sandu,
2010).
In the context of the economic crisis, the main support for Romanians who
work abroad and the main provider of labor market mediation services is the
National Employment Agency (ANOFM) through EURES services, which
represent one of the most common methods used by migrants who seek jobs
abroad.
EURES is the European employment network that involve the national public
employment services and other partners such as trade unions and employers’
organizations. The network is coordinated by the European Commission and
has as purpose the facilitation of free labor mobility in the European
Economic Area (EEA) and Switzerland. The EURES advisers represent the
human component of the network and the EURES job site7 constitutes the
7
http://ec.europa.eu/eures/
technical component. Both components ensure transparency of information
regarding job vacancies, as well as living and working conditions in the EEA
states.
ANOFM, as an employment public service, is a member of the EURES
network since 2007. The institution is responsible with the recruitment and
work placement of Romanian citizens and it provides services of information,
orientation and allocation for both potential employees and employers on the
European labor market.
The number of job vacancies received and promoted by ANOFM through the
EURES network have steadily increased over the years, indifferent to the
economic and financial crisis. According to ANOFM data, in 2010, a number
of 3,038 job vacancies were posted, which was higher than in 2009 and 2008.8
The ANOFM reports (2009, 2010) indicate that the demand for jobs in
different EU states or EEA through EURES services continues to be high
among the Romanian citizens. For example, in 2009, 10,008 persons contacted
EURES advisers (face-to-face, by e-mail or phone), asking about job vacancies
in different European states, in comparison with 9,825 persons in 2008.
Consequently, the request for EURES services intensified in the setting of the
economic recession. In 2010, the number of Romanians which called upon
EURES services nearly doubled, reaching a total of 17,441 persons.
The Romanian workers’ favorite destinations, both in 2009 and in 2010, were:
Spain, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Great Britain and Austria. The majority of
job demands for European states concentrated on sectors such as: agriculture,
constructions, manufacturing, hotel and food industries. Nonetheless, the
requests of highly qualified Romanians for engineering, IT, medicine or
teaching are not to be overlooked.9
The majority of Romanians who aspire to work abroad have mainly basic or
secondary education or professional training (with a total of 44.6% in 2008,
50.1% in 2009 and 47.4% in 2010), followed by those with high-school or
college education (with a total of 38.5% in 2009 and 39.2% in 2010) and lastly,
8
The number of job vacancies was 2,122 in 2009 and 1,566 in 2008 ,respectively.
9
ANOFM activity report, 2009 and 2010, available at www.anofm.ro
by those with university education (11.4% in 2009 and 13.4% in 2010). The
ANOFM statistics reveal in 2009-2010 a growing tendency for migration
abroad of the highly-qualified persons, as a result of the economic and
financial crisis.
... the majority of
Romanians willing
to work abroad
have only primary,
secondary or
professional
education and
originate mainly in
the southern regions
of Romania ...
Prospective Romanian migrants,
who make use of EURES
employment
services,
mainly
originate from the southern parts
of the country (especially, the
underdeveloped regions SouthEast and South-West). In 2009, the
counties Braila (981 persons),
Ialomita (897 persons) and Dolj
(706 persons) registered the highest
number of job requests, while Ilfov
(62 persons), Neamt (53 persons)
and
Harghita
(51
persons)
registered the lowest number of job
demands (ANOFM data).
Both in 2009 and 2010 job-matching activities were organized in different
cities in Romania, such as: Slobozia, Slatina, Alba-Iulia, Oltenita, Bucharest,
Ploiesti, Calarasi. Regardless of the recession, the Romanian labor migration
tendencies remain steady, as confirmed by the number of beneficiaries who
request the EURES mediation services. Job offers from European employers
have mainly targeted agriculture, zoology, forestry, tourism, unqualified
workers or craftsman and cleaning staff. Aside from the traditional labor
migration hubs which request Romanian workers (i.e. Spain and Italy), the
Nordic countries, such as Denmark, appear increasingly interested in the
Romanian labor force, especially for seasonal work.
In accordance with the ANOFM (2009, 2010), the main obstacles for
Romanian labor mobility in the European space are: (1) the lack of language
proficiency solicited by the employer and (2) insufficient information
regarding work and living conditions of destination country. Once again, it is
emphasized the essential role of competencies and information circulation
when it comes to finding a job abroad, particularly in the time of crisis. Thus,
ANOFM (2010) showed that ‘in the case of Spain is registered a high migrant
employment rate because job offers in the agricultural sector require only
working experience while language proficiency is not compulsory. By
contrast, in the cases of Denmark and Italy, with slightly superior quality
standards, the lack of knowledge of English or the local languages at a basic
conversation level has negatively influenced the results of employment
selections.’
1.4. Italy and Spain, main destinations for the Romanian labor
migrants
FIGURA 2. Citizenship of the EU and non-EU migrants, residents of EU-27 (2010)
Source: Eurostat., Population and Social Condition. Statistics in focus, 2011.
Romania remains the main provider of migrant labor force in the European
area. Eurostat (2011) provides that for 2010 the number of Romanian migrant
residents on the EU territory was over 2 million persons. However, it is
estimated that the real number of Romanians in the EU is much higher, as
Romanians are the second most numerous migrant community, following
native immigrants from Turkey (Figure 2).
Over 70% of the Romanians which work abroad have chosen as destination
country either Spain or Italy. Therefore, the manner in which the economic
recession affects the labor market in these countries bears impact in the
analysis of the crisis on Romanian labor migration.
1.4.1. The case of Spain
In 2009, Romanian citizens represent the largest migrant group in Spain
(758,823 persons or 13.4% out of all migrants), followed by Moroccans (11.1%)
and Ecuadorians (7.2%). The increase of the number of Romanian citizens in
Spain is spectacular, growing from 3.4% (2002) to 14.5% (2010). Since
Romania joined the EU zone (2007), the number of Romanian migrants legal
residents in Spain has practically doubled (Figure 3).10
FIGURE 3. The evolution of Romanian migrants legal residents in Spain
6.000.000
Total s tră i ni ;
5.708.940
5.000.000
4.000.000
3.000.000
1.977.946
2.000.000
1.000.000
137.347
207.960
317.366
407.159
527.019
731.806
67.279
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
758.823
Total româ ni ;
829.715
0
2009
2010
Source: Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE), Spania, http://www.ine.es.
The economic crisis did not affect the overall total of foreign residents in
Spain. However, the number of resident permits registered a slightly lower
growth rate, in comparison with 2008-2009. Thus, the resident permits rate
during 2008-2009 was of only 7%, in contrast with the 13% of previous years
(Koehler et al., 2010). Accordingly, the number of Romanians which reside in
According to some unofficial estimations, currently, the number of Romanian workers in Spain
has quadrupled.
10
Spain slowly increased over the years (2008-2009). Overall, during 2007-2010
the number of residents permits offered to Romanian citizens increased with
approximately 300,000 (Figure 3).
The impact of the recession on the Spanish economy was among the hardest
in Europe. The crisis affected particularly the migrant population. The job
loss rate reached a million in 2009, and the unemployment rate for migrants
rose to 21.26% in contrast with 12.52% for Spanish nationals (INE, 2010). In
the middle of 2009, the unemployment rate of migrants peaked to 28% and
respectively, to 16% for natives. Out of all immigrants, Romanians,
Ecuadorians and Moroccans seemed to register the highest unemployment
rates (López-Sala şi Ferrero-Turrión, 2009).
Throughout 2007-2008, the migrant unemployment rate recorded an
impressive rise, doubling in value, for both Romanian and other immigrant
groups. Subsequently, unemployment continued to increase, but at a slower
pace.
TABEL 3. Number of unemployed persons among the main immigrant groups in
Spain
Q4, 2007
Q4, 2008
Q4, 2009
Total
407.708
779.442
1.076.228
Romanians
60.826
114.683
137.756
Moroccans
82.262
151.027
209.351
Ecuadorians
42.713
101.714
148.903
Columbians
33.735
71.170
84.760
Source: Pajares (2010, p. 46) based on INE data. Q4- Fourth quarter.
The most spectacular unemployment growth was recorded in sectors specific
to migrant work, such as constructions, agriculture and services.11
Between 2007 and 2009, the number of unemployed increased: in constructions – from 69,400
to 228,300 persons; in agriculture - from 34,200 to 57,000; and in services – from 156,500 to
361,300 persons (Pajares, 2009).
11
Regarding Romanian workers, the growing unemployment rate was
accompanied by the decrease of employed persons only starting in 2009,
when however it registered a pronounced decline in comparison to other
immigrant groups.
TABLE 4. Fluctuations of the employed migrants by main immigrant groups in
Spain
Total
Romanians
Q4, 2007
Q4, 2008
Variation
2008
Q4, 2009
(A)
(B)
(B-A)
(C)
(C-B)
2.887.043
2.886.489
–554
2.547.249
–339.240
-11,8
429.427
455.500
26.073
391.281
–64.219
–14,1
Variation
2009
C%B
Moroccans
333.122
280.567
–52.555
232.116
–48.451
–17,3
Ecuadorians
443.805
418.657
–25.148
314.665
–103.992
–24,8
Columbians
235.530
232.415
–3.115
212.259
–20.156
–8,7
Source: Pajares (2010, p. 64) based on INE data. Q4- Fourth quarter.
As the economic recession deepen, labor migrants have developed adaptation
strategies such as the inter-sectoral or territorial mobility. Regarding the
inter-sectoral mobility, the numbers for 2008-2009 illustrate a strong growth
in numbers of Romanian immigrants who are registered to the social security
systems and work in agriculture – in 2008, the total number was 37,750, while
in 2009 it reached 81,974. No other labor immigration group has registered
such an impressive evolution.12
By contrast, the territorial mobility of Romanian migrants was much lower
than for other migrant communities and even lower than in the years
previous to the economic recession. If in 2007, Romanian migrants' mobility
in Spain was 13.7%, in 2008 it shrunk to 6.7%. Alongside with Bulgarians
For example, the number of Moroccans working in agriculture went from 73,576 to 74,734 and
the Ecuadorians from 25,360 to 25,427 (Pajaros, 2010).
12
(6.9%), these represented the bottommost rates of territorial mobility among
the Spanish immigrant groups.13
One of the main causes for the low territorial mobility is the high prevalence
of credits among the Romanian migrants for work. Approximately 90% of
Romanians, who reside in Spain, have mortgages for houses and/or cars
purchased at destination. For most of these, the crisis intervened after five-six
years of loan payments. Generally, the mortgage paid by a Romanian for an
apartment in Spain is around 700-1,500 Euro per month and, for a car, around
400-500 Euro per month. Thus, due to the loan payments, a significant umber
of Romanians can no longer make ends meet, as their employers can no
longer afford overtime hours, bonuses or even the payment of 13rd wage
(Voiculescu, 2011).
Subsequent to the request made on 28 July 2011 by the Spanish authorities,
on 11 August 2011, the European Commission authorized Spain to impose
temporary restrictions on the labor market for Romanians pending 31
December 2012. These restrictions are applicable in all sectors and regions,
but they do not affect the Romanian citizens already working in Spain.
However, some sources suggest that these restrictions will affect a much
larger number of Romanians than strictly the newcomers. For example, the
Federation of the Associations of Romanians from Europe (FADERE,
according to the Romanian acronym) states that all Romanians who are not
enrolled with labor registers will be affected by the restrictions imposed by
the Spanish government, summing up to over 50% of Romanians which
resided in Spain by 22 July 2011.
"All the Romanians from Spain who had a job, lost it and failed to present
themselves at the Employment office in 15 days to declare that they are
seeking a job, as well as those who have not returned every three months to
renew their situation, lost the right to work in Spain. We emphasize that the
enrollment with labor registers is optional and not compulsory; however, you
automatically loose this right if you do not return every three months. This
13
The territorial mobility of other migrant communities was much higher. For example, the
Peruvians registered 13%, the Colombians 14.2% and the Chinese 21.1%.
change bears on the implications of these restrictions, relating not only to
those that arrived after 22 July 2011, but also to many Romanians who are
currently not employed or who work in the informal sector and intend to find
a legal job, while not being registered as job-seekers with the local authorities.
This measure will also affect all the children of Romanian migrants in Spain,
who are students or pupils or who are about to graduate and seek
employment." (FADERE, 2011, press released ziare.com).14
www.ziare.com/diaspora/romani-spania/jumatate-din-romanii-cu-vechime-in-spania-afectatide-restrictii-1114945
14
BOX 2. Identity crisis and the invisible Romanian migrant
community
The first thing that the Romanians do abroad – at least in Spain and
in Italy, where they represent the largest immigrant community – is
to avoid one another. Not wanting to have anything to do with
Romanians is the easiest way to conceal ones’ identity from others.
As a result, in spite of their overwhelming number, there is no
cohesive Romanian community. Other immigrant groups, such as
the Latin Americans, have their own restaurants, where they meet
to socialize on weekends, where they have fun together and where
they meet new members. Romanians do not do this.
When I talked with the owner of a Romanian restaurant in
Barcelona, located right across of the City Jail and called Dracula, he
told us that 75% of his customers were Spanish. When they do come
to the restaurant, the Romanians gulp down their tripe soup and
stuffed cabbage rolls, then they leave, without looking around and
without exchanging one word with their fellow countrymen. I
remembered a scene from the movie Mar Nero, by Federico Bondi,
in which large groups of Romanians living in Italy held picnics,
listened to Romanian music and befriended one another. Well, with
only few exceptions, this does not happen. If a Romanian goes for a
picnic, he/she only does this together with family or friends. And if
ever happens to meet new community members is only when a
Romanian association is holding a ‘fiesta’ with free stuffed cabbage
rolls or when a Romanian singer – especially manele music – is
having a concert [t.n.: manele music is a mixture of oriental
(Turkish/Middle Eastern) and Balkan influences, one of the most popular
in Romania].
The consequence of this lack of cohesion is a political pseudoabsence, although theoretically, the Romanians would have a say in
the local elections, as they have the right to vote. “The Romanians
have no political structure, they live in a soap bubble or an island,
isolated from Spain” noted Miguel Fonda, the FEDROM President.
I do not believe that ‘identity camouflage’, described earlier, is the
sole cause for the invisibility of the Romanian community.
However, as Miguel Pajares mentioned, anthropologist at the
University of Barcelona and Romanian migration specialist, this is
one of the main sources for this phenomenon. “Certainly, an
important part is also played by the lack of social capital, probably
inherited from the Communist period. In addition, the Romanians
are Europeans, and the Europeans are individualists, where
European societies are, by definition, atomized. Even so, the
stereotypes about Romanians and their desire to dissociate oneself
from these prejudices are certainly among the key factors”, replied
Miguel. Then I asked whether other immigrant communities had
the same reaction to this negative image, but he said that the image
of Bolivians or Moroccans was not that undesirable. For example, a
recent campaign of the Spanish Popular Party, led by former Prime
Minister Aznar, was not aimed at the Moroccans or the Bolivians,
but strictly at the Romanians. “No querremos rumanos” worded the
slogans of election posters glued to all walls in the town of
Badalona, situated in the vicinity of Barcelona. Similarly, the
controversial song of El Chivi (singer) does not curse at South
Americans, but at the Romanians, “that rising scourge... who works
even on public vacations... sons of b*tches, let’s cut off their hands…
pimps and restaurant employees, I sh*t on their relatives, on their
dead and on their whole country”. On another occasion, this time in
France, I personally experienced what Miguel Pajares theory
implied regarding the negative image and the dissimulation of
identity which underlies the fractures of Romanian community. I
was sitting at a terrace in Strasbourg, together with a group of
young people, most of them employees of public institutions. At
some point, a beggar came up to us and held out his hand, holding
a plastic cup, at the bottom of which a few coins were clanking and
while sighting part sadly, part melodramatically said: “Papa, papa!”
[t.n.: “Food, food!”]. I approached him in Romanian and he proved to
be, indeed, from a Romanian from Timişoara city. Together with
another friend, who worked as a social worker, we started, for both
a professional bad habit, to ask all sorts of questions about his life,
how much money he made, how social benefits worked. After about
five minutes of conversation, the rest of the group reacted:
“Come on, really, must everybody see that we are Romanians! What
do we have in common with ‘him’?!”
It was exactly the same mechanism of dissociation from fellow
countrymen, which I encountered in my interactions with
Romanians working in Spain or in Italy. According to some people,
the Romanians are ‘figlio de putta’ – a 25-year old young man told
me while at Tiburtina station, Rome: “They will take you down if
you ask for their help”, they are “selfish, secretive or thieves”. The
thievery argument is more or less an opinion of any Romanian
migrant. Alike my colleagues with whom I traveled to Strasbourg
tried to distance themselves from the image of the Romanian
beggar, so did the Romanians in Italy, trying to self-differentiate
themselves from the Romanian thieves and gypsies, who in their
view were to blame for the bad image of all Romanians. However,
as the discussion progresses and self-censorship weakens, the more
I discovered that, in fact, few were those unfamiliar with the vices,
whether it was about labor intermediation service fee or thievery. “I
would steal too, but I’m afraid to do it”, said the young man who
considered Romanians to be ‘figlio de putta’. Another interviewee,
who owned a construction company in the Calabria region, very
serenely mentioned: “Well, I worked for one year and I realized that
work will not make me rich, so I started stealing”. “What did you
steal?” I asked him. “What do you mean by that? All kinds of stuff!
Trucks, excavators... whatever I could find. But then I realized that
stealing does not make me rich either, you know how it is, easy
come, easy go, so now I made a ditta (company)!”.
However, nobody can live in self-contempt forever. After they
avoid each other, after they judge their own people while keeping a
distance, the Romanians resort to a revalorization mechanism by
making negative traits positive and demeaning ‘the others’. “A
Spaniard asked me if we had televisions in Romania. I looked at
him astonished and I answered: No, we do not have such a thing
because we have M.Benzes with onboard LCD monitors... We no
longer need TV sets because, for us, they were obsolete technology”
– informed me the owner of a traditional Romanian store in
Castelldefels.
The same people who complain that Romanians have gone mad
and drive their Mercedes cars to the construction sites where they
work, just a half hour later, they brag about the fact that in Spain
you cannot see such cars like in Romania.
The same Romanians who moan over the poverty back home
express contemptuous reactions when passing by a one-star hotel,
named Hotel Colmar, explaining that the name is misleading and
that this hotel should be called “Hotel de Coşmar” [t.n.: Nightmare
Hotel]. Back home, in Romania no hotel is as ‘miserable’ as this.
The Spanish are ‘slow-witted’, ‘they are just lucky to be born rich’;
Italian women are ‘putta’; westerners are a bit ‘dull’ because they
always cross the street when the light is green, while we cross even
when the light is red and we survive, thus being cleverer. These are
just a few clichés, rather naive, but probably effective for the
reestablishment Romanian national pride.
(Excerpt ‘Identity crisis and the invisible Romanian migrant
community’, signed by V. Stoiciu and published in Dilema Veche
newspaper)
1.4.2. The case of Italy
For the first time in the past twenty years, the number of Romanians residing
in Italy has slightly decreased, going under 900,000 persons. The 2010
statistical data show that 887,763 Romanians officially reside in Italy, while
the unofficial estimated number of Romanians is around a million persons.
Nonetheless, Romanians are the most numerous foreign community located
in Italy, followed by the Albanians and Moroccans which together sum up to
about 450.000 persons (Pittau et al., 2010).
The immigration dynamics of Italy remained relative unaffected by the
economic crisis. Regardless that the in the first nine months of 2009 the net
rate decreased with 21%, in comparison with the same period of the previous
year, the number of foreign residents in Italy increased during the recession
TABLE 5. The evolution of the foreign citizens in Italy (2007-2009)
Romanians
2007
2008
2009
625.278
796.477
887.763
Total citizens from other EU countries
934.435
1.131.767
1.241.348
Total foreign citizens
3.432.651
3.891.295
4.235.059
Source: National Institute of Statistics, Italy (Istat).
The Italian labor market registered profound transformations during the
crisis. The gap between the unemployment rate of native workers and that of
the migrant workers has amplified from the second half of 2008 to 2009. In
the first half of 2009, the immigrant unemployment rate reached the historic
threshold of 10%. As in the case of Spain, migrant women were less affected
by unemployment than men, as women are concentrated in economic sectors
which were less affected by economic fluctuations.
However, the immigrant unemployment rate of Italy remained the lowest
amongst other European states. In this regard, it might be a result of the
relatively low concentration of migrants in activity sectors which employ
unskilled labor work (Koehler et al., 2010).15
TABLE 6. The number of the established employed and of the newly employed
Romanian migrants in Italy
Employed
Newly
employed
Romanians
Total foreigners
Romanians
Total foreigners
2005
2006
2007
2008
245.559
2.217.696
33.616
200.454
263.210
2.194.271
34.117
235.096
556.554
2.704.450
293.154
599.566
674.026
2.998.462
174.531
444.941
Source: Pittau et al. (2010).
Although the unemployment rate increased, the number of Romanians
employed in Italy almost doubled in 2007, registering a significant increase
during the economic crisis, even overpassing the pre-recession rates (table 6).
Half of them are employed in the tertiary sector (family assistance, hotels and
restaurants), a third in constructions and a fifth in agriculture. As suggested
by Koehler et al., the large number of employees in the tertiary sector, which
was less affected by the crisis, might explain the low unemployment rates in
Italy in comparison with other member states.
Another possible explanation of the low impact of the crisis would be the
large number of established foreign companies by migrants, even during
recession times. In comparison with the previous year, in 2009, increasing
with 15%, the number of registered Romanian companies in Italy reached
32,452.16
15
As presented in Table 1, the proportion of immigrant workers in sectors which employ
unskilled labor force varies between Greece (32%), Spain (21%) and Italy (under 15%).
16
Specifically, in 2003, 2,909 Romanian companies were registered in Italy. In 2007, when
Romania became a member state of the EU, the number of companies reached 15,942; thus, five
times bigger than in 2003 (Pittau et al., 2010).
BOX 3. Why being a seller in Cyprus is better than being a
company owner in Romania
Mioara […] has been working in Cyprus for the past 8 years and,
although now, because of the crisis, things are worse for her, not
even for moment has she considered returning home, to Constanţa
[t.n. large city with a population of a quarter million, located in the SouthEast Romania]. Although, she came to Cyprus in order to finish
building her house, now, all finished – a 250 square meter villa next
to Kogălniceanu Airport - she wants to sell it and buy a flat in
Cyprus. Mioara works at the same restaurant in Agya Napa, where
she was first hired 8 years ago. However, at the beginning as she
did not speak of word of English, she had to work in the kitchen
and “wash toilets”, in her words, until the owner, Nicolas, started
trusting her. Now, Mioara manages the whole restaurant: procuring
supplies, placing orders and even doing the hiring. “When I go
home to Constanţa, Nicolas calls me 3 times a day to ask me where
to buy this or where to order that. As a matter of fact, he is like a
brother to me, as a couple of years ago, he even borrowed me the
20,000 I needed to finish my house”. Mioara’s sister, Sorina, also
lives in Cyprus, where she married a Cypriot, and she has a 3 year
old daughter who “understands Romanian, but does not speak it”.
It is obvious that, however bad the crisis may be, neither Sorina, nor
Mioara will ever return to Romania. For them, Cyprus is their new
homeland. “It is not true that the Cypriots are racists, here we did
not have any of the problems the Romanians have in Italy. We, who
are here, have kept busy working, who knows what would be from
now on, as beggars or people who sing have already started to come
here. I don’t know how long this crisis would last, but it brought
new and different kinds of people over here”, tells Mioara.
The official number of Romanians in Cyprus has increased from
3,000 in 2006 to 30,000 in 2009, which represents approximately
4.4% of the country’s population. They represent the third largest
community after the Greeks and the Russians.
In Cyprus, there are five Romanian schools: in Nicosia, Limassol,
Paphos, Larnaca, and Deli. The last three opened in the fall of 2009.
The Romanian community in Cyprus enjoys the services of the
representative of the Romanian Patriarchate, as father Petre Matei is
the permanent priest of St. Paul Church (“Ayios Pavlos”) of Nicosia.
Since 2007, the monthly magazine RO_Mania, aimed at the
members of the local Romanian community, can be found at any
newspaper stand in Cyprus.
The average wage of a Romanian working in Cyprus is about 800 –
1,000 euro, however, a skilled worker may earn up to 2,200 euro.
In 2008, the Blue Air Company inaugurated the Bucharest-Larnaca
and Bucharest-Paphos air routes. The overall number of passengers
on these routes was about 100,000 in 2008. The great majority
represented, most probably, immigrants and the immigrants’
families, as the number of Romanian tourists who visited Cyprus
for that year was about 8-9,000 persons.
In November 2009, the Cypriot Minister of Labor, Sotiroulla
Charalambous declared that Cypriot authorities liberated 110
Romanians from “modern slavery”. These 110 Romanians had been
brought to Cyprus under the pretense of legal employment
contracts, however, ending up in unsanitary camps where they
were made to work for 20 euro a week.
(Excerpt ‘Why being a seller in Cyprus is better than being a
company owner in Romania’, signed by V. Stoiciu and published in
România Liberă newspaper)
PART II.
THE SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH
CHAPTER 2.
DATA AND METHOD
The sociological research ‘The impact of the economic crisis on the Romanian
migration for work’ was launched and financed by Friedrich Ebert
Foundation Romania (FES). The research was conducted in 2010 and
involved both quantitative and qualitative research techniques.
2.1. Data
2.1.1. Quantitative research
The survey was carried-out by the Company for Sociological Research and
Branding (Compania de Cercetare Sociologică şi Branding – CCSB), in
August 2010.
The research universe refers to adult population (18 years or more), noninstitutionalized and residing in six counties of the country, namely: Braşov,
Călăraşi, Dolj, Maramureş, Neamţ and Vaslui. The selection of the six
counties was done based on the CCSB’s estimates of migrant return rates, but
also on certain practical and budgetary considerations. Thus, according to the
CCSB estimations, the selection include counties both with high return rates
of the migrants for work abroad (Braşov, Dolj, Neamţ and Maramureş) as
well as with medium return rates (Călăraşi and Vaslui).17
The sample includes 2,970 cases, which were selected from 71 communes and
30 cities/towns. The sample is probabilistic, two-stage stratified based on two
criteria - county and locality size (6 x 6 theoretical strata).18
Data were collected based on face-to-face interviews in a natural setting (i.e.
the residence of the participant). Overall, the research comprised the
following categories of population:
(A)
Households without persons that migrated for work abroad in August
2010
(B1)
Households with persons that migrated for work abroad in August 2010
(B2)
Households with persons residing and working abroad that are on
holiday in Romania in August 2010
(C)
Households with persons who returned from abroad (not on holiday) in
the last 12 months (September 2009 – August 2010) and have plans to
stay more than 3 months in the country (irrespective of whether they
still intend or not to emigrate in the future).
Accordingly, three questionnaires were developed: A (applied to A category),
B (applied to B1 and B2 categories) and C (specific to C category). All three
questionnaires include common sections regarding perceptions and opinions
on the economic crisis and its effects, emigration for work and its effects, and
the intention to migrate for work abroad. The questionnaires types B and C
present a common section regarding information about persons gone to work
17
According to the initial estimates, 14% of the population aged 18 and over (approximately 2.5
million people) went abroad for work, out of which, around 20% have returned to Romania due
to the economic crisis. The CCSB estimations rely on a series of periodical surveys (in total, over
4,000 cases), which allow also the identification of the structure of the population migranting for
work abroad.
18 Theoretical strata used for locality size are: very large urban (over 250 thousand inhabitants),
large urban (80-249 thousand inhabitants), medium urban (30-79 thousands), small urban (15-29
thousands), very small urban (less than 15 thousand inhabitants), and rural.
abroad (migrants still abroad, on holiday in Romania or returned).
Additionally, questionnaire B includes a section on remittances, and
questionnaire C includes an extensive section on the everyday life experience
of the migrant for work abroad. The questionnaires (A, B and C) are
presented in the Appendix chapter.
Addresses (households) were selected based on the random route method,
which ensure that the sample is representative at household level for all six
counties.
For A and B1 categories, in each household, the respondent was selected
through the ‘last-birthday’ method. For B2 and C categories, the interview
was taken with the migrant on holiday or returned in the country. Thus,
respondents A and B1 form a representative sample for the population aged
18 years and over of the six counties, while respondents B2 and C form two
non-representative lots. Moreover, respondents in B1 and B2 categories
provided also data regarding the other migrants from the household, who
make up a third non-representative lot.
Categories of
population
A
B1
B2
C
Questionnaire
A
B
B
C
Representativity:*
- at population level
C: Lot of
returned
migrants
A+B1: Population de 18+ years
from the 6 selected counties
B2: Lot of migrants in holiday
- at migrants level
- at household level
Collected information
about:
B1+B2: Lot of migrants abroad
A+B1+B2+C: Households from the 6 selected counties
Respondent
Respondent
+ Migrants
from the
household
found abroad
Respondent =
Migrant in
holiday in the
country
+ Migrants from
the household
found abroad
Respondent =
Migrant
returned in
the country
during the
crisis
* Error of ± 1.8% (± 4.5% per county) at a 95% confidence level, according to CCSB. Note: Lot
refers to a non-representative sample.
Based on the methodology described above, the quantitative research covers
data on:19
•
•
•
•
A+B1+B2+C: 2,974 households (representative sample);
A+B1: 2,733 persons – stable population (representative sample);
B2: Non-representative sample of 107 migrants found on holiday in the
country, in August 2010;
C: Non-representative sample of 134 migrants returned in the country
during the crisis from work abroad;
•
B1+B2: All migrants for work abroad (N=908) from households B1+B2
together with migrants on holiday in the country (B2) form a sample of
migrants at work abroad (N=1,015) which corresponds to a representative
sample at household level.
TABLE 2. 1. Distribution of population and sample by county, gender and age
categories (%)
M 18-29 years
M 30-44 years
M 45-59 years
M 60+ years
F 18-29 years
F 30-44 years
F 45-59 years
F 60+ years
GENERAL
POPULATION
M 18-29 years
M 30-44 years
M 45-59 years
M 60+ years
F 18-29 years
F 30-44 years
F 45-59 years
BV
CL
DJ
MM
NT
VS
Total
2,5
2,5
2,4
1,7
2,4
2,7
2,5
2,3
1,1
1,4
1,2
1,3
1,1
1,3
1,2
1,7
2,7
3,1
2,8
2,9
2,7
3,0
2,9
3,8
2,1
2,3
1,9
1,5
1,9
2,2
2,0
1,9
2,0
2,3
1,9
2,0
1,9
2,3
2,1
2,6
1,7
1,9
1,5
1,6
1,6
1,8
1,6
2,0
12,2
13,5
11,7
11,0
11,5
13,4
12,4
14,3
19,0
10,2
23,9
15,8
17,2
13,7
100
2,0
2,6
2,0
3,0
2,3
2,1
2,8
1,1
1,0
0,8
1,6
1,0
1,3
1,1
1,6
2,3
3,0
4,5
2,1
2,3
3,0
1,8
2,2
2,5
1,7
1,4
2,3
2,2
1,2
1,9
1,5
2,6
2,1
2,3
2,3
1,7
1,5
1,1
1,9
1,1
1,9
1,9
9,3
11,4
11,0
15,2
10,0
12,2
13,3
19
The data mentioned in the text are weighted. The non-weighted data represent 2,970
households (A+B1+B2+C), 2,729 persons – stable population (A+B1), 105 migrants in holiday in
the country (B2), 136 migrants returned from abroad (C) and 1,016 migrants at work abroad from
households B1+B2.
F 60+ years
SAMPLE
(A+B1)
3,9
2,0
4,2
1,8
3,4
2,4
17,7
20,7
9,9
22,9
15,9
17,2
13,4
100
Data: Survey FES-CCSB (August 2010). Weighted data A+B1 (N=2,733 persons). Notes: BV –
Braşov; CL – Călăraşi; Dj – Dolj; MM – Maramureş; NT – Neamţ; VS – Vaslui.
However, it is essential to mention that the data regarding migrants do not
include information about kinship relations. Therefore, data does not allow
an analysis at the family level (couples with or without children), but just the
analysis of the migrant population at the individual level.
The sample representative at population level (A+B1) was validated based on
the stable population data from the six counties (in 2009) provided by the
National Institute for Statistics (see tables 2.1 and 2.2).
As observed in the Table 2.1, the research sample (A+B1) presents a structure
by gender and age categories very similar to the general population, with a
slight overrepresentation of the population aged 60 years and over.
TABLE 2. 2. Distribution of population and sample by county and locality size (%)
Sampling strata
BV
CL
DJ
MM
NT
VS
Total
Urban over 250 thou inh.
Urban 80 -249 thou inh.
Urban 30-79 thou inh.
Urban very small (under 15 thou)
Rural
GENERAL
POPULATION
9,7
0,0
1,1
2,5
1,3
4,5
0,0
0,0
2,2
0,9
0,7
6,5
9,9
0,0
0,0
1,8
0,8
11,4
0,0
4,3
1,3
1,3
2,3
6,6
0,0
3,4
2,1
0,6
0,5
10,6
0,0
0,0
4,3
0,9
0,5
8,1
19,5
7,7
11,0
8,0
6,2
47,6
19,0
10,2
23,9
15,8
17,2
13,7
100
10,2
0,0
1,4
2,9
1,2
5,0
0,0
0,0
2,3
0,7
0,8
6,0
10,1
0,0
0,0
2,6
0,0
10,2
0,0
4,4
1,4
2,3
1,4
6,5
0,0
3,1
2,3
1,2
0,0
10,6
0,0
0,0
4,5
0,5
1,1
7,3
20,2
7,5
11,8
10,2
4,5
45,6
20,7
9,9
22,9
15,9
17,2
13,4
100
Urban over 250 thou inh.
Urban 80 -249 thou inh.
Urban very small (under 15 thou)
Rural
SAMPLE
(A+B1)
Data: Survey FES-CCSB (August 2010). Weighted data A+B1 (N=2,733 persons). Notes: BV –
Braşov; CL – Călăraşi; Dj – Dolj; MM – Maramureş; NT – Neamţ; VS – Vaslui.
For correcting the unequal probabilities of selection and for adjusting the
uniform non-response rates, we use a weight which is built (iterative
proportional) on two criteria: county and locality size.
Aside the sampling errors, other issues, such as question formulation, errors
of the field operators, difficulties in data collection, psychological defense
mechanisms of the respondents, may induce additional errors that cannot be
counted in the statistical margin of error.
The analyses presented in this report are based on the weighted data.
Consequently, the sum of the percentages can sometimes vary with +/- 1
percentage point to 100%.
2.1.2. Qualitative research
The research also included a qualitative component, consisting in in-depth
interviews with the following respondent categories:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Returned Romanian migrants
Relatives/ family members of Romanian migrants for work abroad
Romanians which are currently working abroad
Representatives of the Romanian local authorities from settlements
which are characterized by high concentration of emigrants
Local authority representatives from the top-destination cities of the
Romanian migrants (Rome-Italy and Madrid-Barcelona-Spain)
Representatives of the Romanian diaspora, members of Romanian
migrant organizations and associations in the cities were the
interviews were taken.
Overall, 74 in-depth interviews were carried out in Romania and abroad. In
Romania, interviews were performed both in communes and cities from the
counties Călăraşi, Braşov and Piatra Neamţ. Abroad, the interviews were
conducted in Italy (Rome) and in Spain (the Barcelona and Madrid regions).
The qualitative research was carried-out in August-November 2010.
The in-depth interviews followed the structure of the guideline presented in
Appendix and have assessed the effects of the crisis on the migrant workers
taking into account the differences experienced by those in Spain and Italy.
Furthermore, the interviews aimed to understand the mechanisms that
migrants used to cope with the crisis, to stay active on the labor market and
to earn enough money for themselves and their families back home. The
questions also focused on: the intention to return in the country due to the
recession; personal migration histories; connection with the country of
destination; support networks; purpose and reasons for choosing to work
abroad; remittances; perception of the participant on how various industries
in the destination countries were affected by the crisis; and the gendered
impact of the crisis.
2.2. Method
2.2.1. Quantitative research
The results presented in the next chapters are based on statistics and
measures of association (crosstabs procedure with significant Pearson chisquare and adjusted standardized residuals equal or higher than 2 in absolute
value), one-way variance analysis (One-Way Anova), and regression models.
As a general rule, the following multilevel set of independent variables
(predictors) was systematically tested, out of which this volume presents only
the results statically significant at p≤0.05.
Independent variables at the individual level:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
gender
age
completed level of education
employment status as of August 2010
ownership (state/privat) of the units in which work the employed
persons
ethnicity
religion
type of experience (knowledge) regarding migration for work abroad:
direct (worked or lived abroad), indirect (having a relative working
abroad), and no experience
•
personal monthly income.
Independent variables at the household level:
• size (number of household members) and composition (number of
children aged 0-14 years within household)
• monthly cash income per capita
• subjective assessment of living conditions
• material capital – index determined as factor score of three indicators:
number of mobile phones, automobiles and personal computers in the
household.
Independent variables at the community level:
•
•
•
•
•
•
county (Braşov, Călăraşi, Dolj, Maramureş, Neamţ şi Vaslui)
residence (urban/ rural)
locality type: urban settlements according to size (very small, small,
medium, large, very large) and rural settlements (communes)
level of development of rural settlements (communes), according to the
Community Development Index (IDC)20
rate of poverty, depth and severity of poverty at the commune level21
data regarding social problems at the locality level (provided by
municipalities at 31.07.2009):22 (1) unemployment rate;23 (2) rate of
migrants for work abroad; (3) proportion of households living in
20 Index elaborated by Sandu, Voineagu and Panduru in 2009. Data and methodology are
available at: http://sites.google.com/site/dumitrusandu. IDC is calculated as factor score of the
following four partial indexes: housing infrastructure (INS data, 2007-2008), public funds at the
local budget reported at the commune stable population (MAI data, 2007), economic individualfamily capital (measured as cars per 1,000 residents, MAI data, 2007) and human capital at
community level estimated based on: infant mortality rate (INS, 2005-2008), average age of
population 15+ years (INS, 2008) and life expectancy at birth (INS, 2006-2008).
21 Values published by MADR, www.madr.ro. These indexes are calculated by INS (based on
2004 data) and were taken into account when determining the score for projects submitted for
funding under Measure 322-FEADR, as poverty rate is one of the eligibility criteria for this type
of European funds.
22 Census of municipalities The Access of Local Authorities at the European Funds (Accesul
Autorităţilor Locale la Fondurile Europene), financed by Soros Foundation Romania, and carried out
by CERME, CNPS and ICCV, in December 2009. The study Soros (2009) is available at:
http://www.soros.ro/ro/publicatii.php?pag=5#
23 Municipalities estimated the unemployed rate per total locality population, at 31.07.2009,
where “unemployed” referred to any person of active age who is not employed and is seeking
for a job. Therefore, the data provided by the municipalities differ from the standard predictors –
registered unemployed rate and ILO unemployed rate.
•
•
improvised, abandoned or unsanitary dwellings; (4) proportion of
beneficiaries of social aid (Law on Guaranteed Minimum Income). In the
same time we use an index24 of intensity of social problems in
community.
financial resources of municipality – revenues per capita, according to the
budget execution for 2008, the Ministry of Public Finance.25 Alternatively,
we also used the indicator – share of own revenues in total revenues at
the local budget.
the capacity of local authorities to attract funds for the local budget: (1)
number of projects submitted for European funding 2007-2009; (2)
number of projects approved for financing with European funds in 20072009.26
The respondent’s socio-demographic profile of the representative sample at
population level can be found in the adjacent Table 2.3.
Among the respondents in households without migrants (A) are statistically
over-represented: persons 30-44 years old, highly educated, well situated on
the labor market, with relatively high income, residing in developed cities,
especially from Braşov, Călaraşi and Dolj counties. In contrast, for
respondents in households with members working abroad (B1) are
statistically over-represented: persons 45-64 years old, with medium-low
education, pupils/students and farmers, with relatively low incomes, which
reside in small towns, especially from Neamţ and Maramureş counties.
The index of intensity of social problems in community is based on the municipalities’
estimations of: unemployment rate, proportion of beneficiaries of social aid and proportion of
households living in improvised, abandoned or unsanitary dwellings (Stănculescu, 2010, on
Soros data regarding 2009).
25 Financial resources of municipality are measured as own revenues per capita (including quotas
deducted from the income tax) because this indicators reflects the level of local economic
development. A settlement with low revenues is a locality with an underdeveloped economy,
with no companies other than bars and small shops. In contrast, a settlement with a developed
and diversified economy has relatively high revenues per inhabitant.
26 Data available in the Soros (2009) research on The Access of Local Authorities at the European
Funds at http://www.soros.ro/ro/publicatii.php?pag=5#
24
TABEL 2. 3. The socio-demographic profile of respondents from the sample
representative at the population level, 2010 (%)
Persons
from
households
without
migrants
(A)
Persons
from
households
with
migrants
(B1)
Total
sample
(A+B1)
TOTAL – N
2,062
671
2,733
TOTAL - %
75,4%
24,6%
100%
Gender
- women
- men
73,9%
76,8%
26,1%
23,2%
100%
100%
Age
- 18-29 years
- 30-44 years
- 45-64 years
- 65 years and over
72,6%
81,1%
72,6%
76,1%
27,4%
18,9%
27,4%
23,9%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Ethnicity
- Romanians
- Hungarians
- Roma
75,6%
77,6%
71,4%
24,4%
22,4%
28,6%
100%
100%
100%
Education
level
- gymnasium at most
- vocational
- highschool
- college
- University
73,2%
71,3%
76,0%
76,7%
84,0%
26,8%
28,7%
24,0%
23,3%
16,0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Occupation
- pensioners
- housepersons
- unemployed
- pupil/students
- farmers
- workers “blue collars”
- „grey collars”
- „white collars”
- managers, employers
74,7%
72,2%
77,0%
67,9%
68,3%
76,5%
77,7%
84,0%
86,5%
25,3%
27,8%
23,0%
32,1%
31,7%
23,5%
22,3%
16,0%
13,5%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Cash
income
monthly
per capita
(Quintile)
- Q1 (average 150 lei/month/ person)
- Q5 (average 1,300 lei/month/ person)
Non-response
73,3%
70,1%
78,8%
73,0%
78,9%
76,1%
26,7%
29,9%
21,2%
27,0%
21,1%
23,9%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TABEL 2.3. (continuation)
Persons
from
households
without
migrants
(A)
Persons
from
households
with
migrants
(B1)
Total
sample
(A+B1)
TOTAL – N
2.062
671
2.733
TOTAL - %
75,4%
24,6%
100%
Personal
income
monthly
(Quintile)
- Q1 (no cash incomes)
- Q2 (average 300 lei/month)
- Q5 (average 1,500 lei/month)
Non-response
71,6%
75,2%
74,7%
75,3%
79,0%
76,9%
28,4%
24,8%
25,3%
24,7%
21,0%
23,1%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Residence
- urban
- rural
76,8%
73,8%
23,2%
26,2%
100%
100%
Locality
type
- poor commune
- medium developed commune
- developed commune
- towns under 20 thou inhabitants
- cities with 20 thou inh. or more
75,3%
72,3%
72,8%
69,7%
78,3%
24,7%
27,7%
27,2%
30,3%
21,7%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
County
- Braşov
- Călăraşi
- Dolj
- Maramureş
- Neamţ
- Vaslui
81,8%
84,0%
79,8%
67,2%
64,8%
75,1%
18,2%
16,0%
20,2%
32,8%
35,2%
24,9%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Data: Opinion Poll FES-CCSB (august 2010).
2.2.2. Qualitative research
The qualitative data analysis completes and provides a better understanding
of the relevant aspects of the quantitative component. Concurrently, it
provides comprehensive descriptions and novel perspectives that address the
impact of the economic crisis over the Romanian labor migration.
The interview analysis took into consideration the potential trends of the
Romanian labor migration and/or of Romanian labor mobility within the EU27 context given the prolonged economic and financial recession; naturally,
assuming the common limitations of such a study. Some of our results have
already been confirmed by the recent developments of migration as reflected
in the ANOFM statistical data. However, there are some effects of the crisis
on the Romanian migration that could not be anticipated – for instance, the
reinforcement of restrictions for the Romanian emigrants on the Spanish
labor market.
The analysis covered all 74 conducted interviews.
Categories of interviewees
Romania
Italy
Spain
- Migrants returned during the crisis
10
-
-
- Relatives/ family members of Romanian
migrants for work abroad
11
-
-
- Romanians which are currently working
abroad
7
13
19
- Representatives of the Romanian local
authorities from settlements which are
characterized by high concentration of
emigrants
6
-
-
- Local authority representatives from the
top-destination cities of the Romanian
migrants (in Italy and Spain)
-
-
2
- Representatives of the Romanian
diaspora, members of Romanian migrant
organizations and associations in the
cities were the interviews were taken
-
2
4
CHAPTER 3.
THE ECONOMIC CRISIS AND MIGRATION
3.1. The perceptions of the economic crisis and its effects
The topic of economic crisis and its effects described in this section was
covered through the common questions addressed to all types of
respondents. There is a generalized consensus at the level of the population
for the six studied counties that the current economic recession has affected
‘profoundly’ (71%) or ‘somewhat greatly’ (24%) Romania.
FIGURE 2. 1. The crisis affected ‘(very/rather) much’ country and population (%)
100
75
50
25
95
84
95
84
95
84
94
85
92
78
0
(A) Pers oane di n
gos podă rii FĂRĂ
migranți
(B1) Pers oa ne din
gos podă rii cu
migra nți
ESANTION
REPREZENTATIV
(A+B1)
(C) Pers oane
REVENITE de l a
muncă di n
s trăinătate
(B2) Mi gra nți la
muncă IN VACANTA în
țară
România es te afecta tă de cri za economică ”des tul de mult” ș i ”foa rte mult”
Pe dvs . ș i fa mi lia dvs . cri za economi că v-a afectat ”des tul de mul t” ș i ”foarte mult”
Data: Opinion Poll FES-CCSB (august 2010).
Likewise, the majority of the respondents consider that, both as individuals
and as family, they were affected “profoundly” (54%) or “somewhat greatly”
(30%) by the crisis. Women, persons of 45-59 years, Roma, persons with no
formal education or with maximum 10 grades, housewives, unemployed,
persons from households with very low income,27 which do not own a car, a
mobile phone or a computer, are significantly more likely to declare
themselves as being more affected by the economic crisis. In other words, the
“deprived” people (marginalized on the labor market, with low
human/material capital and low income) perceived themselves as most
affected by the crisis.
At the community level, the inhabitants of small towns (less than 30 thousand
inhabitants) and from poor communes,28 with very low revenues at the local
budget,29 and that cannot obtain European funds,30 in particular from
Călăraşi, Vaslui and Dolj counties, confirmed to be significantly more
affected by crisis.
The interviews with local authorities have confirmed this dominant perception
– the effects of the crisis are ruthless, propagate in waves and tend to be longterm especially in (small) towns and communes which concentrate emigrants:
“Since the crisis hit, the commune no longer blossoms. Married young couples
go abroad for about three months; some of them come back. Anyways, they are
no longer satisfied as the money is not what as it used to be, there (in the
destination country) as well as here (in Romania). With the money they earn,
they try to build a tiny house with couple of rooms. The crisis even affected the
municipality employees as we had to let go of 18 employees. You can imagine
how difficult that was… We are faced with very serious problems at the local
The 20% households with the lowest monthly income per capita out of total households in the
six counties.
28 The communes of the six selected counties with relatively low IDC scores (Sandu et al., 2009)
and relatively high poverty rates (MADR data for 2004) compared with the other communes in
the country.
29 Revenues per capita and the proportion of own revenues in total revenues at the local budget
were, in 2008, relatively low compared to the other towns/communes in the country (Soros,
2009).
30 A small number of projects submitted for funding, as well as a low number of projects
approved for European funding in 2007-2009 (Soros, 2009).
27
council level… no more money.” (Local authority representative,
Romania)
The dominant opinion regarding the adverse effects of the recession is also
shared by migrants who work abroad and those who returned or are on
vacation in Romania (figure 2.2).
Resident population and migrants (returned or on vacation) agree that both the
family income and savings have reduced as a result of the crisis. Consequently,
around two thirds of households could no longer afford in August 2010 what
they did before the crisis, and 39% of the households faced difficulties in the
payment of bank installments.
Furthermore, 71% of the migrants who were on vacation (B2) in August 2010
declared that family income reduced due to the crisis. This percentage
represents the majority, but it is significantly lower than 79-83% of other
population categories. Similarly, 65% of the migrants on vacation (B2)
reported reductions in family savings as compared to 75% of total households
and, in particular, to 86% of the returned migrants (C).
FIGURE 2. 2. Effects of the crisis on incomes (%)
83
71
81
79
S-a u redus venituri le fa mil i ei
86
65
74
77
71
62
65
67
39
36
35
40
0
S-a u di mi nuat economi il e fami l iei
(C)
Lucruri pe ca re vi l e permi teați îna i nte nu vi l e ma i
permi teți în prezent
(B2)
(B1)
Este ma i greu să pl ătiți ra tele l a bancă
(A)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Date: Opinion poll FES-CCSB (august 2010).
The effects of the crisis on the workplace do not differ significantly between the
studied population categories. While 28% of the population (A+B1) have
somebody in their family who lost employment, the percentage increases to
33% for migrants on vacation in the country and, respectively, to 40% for the
persons returned from work abroad. However, this is an apparent difference.
If we relate only to the economically-active persons (employed or
unemployed), then the share of those having somebody in their family who
lost a job as a result of the crisis ranges between 29% and 39% with no
significant differences between population categories.
Likewise, the percentage of active persons working overtime out of fear of
loosing their job ranges between 34% and 41%, yet, with no significant
differences between persons in households without migrants, households
with migrants, returned migrants and those on vacation in the country.
TABEL 2. 4. Changes of living conditions in the last 6 months (February - August
2010) (%)
Condiţiile de trai ...
(A)
(B1)
(C)
(B2)
(A+B1)
Au devenit foarte rele (nu acoperă strictul necesar)
18
18
9
15
18
S-au inrăutăţit (doar pentru strictul necesar)
49
46
36
36
48
Au devenit satisfăcătoare (un trai decent)
26
30
38
25
27
Au devenit bune (ne permite şi bunuri scumpe)
5
3
10
14
4
Au devenit foarte bune (ne permitem orice dorim)
0
1
4
6
1
Non-răspuns
2
1
4
5
2
100
100
100
100
100
Total
Income drop, diminishing savings and job loss have caused worsening of the living
conditions (Table 2.4). Thus, approximately 66% of all households declared
that, in the last six months, their living conditions became very bad
(insufficient even for the bare necessities) or bad (sufficient only for the bare
necessities). Although in lower proportions, households with returned
migrants and households with migrants on vacation registered a decline in
living conditions in proportions of 45% and respectively, 51%.
Concomitantly, the household consumption was affected as more than half of the
households spent more on food (54% of households), health (56%) and for
dwelling maintenance and utilities, in August 2010 in comparison with
August 2009.
Education expenditures are characteristic to households with children. Out of
all households with children, approximately a quarter cut down on education
expenses in 2010, a quarter spent the same and 40% declared that they
invested more in the child’s education (the households with migrants on
vacation, B2, were overrepresented in this category).31
Vacation expenses were reduced in the summer of 2010, for more than 40% of
the households and remained the same for 16% of households, while one
third of total households choose not to answer to this question. Only the
households with returned migrants or with migrants on vacation reported
larger percentage increases in the vacation expenses: 18% and respectively,
23% of households.
The expectations for 2011 appear to be rather pessimistic. More than three quarters
of the surveyed population (irrespective of category) think that ‘in the
following year, the Romanian economic situation will depreciate’ (either
‘significantly’ or ‘little’) and only 8-12% expect it to ‘remain the same’ or to
‘improve’.
... in conclusion, in terms of perceptions, the economic crisis led to
poorer incomes, lesser savings, job loss, consumption distortion
and depreciation of the general living conditions. Additionally, at
population level, the Romanian economic situation will continue
its fall in 2011 ...
3.2. The evolution and effects of the migration for work abroad
Aside from the adverse effects on income, savings, consumption and
workplace, the economic crisis steered the ‘family members abroad to return
at home” and forced shrinkages of the remittances sent by those working
31
10% did not answer the question.
abroad. The incidence of these two phenomena for each category, in terms of
migration, can be found bellow.
FIGURE 2. 3. Impacts of the crisis (%)
(A)
(B1)
(A+B1)
(C)
(B2)
60
50
40
30
30
20
10
8
10
12
8
6
49
21
32
43
0
Membri i fa mi l i ei pl e ca ți pes te
hota re a u fos t nevoi ți s ă s e întoa rcă
a ca s ă
Ba ni i tri mi ș i de membri i fa mi l i ei
ca re l ucrea ză pes te hota re s -a u
di mi nua t
The majority of population believes that, in contrast with 2009, in 2010 the labor
migration has increased. Only the returned migrants consider, in a significantly
higher proportion (26%), that migration presents a decreasing trend due to
the economic crisis (compared to the 15% at the representative sample level).
Persons who consider that labor migration increased in 2010, irrespective of
their population category, presume that this phenomenon is caused by the
declining situation in Romania during recession and by the unsatisfactorily
life chances within the country. Specifically, almost all these persons share
the opinion that people are forced to leave for work abroad because they lost
their jobs and/or their incomes have dramatically shrunk. Thus, the real
chances are available only abroad, as Romania is a country: ‘poor’,
‘miserable’, ‘corrupt’, ‘badly managed’ and ‘lacking real opportunities’.
In contrast, the persons who think that labor migration diminished refer also
to job loss and salary cutbacks, however, not in Romania, but in the
destination countries. Only very few (less than 15%) of these consider that
migration reduced for other reasons, such as: finding a job in Romania,
homesickness or health matters. Returned migrants focus on a different
narrative, often mentioning that they have ‘reached their goals’32 as the main
reason for the reduction of the labor migration.
The interviews with local leaders highlight the same issues identified by our
quantitative research. Thus, the situation experienced on local and/or regional
level has, in large terms, the same characteristics as found at the general and
national levels. However, in the context of the prolonged economic crisis and
the impact of the crisis-migration tandem on the community, both the local
departures for work abroad and return migration, as well as remittances send
back home to Romania are factors which strongly affect the local communities.
Furthermore, they become essential to the development or survival of the
community. Weighing the migration trends in his commune, one of the local
leaders declared: “For two years now, when the crisis struck, more and more
people keep leaving…, in comparison with three-four years ago. Certainly, lots
and lots of them, as the number of departures increase”. When asked ‘Why do
people leave? Did they lose their jobs or have their incomes decreased?’ the
interviewee told that “They didn’t lose any job, as they had no job in the first
place. Our commune does not count more than 150 employees. So they leave,
for another life, another world, yes… they have opportunities there”. What
about here? How do people make ends meet? “Mainly out of what they
produce in their household (garden/land), pensions of the elders and child
allowances. These are about all.” (Local authority representative,
Romania)
With regard to the perceived effects of labor migration abroad, the opinions vary.
While persons in households without migrant members tend to emphasize
the negative effects, the opinions of people who have a migrant member in
the household and of those who returned are balanced between negative and
positive effects, whereas migrants on vacation in Romania tend to focus on
the positive effects. The discrepancies between persons in households
without migrants (A) and migrants on vacation (B2) are statistically
significant only with regard to three migration effects (explicitly indicated in
the questionnaire). Firstly, ‘migration contributes to the country
development’ believe 62% of the migrants on vacation and just 50% of the
32
They earned all the necessary money; they build/bought/renovated their dwelling etc.
persons in households without migrants.33 Secondly, ‘migration is the only
solution to make <<decent money>>’ corresponds to 78% of the migrants on
vacation and 68% of the persons in households without migrants.34 Thirdly,
‘migration tears families apart’ agree 84% of the persons in households
without migrants and 73% of the migrants on vacation.35
CHAPTER 4.
GOING TO AND COMING FROM WORK
… although there are significant differences in attitudes towards
migration, all population categories share the dominant opinion:
migration somewhat ‘contributes to development of Romania’ and
‘helps those who emigrate to see how people live elsewhere’.
Nevertheless, at the same time, ‘migration tears families apart’,
‘makes people care only about money’ and deepens the social
inequalities between the rich and the poor. At the individual level,
migration is perceived as ‘the only way to earn decent money’ …
Missing values : 6% of B2 and 10% of A category. Also, agree (partially or totally) with the
statement, 56% (with 8% missing values) of persons in households with migrants (B1) and 62%
(with 2% missing values) of the returned migrants (C). The differences up to 100% for each
category represent persons who are (partially or totally) against the statement.
34 Missing values: 10% of B2 and 11% of A; Also agree (partially or totally) with the statement,
71% of the categories B1 and C (with 9% for B1 and 5% for C missing values). The differences up
to 100% for each category represent persons who are (partially or totally) against the statement.
35 Missing values: 6% of B2 and 8% of A; Also, agree (partially or totally) with the statement, 84%
(with 5% missing values) of B1, as well as 80% (with 3% missing values) of category C (migrants
returned to Romania). Differences up to 100% in each category represent persons who are
(partially or completely) against the statement.
33
ABROAD
4.1. Rate of departures abroad and rate of returns in the
country
Given the research design, the rate of returns from work abroad can be
determined only at household level and not at population level. Thus, the
survey had a representative household sample (A+B1+B2+C) (see section
2.1.1.).
The rate of labor migration returns is defined as the share of households
with returned migrants (C) per total households (A+B1+B2+C).
The rate of labor migration departures is calculated as the proportion of
households with migrants (B1+B2) per total households. However, this rate is
slightly underestimated, given that, in accordance with the research
methodology, in the households with returned migrants, data pertaining to
the potential migrants who are still abroad were not collected. Therefore, the
available data does not allow the evaluation of the rate of departures for
households with returned migrants.
For the six selected counties, more than 26% of total households have at least
one person working abroad and 4.5% of all households have at least one
migrant who returned due to recession, in the period of September 2009 –
August 2010.
Rates of departures abroad significantly higher are registered for Maramureş
and Neamţ (over 35% of households in the county), in particular in the rural
areas, in communes with medium or above development level, but also in
small towns, with less than 30 thousand inhabitants (approximately 30% of
households).
Significantly higher rates of returns from work abroad were recorded in the
counties from Moldova region (Neamţ and Vaslui). The rates in these
counties, scoring about 7%, are three times higher in comparison with 1.7%
for households from the county of Braşov.
TABLE 2. 5. Rate of departures for work abroad and rate of returns in the country
(% households)
Household type
(A)
Total
(B1)
(B2)
(C)
Total
Rate of
departures
Rate of
returns
-N
2.062 671
107
134
2.974
(=B1+B2)
(=C)
-%
69,3
22,6
3,6
4,5
100
26,2
4,5
County
Braşov
Călăraşi
Dolj
Maramureş
Neamţ
Vaslui
79,7
77,7
72,4
61,5
57,8
67,4
17,7
14,8
18,3
30,0
31,4
22,3
0,9
3,1
4,4
5,6
3,8
3,7
1,7
4,5
4,9
2,9
7,0
6,6
100
100
100
100
100
100
18,6
17,9
22,6
35,6
35,2
26,0
1,7
4,5
4,9
2,9
7,0
6,6
Residence
Urban
Rural
71,4
67,0
21,6
23,8
2,8
4,4
4,3
4,8
100
100
24,4
28,2
4,3
4,8
Locality type
Poor commune
Medium developed commune
Developed commune
Town under 30 thou inh.
Town 30-99 thou inh.
City 100-199 thou inh.
City 200 thou inh. or more
68,0
65,8
67,0
65,5
73,3
66,1
77,0
22,3
25,2
25,0
27,0
21,0
21,2
17,9
4,3
4,4
4,7
3,3
1,4
6,4
2,0
5,4
4,7
3,3
4,2
4,4
6,4
3,2
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
26,7
29,6
29,7
30,3
22,3
27,5
19,9
5,4
4,7
3,3
4,2
4,4
6,4
3,2
The rate of returns from work abroad does not vary considerably in terms of
community development level, local poverty or intensity of social problems
within the origin community.36
Nonetheless, the rate of returns from work abroad is higher as the rate37 of
departures abroad is higher and the local economy is less developed, i.e.
revenues per capita as well as own revenues as percentage of total local
revenues are smaller.38
... in other words, the rate of returns from work abroad is more or
less the same for communes and towns, developed or
underdeveloped communities, with sever or marginal social
problems. A significantly larger proportion of households with
returned migrants are located in settlements (towns and
communes) where emigration was massive and where the economy
fails to provide any real opportunities for the locals ...
Our study commenced with the hypothesis that return migration (temporary
or permanent) would be higher in origin settlements/regions which provide
more opportunities for employment or entrepreneurship. In other words, we
expected as the return rates to be significantly higher in cities/communes
with high economic potential or those which are located in the vicinity of an
economically developed center/node. Given our results, the analysis refutes
this hypothesis.39 The economic opportunities of the origin settlement plays a
Community development level measured with IDC (Sandu et al., 2009). MADR poverty
estimates at local level (data from 2004). The index of intensity of social problems at community
level (Stănculescu, 2010; on Soros data for 2009). For more details see footnotes in section 2.2.1.
37 We refer both to the rate of departures for work abroad as results from the FES and CCBS
research (August 2010) – calculated at the household level - as well as to the rates estimated by
the local authorities (Soros, 2009) – calculated as proportion of the stable population.
38 For more details see footnotes in section 2.2.1.
39 Complementary, we conducted an aggregated analysis at the level of the 101 localities (rural
and urban) included in the sample. The rate of departures was calculated as:
(B1+B2+C)*100/total, while the return migration rate was determined as: C*100/total. The results
are similar to the ones presented in the text (and determined at the household level).
36
critical part, but in the opposite manner that expected. If only just in the case
of the selected counties, both departures and returns are higher for
settlements with underdeveloped economies. The more developed and
diversified the local economy, the lower the return migration.
4.2. The typology of migrants
The FES-CCBS research targeted persons which, in August 2010, were ‘in the
country, on vacation, visiting relatives’ (B2) and ‘recently returned, namely,
in the last 12 months’ (C). For these two types of persons, as well as for all
migrants working abroad in August 2010 (from the households selected in
the sample), a Migrant Record was completed. For persons who lived or
worked abroad, but returned before August 2009, the Migrant Record was not
required. 40
Number
of cases
Types of migrants
134
134
(Non-representative) lot of returned migrants:
(C)
1.015
- Persons who returned from abroad (not on holiday)
in the last 12 months (September 2009 – August 2010)
and have plans to stay more than 3 months in the
country (irrespective of whether they still intend or not
to emigrate in the future).
Sample of migrants still working abroad, of which:
107
(B2)
- on vacation in Romania, in August 2010
908
(B1+B2)
- found abroad, in August 2010
1.149
Total
40 In some cases of returned migrants, the Migrant Record was completed but not systematically,
but rather as fieldwork errors. Consequently, these cases are not included in this analysis.
Out of the 908 migrant households included in the sample, the majority
filled-in a single Migrant Record. However, 18% of the households with
migrants filled-in between two and five such records. Thus, in total, the
analysis covered 1,149 migrant records, corresponding to:
Migrants returned or on vacation answered personally to the Migrant Record.
For the migrants abroad, the answers were provided by the relatives residing
in Romania. The following figure shows the kinship relations between
respondents and migrants.41
FIGURA 2. 4. The kinship relations between respondents and migrants still
working abroad (% migrants working abroad)
Non-răs puns
2
Fi i că
Fi u
Frate
Soră
Mamă
Tată
Nepot
Nepoată
Soți e
Soț
Noră
Ginere
Rude de gradul doi s a u ma i mare
25
21
9
6
6
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
Data: Survey FES-CCSB (August 2010). Weighted data. N=908 migrants working abroad (B1+B2).
For 8% of the migrants working abroad, the answers were provided by
nephews (uncle/aunt), cousins, brothers (sisters)-in-law and other persons
with secondary or distant kinship relations. This high proportion casts doubt
on whether or not the migrants are real members of the household. We
expect at least some of these migrants to be part of the respondent family, but
not part of his/her household, which means that the departure rate (share of
households with migrants), is slightly overestimated in the FES-CCBS survey
Data include the kinship relation between respondents and migrants within the household.
However, there are no information about the kinship relations between migrants. For this reason,
data do not allow an analysis of the family migration (couple with or without children), but only
a study of the migrants taken individually.
41
data. Therefore, the departure rate discussed in section 4.1 needs to be treated
with caution, as it is instilled by both under and overestimations.
The three types of migrants (C - returned migrants, B2 – migrants on vacation
in Romania, B1+B2 – migrants found abroad) do not differ according to
gender or age. Nonetheless, the migrants differ considerably from the
resident population of the origin counties: equal in terms of gender, but
noticeably younger than the general population.
FIGURA 2. 5. Distribution by age categories – comparison between migrants and
resident population at the origin (%)
35
19
18-29 a ni
45
24
30-44 a ni
17
34
45-64 a ni
0
23
65 a ni şi pe s te
2
Non-ră s puns
Mi gra nți l a muncă în s tră i nă ta te (i n cl us i v re ve ni ți )
Popul a ți a di n jude țe l e d e ori gi ne
Data: Survey FES-CCSB (August 2010). Weighted data
0
4.3. The departures history and favourite destinations
The migrants left Romania at different ages, varying between 3 and 62 years,
at the first departure. Nevertheless, all migrants left for the first time to work
abroad at the average age of 29 years.
The significant difference is not the departure age, but the timing of their first
departure for work abroad. The persons who returned due to the crisis left
later than the other migrants, so they have had less time to gain experience, to
make useful connections and to develop abilities to cope with the crisis of the
destination countries’ labor market.
FIGURE 2. 6. Distribution of types of migrants by the year when they left for work
abroad for the first time (%)
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
19
82
-
No
nră
sp
un
s
0
Mi gra nți i ră ma ș i în s tră i nă ta te (i ncl us i v cei în conce di u)
Pers oa ne re ve ni te
The curve presented in Figure 2.6 indicates a dramatic shrinkage in labor
departures for all selected counties, in 2010. However, the data covers only
eight months of 2010 and, especially, refers just to the ‘first time’ departures.
Thus, it does not reflect the typical situations of temporary circulatory
migration, namely, the alternating periods spent abroad with periods spent in
the home country. The data seems to come in contradiction with the
prevailing opinion of the population, according to which labor migration
abroad increased (Section 3.2). However, even if the number of ‘first time’
departures decreased, it is also the matter of persons who went abroad after
2000 and returned to the country before the crisis to have gone back abroad in
2009-2010. Our research data did not allow the investigation of this
hypothesis.
The distribution according to destination country (or the country from which
they returned) is similar for all three types of migrants and reaffirms the
results of existent studies (e.g. Sandu, ed., 2006). Italy is by far the most
preferred country and the destination from which most migrants return.
Spain ranks second in the preferences top and, concomitantly, Spain in
statistically overrepresented in terms of returned migrants. Canada is
overrepresented by migrants who never return (be it either vacation or longterm), while France and Greece is overrepresented by migrants who are on
vacation in Romania.
FIGURE 2. 7. Distribution of types of migrants by the destination country / country
Italia
52
45
54
Spania
17
20
25
Franța
5
12
4
Marea Britanie
4
5
4
Migranți
la muncă
0
20
40în
60 0 Migranți
20în concediu
40 în țară
60
0
Persoane
20 revenite
40
where from migrants have returned (%)
... majority of returned migrants come from Italy, nevetheless, the
propensity to return is significantly higher for those in Spain ...
60
Regarding the destination regions where the studied migrants work, nonresponses account for approximately one third, and around 35% are different
regions/settlements, spread all over the world. Most frequently mentioned
regions are Rome, Madrid, Milan, Paris and London. In Rome region reside
11% of the migrants working abroad, and also the return propensity to
Romania in 2010 is disproportional higher for this area (21% of the returned
persons). In Madrid and Milan circa 4% migrants abroad reside, while
another 3% is located in Paris and London areas. The highest probability for
coming on vacation in Romania, in the summer of 2010, was represented by
migrants in Paris and Madrid, as each quantifies 9% out of all migrants on
vacation.
Regardless of whether they remained abroad or returned in the country, 63%
of the migrants left Romania for work abroad one time and 37% left two or
more times, which means that the circulatory migration is important but not
dominant. Almost 90% of all migrants have worked in only one country and
about 10% worked in two or more countries.
Irrespective of whether they left Romania only once or several times for work
abroad, the majority of migrants (50%) headed mainly towards Italy or Spain
(approximately 20% of the migrants), while the rest 'tried their luck’ in tens of
other countries. If we are to take into account all the countries they worked
in, the classification would remain identical: Italy (over 50%) and Spain (circa
20%), followed at great distance by France, Germany and Great Britain (with
5-8% each).
... consequently, the data does not support the hypothesis according
to which the returned migrants have lower (geographic) mobility in
comparison with migrants who are working abroad. Returned
migrants have attempted as many times and at the same
destinations as the migrants already settled abroad. They just joined
to the ‘migration game’ later...
BOX 4. Geographic mobility is for the Romanian migrants a
success coping strategy
The interviews taken with Romanian migrants working in Italy
(Rome) and Spain (Barcelona, Madrid) revealed the increased
mobility of Romanian workforce in the EU-27 zone. This strategy
was generally applied, even before the crisis, in order to maximize
earnings and to reduce the risks common to migration. However,
since recession struck, geographic mobility seems to have been a
successful solution to the lack of employment opportunities at
destination countries.
The qualitative research portrays that Romanian migrants prefer to
stick to their occupational sectors and change the destination
country, where they would employ the same labor or similar.
Nevertheless, in most cases, the new destinations present large
Romanian communities, which facilitate labor migration based on
social networks, such as acquaintances, relatives and friends.
The interviewed Romanian migrants declared that the move from
Spain or Italy to another country (Nordic countries, France,
Belgium, Germany and specifically, United Kingdom), as there they
would find employment, represented the most efficient manner to
take action in times of crisis, out of the other few alternatives.
On top of the dramatic decrease in the number of jobs and the
deterioration of work conditions, along with salary cuts, Romanian
migrants who worked in Spain and Italy mentioned that: (a) the
recession primarily affected the sectors in which migrants
predominated and (b) the increase in competition over existent jobs,
with both native population and all other migrant groups. In this
context, occupational mobility or change of the activity sector
becomes a challenging option, with higher costs than that of
changing country within the EU.
„ Currently, I work in agriculture, near Napoli, for two years now. Before
I worked in a restaurant in Germany, but I left there in 2007. In Germany,
they had personal cutbacks due to the crisis. So, I came to Italy in 2008,
where I knew one of my neighbors was. But there isn’t much work in Italy
either. Now I’m leaving for Belgium, to see how things are going there.
What can I do, I need to provide for my children.” (Woman, 44 years old,
Italy migrant)
4.4. Why do the migrants go abroad?
For money, this is why people leave for work abroad, because ’here you cannot
earn decent money’ and ‘you cannot make a future”. For money, irrespective of
age, gender, education, occupation, settled abroad or returned migrants, and
even household or personal income. Thus, the dominant reason for which
migrants choose to leave Romania is money.
FIGURE 2. 8. What determined you to leave for work abroad? (%)
Pentru bani, venit, salariu mai mare
Lipsa unui loc de muncă
O viață mai bună, un trai decent, un viitor
Situația din țară: sărăcie, mizerie, corupție, lips a de respect
Familia (divorț, căsătorie, părinți, copil )
Sărăcie/ foame acasă
61
60
9
16
5
9
10
4
2
3
6
2
Persoane revenite
Migranții rămași în străinătate
Many interviewed Romanian migrants considered that migration is and will
be the only solution to tackling and overcoming ones’ situation. More or less
the only alternative to a futureless problematic Romania:
"What can I do in Romania, starve to death? What future do the young have
there? What does this country offer? You work for others, if you cannot work
in your country… So, go abroad, work for others as our own kind do not want
us, that’s that! Here nobody cares about us, but at least you earn money and
send some to those back home." (Man, 35 years old, Spain migrant,
originally from Braşov)
BOX 5. Migration as life story
I met Cristian and Valeria on a warm afternoon, in the Turkish part
of Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus, the country where the Romanians
seem to have become the third largest minority. ‘We eat Turkish
because it’s cheaper’, says Cristian smiling. They are engaged to be
married, and 5 years ago both of them left for work in Spain, where
Cristian had a job in constructions, and Valeria at a club. They were
earning a lot of money and they claimed that at first Spaniards used
to love Romanians, but later ‘things deteriorated’ mentions Cristian.
‘I understand the Spanish, well, if 10% of the immigrants work and
the rest of 90% steal, beg, kill, how can they view you with in
friendly manner anymore?!’ In 2008, the crisis ruthlessly struck
Spain, and constructions sectors were the most affected. Cristian
lost his job, and Valeria was earning less, thus, they had to leave
Spain. They thought about coming back to Romania, but things
there weren’t any better.
So they left for Ireland, where they had some acquaintances and
were they quickly found jobs, Cristian in constructions and Valeria
in a bar. Yet, after one year, they could not bear it any longer. ‘We
felt chills down to the bone, we couldn’t take it anymore!’ They
returned to Bucharest, where, with the money earned abroad, they
opened a small shop that sold metal doors. ‘We had all types of
door models available, very beautiful, but the shop didn’t do well.’
It was 2009, when the crisis hit Romania. They closed the shop and
they left again, this time for Scotland. They worked there for about
one year, but the story with the Irish cold weather repeated itself, so
they headed for Cyprus, where they had some friends. Within one
week, Valeria found work as a barmaid in a nightclub, while
Cristian also got a job, ‘under the table’, as a shop assistant. Valeria
now earns 35 euros a day, plus tips, which doubles her monthly
income. They are proud as they recently rented a two-room flat in a
good neighborhood, next to the ‘French Embassy’, and it only costs
them 450 euros a month.
(Excerpt ‘Why being a seller in Cyprus is better than being a
company owner in Romania’, signed by V. Stoiciu and published in
România Liberă newspaper)
4.5. Romanian migrants and the labor market
Migrants working abroad are considerably younger than the general
population in all six counties, as it can be observed in Figure 2.5. This aspect
is also reflected by the occupational structure (Table 2.6).
The decision to go and work abroad is not made by retired persons, but by
pupils and students who have not entry experience on the Romanian labor
market, employed persons (especially, those between 35-44 years) affected by
the economic restructuring and unemployed with marginal positions on the
domestic labor market. Thus, Table 2.6 shows that before ‘the first time’
departure to work abroad, pupils and students accounted for 17-18% of the
migrants, as opposed to only 6% of general population. Skilled workers (most
probably affected by the Romanian economy restructuration) accounted for
16-21% of the migrants, as opposed to only 9% of general population.
Unemployed represented 10-14% of the migrants, as opposed to 6% of
general population.
There are few significant differences between the migrants settled abroad and
those returned in Romania during the economic crisis. The migrants settled
abroad have been better qualified from their first departure. In other words, they were
better prepared to adapt to the requirements of the labor market at destination
country. At the moment of the first departure, 40% of the migrants residing
abroad were qualified,42 active in services (13%), skilled workers (21%) or
machinery, equipment or installation operators (6%). In contrast, just 25% of
returned migrants were classified in these occupational categories. However,
almost 11% of them (compared to the 6% of settled migrants and,
respectively, 2% of the general population), although they managed to enter
the labor market, were working as unskilled workers.
The most qualified occupational groups are equally represented (13-16%) in both migrant
categories – those who remained abroad and those who returned.
42
TABLE 2. 6. The occupational status of Romanian migrants, previous to ‘the first time’ departure, abroad in August 2010 or before
returning to Romania (%)
In Romania,
previous to the first departure
Migrants settled
abroad
(1a)
Returned
migrants
(1b)
Total, of which:
100
100
Manageri, patroni, inalţi funcţionari
Specialişti, ocupaţii intelectuale
Tehnicieni, maiştri
Funcţionari
Lucrători, operatori în servicii
Agricultori
Muncitori meseriaşi
Operatori pe maşini si instalaţii
Muncitori necalificaţi
Cadre militare
1,3
4,6
3,4
3,2
13,4
3,0
20,8
5,9
5,8
*
Unemployed Șomeri înregistraţi sau neînregistraţi
Inactives
Employed
persons
Elevi/ studenţi
Persoane casnice
Pensionari
General
population
from the six
counties
Abroad, in August 2010 or before
returning to Romania
Active
population
from the six
counties
(1)
Migrants settled
abroad
(2a)
Returned
migrants
(2b)
100
100
100
100
*
3,5
4,2
6,4
7,4
*
16,4
*
10,7
*
2,7
6,3
2,2
2,5
5,5
2,2
8,7
2,3
2,4
0,6
1,5
5,0
4,1
1,6
19,3
7,1
29,9
5,2
22,1
0,0
*
*
4,3
*
18,6
13,3
27,0
**
21,4
0,0
6,5
15,3
5,3
5,9
13,2
5,3
21,1
5,4
5,8
1,5
10,3
14,1
6,1
3,8
5,9
14,6
17,3
10,4
*
18,2
14,4
*
6,2
12,8
39,2
0,0
*
*
*
0,0
0,0
(2)
The migrants residing abroad managed, in a significantly higher proportion than
returned migrants, to enter the Romanian labor market previous to their first
departure. Almost half (48%) of the returned persons (in comparison with 38%
of settled migrants) left Romania without attempting or succeeding to enter
the domestic labor market. The majority found work abroad, but, given the
lack of experience and fewer skills, in the context of the dwindling labor
market, entered on rather vulnerable positions.
The interviews reveal that migrants having a specialization or a qualification
and work experience find jobs easier and face less employment difficulties on
the destination country labor market:
„Spaniards are very respectful, but play us when it comes to money. They
have been paying less since the crisis hit. I’d like to change by job, but I don’t
have the experience and this is what they are looking for.” (Man, 21 years
old, Spain migrant)
„ You have to know multiple skills to make the best of the situation. You must
re-qualify.” (Woman, 47 years old, Spain migrant)
Abroad, the resident migrants as well as the returned migrants have had very similar
occupations. The majority (almost three quarters) work in services, as skilled
or unskilled workers. The only substantial difference is the overrepresentation of farmers among the migrants returned to Romania. In other
words, “căpşunarii” (referring to Romanian agriculture workers) have a higher
propensity to returning than other occupational categories. The higher the
propensity to returning as working at a Western farm represents the first job
and as the person has no other skills necessary to finding, in a timely manner,
another job. On the other hand, some of the migrant agricultural workers left
Romania under temporary legal employment agreements. In their case, the
prevailing migration strategy regards seasonal work, which makes their
return to the country more explicit: they come back to live out of the money
earned during working months and await the new agricultural seasons to
leave for work again abroad.
BOX 6. The circulatory seasonal migration of agricultural
workers
The data shows that migrants, who work in agriculture, usually opt
for seasonal migration. For the majority, the contracts are
predetermined, and once it expire the migrant returns to Romania.
However, most of the times, the return is temporary, lasting until
the new contract is secured.
In most cases, the intention to emigrate again is clearly stated, but
the concrete plans for this are less articulated, as the possibility to
return is somewhat uncertain.
„ I came back in July, when my contract ended. I will leave as soon as I
find a new contract, but who knows...”
(Man, 46 years old, Spain migrant)
„I feel stressed when I am in Romania, I always think about tomorrow,
what will come, with what money I will live… When I am there (in Spain)
is good, I have a job, I know money is coming. The work is hard, but after
work hours nobody bothers me.”
(Woman, 33 years old, Spain migrant)
There are also cases when the so-called seasonal work becomes
semi-permanent and contracts are predictable.
„I work nine months, and the remaining 3 off-season months, I live on
unemployment. The unemployment benefit is 970 EUR, sufficient to life
from it.”
... migration for work abroad from Romania is predominantly a
”migration of (working) hands” and only at a small extent ”brain
drain”...
FIGURE 2. 9. Employed population (15 years or over) by occupational groups (%)
80
Înalt calificate, non-manuale
70
Mediu şi slab calificate, non-manuale
60
Calificate, manuale
50
Necalificate
40
30
20
10
0
1977
1992
2000
Romania
2007
2007
2010
UE-27
Migranții
din 6 județe
Source: Anuarul Statistic, for 1977 and 1992; Forţa de muncă în România. Ocupare şi şomaj, for 2000
şi 2007 (INS); Eurostat, for UE-27; Survey FES-CCSB (august 2010).
The structure by occupational groups of the employed Romanian migrants
shows that they form a distinct segment within the labor markets of Western
countries. This structure is similar to that of the domestic labor market and
considerably different than that of the EU-27 one (Figure 2.9). Although in the
Western economies, the non-manual highly qualified occupations
predominate,43 Romanian migrants concentrate on medium and low skilled
occupations, and in a large proportion, on unskilled occupations, meaning
inferior and vulnerable jobs, rather similar to the pattern of the Romanian
labor market.
Managers and senior public servants, academic and scientific specialists, technicians, foremen
and similar.
43
Taking into account the starting point (the initial occupation in Romania,
previous to the first departure) and the end point (most recent occupation
abroad, in August 2010 or previous to the return), the occupational mobility
of migrants can be outlined roughly.
FIGURE 2. 10. The occupational mobility of migrants residing abroad
Mobilitate
descendentă
; 23%
Şomaj sau
între slujbe;
5%
Mobilitate
orizontală;
22%
Data:
FES-CCSB (August 2010). Weighted data
Nou-intrați
pe piața
muncii; 36%
Mobilitate
ascendentă;
14%
Survey
More than a third (36%) of the migrants residing abroad are newly entered
labor market. They had not attempted or succeeded in find a job in Romania,
and after graduation and/or a possible period of unemployment or domestic
activity (staying home), they decided to leave abroad in order to find their
first job.
•
Approximately 14% of the migrants residing abroad present an
ascending occupational mobility, meaning that they found better
employment or occupation abroad than in Romania; either because the
attended, in the meanwhile, school/training courses, or because of the
knowledge and abilities resources properly maximized in the developed
economies setting. For instance, young individuals who worked in
Romania as unskilled workers, found work as driver abroad or
•
•
•
restructured workers who ended up working in hotels or restaurants or
as clerks.
22% present horizontal occupational mobility and found jobs similar to
the one they had in back home. Typically, these migrants are either
skilled construction workers or work in services (e.g. waiter, bartender,
or cosmetician).
23% present descending occupational mobility. These are the cases of
either from farmer/skilled worker (in Romania) to day laborer or
‘wherever possible’ (unskilled worker, abroad), or from nurse, shop
assistant, accountant, pedagogue, clerk, secretary, salesperson (in
Romania) to housekeeper or caretaker (abroad).
About 5% of the migrants settled abroad, in August 2010, were
unemployed or between jobs.44 Over half of them used to be unskilled
construction workers previous to unemployment. The others were skilled
workers, salespersons or in household services.
In contrast, returning migrants have a higher proportion of new entries on
the labor market (43%), naturally given that most of them have not
managed/attempted to enter the Romanian labor market previous to the first
departure abroad. Additionally, this category possesses a significantly
smaller proportion of persons with horizontal mobility (just 14%), taking into
account the underrepresentation of service workers and skilled workers.
Romanians working abroad tend to characterize their trajectory as ‘increased
mobility’ in comparison with all the other migrant groups, as Romanians are
‘resourceful’ and ‘adaptable’:
“The Romanian learns and can do almost anything. If he doesn’t know, he
learns, adapts, and takes care of it, if you know what I mean… he learns the
language and the customs. The Romanians knows if necessary Italian, and
Spanish, and French, and English, and if very ambitious he knows them all
(laughter)… he must find a way, he must work and make a living among
foreigners. And if tomorrow things are good in Germany, he goes and works
there. Today he is in Italy, but tomorrow you may find him in Spain or
The proportion of unemployed who collected benefits cannot be estimated due to the small
number of valid answers.
44
France, or I don’t know where, as long as there is money to earn and bread to
be eaten.” (Man, 30 years old, Italy migrant, originally from Tulcea)
Only about 5% of all migrants own a business or are self-employed,45
irrespective if referring to the migrants settled abroad or those returned in the
country. The others are employees. Likewise, only 6-7% migrants are trade
union members in the destination country.
Both migrants residing abroad and returned migrants (78% of them)
maintained ‘the same occupation’ during their stay abroad. The other 22%
migrants had two or more occupations. Especially, specialists proved very
mobile. More than 55% of them had various occupations (non-manual
specialized) throughout the time spent abroad. Nevertheless, most of those
who had more occupations were not specialists, but skilled workers (30%),
service workers (25%), unskilled workers (19%) or farmers (14%). In
particular, farmers and skilled workers, although obtaining several types of
jobs, maintained the same occupation sector, implying horizontal mobility.
For instance, a carpenter worked as a constructor, and as a tile or bricklayer.
In contrast, in the case of service and unskilled workers who had several jobs,
the most frequent situation is alternating jobs of waiter/bartender/chef and
housekeeper/caretaker with periods of ‘stay at home/laid back’.
FIGURA 2. 11. Number of employment years in Romania and abroad by type of
migrants (%)
45
Mi granți i rămaș i în s trăi nătate
(i ncl us i v cei în concedi u)
25
Persoane reveni te
20
40
35
30
Ani de muncă în străinătate
15
Ani de muncă în România
25
20
10
15
10
5
5
0
0
0
a ni
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 +
a ni
0
a ni
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 +
a ni
This percentage covers from business owner to freelance specialist, as well as day laborers or
persons dealing on their own with ‘the collection of scrap iron’.
45
For migrants who managed to enter labor market, previous the first departure, both the migrants
settled abroad and the returned migrants have accumulated the same work seniority in Romania:
on average, 9-10 years worked, out of which 8.5 years with work contract.
Unlike the migrants remained abroad, the returned persons left Romania
later and registered (at the time of first departure) a higher proportion of
individuals who could not succeed/attempt to enter the Romanian labor
market. Therefore, they managed to acquire less work years abroad. On
average, settled migrants have 5.6 years of work abroad, while the returned
migrants have with about one year less (4.7 years of work).
If in terms of the occupational structure, the Romanian migrants replicate the
distorted pattern of the Romanian labor market, in the western economies,
then in terms of activity sectors they follow neither the destination economy
nor the national economy structures.
FIGURE 2. 12. The economic sector in which the migrants work/ worked, in
Romania before the first departure and abroad in August 2010 (%) 46
Industrie
Construcții
Transporturi
Comerț
Agricultură
Servicii hoteluri, restaurante, catering
Servicii de curățenie
Servicii de îngrijire persoane
Altele (servicii medicale, educație, IT, sport, bancar etc.)
10
39
25
13
5
9
4
13
8
6
11
4
19
0
7
0
12
17
În străinătate, în august 2010
În România, înainte de prima plecare
The returned migrants who were employed previous to coming back to Romania are similarly
distributed in terms of sectors. The sole significant statistical difference is rendered by the
overrepresentation of agriculture workers: 15% of those who returned as opposed to 8% of
migrants still residing abroad. This aspect reinforces our finding that out of all migrants, the
highest probability of returning belongs to agricultural workers.
46
Previous to the first departure, in Romania, the migrants were employed in
industry, services (healthcare, education, public administration, IT),
construction or trades. The industry got restructured, enterprises closed
down and successive reforms led to a sever scarcity of jobs. Despite the post2000 continuous economic growth, the salaries and revenues have declined,
becoming insufficient for to making a ‘decent and honest living’. Thus, they
decided to go abroad. There they could find work, but in noncompetitive
sectors, such as constructions, services requiring minimum or no skills
required for household, hotels or catering.
... the majority of Romanian migrants abroad (at least those
originating from the six counties) build, load and unload, clean,
take care of children and persons with special needs, pick
vegetables and fruits, guard, work on construction sites, cook, lay
and clean tables ...
Not only that the majority of Romanian migrants enters the labor markets of
the developed countries on rather uncompetitive and undesirable positions
and/or sectors, they also operate to a large extent in the ‘grey’ sector, in the
informal economy. Only about 58% of migrants (irrespective of whether
abroad or returned) worked ‘legally, only with papers’. As explained in most
studies on informal economy,47 the general rule is the underestimation of
participation to the informal economy (be it ‘grey’ or ‘black’) and
overestimation the activities in the formal economy. Therefore, most likely,
the percentage of 58% might be an overstatement,48 while the total share of
37% for those migrants who declared ‘only working illegally, without papers’
(13%), ‘mostly working illegally, without papers, with periods of working
legally, with papers’ (7%), ‘mostly working legally, with periods of working
illegally” (17%) is understated.
For example, in the case of Romania, Neef and Stănculescu (coord., 2002), Neef and Adair
(coord., 2004), Stănculescu, Marin and Hommes (2009).
48 5% of the respondents choose not to answer the question.
47
4.6. Gender and age differences
As previously mentioned, there are no significant differences between
migrants residing abroad and the returned migrants, in terms of gender, age
or gender-age.
TABLE 2. 7. The profiles of the types of migrants by gender-age categories (%)
18-29 years
30-44 years
45-64 years
65 years or over
Total
Migrants residing abroad
Men
Women
Total
Returned migrants
Men
Women
Total
18,7
23,0
8,1
0,1
49,9
21,1
23,3
9,8
17,1
23,4
9,4
0,1
50,1
35,8
46,4
17,6
0,2
100
54,1
15,0
21,8
8,3
0,8
45,9
36,1
45,1
18,0
0,8
100
However, migrants women and men, young and adults, face very different
work experiences abroad.
Most migrants leave for the first time to work abroad, at ages between 21 and
27 years (Figure 2.13). Then, the tendency for migration decreases, to slightly
increase for the 35-37 age group. Over 44 years of age, fewer people decide to
migrate, with the predominance of women over men. Thus, the average age
for the ‘first time’ departure for women is with circa two years higher than of
men, respectively, 30 years to 28 years.
Previous to the ‘first time’ departure, 15% of women used to be house
persons (in comparison with less than 6% for men), implying that these
persons did not even attempt to enter the Romanian labor market. Women,
who did try, succeeded in finding a job in the country in a similar proportion
as men (59% for women and 64% for men). The women were skilled workers
in industry, trade or other types of services, most often in healthcare and
education.
FIGURE 2. 13. The age of the ‘first time’ departure for women and men (%)
8
Fe mei ; 21
Bă rba ți
7
6
Bă rba ți ; 20
Feme i
Bă rba ți ; 27
5
4
3
Bă rba ți ; 36
Fe mei ; 37
2
Fe mei ; 44
1
0
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58
On one hand, migrant women manage to find work abroad, but most of them
have needed to change the profession and/or activity sector. Furthermore, in
significantly higher proportions than men, they succeed in finding jobs as
technicians/foremen or clerks, workers in trades, hotels or restaurants, but,
primarily, as unskilled staff in cleaning and caretaking services (Table 2.8).
Consequently, downward occupational mobility is specific to women
migrants.
On the other hand, men, previous to the ‘first time’ departure, were in
significantly higher proportions than women, unemployed that failed to find
a job, skilled or unskilled workers particularly in constructions, transport or
farmers. Once abroad, most found the same type of occupations, especially
skilled workers in the same activity sectors. Accordingly, upwards (from
unskilled to skilled workers) and horizontal occupational mobility is specific
to men migrants.
In equal measure, both women and men work in informal economy or
alternate periods of legal and illegal work.
As for employment seniority, women have acquired an equivalent average
number of employment years in Romania (9-10 years, for the persons
employed previous to the first departure), but less employment years abroad
(on average, 5 years for women as compared to approximately 6 years for
men) compared with men.
TABLE 2. 8. The occupational status of migrants residing abroad, in Romania
previous to the first departure and at destination in August 2010, by gender (%)
În Romania, before the first
departure
Men
Wome
Abroad,
in August 2010
Total
Men
Women
Total
(1a)
(1b)
(1)
(2a)
(2b)
(2)
-N
- %, from which:
420
100
424
100
844
100
479
100
485
100
964
100
Occupied persons
Managers, employers, high officials
Speciialists
Tehnicians, masters
Functionaries
Workers
Agricultors
Skilled workers
Machines and instalations workers
Unskilled workers
Military
*
5,2
2,9
*
7,6
4,5
21,4
11,0
9,8
*
1,9
3,8
4,0
5,9
19,1
1,4
20,3
*
1,9
1,3
4,6
3,4
3,2
13,4
3,0
20,8
5,9
5,8
*
2,1
5,2
2,3
*
9,0
8,8
50,9
9,0
8,4
*
4,7
5,8
2,5
29,7
5,4
9,1
1,4
35,7
1,5
5,0
4,1
1,6
19,3
7,1
29,9
5,2
22,1
0,0
Unemployed
12,4
8,3
10,3
3,3
4,3
3,8
Inactiv
Pupils/students
Houshold workers
Retired persons
17,9
5,7
*
16,7
15,1
*
17,3
10,4
*
*
0,0
*
*
Total
*
The main differences between the age categories are rendered by young
migrants (18-29 years). The majority of young migrants, previous to the ‘first
time’ departure, were pupils/students, unemployed or house persons.
Abroad, most of them (women and men) found work in trades, hotels and
restaurants, in which the age is a comparative advantage. However, less than
6% (as to 12% of all migrants) managed to find highly qualified positions
(management, specialists, technicians or clerks).
BOX 7. Family/couple migration
Previously, we have mentioned that the survey data are
inappropriate for the analysis of family migration. However, the
interviews bring to light some information regarding common
survival strategies among migrant couples.
Similar to the quantitative data, the interviews show that men were
more affected by the crisis than women, especially due to the
concentration in the activity sectors which were severely exposed to
the recession, such as constructions. Thus, in the case of families
and couples, the fact that women were able to stay employment and
were less affected by the economic situation, influenced the return
decision: the woman would be the sole provider of the family.
Frequently, this correlated with the closure of (consumption of)
savings or the substantial decrease of money send to relatives back
home. Nonetheless, according to the interviewees, the overall salary
of wife/partner is usually significantly higher than the sum of two
potential incomes in Romania. In addition, quite often, the revenues
of the wife/partner are supplement by the occasional earnings of the
man, obtained through temporary or part-time jobs, usually on the
informal labor market.
„ Constructions reached rock-bottom, and so did the men. Now the wives
are the bread earners.”
„ In southern Castellon, there are lots of Romanian men, most of them
married and unemployed – if they don't work illegally, they live on the
wife’s earnings.”
„Well, our wives are the ones who work, while we men stay in the park the
whole day, hoping that maybe, just maybe, some employer will drop by and
offer jobs. It is great that my wife did not lose her job, as her income is just
enough for now.”
4.7. The effects of the economic crisis on Romanian migrants
residing abroad
The returned migrants, the migrants on vacation and the members of
households with migrants living abroad all agreed when it comes to the
effects of the crisis. Regardless of gender, age, occupation or destination
country: ‘many migrants lost their jobs’, ‘the living costs increased’ and
‘migrant’s wage has shrunk’. Only relatively small percentages of the
interviewed persons consider that ‘the natives’ attitudes became more
reserved/ negative’ or that ‘the host country authorities are stricter’ in relation
to immigrants.
FIGURE 2. 14. The perceived effects of the crisis on migrants (%)
Autoritățile din țara-gazdă au devenit mai stricte
22
24
Atitudinea localnicilor a devenit mai rezervată/
negativă
32
30
Au început să li se reducă salariile migranților
48
56
A crescut costul vieții
55
64
Mulți migranți au început să-și piardă locurile de
muncă
77
67
Persoane revenite
When faced with questions regarding personal experiences, 63% of the
migrants who returned in the last year claimed that, for the last six months
spent abroad, their income remained unchanged. Only 17% reported an
income drop and 20% of them stated that, despite of the crisis, their income
was increasing. There is no significant difference among women and men or
young and adults. Skilled workers (regardless of activity sector) tend (30%) to
say that their income reduced, while (38%) of the farmers affirmed that ‘they
earned more than usual’. Also, the destination country makes a difference.
More than 73% of the migrants in Italy said that they ‘earned the same’;
while, for those in Spain the percentage dropped to 43% (the others
experienced either income increase or decline).
BOX 8. The deterioration of the labor market
In accordance with the survey data, most interviewees reported the
decline of the economic situation as result of the recession, such as:
job loss, fewer working hours, smaller wages and difficulties in
obtaining a job. However, these did not necessarily determine their
return to Romania.
„Four years ago I had a job that no Italian had, but things got worse.
Before, I used to make 55-57 EUR per day, last year only 49 and now 47,
and there are not enough days in the year to make good money. Moroccans
work cheaper – 25 EUR per day and mess with our rates.”
(Man, 25 years old, Italy migrant)
„Before I used to work as housekeeper, for 7 hours a day and make 1,000
EUR. Now I only work 4 hours and make 500 EUR. In the distant future,
when I will no longer be able to work, I’ll go back to Romania. For the time
being I struggle here.”
(Woman, 49 years old, Italy migrant)
„The most affected were those who have credits or bought houses with bank
loans. That’s the true Romanian; he takes loans to buy a Mercedes, because
he cannot go at the construction site with the Renault. Some Romanians
though, choose to stay here and make something for themselves. But daylabor earnings dropped even on the black market. The labor supply is
enormous. We compete with the South Americans, as they work for less.”
Some migrants talk about a corrosion of attitudes against
immigrants, of employers and/or of the native populations, that
came about once the crisis struck.
„They (Spaniards, a/n) look at us with envy because we work and they are
unemployed and stay at home. But we work for few money and they don’t
pay us ‘seguro’ (social contributions) or don’t employ us legally. Since the
crisis came about, they want us all migrants to go back their countries, but
when they needed us in constructions, we come to build and help. They
should not blame the crisis on foreigners.”
„They are harsher with us, especially in the worker-employer relation. In
Italy, business owners take advantage of the crisis to pay less or delay
payment. However, the EUR affected us more than the crisis did.”
„(Begging, a/n) it’s worse since the crisis hit, everywhere police and
distrustful people everywhere.”
„The problem is the 4 million ‘paraţi’ (unemployed, a/n). Spaniards blame
us, they say – You came here to steal our jobs! […] Now, with the crisis,
the Spaniards are even more distant with us. They are hypocrites. They say
they have laws for immigrants, for ‘multiculturalidad’. All it’s just a
façade. In reality, they fear we snatch their jobs. The 426 EUR benefit
drives them insane. They think that if we didn’t take it anymore, they
would get 600. But I tell them straight up: We are the same, we breathe the
same air, pay the same taxes.”
4.8. The support networks
Before we proceed, once again we emphasize that the data pertaining
migrants does not report the kinship relations among them. Therefore, we
cannot identify the couples and we cannot analyze the family/couple
migration. However, data shows that, previous to the ‘first time’ departure,
most migrants both residing abroad and returned were married (circa 66%),
while the others were single.
TABLE 2. 9. The marital status of migrants previous to the ‘first time’ departure (%)
Marital status
Total
Single
Married
Divorced
Had minor
children
%
N
Migrants residing
abroad
30,6
69,1
*
32,7
100
977
Returned migrants
37,1
62,1
*
34,6
100
133
Approximately half of the married persons (both women and men) had
children to support. In the studied six counties, 27% of the children live in
households with at least one migrant working abroad,49 and 5% of the
children belong to households with returned migrants.
The migrants who have children back home are not more likely to return in Romania.
There are migrants who declared ‘the children’ as the main reason for return,
but only few. In addition, having children back home does not increase
significantly the probability of return, neither for women nor for men. Table
2.9 shows that the unmarried young persons, 18-29 years, who did not find a
partner abroad, and persons 45-64 years with no children (or childcare
We cannot estimate how many of children have one or both parents gone to work abroad, as
the kinship relations between children and migrants were not recorded.
49
responsibilities) have higher propensity to returning compared to the
migrants with children left back home.
FIGURE 2. 15. Types of migrants by age categories and marital status (%)
Necăsătoriți
63 37
8
14 85 44
18-29 ani
30-44 ani
Căsătoriți
4
Aveau copii în îngrijire
96 56
82 18 17
15 83 53
100 29
45-64 ani
18-29 ani
30-44 ani
45-64 ani
Persoane revenite
The dominant belief shared by population and migrants, according to which
‘migration tears family apart’, is supported by the empiric data. Firstly, it
regards children left home with single parents or in the care of relatives.
Secondly, the married migrants, either women or men, display a similar
marital behavior as the unmarried migrants: 27% of the persons who were
married, previous to the first departure, have remarried (officially or
partnership) abroad. The incidence of this behavior among persons of 45-64
years is significantly lower.
TABLE 2. 10. Marital behavior of migrants residing abroad by the marital status
previous to the ‘first time’ departure abroad (%)
Yes, has (re)married
with a:
Romanian
Foreigner
No, has not (re)married, but
lives with a:
Romanian
Foreigner
Total
No
%
N
Unmarried
19
4
7
3
66
100
271
Married
2
4
3
19
73
100
603
The support offered by relatives or acquaintances plays an important role in the decision to leave or stay
abroad. For both migrant women and men, young and adult, siblings offer an important support
for remaining abroad. In a significantly higher proportion, the migrants residing abroad have at
least one sibling also living abroad. In contrast, the returned migrants, have in a significantly
higher proportion no siblings for support abroad.
FIGURE 2. 16. The distribution of migrants by siblings living abroad (%)
9
12
30
15
31
28
15
24
14
22
Non-răspuns
Nu are frați / surori , e si ngur(ă) l a pă ri nți
Toți frați i /suroril e sunt rămași în Româ ni a
Uni i sunt pl eca ți în străi nătate, uni i sunt ră mași în România
Toți frați i /suroril e sunt pl ecați în stră inătate
Persoane reveni te
Mi granți i rămași în străi nătate
The majority of migrants, when they first went abroad, were awaited at destination
by colleagues, friends or relatives (Table 2.11). Most frequently were greeted by
siblings or spouses, and seldom by parents. Men, in significantly higher
proportion than women, dare to leave for work abroad without any prior
arrangements; more than half of the men migrants leave without having
anyone waiting for them.
More than a third of migrants, once settled abroad, invited others to join. On
average, every migrant ‘drags’ other three persons abroad. However, migrant
women make all necessary arrangements for a smaller numbers of persons
than migrant men (generally, 2.4 to 3.4 persons for migrant men).
TABLE 2. 11. Support networks by type of migrants (%)
When left abroad, someone was waiting him/her in the destination
country
- Nobody was waiting
- yes, someone from the family
- yes, someone from outside the family
After he/she left, has helped others to migrate abroad
Migrants on
vacation in
Romania
Returned
migrants
40
23
37
49
31
20
37
24
32
10
40
18
58
42
98
87
82
81
8
13
16
63
13
15
13
59
22
29
35
23
22
20
*
9
9
26
59
22
19
73
12
13
*
100
63
100
132
... at the workplace:
- was alone, did not know anyone
- was with someone from the family
- was with someone whom he /she knew from outside the
family
... made some friends with whom he/she was in contact outside the
workplace
- non-Romanians (from the destination country)
- Romanians leaving there
... has spent more time (at the workplace and outside)
- nore with Romanians, neither with non-Romanians
- only with Romanians
- only with non-Romanians
- both with Romanians and non-Romanians
... when having a personal problema, asked for help from:
- the Romanians leaving there
- the non+romanian leaving there
- both Romanians and non-Romanians
- asked for help to those that have remained in Romania at
home
- Nobody
Most of the friends are:
- În Romania
- Abroad
- In Romania and abroad
- Neither in romania, nore abroad
Total %
N
Abroad, at the workplace, most migrants (over 60%) have somebody they know from
back home. The majority work together with friends or colleagues from
Romania. Men, especially because they (statistically) aggregate in the
construction sector, are better integrated in work collectives, while women, in
a significantly higher proportion, work alone (in particular those employed in
housework related services). An small share of migrants works along with
family members, usually siblings, spouses or fathers (particularly,
construction workers).
Nearly all migrants managed to make new friends/acquaintances, both natives and
Romanians residing at the destination, with whom they interact also for leisure.
Therefore, the majority spend time, both in and outside the workplace ‘with
Romanians and natives’. The foreigners with whom migrants spend most
time are, mainly, coworkers and/or neighbors, while the Romanians are
predominantly newly made friends, rather than coworkers.
FIGURE 2. 17. The distribution of natives and Romanians with whom migrants
interact also for leisure (%)
STRĂINII
Altele
11
Altele
ROMÂNII
14
Vecini
Vecini
Colegi de muncă
15
Prieteni făcuți în străinătate
33
Colegi de muncă
Prieteni făcuți în țară
66
78
Rude
Nu și-a făcut prieteni străini
11
13
17
29
46
Șefi/ Patroni/ Directori
10
23
28
59
58
5
16
3
13
18
2
Nu și-a făcut prieteni români
19
Persoane revenite
Migranții în concediu în țară
13
When the migrants face any type of problem (health, money or other), very
few migrants ‘manage everything by themselves’ or ask for help from back
home. Generally, they seek support at destination, from natives and/or
Romanian friends.
The size of the social network (friends, acquaintances helpful in case of need) depends
on the time of departure. The more recent the departure of the migrant, the
smaller his/her social network abroad. Most migrants consider that they have
‘more friends and acquaintances’ in Romania. Nevertheless, most of those
who believe this, left after 2005. The migrants who left in 2005 or earlier
declare that they have either more friends abroad or ‘as many friends abroad
as in Romania’.
Migrants with less extended and/or supportive social networks present a
disproportionately higher probability of returning to Romania. The analysis
confirms this initial hypothesis. Compared with migrants residing abroad: (1)
returned migrants receive, in a significantly lower proportion, support from
siblings abroad, either because they do not have any or because all live in
Romania; (2) significantly fewer returned migrants had somebody, aside
from relatives, to welcome them at destination; (3) significantly less found
work alongside friends or colleagues from back home; (4) they made
considerably fewer friends/acquaintances among foreigners; (5) when they
had problems, the majority ‘managed alone’; (6) and, due to the recent
departure time, have most friends and useful connections back home and not
abroad.
... to sum it up, the success strategy requires two essential
features: (a) siblings that either help the migrant to accommodate
to the new world, teaching them the ropes, or put pressure on the
migrant to mobilize and prepare arrangements for them, and (b)
investment in ‘weak ties’, to have as many acquaintances as
possible, preferably with local natives, with whom to spend time,
support and from which one can learn essential adaptations
strategies.
These elements constitute the foundation of the social behavior of
migrants who succeeded to remain abroad. Returned migrants are
significantly weaker on both (a) and (b) resources ...
BOX 9. Social networks in the host society
The majority of interviewees declared having relatives or friends in
the destination country, or that they ‘dragged’ there acquaintances
or relatives. The main support network is the family, Romanians
rarely declaring to have close relationships or friendships with
other nationals, except for relatives.
„For one year, I was unemployed. At that time I was staying in Romania,
and was collecting 800 EUR instead of 1,500 EUR, salary. That year, I
worked in Romanian factory to earn some extra money, earning 600 LEI.
My wife earned the same, also in the factory. But a young person needs
more. Here I found work in agriculture, in Calabria. However, the salaries
are small, 30 EUR per day, while as a welder, previous the crisis, was
getting about 60 EUR per hour. Now, I’m leaving for France, as my
mother-in-law is there and she already found me a job as plumber. My wife
remains in Calabria, taking care of old lady for 700 EUR per month, 20
EUR per day on a Sunday. If I wasn’t skilled, I would be stuck in one
place. But I am mobile…”
„There are no jobs anymore. Now you have to be skilled. This stupid
Berlusconi does nothing, creates no jobs… Now lemons come from Spain,
tomatoes also, nothing is made in Italy anymore. It’s their trick. I would
like to go to Spain, but you need to have someone there, to help you. I know
someone in Spain, but he would clear my pockets. They say things are
going well in Spain, they don’t request so many work licenses. Here we are
constantly checked and controlled by the police, there is easier. If I had a
good connection there, I’d go, but I don’t want to go there to be homeless.
Neither would I force my wife in prostitution, like others do.”
„My brother lost his job and for a couple of months he lived on my income.
As he couldn’t find any work here, he left for Italy, to pick mandarins.
There he makes 25 EUR per day which is enough to covers the living
expenses. One way or another, we manage somehow.”
„I have here, in Spain, two sisters. My older sister was the first to come;
she came through the embassy. I would have never emigrated if not for the
family.”
„My older brother was here. If he wouldn’t have been here, I don’t know
how could I have ever come.”
A popular strategy is when one member of the couple – the
husband or the wife - goes first, and shortly after securing a job, the
other partner joins.
„My husband was the first to leave in 1998, and then I followed. We were
meeting other Romanians at church, where we discussed and consulted
each other.”
Often, the interviewees referred to negative or disappointing
experiences when talking about the Romanians they helped to
emigrate and with the overall Romanian community.
„We welcomed to our home, both me and my husband, around 150
persons. We helped them all, fed them, but in was all for nothing.
Romanians do not know how to be grateful.”
„I helped a very good friend, a Romanian, but he made a fool of me. He took
the money and went home. I feel sorry that people speak badly about
Romanians, because I am Romanian too. ‘Pero’ Romanians are ‘figlio de
putana’, they help each other, but they are envious of one another. ”
„I'm kind of embarrassed to make a phone call to Romania: all want to
come here, need help, or ask for money.”
Frequently, Romanian migrants are aware of the locals’ negative
attitude, but try not to bother with it. Actually, the qualitative
analysis shows that Romanians have very few or none at all interest
to mingle with the natives, with very few exceptions such as those
who intend never to return to Romania and who plan their future
exclusively in the destination country context. Otherwise,
Romanians waver between a slightly contemptuous and courteous
attitude when it comes to locals, but do not report strong bonds or
desire to have such relations.
„I am not interested to know how others see me. Spanish friends? No, I
don’t have any. Most of my friends are Romanian, and relatives. I have
both relatives and friends, but everything has its price.”
„I don’t have much friends and relatives, but mostly coworkers. I don’t
have many Spanish friends. Spaniards are rather distant people.”
„Italians are difficult people, they want everything their way. I have Italian
friends who helped me purchase farming machines. They also helped me
make a loan and taught me how to manage money. I have fewer Romanian
friends, as I trust Italians more. Romanians are envious. I have one cousin
and about 10 other friends, but we aren’t really close. Every now and then,
we hang out for a beer or two.”
„ Italians are way too polite with Romanians, considering the way we treat
them. I have always got along better with Italians than with Romanians.”
4.9. The housing conditions of migrants abroad
The majority of migrants who work abroad live in rented dwellings.
However, while 18% of abroad migrants managed to purchase a house, 20%
of the returned migrants preferred temporary housing arrangements
(accommodation offered by employers, relatives, social housing or homeless).
TABLE 2. 12. The types of migrants by housing arrangements abroad (%)
Ownership of dwelling abroad
Own dwelling, paid in full
Own dwelling, still paying loan installments
Rented dwelling
Other (at employer, relatives, social housing, homeless etc.)
Total
- %
-N
Migrants
residing abroad
13
5
72
10
100
953
Returned
migrants
9
*
70
20
100
131
As a general rule, men prefer to rent, while women, particularly those
employed in personal-care services, agree with temporary (and cheaper)
arrangements.
Young persons (18-29 years) are tenants (more than 80%), 35-44 years persons
(especially those who migrated with their families) are house owners, while
the persons of 45-64 years (predominantly women) have the highest
proportion of living at the workplace/employer provided housing.
The migrants residing abroad share housing with a family member in a significantly
higher proportion than the returned migrants. Although both abroad and
returned migrants account for similar marriage ratios, significantly more
migrants remained abroad have their spouse and children living with them.
Otherwise, they have siblings with whom they share housing. In contrast, a
considerably lower proportion of returned migrants live together with their spouses,
children or siblings.
FIGURE 2. 18. With whom migrants dwell abroad (%)
6
5
6
5
8
21
3
11
17
25
31
17
5
9
32
23
Mătuşă/unchi/veri
Părinți/socri
Frați/surori
Copii
Soț/soție
Colegi/ prieteni
La angajator
Locuieşte singur(ă)
Persoane revenite
Migranții în concediu în țară
A Romanian migrant working abroad, who does not live alone, shares housing with
three other persons, on average. Nevertheless, there are significant differences
according to the age of migrants. The young persons live, typically, with
three other persons; approximately three quarters live with 2-4 persons. In
contrast, more than 40% of 45-64 years persons share housing with just one
other person and 22% live with two other persons (on average, 2.25 persons).
Person between 35-44 years (which include most couples residing abroad)
share housing with many persons (on average, 3.4 persons); over 60% live
with 3-11 persons.
4.10. The abroad experience of Romanian migrants
Over 90% of the returned migrants claim to have integrated ‘pretty well’
(36%) or ‘very well’ at the destination country. The answers do not differ by
gender, age, occupation, activity sector, destination country or year of
departure. Therefore, Romanian migrants, even those who returned, feel
integrated in the Western societies where they find work. Persons who
declared that they did not integrate are, mostly, those who did not make
foreign friends (at destination) or those who spent time only with Romanians.
The attitudes and personality of the migrant (e.g. honesty, politeness or
sociability) seem to be the main determinant of integration. Additionally,
social networks and the foreign language proficiency are also useful
integration tools.
FIGURE 2. 19. Factors of integration of migrants in the host society (%)
Personalitate şi comportament (cinstit, sociabil etc.)
43
Avea prieteni
12
Ştie limba
11
Atmosfera/ viață bună, mi-a plăcut
10
Recunoaştere/ succes/ satisfacție
Altele (familia e acolo, are acte, cultura, munca îi
plăcea)
8
16
Nearly all returned migrants consider working abroad a positive experience:
34% had “a rather positive, with good and bad, but mainly good”, while 62%
had “definitely a positive life experience, I had only to gain, both financially
and personally”.
Most of the returned migrants mention various things they enjoyed or liked
abroad. At the question regarding things they disliked, the answer is
“nothing, everything was great”. They enjoyed the “peaceful life”, the
“normal life”, the fairness and the respect for human life and work, the
sociability and politeness of people, “peoples’ smiles”, the order and civility,
the cleanness, the modern way of life “different from the disaster in
Romania”. The negative aspects most frequently mentioned were “the hate
towards Romanians”, but also “Romanian baggers”, “Romanian thieves”,
“Romanian gypsies”, as well as the distance from home and family.
FIGURE 2. 20. The aspects Romanian migrants liked/disliked abroad (%)
CE A PLĂCUT
24
Viața, stilul, modul, condițiile de viață
22
Oamenii, corectitudine, respect
17
Curățenie, civilizație
12
Totul
7
Ordine, disciplină, organizare
6
Locurile, peisajele, monumentele, oraşele
5
Veniturile
8
Altele (clima, mâncarea, munca etc.)
CE NU A PLĂCUT
45
Nimic, totul a fost plăcut
9
Discriminare, rasism
8
Românii răi, hoți, cerşeau, țiganii
8
Dor de casă, distanța de familie, singurătate
7
Oameni reci, distanți, profitori
5
Munca prea multă, grea, umilitoare
Altele (clima, mâncarea, limba, droguri,
mizerie, zăpăceală, viața prea scumpă)
18
BOX 10. The migration experience in times of economic crisis
and the perception of the destination country
The Romanian workers in Italy and Spain declare that although
financial reasons determined their migration, generally, at
individual level, migration had a lot of positive effects, such as: a
richer lifestyle and better quality of life, services and quality
interactions with public institutions, access to education, learning
new values social and cultural practices which promote openmindedness, opportunity equality and better understanding of
gender differences/relations.
"Here, they treat you with respect, it doesn’t matter whether you are
Romanian or immigrant or whatever. They call you sir and that’s exactly
what you are to them."
"Here it’s not Romania, the law is the law. They do not touch the woman,
they have a saying here, don’t even dare touch the woman even if just with
a rose, because the police will be after you."
Generally, the perceptions of the destination country are virtually
unanimous positive. The negative aspect most frequently
mentioned is attitude of locals, which for most interviewees is
justifiable. The majority of positive aspects regarded the
functionality/access to public administration, healthcare and
education systems of the host country. Likewise, a widely spread
opinion is the attitude of the foreign employer and work related
habits. Usually, the foreign employers are perceived superior to
Romanian employers.
„Here, the employer is respectful. He is concerned with your health. If I am
sick, he doesn’t allow me to work. In Romania, it is not like this. You have
a fever, you feel sick, who cares! 10% penalty if you are sick. They make
you do overtime. In Italy, work hours are work hours.”
„Italians are just like us, they like to gossip a lot. They greet you then
gossip about you. But Italians are discretely better educated than us. They
are also more ‘German’, having a better sense of accountability than us.
When you are their employee, you are respected. They use salary grids,
determined salary rates, not like in Romania. They don’t complain about
salaries. They don’t steal; everything trust based. But what’s the point of
Italy being a normal country, it’s still not home. All Romanians would like
to come back.”
„There, in Italy, they know what it means to work, while here people have
no clue of what that means. People just drink coffee and chat all day.
Everywhere you go in Italy they are civilized – in stores, in supermarkets,
in bars, the services, healthcare, all work. In Romania the state doesn’t help
the people, extreme bureaucracy, queues everywhere, and rude people.
Good thing that the Government made salary cut-backs. Even better, they
should have sacked them all, a bunch of incompetents.”
„ The healthcare system is fantastic here. In Romania I would have sold my
house to get the treatment for my health problems. “Securidad” works like
a clock. Not to mention, I was treated fairly, ‘egual la egual’. I didn’t need
give more than the occasional box of chocolates. When I offered the
chocolates, I remember the surprise on the doctor’s face. She told me:
‘Madam, my salary is paid by the Spanish state’. As I expressed my
gratitude for her honesty and professional behavior although I am just an
‘extranjera’, she said: ‘You are not an extranjera, you are a patient’!”
The positive features of the destination country are often
highlighted in comparison with the home country – Romania, for
which the majority of interviewees manifested skeptical attitudes
and pronounced criticism.
„Even if you play by the rules, in Romania they make so many inspections
until they ruin you. In Spain, I play by the rules and I certain things are
OK, they don’t come if unnecessary. They don’t do it for bribes. If they see
everything is in order, they just let you be or even help you.”
„I am currently building a B&B. I want to obtain some SAPARD funding,
but I cannot, because I don’t have any connections there. The state doesn’t
offer any financial support. I heard about ‘Casa Verde’ program, subsidies
grants, but I have no clue how to apply as nobody gives out information. If
the state would help me with at least one of these, then I wouldn’t go to
Italy anymore. Why doesn’t the Romanian Embassy in Italy work as the
Italian authorities do? As for the crisis – my salary didn’t decrease, but no
raises are expected either. But everything is transparent, all is out in the
open, the employer tells you from the get-go what to be done, then you
decide.”
„At the Embassy they are so unprofessional, telling us stuff like ‘where the
hell are you rushing?!’ Mrs. Ambassador is here just for the image, for the
photo-shoots, and nothing else. She isn’t there to help us when we have
problems. Once, while at a concert, she told us in a sarcastic tone: ‘you
should have left your kids at the wardrobe, because they make so much
noise’. How can she say such harsh words?”
The migration experience ominously impacts the expectations of
migrants and their approach to various societal elements. However,
several interviewees express some difficulties in readapting to
Romania once returned, and declare that the migration experience
completely changed their perspective on the world.
„My perspective on life is different than it used to be. Now, I have a
different life style. I no longer keep livestock. I go regularly to the doctor. I
don’t make home provisions as before. People in my village don’t
understand me, so I distance myself. When it used to be difficult to go
abroad, just the capable people could do it. Anyone with 80 EUR can leave.
Now, they eat at Caritas and sleep in the bushes, even so, there is nothing
for them if they return”
However, the main reason for choosing to work abroad is financial
incentives. Wages and employment opportunities are the most
appreciated features of the destination country.
„Spain offers a decent life, a decent wage, plus development opportunities.
I already paid the price of being an emigrant; I will never ever work as
receptionist. I keep in contact with Romania, with my family, but I am
more attached to the Spanish standards. Although I am Romanian, living
in Romania isn’t mandatory. I like it here. Life is hard wherever you go,
what is important is the social environment, and to have the lifestyle and
income one desires.”
„Spain doesn’t make you rich, but it at least you live decently. Until 2007
used to earned lots of money, made savings – had two jobs, one legal and
one illegal. Now, enough, I can’t do it anymore. After so many years of
working and living in Spain, I can’t and won’t do it. […] I am not going
back to Romania, is nothing there for me. Each time I go to visit, I return
to Spain all depressed. Here I can live with 100 EUR per week. In
Romania, it is simply impossible to make such money. I will stay here until
retirement, and then return home with a good pension.”
Likewise, lots of migrants mention the cheap life of the destination
country and the affordable prices as compared to those in Romania.
„Abroad, life goes smooth. Prices are the same either here or there, but life
is definitely cheaper in Spain. In Romania, I spend in 3 months as 7
months there.”
This is surprising, given that, according to the official statistics, the
food prices in Romania stands at 70% of the European average. A
possible explanation, not tested in our analysis, might be the
differences between the expenditure structure in Romania and the
one abroad. Studies show that migrants prefer to restrict their
expenses while abroad; no apparel purchases, no restaurant
outings, as their main goal is making savings. In contrast, when
they return in Romania, they tend to spend more and in a various
fashion, on things they would not purchase abroad (i.e. furniture,
leisure activities with friends or family) which lead to high
expenditures. Thus, migrants perceive higher costs in Romania,
disregarding the different expenditure structure.
Another important adaptation element abroad is provided by the
relation with co-nationals and Romanian communities of the
destination country. The majority of interviewees, either in Spain or
in Italy, have a rather negative opinion about Romanian migrants,
and, generally, they try to distance themselves from others.
„Here, Romanians despise one another, they mess with each other. When I
go to Coslada, I feel like they are eating me alive… if they get together, they
end up fighting.”
„In the first two years of living Spain, Romanians act wicked. They
complain about Romania, but only as defensive mechanism. Another
reaction would be to say everything here is extraordinary, while isolating
themselves from other Romanians. Romanians do not wish to integrate and
form a community of their own. Our migration experiences are strictly
individual. Romanians get in touch with associations only for practical
reasons – learning Spanish, children education, after which they leave and
no longer wish to know any Romanians. After two years of living abroad,
they start criticizing the Spaniards and appreciating the Romanians.
Romanians are smart, Spaniards are stupid. All because, they couldn’t
manage to acquire the desired social position so they blame it on the
Spanish!”
„In Brunete (vicinity of Madrid, a/n) there are about 300 families, all from
Maramureş. There is competition between the Romanians from Bârseni:
whose house is bigger, whose car the most expensive, whose kid studies at
Satu Mare high school. Although they are here, abroad, they tend to forget
that they share the same blood, and that they are relatives.”
„We arrive here, you are like a kid, but then you struggle and grow up.
You think about what you will eat today and tomorrow. If you are not
strong, you will fail. Here, there is no one to comfort you. Talk to whom?
They will laugh at you and say: look at the poor bastard!”
Moreover, the Romanian migrant confessions regarding interactions
with the broadly defined ‘Romanian community’ are rather
fascinating. The interactions between members of the Romanian
community are very sporadic, most of being reserved for family
members and somewhat intentionally avoiding other Romanians.
Gatherings are rare and are usually organized to celebrate religious
events. Outside this formal setting, weak in terms of the interaction
intensity, there is no Romanian migrant community life.
„There is no such thing as a Romanian community. Romanian leaders?
What leaders? They don’t represent anything; three persons can set-up an
association and there you go! Six such associations make up an
organization. Each takes their wives and mother-in-laws and makes an
association. That’s the Romanian, always wanting to be the boss.”
„Romanians do not come to gatherings. Their only concern is how to be
invisible.”
„Romanians live in their own world. The Romanian lives in isolation from
Spain, like in a soap bubble. There is no union, political or integrative
structure to concern them.”
(Man, 60 years old, Head of a federation of Romanians’ association
in Spain)
„We should be united, because we have the right to vote. Then, we could
elect our own ‘Romanian’ counselor. So it will be easier, as we will have
someone to turn to. But our community is not even close to being united.”
„Spaniards never invite you to their homes. They live in public places –
coffee houses, bars… this is problematic for Romanians.”
BOX 11. A different kind of migration experience
An old Roma woman approaches us at Madrid central station. She
lights a cigarette, then quickly pulls out a bunch of bracelets and
chains out of her coat.
- I stole all of them. They are very cheap, come on buy them before the
policeman notices me...
Then, I asked her why isn’t she afraid to steal, and she tells me that
for a 7,000 EUR fee, her lawyer will get her out of trouble.
- Where do you get the 7,000 EUR?
- Well, from stealing, how else! Because we Roma don’t work, nobody
would give us jobs.
We buy two bracelets for 20 euros each. However, with the certainty
that the so-called gold is nothing but tin... But then again, what
wouldn’t one do to keep the conversation going! Nevertheless, after
5 minutes of enjoyed her of salesmanship skill, this time for a chain
referred as “you attract the gold, lady”, she gives up and leaves. As
we turn around, we come across another, yet younger, Roma
woman. She, also, waves the clanking gold in front of our eyes, but
we let her know of our recent purchase.
- Oh, that was my mother!
Still, she doesn’t give up and insists on selling us a chain, once
again, but with no success. We keep showing her the recently
purchased bracelets. Then she offers to read my palm for 2 euros. I
accept. We find a cozy bench in the sun, and we sat down next to a
Spanish lady who while smoking her cigarette, kept glancing at us. I
make the cross sign over her palm, I repeat after her some kind of
incantation... then she tells me about my future. Each time before
mentioning something, she would ask whether I feel offended or
uncomfortable, then she would proceed with the fortunetelling.
When she noticed I my smiling, she would ask whether it was true,
question to which I would always answer affirmatively. For
instance, I find out that someone has cast some kind of spell on me,
which made my furniture creak –the floors and the wardrobes- and
which is the cause for headaches and dizziness…
Or, that my husband doesn’t love me, that one of my girlfriends
wishes me evil. I keep smiling. At the end of the fortunetelling
session, she pulls a thread from my scarf, tugged neatly around my
neck, asks me to tie three knots and wrap the thread, together with
a 2-euro coin. Then she places the coin in napkin and rubs against
her belly. After, I am given the following instructions – that once
home, I should put salt, sugar, pink incense and fish fin on top of
the knotted thread, and then place it next to an icon. After receiving
the promised 2 euros, she lets me know she is 26 years old, married
and has 4 children, all living in Romania. She has left them with a
woman, “I have a babysitter, a Romanian woman – I pay her 300
euros a month”. Then she talks about her huge, 250 square meters,
house in Romania... and it would have been done even sooner, if
her husband wouldn’t have lost all the money playing the roulette.
She left Romania since 1999, going to Belgium, Great Britain and
France. She unpins her bun and lets her hair down. The Spanish
lady, next to us, tells her that she has beautiful hair... The Romanian
Roma woman smiles and replies that all Romanian women are
beautiful, and that Spanish women have big hips. The Spanish lady
springs to her feet – “I don’t have a big hips!” – “No, no, of course, I
was referring to young girls...” says the Romanian, like a Spanish
chatterbox, while trying to redeem her gaffe. She knows also
French and English... at which point the Spanish lady next to us,
shakes her head in an intellectual manner and says that’s a
Romanian for you, he learns everything. She herself has a Romanian
woman cleaning her house – a very earnest and hard-working
woman.
Seeing that the Spanish woman strikes up a conversation, the Roma
woman takes out the ‘gold’ chains and bracelets merchandise, and
once again becomes a salesperson. The Spanish lady refuses and
advises her to go to Puerta del Sol, because there are lots of people
and tourists there, and sales go well. “Things are no longer going
well since the crisis”, sights the Roma woman. She offers to read the
Spanish lady’s palm, but the lady replies that she is afraid to find
out what is in store for her, afraid to know what the future brings.
Soon after, we sit up and say goodbye to the Spanish woman. “I see
you like Roma!” says, while smiling the convivial Roma woman.
We part ways smiling.
4.11. Returning in the country
By definition, the returned migrants are persons who worked abroad, who
returned in the last 12 months (September 2009-August 2010) and who plan
to stay three or more months in the country.
4.11.1. Determinants of return migration
The previous chapters outlined the differences between returned migrants
and those remained abroad. However, the analysis was bivariate, excluding
the interactions of potential determinants of return migration. In order to
identify the significant factors of return migration to Romania, this section
presents three models of binary logistic regression, taking into account: (1)
individual factors (gender and age); (2) factors regarding the situation
previous to the ‘first time’ departure (education level, marital status and
whether the migrant left behind children or not); (3) the year of departure; (4)
factors which describe the abroad experience (the number of countries where
the migrant worked, the present destination country or from which the
migrant returned, activity sector, social network and integration degree at
destination) and (5) aspects regarding the origin settlement (residence type,
county, community development level of rural areas, and the children in
care50 present in the household). All three tested models have explicative
power.
The first explanatory model shows that, ceteris paribus, the return migration is an
effect of: age, education, geographic mobility, destination country, occupation and
social network abroad.
However, we emphasize that the kinship relation between the migrant and the child (0-18
years) in care present in the household was not recorded. Thus, the children present in the
household might be siblings, nephews, grandchildren or other types of kin, and not necessarily
the migrant’s children.
50
TABLE 2. 13. Eplanatory models of return migration to Romania
Models of binary logistic regression. Dependent variable (1=returned migrant)
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Predictors
Sig.
Exp(B)
Sig.
Exp(B)
Sig.
Exp(B)
Gender (1=male)
18-29 years
30-44 years
0,945
0,000
0,000
0,053
0,985
7,310
10,373
2,656
0,537
0,000
0,000
0,817
36,994
39,788
0,117
0,999
0,999
0,529
0,000
0,000
0,015
10,047
0,999
0,000
0,014
0,313
0,438
0,495
0,693
0,702
0,598
0,336
0,090
0,830
1,324
0,625
0,939
0,207
0,267
0,938
1,710
0,624
0,542
0,352
0,484
0,665
0,522
1,665
0,732
0,061
0,438
1,103
1,704
1,317
0,198
0,733
0,562
0,578
1,152
0,740
0,854
0,120
0,276
1,089
2,173
2,232
0,033
2,053
0,017
2,931
0,221
1,955
0,045
0,031
0,021
0,004
1,763
2,064
2,315
0,502
0,185
0,150
0,015
0,029
1,809
2,164
2,893
0,478
0,034
0,053
0,772
0,025
0,010
2,866
3,091
1,210
0,399
0,504
0,108
0,277
0,667
1,295
0,009
0,389
0,946
0,659
0,970
1,199
County of origin: Călăraşi
County of origin : Dolj
County of origin: Maramureş
County of orogin Neamţ
County of origin: Vaslui
Averange developed communities
Developed communities
0,346
0,157
0,563
0,076
0,107
1,642
1,849
0,754
2,122
2,078
0,361
0,612
0,020
0,652
0,615
0,276
0,906
0,415
0,648
0,115
0,698
0,634
1,564
0,929
Constant
N
Nagelkerke R Square
2E-08
2E-02
0,005
0,019
978
0,232
531
0,293
0,999
174
0,271
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test (Sig.)
0,207
0,374
0,436
45-59 years
Before leaving Romania
Primary education
(maximum
classes)
8
Secondary education (9-12 classes)
Left children in Romania
Was married
Year of departure
2005-2006
2007-2008
2009-2010
Abroad
Territorial mobility (1=more countries )
Destination country: Italy
Destination country: Spain
Worked in agricultures
Relatives abroad
Integration in the destination country
Return to Romania
Children (1=children in Romania)
Residence (1=urban)
In a previous chapter, we have mentioned that, in terms of age, there are no
significant differences between abroad and returned migrants. Nonetheless,
table 2.13 shows that the odds to return in the country, as opposed to those of
remaining abroad, are 7 times higher for young persons (18-29 years) as
compared with the odds for elderly (60 years or overIn the same time, the
odds to return in the country are, ceteris paribus, 10.37 times higher for the 3044 age category. In other words, the multivariate analysis invalidates the
hypothesis that the higher the migrant's age, the higher his/her propensity to
return to Romania.
The lower education levels (maximum 8 grades) are correlated with low odds
of return. As confirmed by the interviews, the persons with primary school
prefer to be ‘homeless’ in Italy or Spain rather than ‘starve to death back
home’, as their chances of finding work in Romania are close to zero.
We have already noticed that the returned migrants significantly differ from
migrants who remained abroad, with respect to the moment of the first
departure. The returned migrants left Romanian later, hence have benefited
of less time to integrate at the destination country. However, the multivariate
analysis shows that the year of departure is not a significant factor, although
migrants who left after 2005 are more predisposed to returning than those
who left earlier.
In the same time, model 1 (table 2.13) confirms that geographic mobility is a
significant determinant for the return migration, but in an opposite manner
than expected. Persons who seeked work/ worked in several countries have
higher odds to return (even if only temporary) than those who have been in a
sole destination country. This result relates to the model of circulatory
migration, which alternates periods of working abroad with periods of return
to Romania.
In the same terms of circulatory migration, agricultural employment in the
destination country significantly increases the odds of return of the migrant.
Actually, persons who work abroad as farmers are 2.3 times more likely to
return to Romania compared with those who are employed in industry,
services or are, even, economically inactive.
The destination country, also, makes a difference.
Ceteris paribus, the migrants to Italy or Spain have significantly higher
chances to return, compared with migrants from other destination countries.
Regardless of the individual characteristics of the migrant, the destination
country and all other accounted factors, to have siblings abroad significantly
lower the chances for return. In other words, the presence of family networks
abroad provides efficient support for integration in the host society.
Furthermore, model 3 (table 2.13) brings further evidence concerning the
importance of support networks for the decision to return. Thus, we built an
abroad integration index (summative) based the following variables:51 (a) the
migrant has foreign acquaintances at destination, with whom spends time
(work and leisure) and relates, (b) when faced with personal problems, the
migrant could find support (foreign or Romanian), (c) the migrant has most
friends and acquaintances in the destination country (foreign or Romanian),
(d) considers that going abroad is a (fairly) positive experience. Table 2.13
shows that integration in the host country is negatively correlated with return
migration. The more integrated the migrant in the host society, the lower the
odds of returning to Romania .52
Area (urban/rural) or county of origin, the presence of children in the
household, and the fact of being married before first departure have no
significant effect on return migration. Having children left back home
positively affects the probability of return, but the effect is insignificant when
the other factors are kept under control.
Regarding the return migration in rural areas, we adjusted the explanatory
model by including the community development level for testing its effects
on the decision to return. Consequently, model 2 (table 2.13) shows that
return migration in rural areas is an effect of: age (18-44 years), employment
in agriculture, geographical mobility (working in various EU countries) and
the absence of abroad kin networks. The education level and destination
country factors are no longer relevant. Nevertheless, two other factors
At these questions just the returned migrants and those on vacation in Romania answered. For
this reason, the analysis is limited to B2 and C migrant categories (see Table 2.13).
52 These results are consistent with other migration studies. For example, Holst and Schrooten
(2006) show that the tendency of transfer of remittances is proportionally inverse with the
integration level in the host society.
51
become significant: the presence of children in the household back home and
the origin county. Ceteris paribus, the return propensity of migrants with
children in the household, and of those originating from Maramureş County,
as opposed to remaining abroad, is significantly lower. In addition, the model
re-confirms that return migration is lower for those originating from
developed rural communities compared with that from poor communes.
However, the community development level does not bear significance in
decision for returning to Romania.
4.11.2. Why do migrants return to Romania
The main reason for returning to Romania is ‘being homesick’. The secondary
reason is ‘achieving the goals for which I went abroad’. Job loss or wage cuts
were mentioned by considerably fewer return migrants. Regardless of the
destination country:
•
‘I miss my family / my home/ my kids’ is mainly mentioned by women,
especially those who work as housekeepers, babysitters or other personal
care services.
•
The persons who went to work abroad having a definite goal (i.e., to
build, renovate or purchase a house, to financial support the child’s
education), return to Romania once ‘things are settled’. Less than one in
every six persons in such situation prolongs the period of living abroad,
while the others return.53
Young people (18-29 years) are those who return to continue education:
one of five young migrants return (at least temporary) for this purpose.
•
... migrants go to work abroad for money (Section 3.4) and do
not necessarily return because of income decline (Section 4.7).
They return to Romania because they miss their families
and/or because they achieved their objectives...
53
The majority of these migrants worked abroad in agriculture or constructions.
FIGURE 2. 21. The reasons for returning from work abroad (%)
73
Motive familiale (dorul de familie/acasă/ copil)
40
A realizat planurile pe care le avea când a plecat peste hotare
18
A pierdut locul de muncă peste hotare
11
S-a redus salariul peste hotare
10
Continuarea studiilor
8
S-a înrăutățit atitudinea locuitorilor țării-gazdă față de migranți
5
Au apărut oportunități de muncă mai convenabile în țară
5
Alt motiv
BOX 12. Coming back to Romania
In the majority of cases, the return of migrant is based on individual
factors such as health status, period of migration (long-term,
partially achieving goals, or short term stay, and difficulties to
adapt/integrate at destination), personal or domestic problems,
homesickness (both people and country) and alike others. Taking
into account, that both at local and national level there are no
measures which target and facilitate the return of migrants, and, by
that matter, no Romanian strategy or policy for labor migration/
mobility, relevant for the EU-27 space, which to maximize benefits
and the development effects of migration regarding the origin
settlements, we consider that individual factors will continue to
dominate the return decisions of Romanian migrants, even more so
given the prolonged economic crisis in Romania.
The qualitative research highlighted a more complex ensemble of
return motivations, which eludes the ‘first glance’ opinions put
forward by the quantitative results. Being homesick is very often
invoked by the returned migrants and is usually the first argument
for returning.
However, as the interview progresses and the social distance
interviewer-interviewee fades, other reasons for return surface,
which are not of emotional nature.
Certainly, the reasons are not solely financial, migrants also return
for personal reasons: to solve problems back home, to care for
elderly parents and underage children, to help family members
with business matters, whenever necessary. Nonetheless, all these
personal reasons represent practical and not emotional issues.
Evidently, the qualitative research results cannot be generalized or
representative. However, at least in the cases we analyzed, the
emotional aspects (homesickness) where mere façades discourse,
more or less desirable societal motivations.
In addition, the qualitative research reveals that the migrant return
is virtually always accompanied by a ‘survival plan’ in Romania,
involving savings, business or suitable employment opportunities.
This idea is concordant with the, above mentioned, results of the
quantitative research which state that migrants return once the
financial targets are reached. Also, the interviews suggest that for a
specific migrant category – those who partially achieved their goals,
such as building a house and making some savings, the stay abroad
is profitable only if the job of the migrant permits additional
savings, and not just coverage of living costs.
Once this requirement is no longer fulfilled, and all other migration
objectives are partially achieved, most likely the migrant decides to
return. Therefore, the economic recession is a catalyzer for return,
but not the sole determinant of return migration.
„I became unemployed after working at a wash machine factory. Being
unemployment didn’t suit me, as I came here to make money. I managed to
earn some, by mowing lawns for 20 EUR an evening. But it wasn’t worth
staying in Italy for this. So, I took my savings, made a bank loan in Italy
and bought farming machineries. Now, I farm sunflower and corn, and its
going well. Nothing to complain about…”
„Do you know who returned to Romania? Those who managed to put
away some money. But new ones still keep coming here. They stay in
Brunete (vicinity of Madrid, a/n), like some products at peasant markets,
waiting for employers to offer them some work. Women usually find
something. But there’s no place for men in Spain. There are so many of
them in Brunete who don’t even have money to pay rent. So, they live 1213 in one house, and even than they cannot afford rent.”
„My husband gets illness pension from the Italian state, 700 EUR per
month. So, we decided to come back, as we can live well with this money in
Romania. We bought a house here in the village and by husband found
work as truck driver in Braşov. In Italy, employers take advantage of the
crisis and pay less or delay payment. They cut my salary from 1,500 to
1,200 EUR and it didn’t want to stay there anymore, I couldn’t save
anything anymore.”
However, numerous migrants have not achieved their migration
objectives, did not make savings, did not finish constructing the
house, did not have a ‘fallback plan’ or the necessary resources to
make one, and even if they cannot make savings, they find the host
country to be more advantageous. These migrants prefer to poor
there, working temporary or illegally, which bring just enough to
survive, to cover the day by day costs of living, something that
would be impossible to do in Romania.
„I don’t like it here either, but what could I do in Romania? Freeze and
starve to death because there are no jobs? Neither here or there, do I have
job. Here, I obtain a driving license to learn a new skill. I was thinking
about going to France, but then again I don’t speak French. Maybe I go
with a friend. Now I get paid half of what I used to get before. But I am
content with the fact that I have a place to stay and what to eat. If not, I
would end-up on the streets.”
This migrant category – affected by the crisis, while lacking the
resources necessary to return to Romania – represent also those who
often return temporary and who are predisposed to a specific type
of cyclical migration, constantly going back and forth between
origin and destination countries.
„Some go back to Romania and live there for a short while, then return
here and seek employment. Some of them had some savings and so the
crisis acted as a catalyst for returning home, where they would have
opportunities.”
„Some will return, of course, for a longer or shorter period of time, to solve
their problems home, try their luck there. Eventually they return to Spain
or wherever it was good, where there are jobs. It is important to
understand the concepts of cyclical migration and mobility.”
(Woman, 46 years old, representative of a Romanian association in
Spain)
Generally, those who return in this manner try to find employment.
Often they do not find any, or if they manage to find a job, the wage
is unsatisfactory, and so, once again, they go abroad. The chances
for a returned migrant to come back abroad are higher if the
migrant keeps in touch or has acquaintances in the destination
country. These contacts are useful for securing a new job abroad.
„Indeed, he returned. He used to work in Spain, in constructions, but he
lost his job. He came back and found a job at a security agency in
Bucharest for 800 RON. But commuting with the bus to Bucharest cost
him 400 RON, and by the end of the month he would ended-up with
nothing. He used to tell me ‘mom, I used to make 100 EUR per week in
Spain, not per month’. My daughter is there, working in a butchers shop.
She found work for my boy too. Yes, he went back abroad 10 days ago.”
(Woman, mother of a migrant in Spania, Dâmboviţa County)
Another temporary return strategy is that of coming back to
Romania for the period during which the migrant collects
unemployment benefits from the foreign country. This time lapse
allows the migrant to try his luck in Romania and to test the local
labor market, being able to cover for their living expenses with the
monthly unemployment benefit. The chances of going back abroad,
once the unemployment benefit period is over, are reduced if the
former migrant finds satisfactory employment in Romania.
However, usually the registered unemployed migrants or those
who lost their jobs prefer to combine living from unemployment or
social benefits with illegal or temporary work. The generosity of the
foreign social system plays a critical role in this context.
„Rather than coming back home, Romanians prefer to receive the
minimum benefit of 426 EUR and work illegally, where they still make
some money. Another possibility is to become independent (self-employed
a/n) when unemployed: the Spanish state gives you the entire amount of
the unemployment benefits for an investment, if you have a business plan.”
„Romanians do not return because the crisis in Romania is worse than the
one here. People have social services in Spain, some income, and the
monthly benefit of 420 EUR. Many lost their jobs, but compensate
working illegally and collecting unemployment benefits. When migrants
return to Romania they are badly perceived because they have work
experience, a different mentality and lived in a democratic society.
Romania is not ready for this. Romania is not ready to maximize what all
these migrants bring back home – the abroad experience.”
Although the crisis accelerated the return propensity to Romania for
most migrants, there is a segment of respondents who claim that, in
their case, the crisis acted as an inhibitor. The decision to not return
(to remain abroad) is mainly based on the argument of worsening
situation in Romania. However, we do not have reliable information
regarding the return decision before the crisis.
„Lots of people wanted to come back previous 2007. They even planned
everyday life for a temporally, a transition period before returning to
Romania. In 2007-2008, all wanted to return because there were
opportunities, as Romania was booming economically. Nobody anticipated
the crisis. Thus, unfortunately, Romania is opportunity-less, no jobs
whatsoever. In the end, they come again to Spain and stay here because
Romania is impossible.”
Most Romanian migrants interviewed in both Spain and Italy
emphasize they do not want to return home, mainly because of the
attitudes and everyday treatments experienced as a Romanian
citizen. Additionally, even when abroad, Romanians ‘feel
abandoned by those back home, although those live of the money
we send home’ and authorities use them as ‘milking cows’,
‘căpşunar’ (strawberry pickers, meaning low level unskilled works
a/n), ‘parents who abandoned their own children and do not see
them for years’. In their opinion:
„Bucharest authorities, see us just as a problem that needs to be solved and
to do that, they need our money, even if we are just căpşunari, as they
say.";
„.. when is elections time, they ask for our vote and make promise, this and
that, and then they raise the consular fees, and you come back to Romania,
to stay line for passports until you drop.";
„... can’t you see how congested are queues at the Consulate. We don’t
respect ourselves, never mind the Italians… they know, that those which
push and shove like some sheep and stay in lines every morning are the
Romanians.";
„... ufff, we want so many things. We want people back home who govern
to fight for us, including abroad. Eventually, the foreigners stand up for us
and speak well of us. We want the same from Romanians. We want people
who lead to do more for the country, so that we do better and we have
jobs."
(Interviews in Italy and Spain)
4.11.3. Satisfaction with the return to Romania
The returned migrants divide into two groups: 63% are happy that they
returned to the country, mainly because ‘they are home, with family’ and
35% are unhappy because incomes are too small, jobs are lacking and ‘it is
difficult to live in Romania’.
FIGURE 2. 22. Satisfaction with return to Romania (%)
Non-răspuns
Foarte mulțumit
Destul de mulțumit
3
Mulțumit(ă) pentru că:
54% ”sunt acasă, alături de familie și
prieteni”, 10% altele: ”merg la școală”,
”termin casa”, ”fac nuntă”, ”sunt liniștit
sufletește”, ”am rezolvat treburile”
Destul de nemulțumit
25
Foarte nemulțumit
10
21
42
Nemulțumit(ă) pentru că:
18% - bani puțini, lipsa banilor, 8% ”nu sunt
locuri de muncă”, 8% În România, ”nu e bine”,
”se trăiește greu”, ”lumea e rea”, ”nesimțire”,
”mizerie”, ”lipsă de civilizație”
Returned migrants estimate that they live ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’54 in the
home country than abroad, because earnings are insufficient and the general
situation of Romania implies ‘poverty’, ‘corruption’, ‘useless laws’, ‘lack of
opportunities’ and jobs.
Very few consider that they live ‘better’, specifically because they are ‘home,
with family’.55
To sum it up, the majority of returned migrants is satisfied with their return,
but live worse in Romania than abroad. The family and the fact that they are
home represent the main sources for satisfaction, while incomes, job
opportunities and the general situation of Romania are the main sources of
dissatisfaction.
31% live ‘worse’ and 40% live ‘much worse’.
Just 6% of the returned migrants declare that they live ‘somewhat better’ or ‘much better’ in
Romania. 21% consider they live ‘the same’ in Romania as abroad, and 2% did not answer.
54
55
4.11.4. Plans for the stay duration
Out of all returned migrants, just 22% decided to remain in the country ‘for
good’, and 6% plan to stay home for more than one year. Approximately 20%
are not decided, while more than half (52%) plan to go for work abroad again
after 3-12 months or once the economic recession passes.
TABLE 2. 14. How long intend the returned migrants to stay in Romania (%)
3 months
4-6
months
7-12
months
13-36
months
Until find a
job abroad
For good
Not
decided
12
18
10
6
12
22
20
During their stay in Romania, only 11% find employment, while 32% of all
returned migrants seek jobs. A small share is involved (5%) or plan to become
farmers (17%): “to stay home, together with my family/children and help my
parents with farming”. Few of them (19%) have or intend to start a business
and only one in every three intends to remain in Romania and run the
business, while the other two in every three plan to go abroad again, to reside
and finance the business.
TABLE 2. 15. Plans of the returned migrants during their stay in Romania (%)
To fiind a job
To leave as long as possible with the money earned abroad
To start a business
To do agriculture
To do something else
To get unemployment benefits
To get a bank credit
To obtain european funds for starting/developing a business
No
No, but
intends
to
Already
did it
No
answer
47
17
68
69
80
81
82
83
32
30
17
17
8
5
5
4
11
5
2
5
0
2
0
0
10
48
13
10
13
13
13
14
Plans, such as finding a job in Romania or intention to live off the savings
made abroad as much time as possible, do not significantly vary by gender,
age, occupation, residence area (urban/rural), activity sector, departure year,
number of departures abroad, destination country or support network
capacities.
Among the returned migrants who already have a job (with or without work
contract), the majority found employment in a different place than the one
previous to going abroad. Nearly all are ‘dissatisfied with the current job, in
comparison with the job abroad”, particularly, due to wage.
Just in isolated cases, the returned migrant has plans to obtain
unemployment benefits, to make a bank loan or to apply for financing
programs from European funds.
Overall, when asked about their stay plans in Romania, the returned
migrants mention also other plans including: 15% want to rest and have fun;
14% want to work on the house (renovate, build); 12% want to spend time
with family – ‘raise my children’, ‘help my parents’, ‘visit relatives’; and 7%
want to continue their studies. Very small shares intend also ‘to solve various
problems’, ‘to retire’, ‘to consult a medic and/or health care’, ‘to find a
spouse’, ‘to have my wedding’.
BOX 13. Requirements for the successful return of Romanian
migrants, back home
Generally, the interviewed migrants who returned to Romania are
trying either to find a job or to set up a small business. Apparently,
the length of stay for those who seek and, eventually, find a job is
shorter than the length of stay of those who start a business. This is
just a simple empirical observation, not validated by the
quantitative data.
A possible explanation could be that starting a business takes longer
than finding a job and becoming dissatisfied with the available
earnings. Usually, the majority interviewed persons – accounting
for both returned and abroad migrants – declares the intention to
start a business once returned, over the intention to find
employment.
A specific group is represented by the persons over 50 years, whose
main return plan comes down to retirement and to collect the
pension offered by the foreign state, which will allow them have a
comfortable life in Romania.
„We bought some land. We struggle to make something, to build… This
year, we are building our house, bit by bit. We finish a room then move to
the next one. My future is in Romania. I will return when I have a house
and a job, and to have a child. Maybe we will start a small business, in
plumbing or something. I wouldn’t invest too much in Romania for a
company. I would invest little money, for two vans or so, it’s enough for a
plumbing company.”
„Well, we will work in Italy until retirement, that’s for sure… We will
work as long as we can, until the Italians give us pension and then we will
go back, serenely, back home. Still… a long way to go!”
CHAPTER 5.
MONEY SENT BACK HOME, TO ROMANIA,
BY MIGRANTS ABROAD
The information regarding the money sent home was reported by persons
from households with migrants abroad, by migrants on vacation in Romania
as well as by the returned migrants. These three groups of respondents
provide significantly different reports. While migrants (on vacation or
returned) tend to declare that, in the last year, they sent money back home
‘often’ or ‘very often’, the persons from households with migrants abroad –
the beneficiaries – claim in a significantly higher proportion that they have
‘never’ received any money.
FIGURE 2. 23. Frequency of cash transfers from migrants abroad to Romania (%)
Niciodata
24
10
40
Foarte rar
5
8
9
Destul de rar
15
16
18
Destul de des
34
31
21
Foarte des
22
34
12
Migranți reveniți (N=130)
Migranți în concediu în țară (N=99)
Persoane din gospodării cu migranți în străinătate (N=650)
Young persons (18-29 years), especially pupils and students, and persons
from settlements of 20 thousand inhabitants or more, declare in a
considerably higher proportion (51-61% over 33% for all persons with
migrants in the household) that, in the past year, they ‘often’ or ‘very often’
received money from abroad. The persons with migrants in household which
reside in settlements of less than 20 thousand inhabitants, as well as those
from poor rural communities,56 in significantly larger proportions, report
that, in the past year, they received ‘rarely’ or ‘very rarely’ money from
abroad. Lastly, more than 55% of persons 65 years and over (predominantly,
retired), as well as of graduates of professional schools (vocational training),
declare that, in the past year, they received no money from abroad (as
opposed to 40% of all persons in households with migrants).
Considerable differences are also recorded in terms of migrants’
characteristics. Thus, young migrants abroad (18-29 years) send ‘very rarely’
or ‘rarely’ money back home. The same goes for specialists, workers in
services (i.e. hotels, restaurants) and machinery/equipment operators
(especially, in transport). In contrast, craftsmen (particularly, in
constructions) send much more often money back home.
The share of migrants from Italy and Belgium who send money home ‘often’
or ‘very often’ is significantly higher than from other migrant countries.
Unlike, about 40-50% of migrants from Germany, Great Britain, Greece and
Nordic countries send ‘very rarely’ or ‘rarely’ money to Romania. More than
80% of the migrants from Canada, Australia, Ireland, and Hungary, have, in
the past year, ‘never’ sent money home.
Other characteristics relating to respondent, household or migrant are
insignificant. In other words, irrespective of gender, education, ethnic origin
or religion of the respondent, size of the household, number of children,
household/individual income, approximately one third of the households
receive ‘often’ / ‘very often’ money from abroad, 27% receive ‘rarely’ / ’very
rarely’, and 40% do not receive any remittances (Figure 2.23).
’Poor rural communities’ refer to rural settlements for which the development level as
measured by IDC (Sandu et al., 2009) is among the lowest 33% in Romania.
56
For more than half of the households with migrants, the money received
from abroad represents a ‘big share, helping a lot’ or a ‘very big share,
without them I don’t know how we would manage’ of the total household
income.
FIGURE 2. 24. The contribution of remittances to the total income of households
with migrants for work abroad (%)
O parte destul de
mică. Se simte
oarecum la venitul
gospodăriei, dar nu
cine știe ce. Ne
descurcăm și fără ei
O parte foarte mică,
neînsemnată. Și cu ei,
și fără ei, tot aia este
O parte destul de
mare. Se simte destul
de bine la venitul
gospodăriei, ne ajută
mult.
24%
18%
41%
O parte foarte mare.
Se simte foarte mult
la venitul gospodăriei.
Nu știu ce ne-am face
fără ei.
11%
Non-răspuns
Singura sursă de venit
a gospodăriei.
The respondents for which remittances account for an insignificant part of
total household income belong to two population categories – specialists and
elderly persons (65+ years), in particular those from settlements (urban/rural)
with a relatively high development level.57
Cash remittances represent a significant part of total household income
especially for young, pupils/students and unemployed, in particular those
from settlements (urban/rural) with a medium development level.58
The development level as measured by IDC is among the highest 33% in Romania.
The development level as measured by IDC (Sandu et al., 2009), is among the average 33% in
the country.
57
58
Young migrants (18-29 years) send smaller amounts of money, while 45-64
years migrants send money without which the Romanian household would
not manage.
Besides money, 37% of the households with abroad migrants receive other
types of goods. This is specific for pupils/students in a significantly higher
proportion (56%). Parcels with various goods are sent home in particular by
the migrants working in Italy or France.
... for the six selected counties, 14 out of 100 households receive
money from the relatives abroad and 9 households out of 100
receive other types of goods. For about half of these
households, remittances account for a large share of total
household monthly income, without which they could not
manage ...
The comparative analysis records significant statistical differences between
counties (Table 2.16 and Figure 2.25). If in Maramureș and Neamţ counties,
every fifth household receives money from abroad, only one in ten
households benefits from abroad remittances in Brașov County.
In Călărași County, the households with migrants that receiving ‘very often’
money from abroad are overrepresented. In Dolj county, the share of
households with migrants receiving ‘rather often’ remittances from abroad is
considerably higher, than for the other counties; while in Vaslui County are
overrepresented households that ‘rarely’ receive money from abroad.
However, overall, the differences between counties, although seem high, are
not statistically significant. That is, about 60% of households with migrants
(from any county) receive money from the relatives working abroad (either
often or rarely).
Finally, households from Dolj County, in a significantly higher proportion
(49% in comparison to 37%, the average for all six counties), receive parcels
with various goods (Figure 2.25).
TABLE 2. 16. The percentage of households receiving cash and in kind remittances from the members abroad, by county
Distribution of persons in ...
TOTAL - N
County
Households
without
migrants
Households
with migrants
Total sample
Households
receiving cash
remittances from
members abroad
Households
receiving in kind
(parcels)
remittances from
members abroad
(A)
(B1)
(A+B1)
2062
671
2733
2733
2733
-%
75,4%
24,6%
100%
14,2%
9,2%
- Braşov
81,8%
18,2%
100%
9,8%
5,1%
- Călăraşi
84,0%
16,0%
100%
11,3%
3,8%
- Dolj
79,8%
20,2%
100%
11,3%
9,9%
- Maramureş
67,2%
32,8%
100%
18,5%
13,2%
- Neamţ
64,8%
35,2%
100%
21,0%
11,9%
- Vaslui
75,1%
24,9%
100%
14,4%
10,8%
FIGURA 2. 25. (A) The frequency of money transfers to Romania by county (%) and (B) The percentage of households receiving in
kind remittances (parcels) from the members abroad, by county (%)
Vaslui
Neamț
Maramureş
Dolj
11
17
12
21
9
27
15
8
18
Foarte des
23
21
Destul de des
Vaslui
12
40
Neamț
8
38
Maramureş
6
15
27
33
7
26
21
10
Călăraşi
Braşov
14
11
41
8
Destul de rar
46
Foarte rar
Călăraşi
Braşov
Niciodata
57
34
66
40
60
49
Dolj
27
9
43
24
51
74
28
Primesc pachete
72
Nu primesc pachete
BOX 14. The money transfers of Romanian migrants abroad
The interviewed Romanian migrants declared that, as a result of the
crisis, they prefer to send back home parcels with necessary goods,
for the following two reasons:
- On one hand, they have some control over how the money is
spent, as it is for the bare necessities of people back home. Thus, the
migrants can make more savings and return home faster, once the
migration objective is achieved.
- On the other hand, the interviewees consider that both the quality
of products, as well as quality/price ratio is much better abroad than
in Romania. Similarly, in some cases, migrant workers stated that
some products are for free or almost nothing, either because
Spaniards abandoned things or can be easily purchased on the black
market.
“We directly send food, clothes, because they are cheaper abroad...”
“I send 100-150 EUR, once a month, every two or three months, as needed
for food, for the kid’s school expenses and other household expenses. ‘Cause
one needs money to keep a household running. And, from time to time, I
would send packages of all kinds, clothes, things, food and so on...”
Romanians working abroad emphasized the fact that, especially in
the recession context, the money and aid is vital as it secures the
survival of those back home. Romanians who worked in Spain and
Italy mentioned encountering obstacles because of the crisis and the
sacrifices they have to make in order to continue supporting those
back home. Nevertheless, if the destination country still provides
opportunities to overcome the crisis, then families back home
‘would starve to death’, ‘could no longer survive’ or ‘could simply
not manage’ because ‘the crisis in Romania is way worse than in
Spain/Italy’.
The interviewed migrants agree that, given the crisis, the money
they send to Romania in order to support people back home is
aimed to assure decent living standards and to compensate for the
Romanian worsening situation, where prices keep rising, wages get
cut and job loss. Therefore, the absence or cessation of remittances
could lead to severe poverty, especially if this would happen
suddenly.
5.1. The evolution of cash remittances from abroad
For the majority of households with migrants abroad, the sum of money
received remained ‘the same’ for the interval February-August 2010.
However, 32% of persons in households with migrants reported shrinkages
of the received sums of money.
FIGURE 2. 26. The evolution of cash remittances from abroad in the last six months
Ceva mai mult
6%
Mult mai mult
3%
Non-răspuns
9%
La fel
50%
Nu au mai
trimis nimic
6%
Ceva mai mic
19%
Mult mai mic
7%
The proportion of households with migrants who received less money (or
none at all) from abroad is significantly higher in Maramureș County (52%).
In contrast, in Neamţ (72%) the households which received in the last 6
months about the same amount of money from abroad are overrepresented,
while in Călărași (23%) it is significantly higher the proportion of those who
received ‘more’ or ‘somewhat more’ money.
5.2. The uses in Romania of the remittances from abroad
Migration literature which analyzes the development impact of remittances
report that: remittances, either individual or collective, either sent through
formal or informal channels, either money or in kind, have a limited impact
and contribution to the processes of investment and job creation at origin.
Actually, remittances are destined for consumption and everyday life, and
only a small percentage goes to investments. This fact is also characteristic for
Romania (e.g. Sandu, ed., 2006), being confirmed by the FES-CCBS research.
FIGURE 2. 27. The common usage pattern of remittances sent by migrants abroad to
households in Romania, in the past year (%)
Cheltuielile de zi cu zi
78
Plata datoriilor
51
Îmbunătățirea locuinței existente
28
Bunuri de folosință îndelungată (în afară de maşină)
20
Educația copiilor
20
Realizarea de economii
15
Construcția/ achiziționarea de noi locuințe
15
Petrecerea timpului liber/ turism
4
Investiții/ afaceri
3
Donații și alte acte de binefacere
2
În alt mod
4
The majority of households with migrants use the money received from
abroad to cover current expenses and to pay debts. House related issues rank
the third – refurbishment, renovation, expansion, construction and
endowment with goods.
The interviews with the representatives of local authorities and leaders have
identified the following behaviors of earnings management for Romanians
working abroad: comfort related expenditures and daily life satisfaction
(building, renovation and/or endowment of dwelling, acquisition of land or
car etc.) and investments, such as starting a business:
„As soon as they save a bit of money, they come back home to refurbish their
house. They plan to do that as abroad, accordingly modernizing their homes.”
„They don’t open businesses, not only because of money insufficiency. They
are rather afraid of investing and of not getting back any return.”
(Representatives of local authorities, Romania)
Only 20% of the households with migrants that receive money from abroad
declare to invest in children’s education. If we limit the analysis just to
households with children, the percentage slightly increases to a mere 27%. In
other words, just one in every four households with migrants abroad and in
which children are present, use remittances for the children’s education.
However, households with migrants abroad and in which children are
present (65%) receive remittances in a significantly higher proportion than
childless households with migrants abroad (58%).59 Likewise, households
with children receive money more often than those without children. In
addition, remittances for households with children have a higher
contribution to the total budget than in the case of childless households.
Only a minority of 3% of households with migrants that receive money from
abroad use remittances for investment, opening or developing a business.
This result is consistent with other various studies on remittances. For example, Roman and
Ileanu (2011) show that having children in the country of origin represents a determinant factor
for remittance transfer decision, for all Eastern European migrants residing in Spain (INE data,
2009). Thus, a person who has children back home is 4 times more likely to send money, in
comparison with a childless person. In contrast, the presence of other types of kin (such as
parents or spouse) at the origin country, do not significantly affect the decision to send
remittances.
59
BOX 15. The investments of migrants in Romania
The interviews with representatives of local authorities highlighted
that, in addition to social, economic and business environment
circumstances back home, migrants take in consideration the
amenities and opportunities available at local level when thinking
of making business investments, be it pre- or post- return to
Romania.
The support provided by local authorities encourages the
entrepreneurial spirit among migrants:
„Yes, we also offered a business training course here, locally. 34 young
people attended, out of which two even started a business with some furry
animals, how are they called… chinchillas. I went there myself and
business is booming. For now, just 2 out of 34 succeeded. This business is
with animals, but there are others who came for agriculture, greenhouses
which are still developing.”
(Representative of local authorities, Romania)
The investment plans of those working abroad are strongly affected
by the corruption, bureaucracy and ‘clientelism’ in Romania, as
perceived by respondents. Even those who invest in Romania claim
to be dissatisfied with the ways in which the administrative and
banking systems operate, with the lack of amenities for small
enterprises, and with the conditions that enable a predictable and
stable business environment. Ultimately, the qualitative study
shows that the main factors which discourage Romanian migrants’
investments are not the insufficient financial resources or the lack of
entrepreneurial spirit, but rather the bureaucratic obstacles,
cumbersome and discretionary procedures, and corruption from
Romania.
„I wouldn’t make any bank loans here. There (in Italy a/n) the loan
interest is smaller and they don’t ask you for one hundred documents. I
could not repay the debt there, if I wanted, it’s very convenient, but that’s
not the point. Here, I have never turned to the state for anything. There are
so many doors to open to obtain something – so better not! […] Well, now
I farm sunflower and corn, but I intend to open a pig farm and sell piglets.
Life is more expensive here than in Italy, if it hadn’t been for my family, it
wouldn’t be worth living here.”
„Tax-wise it is better in Italy. My brother has a company in Romania,
‘pero’ it isn’t going well at all. There are no odds in Romania. They all
steal, try to fool you, this and that, so I don’t like it. If Romania recovered,
I’d go back, if it worked alright. I would love to live in my native country.
But for now, here it is good even if you are ‘straniero’.”
„Italians are much more fair-minded. I’d like for all Romanians to return
home. How come it is possible to do something abroad, but not at home? If
only the state would help!”
CHAPTER 6.
THE INTENTION TO MIGRATE FOR WORK
ABROAD
Out of the population of the analyzed six counties, 9% lived or worked
abroad in the last two years. The proportion is almost two times larger for
persons in households with migrants, in comparison to households without
migrants.
FIGURE 2. 28. Migrating for work abroad – experience in the last 2 years and future
intentions (%)
100
(A)
67
60
(B1)
(A+B1)
(C)
65
49
28
7
14
9
13
- cu siguranță nu
A trăit sau a
lucrat peste
hotare în ultimii 2
ani
10
9
10
9
- probabil nu
11 14 12
- probabil da
9
16
11
- cu siguranță da
3
2
3
0
- nu știe
În viitor, intenționează să plece la muncă în străinătate
For the future, 22% of the entire population, meaning more than one in every
five adults, intend to leave to work abroad. Once again, the proportion is
significantly higher for persons in households with migrants abroad (29%
versus 20% of persons in households without migrants). The propensity to
depart is much higher among the returned migrants, out of which 49% will
‘probably’ and others 28% will ‘definitely’ go back abroad for work.60
The higher and more direct the experience a person has with migration for
work abroad, the greater the propensity to adopt this strategy again.
Therefore, among persons in households without migrants and without
migration experience, only 18% intend to leave. Among persons who have
only indirect experience (having relatives abroad), about 24% intend to leave.
For persons who have direct experience with migration and no relatives
abroad the percentage increases to 52%, while for those with direct
experience and relatives abroad the percentage reaches a high 65%.
Table 2.17 presents the profile of prospective migrants.
Considerably more men than women consider working abroad as a life
strategy, especially in the case of persons with no migration experience.
The correlation between age and migration intention is strongly negative.61
The higher the age of the person, the lower the probability of intending to go
work abroad.
The correlation between migration intention and the completed education
level is also significant.62 However, in this case, the correlation is positive,
meaning that the propensity to work abroad increases with the level of
education. However, significantly higher proportions of persons who intend
to go work abroad are identified for high-school graduates, rather than for
persons with maximum 8 grades or for university graduates. More precisely,
the population category with the highest propensity to go abroad refers to
young high-school graduates, pupils/students, house persons or
unemployed. Thus, prospective migrants reproduce the already existing
Romanian labor migration pattern.
Migrants on vacation in Romania will be returning abroad for work.
Pearson coefficient -.43 (p=.000).
62 Pearson coefficient +.12 (p=.000).
60
61
TABEL 2. 17. Profile of prospective migrants for work abroad (% A+B1 – representative sample at population level)
Certainly
no
Probably
no
Probably
yes
Certainly
yes
Don’t
know
Total
TOTAL – N
1.781
264
316
292
80
2.733
TOTAL - %
65,20%
9,70%
11,60%
10,70%
2,90%
100%
Worked abroad in the last 2 years
30,9%
9,3%
21,2%
35,6%
3,0%
100%
Gender
- women
- men
68,4%
61,6%
9,5%
9,8%
10,7%
12,5%
8,9%
12,7%
2,4%
3,4%
100%
100%
Age
- 18-29
- 30-44
- 45-64
- 65 years and over
35,3%
52,1%
74,0%
90,7%
14,9%
12,6%
8,6%
4,0%
20,8%
17,7%
9,0%
1,3%
25,2%
15,5%
6,0%
*
3,8%
2,2%
2,5%
3,5%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Education
- maximum 8 classes
- apprentice
- high school
- post-high school
- university
77,9%
62,1%
57,1%
66,7%
60,5%
6,6%
8,5%
11,4%
7,8%
15,7%
7,2%
13,0%
13,6%
15,1%
11,3%
5,8%
12,5%
15,1%
7,8%
10,2%
2,5%
3,9%
2,7%
2,6%
2,4%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Ocupaţie
- retired persons
- houswifes
- unemployed
- students/pupils
- agricultors
- workers
- „gray collars”
- „white collars”
- employers, managers
86,2%
55,9%
46,7%
33,7%
66,7%
46,3%
54,4%
61,3%
63,5%
6,0%
9,7%
13,3%
16,0%
*
11,4%
12,2%
14,9%
12,2%
3,4%
15,8%
15,8%
23,1%
16,7%
18,8%
18,5%
8,8%
13,5%
1,9%
15,8%
22,4%
22,5%
10,0%
19,1%
12,9%
11,6%
9,5%
2,6%
2,9%
*
4,7%
*
4,4%
2,1%
3,3%
*
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TABEL 2.17 (continuation)
Certainly
no
Revenue of
the
household(
monthly,
per capita)
(Quintile)
Monthly
revenue
Of the
person
(Quintile)
Children
Probably
no
Probably
yes
Certainly
yes
Don’t
know
Total
TOTAL – N
1.781
264
316
292
80
2.733
TOTAL - %
65,20%
9,70%
11,60%
10,70%
2,90%
100%
- Q1 (150 lei/month/ person)
60,7%
5,6%
17,8%
13,9%
2,0%
100%
- Q2 (300 lei//monthly/ person)
- Q3 (500 lei/monthly/ person)
- Q4 (700 lei/month/ person)
- Q5 (1.300 lei/monthly/ person)
NO answer
69,0%
64,4%
71,9%
70,6%
61,9%
9,9%
11,3%
9,7%
11,8%
9,6%
10,2%
9,0%
8,0%
8,4%
13,0%
8,8%
10,7%
9,4%
7,4%
11,7%
2,1%
4,5%
*
1,9%
3,8%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
- Q1 (without revenues)
49,5%
11,3%
18,1%
17,9%
3,3%
100%
- Q2 (300 lei/lper month)
74,7%
6,9%
7,8%
8,0%
2,5%
100%
- Q3 (600 lei/lper month)
- Q4 (800 lei/per month)
- Q5 (1.500 lei/lper month)
No answer
74,3%
69,6%
66,2%
55,4%
7,9%
8,2%
13,9%
9,6%
8,7%
9,9%
9,7%
15,8%
6,6%
8,7%
7,6%
16,3%
2,5%
3,5%
2,7%
3,0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
- no children in the household
- there are children in the household
71,0%
55,1%
8,7%
11,8%
9,4%
15,1%
8,2%
14,9%
2,7%
3,0%
100%
100%
TABEL 2.17 (continuation)
Certainly
no
Probably
no
Probably
yes
Certainly
yes
Don’t
know
Total
TOTAL – N
1.781
264
316
292
80
2.733
TOTAL - %
65,20%
9,70%
11,60%
10,70%
2,90%
100%
Residential
area
- urban
- rural
63,6%
67,1%
11,3%
7,8%
10,8%
12,5%
11,1%
10,2%
3,2%
2,5%
100%
100%
Type of
Locality
- poor community
- medium developed community
- developed community
- towns under 20 000 inhabitants
- towns over 20 000 inhabitants
67,9%
65,3%
67,9%
63,7%
63,6%
7,9%
7,4%
8,2%
9,7%
11,6%
11,1%
13,7%
14,3%
13,1%
10,2%
9,5%
12,8%
6,6%
9,4%
11,5%
3,7%
*
3,1%
4,1%
3,1%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
County
- Braşov
- Călăraşi
- Dolj
- Maramureş
- Neamţ
- Vaslui
68,1%
69,6%
70,6%
51,4%
63,3%
67,2%
9,4%
6,7%
9,3%
10,5%
12,8%
8,2%
9,9%
8,9%
6,1%
21,0%
12,8%
12,3%
9,7%
13,3%
9,8%
14,4%
9,2%
9,3%
2,8%
*
4,3%
2,7%
1,9%
3,0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
The ‘grey collar’ occupational categories also present a significantly higher
percentage of persons who intend to go work abroad. Among these,
technicians and foremen (especially those working in constructions) and
workers in services have a considerably higher propensity to depart. In
contrast, among clerical staff (particularly civil servants) just 17% plan to
leave Romania. Accordingly, the prospective migrants are overrepresented
by employees working in the private economy sector.
... in conclusion, at the individual level, the intention to go work
abroad is significantly higher for men, young persons, high school
graduates (pupils/students, house persons and unemployed) and
‘grey collars’ (especially in constructions and services). The higher
and more direct the migration experience, the stronger the intention
to go abroad...
At the household level, the propensity to go work abroad is significantly
higher for persons living with a large number of members, with children and
who already have several members working abroad.63
The insufficiency of income has a strong influence on the intention to go
work abroad. There are two types of circumstances which correlate with
significantly stronger intention of departure:
(1) Persons from low-income households, who see no other option than
working abroad, since working in Romania does not generate sufficient
income to overcome poverty.
(2) Persons (especially, the young) with very low personal incomes
(pupils/students, house persons, unemployed) from well-off families
(with medium-high income, cars, computers, mobile phones). The
majority of these households already have migrants abroad, so young
The correlation Pearson coefficient for intention to migrate and number of migrants in the
household is +.21 (p=.000). The correlation coefficient with the number of members of the
household is +.15 (p=.000), and for the number of children in the household is +.09 (p=.000).
63
persons want to leave not because of poverty, but to pursue the ‘success
pattern’ of the household, which is working abroad.
Geographically, there are a few statistically significant differences. However,
if we take into consideration the proportion of persons who intend to go
abroad (‘definitely’ or ‘probably’) there are no significant discrepancies for
community level predictors: residence area, community development/
poverty level, local economic growth, social problems and other. The only
difference occurs between counties, as the propensity to go abroad is
significantly higher for Maramureș County and significantly lower for Dolj
County.
6.1. Why do people want to go work abroad
Romanian migrants currently working abroad left for money (section 4.4) and
also money is the key stimulus for prospective migrants. In other words,
(prospective) migrants aim an income that provides better living, a decent
life, and ‘a future for children’.
The second reason is the ‘economic crisis in Romania’. Abroad, the
developed countries offer more opportunities, jobs are easier to find and
revenues are better, while the situation back home is characterized as
‘desolation, poverty, injustice, disappointment’.
FIGURE 2. 29. The reasons for departure of prospective migrants (%)
Pentru bani, să câștig mai mult decât aș câștiga în România
59
Criza economică din România
35
Peste hotare sunt mai multe posibilități
15
Un trai mai bun, o viață decentă
13
Lipsa unui loc de muncă în România
10
Situația proastă din țară, sărăcie, mizerie, hoție, dezamăgire
6
6.2. Plans about going abroad of prospective migrants
As previously showed, the intention to go work abroad is higher especially
for migrants who returned due to the crisis. Moreover, out of all persons who
‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ will depart, over half are inclined to go back abroad
in maximum 12 months.
TABLE 2. 18. Plans of departure of prospective migrants (% persons who intend to
migrate ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’)
Very soon, in maximum 1 month
Persons
from
households
without
migrants
Persons
from
households
with
migrants
Total
sample
Lot of
returned
migrants
(A)
(B1)
(A+B1)
(C)
17
34
22
0
Soon, in apr. 2-3 months
13
8
11
9
In 4-12 months
20
24
21
42
More than one year
18
12
16
23
Don’t know
33
22
29
26
Total
-%
100
100
100
100
-N
412
196
608
104
Therefore, if we take into account the entire adult population of the six
counties, 12% plan to go work abroad before the summer of 2011 (within 12
months) and others 10% plan to depart later. However, the intention to work
abroad is significantly higher among adults from families with children,
especially if one member of the household is already working abroad. Thus,
the population which intends to go work abroad increases from 18% for
persons without children to 26% for persons with children and without
migrants, reaching 41% for persons who have children as well as parents/
relatives who work abroad. Consequently, a rough estimate shows that going
for work abroad could affect, in 2011, over 16% of the total children
population in the six counties, besides the 27% children already affected by
labor migration.
On the long-term, circa 22% of prospective migrants have no definite plans,
... given that people from households with children have a
higher propensity to migrate abroad, an additional 16% of
children (0-18 years) in the six counties might be affected by
migration in 2011 ...
while 14% want to remain permanently abroad. For migrants who plan to
leave for only six months, the persons with children in household and
residing in Maramureş County are overrepresented. In contrast, prospective
migrants from Neamţ and Braşov counties plan to migrate for five years or
more.
TABLE 2. 19. Long-term plans of prospective migrants (% persons who intend to
migrate ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’)
I work maximum 6 months and I
return
Persons from
households
without migrants
Persons from
households with
migrants
Total
sample
(A)
(B1)
(A+B1)
11
22
15
I work maximum 1 year and I return
13
12
13
I work maximum 2 years and I return
14
15
15
I work maximum 5 years and I return
22
23
22
I leave forever
15
10
14
Don’t know
24
17
22
Total
-%
100
100
100
-N
412
196
608
Prospective migrants prefer the same destinations as migrants settled (or
returned from) abroad, predominantly Italy and Spain. Overall, 29% of the
studied population (A+B1) intends to go to Italy, accounting for 7% of the
entire adult population at origin.64
Spain is the second preferred destination. Overall, 11% of the studied
population (A+B1) intends to go to Spain, accounting for over 2.5% of the
whole adult population at origin.65
Approximately 23% of prospective migrants (of A+B1) do not know in what
country to migrate (15%) or are willing to go ‘anywhere’ (8%). Generally,
these are persons without direct migration experience and without relatives
abroad.
Women who intend to go abroad specify Italy as preffered destination
country, in a significantly higher percentage, while men mostly prefer
Germany and Great Britain.
The Roma population expresses interest for Spain in a percentage 2.5 times
higher than the rest of the population (29%). Spain is also selected by a
disproportionately higher share of workers in services.
Both Italy and Spain tend to be the favorite destinations for the majority of
prospective migrants from rural areas. Those residing in urban areas are
proportionally scattered over a larger number of countries. Nevertheless, at
the same time, prospective migrants from urban regions are in a significantly
higher proportion undecided about the destination country.
The destination country significantly differs in accordance with the origin
county of the prospective migrant. Subsequently, over half of the persons
who intend to work abroad from Neamţ and Dolj counties, consider Italy.
Prospective migrants from Călărași County predominantly prefer Spain or
‘anywhere’. Persons from Brașov County, in significantly higher percentages,
consider Germany, Hungary or far away destinations, such as United States
and Australia. Prospective migrants from Maramureș County plan to go to
Italy was mentioned as destination by 24% of persons from households without migrants, 40%
of persons from households with migrants and 53% of returned migrants.
65 Spain was mentioned as destination by 10% of persons from households without migrants,
15% of persons from households with migrants and 20% of returned migrants.
64
France, Belgium, the Netherlands or other Nordic European countries. Lastly,
persons who intend to go abroad from Vaslui County form a distinctive
group as a significant proportion chooses Great Britain as destination
country.
The selection of the destination country is based on four main reasons: (1)
28% have information that in that country incomes are satisfactory and there
are jobs available; (2) 17% have relatives or friends working there, who can
help with integration, accommodation and finding work; (3) 9% have
previous migration experience in that country ‘I know how to handle things
and the (foreign) language’; (4) 3% have already made some type of
employment arrangement. The other mentioned various reasons (13%) or ‘I
do not know’ (30%, out of which the majority are prospective migrants who
are clueless about the destination country or are willing to go work
anywhere).
The majority of prospective migrants who do not have definite plans
regarding when, where and stay duration, are over 45 years, women and
men, employed or retired persons, that most likely do not intend to go work
abroad, but want to express their discontent with the country situation.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Labor migrants represent an important resource both for destination and
origin countries. The global economic and financial crisis has profoundly
affected all countries, generating direct consequences on the lives of migrants
and their participation on the labor markets. All these effects have manifested
as increased social and economic vulnerabilities, in a context of generalized
nationalistic political discourses and of negative public opinions on
immigration, which lead to the adoption of restrictive and protectionist
migration policies.
Given the economic recession which amplifies and aggravates many of the
existent problems, it is essential for politicians and decision-makers of
destinations countries to strengthen collaboration ties with the origin
countries. Moreover, it is essential to jointly develop appropriate programs
and public policies which would facilitate efficient migration management.
These programs should aim to encourage temporary labor migration and
productive return migration, in order to capture the contribution of migrant
and immigration benefits in a coherent and long-term manner. Lastly, it is
essential to not let populist political discourses or restrictive measures against
immigration and labor migrants become the mainstream reactions to the
economic crisis.
The recession has brought back on the public agenda debates on migration,
labor force mobility, access to welfare, education, services and certain
positions/qualifications. The very issues that constitute the fundamental
values and freedoms foundation on which the European space was built
upon, such as equal opportunities, liberty, respect for human rights,
solidarity and protection of vulnerable groups by all those who are part of
the European community, regardless of whether they are residents or not.
Furthermore, the crisis questions the core values and principles which make
us Europeans and poses multiple challenges relating to society and economy,
but also to the ways in which labor migration / employment mobility is
managed as a constitutive component of future Europe.
The research presented in this volume is part of the long series of migration
studies regarding Romania labor migration. In many ways, our analysis
confirms the results of previous studies. Nonetheless, the added value of this
research, besides the recent data, brings into discussion the relation between
migration and economic recession, including a comprehensive analysis on
crisis-triggered migration return to Romania.
Our study shows that during the crisis, migration although less intense in
terms of ‘first time’ departures, has not significantly diminished and it is not
likely to decrease in the future, as ‘the crisis in Romania is worse’ than in
Spain, in Italy or in the developed states.
The economic crisis has had multiple negative effects on the population in
Romania as well as on the Romanian migrants working abroad. The workers
marginalized on the labor market, with reduced human capital, low income
and few material assets, describe themselves as being the most affected by the
crisis. Actually, within the country, lowering incomes, diminishing savings
and job loss have resulted in worsening of living conditions of the general
population, particularly of the most vulnerable categories. Abroad, among
the Romanian migrant workers, those who experienced the worst of the crisis
have been the unskilled ones and those working without documents in the
informal economies of the destination countries. The sectors which tend to
predominantly hire migrant workers, such as construction and tourism, have
been among the most drastically affected in the economy. This fact has
caused a significant increase in the unemployment rate amongst migrant
workers, this rate being higher than that amongst native workers.
The majority of Romanians working abroad describe the impact of the crisis
by: ‘lots of migrants started losing their jobs’, ‘living costs have increased’,
while ‘migrants’ wages have been cut’. However, when asked about their
own incomes, most migrants (63%) declare that incomes remained the same
for the past six months and only a small percentage (17%) of migrants
reported income reductions. The impact of the economic crisis on the
revenues of Romanian migrant workers varies significantly depending on the
economic situation and crisis manifestation in the destination country. For
example, the wages of migrants working in Spain have decreased
substantially in comparison with those of migrants in Italy.
Money represents the main reason for emigrating, because in Romania ‘you
cannot earn decent money’ and ‘you cannot make a future’. Money is the
predominant reason for migration, regardless of age, gender, educational
level, occupation, location of the migrant (abroad or returned), and even the
household or personal income.
Given the crisis, the return of migrants to their countries of origin is a
foreseeable consequence. In the case of the Romanian migration, the crisis led
to return migration, but at a rather low rate. Contrary to estimates and
speculations of the Romanian media at the beginning of the crisis, which
anticipated a massive return migration phenomenon, the reality was
different. The return migration was a relatively minor phenomenon, as
confirmed in our analysis. At the level of the selected six counties, in
September 2009 - August 2010, just 4.5% households have at least one person
returned due to the crisis. Significantly higher return rates, of approximately
7% are recorded for Moldova counties (Neamţ and Vaslui), while in Braşov
county the return rate is only 1.7%. In addition, the return is mostly
temporary and not permanent. Thus, most likely, migrants will not massively
return to Romania, at least not for many years to come.
The return migration to Romania is an effect of: age, education, geographical
mobility, country of destination, occupation and support networks abroad.
Multivariate analysis models shows that, ceteris paribus, the odds of returning
back home are significantly higher for young migrants working abroad (18-45
years), for persons with a medium or superior level of education, for people
who sought work or have worked in several countries, those returning from
Italy or Spain, where they worked particularly in agriculture and had no
support networks to facilitate integration in the destination country.
The FES research shows that the returned migrants do not differ by gender
from the abroad migrants. In other words, neither depart, nor return from
work abroad more women than men. The multivariate analysis confirms that
gender is not a significant determinant of the decision to return to Romania.
However, official statistics indicate that the crisis has affected women less
than men. The demand for labor in the feminized sectors such as domestic
labor - cleaning, elderly care - has remained the same, while unemployment
sharply amplified in the masculinized economic sectors - especially in
constructions. This phenomenon applies to Romanian migrants residing both
in Spain and in Italy.
Consistent with other migration studies, our research illustrates that migrants
are significantly younger than the population of the origin counties. In terms
of going to work abroad, most migrants leave for the first time at 21-27 years
of age. The average age at the ‘first time’ departure is 30 years for women and
28 years for men. However, after 44 years of age, significantly more women
than men go abroad. Age is also relevant for the return migration. For young
persons (18-29 years) the odds of returning back home, as compared with
staying abroad, are over seven times, and over ten times higher for adults
(30-44 years) respectively, compared with elderly persons’ (60+ years) return
propensity. In other words, an advanced age is not a favoring factor of
returning back home.
By comparison with the abroad migrants, the returned migrants in the
economic crisis context, were at the time of the first departure less qualified,
thus, less prepared to adapt to the foreign labor market demands. However, a
low level of education (of maximum 8 grades) is accompanied by reduced
return propensity. Therefore, it does not support the hypothesis according to
which low education levels favor the return migration, as the primary school
migrants prefer to be homeless in Italy or Spain than ‘starve to death in
Romania’.
Persons who returned because of the recession left Romania later than the
other migrants, so they had less time to gain experience, make useful
connections and develop skills to cope with the crisis in the destination
countries. Nevertheless, the multivariate analysis demonstrates that other
factors, and not the year of first departure, significantly increase the
probability of returning to Romania.
According to official statistics, self-employment has proven to be a response
to the crisis more frequent for migrant than for the native populations. This is
the case also for the Romanian migrants. The number of Romanian
entrepreneurs has substantially increased during the crisis, especially in one
of the main destination countries for Romanians: Italy. The small number of
entrepreneurs migrants included in our research does not allow a statistical
analysis. Nonetheless, the FES-CCSB data show that abroad, migrants, both
residing there and returned in Romania, have similar occupations: the vast
majority - about three quarters – are service workers, artisans/craftsmen or
unskilled workers.
The returned migrants were characterized, at the moment of the first
departure, by a higher proportion by persons who failed or did not attempt
to enter the Romanian labor market. Therefore, they succeeded to accumulate
fewer work experience, both in Romania and abroad. Over a third of
migrants did not try or failed to find a job in Romania, so after they finalized
education and/or after an unemployment period decided to go abroad, where
they managed to enter labor market.
Among the migrants who worked in Romania previous to going abroad,
predominate horizontal or downward occupational mobility, as in the
destination country they find either similar jobs or jobs for which they are
overqualified. Only circa 14% of migrants present upward mobility, meaning
they have better positions or occupations abroad than in Romania, either
because, in the meanwhile, they underwent education/ training courses, or
because they have had relevant knowledge and skills necessary in the context
of developed economies. On the labor market of the destination country, the
downward occupational mobility is specific to women, and upward /
horizontally occupational mobility is specific to men.
However, in terms of occupation, neither self-employment nor occupational
mobility, or first entry on the labor market at destination country (and not in
Romania) are not factors which significantly favor or inhibit the return
migration. Just the agricultural occupation at destination represent a
significant factor that increases the chances of returning in the country. This
is explained by the fact that agricultural workers go abroad for determined
periods or seasonal work, and so the coming back home occurs naturally
once the labor contract expires. Qualitative findings indicate that most of
those who worked in agriculture almost always practice this type of
circulatory migration. Thus, the return of migrants working in agriculture is
most probably temporary, the propensity for (re)going back abroad being
rather high.
As for the geographical mobility, the data did not support the hypothesis
according which the returned persons would present lower mobility than the
abroad migrants. On the contrary, more likely to return to Romania are
migrants who worked in several countries, rather that those who worked in a
single foreign country.
The likelihood of returning back home depends on the country of destination.
Italy and Spain are favorite destinations of the Romanian migrants.
Subsequently, the return odds are 1.8 times higher for migrants in Italy, and
respectively 2.1 times higher for those in Spain, in comparison with other
foreign countries. We conclude that the probability of return is higher for
migrants from Spain, as the Spanish economy and its labor market are
strongly affected by crisis, distressing all sectors and leading to extremely
high unemployment rates of 20% for native labor force and 30% for the
Romanian migrants.
In addition, in Canada are overrepresented migrants who do not return
(either for vacation or longer periods), while in France and Greece are
overrepresented migrants on vacation in Romania.
The majority of migrants seeks support in the destination country from
foreigners and/or newly made Romanians friends. The success strategy for
Romanian migrants involves combining two elements: (a) siblings abroad
who help you adapt to the new environment, quickly teach you the ‘rules of
the game’ or forces you to make the necessary preparation arrangements for
them abroad and (b) investments in ‘weak ties’, having as many
acquaintances as possible, preferably natives of the destination country with
which to spend time, on which you can rely and from which you can learn
effective integration methods.
Therefore, the support provided by relatives or foreigners is another
important factor for the decision to return to Romania. Having siblings
abroad significantly decreases the chance of return, regardless of the
migrant’s individual characteristics, destination country and all other
considered factors. Moreover, having extensive social networks at destination
(including natives of that country) and positively perceiving the abroad
experience promote social integration in the host country, which in turn,
leads to no return migration. The better integrated the migrant, the lower the
probability of returning to Romania.
Unlike the abroad migrants: (1) the returned migrants have significantly
fewer support from siblings abroad either because they have none or because
they are all in Romania, (2) significantly less returned migrants have someone
besides relatives to await them at destination, (3) significantly fewer work
with Romanian friends or colleagues, (4) made some foreign friends or
acquaintances, but in a much smaller extent, (5) when faced with a personal
problem, mostly ‘solve it on their own’, and (6) as they left later, have more
friends on which they can count on in Romania and not abroad.
The more recent the migrant left, the smaller the newly social network made
abroad. The collected data demonstrate that migrants who left previous to
2005 consider either that they have most friends abroad or that they have as
many friends in Romania as abroad, while migrants left after 2005 believe
they have most friends in Romania. In other words, recently departed abroad
migrants have fewer friends or relatives at destination, on which they can
rely on, and correspondingly, their return propensity is higher.
Over 90% of the returned migrants state that they ‘fairly well’ or ‘very well’
integrated at the destination country. Consequently, the Romanian migrants,
even those who returned back home felt integrated in the Western societies
where they found employment. Persons, who consider not to have
integrated, are mostly those who did not make foreign friends or spent all
their time with Romanians at destination country.
Perceptions on the host country are unanimously positive. The majority of
the returned migrants, when asked about the things they disliked, answered
‘nothing, everything was great’. They enjoyed the ‘quiet life’, the ‘comfortable
life’, the justice, the respect for people and work, the sociability and
politeness of people, the ‘smiling people’, the order, the civilized manners,
the cleanliness and the modern way of life ‘different from the petty life in
Romania’. The most frequently mentioned negative aspects relate to ‘racial
hatred against Romanians’, but also to the ‘Romanians beggars’, ‘Romanian
thieves’, ‘Romanian Roma’, and being away from home and family.
The FES-CCSB data indicates that most Romanian migrants were expected at
the destination country by colleagues, friends or relatives. However, over half
of the male migrants dared to go to work abroad without prior arrangements,
without being expected by anyone abroad. On average, each migrant ‘drags’
other three migrants to work abroad. Migrant women make arrangements for
a smaller number of people than migrant men (on average 2.4 persons
compared to 3.4 persons). A common strategy is when a household member
goes first abroad and shortly after finding employment invites siblings or
spouses to join.
This research provides evidence which supports the fact that migration is
associated with a risk of family fragmentation. Married migrants, both
women and men, present abroad the same marital behavior as the single
migrants. Moreover, having children back home assures a higher number of
visits to Romania, as well as consistent and often remittances transfers.
However, this does not imply a higher propensity for return. In fact, in rural
areas, the presence of children in the household back in Romania significantly
reduces the probability for return.
From the perspective of family policies, it is relevant to note that, during the
crisis (September 2009 - August 2010), almost a third (31%) of households
with children and migrants abroad received no money or goods. Likewise,
for households with children that received remittances from abroad, just for
half, the money significantly contributed to the welfare of the family. Thus,
the problem of children left behind by migrant stresses the need for strong
and efficient migration policies, as for children the crisis translates into an
increased risk of income/consumption poverty, in addition to the absence of
parental care and emotional-affective deprivation.
Nonetheless, the most frequently invoked reason for return is ‘missing the
family’ / ‘longing for home’, and the second reason is achieving the migration
goal. Only few migrants returned to Romania because of job loss or due to
income reduction.
We consider that individual factors will continue to dominate the return
decisions of Romanian migrants, even more so given the prolonged economic
crisis in Romania. This result from the fact that both at local and national
level there are no measures which target and facilitate the return of migrants,
and, by that matter, no Romanian strategy or policy for labor migration/
mobility, relevant for the EU-27 space, which to maximize benefits and the
development effects of migration regarding the origin settlements
The rate of return from work abroad is more or less the same for rural and
urban settlements, developed or deprived, with serious or marginal social
issues. A significantly higher proportion of households with returned
persons are found in settlements (rural or urban) where emigration is
widespread and where the local economy does not offer real opportunities.
Thus, the data invalidates the hypothesis according which the return
migration is conditioned by the economic opportunities at origin. At least in
the cases of the studied counties, the greater and more diversified the local
economy at origin, the lower the return rates.
The multivariate analysis confirms this trend, but also points out that the
development level of the origin rural settlement, the residency area as well as
the origin county have not significant effects on return migration.
Is the return of migrants permanent? The large proportion of return migrants,
stating that they plan to go abroad again, makes us believe that we are
dealing mostly with a temporary return phenomenon. The more extensive
and direct the migration experiences of a person, the greater the propensity to
adopt, once again, this life strategy. The main motivation for the intention to
emigrate is dissatisfaction with the return situation: most of the returned
migrants consider that they live worse or much worse than abroad, being
discontent with low income, poverty, inefficient laws and the corruption
from Romania.
The majority of returned migrants, at the time of the survey, were looking for
a job and just a small percentage of them had found one. However, most of
those who found employment declare to be less satisfied with the job in
Romania than that abroad, mainly due to the wage. Moreover, neither does
the option for return migrants to remain permanently by opening a business
hold: those who intend to start a business are relatively few (17%) and the
number of those who have started a business was too small for performing a
statistical analysis.
Therefore, the economic crisis did no cause a massive wave of return
migration in the case of Romanian migrants. Furthermore, those who
returned intend to stay in Romania, most likely, for a limited period. Despite
the economic crisis impact on the Western Europe countries, the labor market
opportunities are still more numerous there than in Romania. In fact, the
number of persons with no migration experience and who declared the
intention to go work abroad is almost three times the number of returned
persons, which proves that, in reality, the economic recession inflamed the
propensity for migration, while the return migration phenomenon was rather
weak. Furthermore, given the Romanian crisis, the plan of emigrating and
finding a job abroad becomes, for most Romanians, a necessity and the only
possible alternative for making ‘a decent life’ based on ‘honest money’.
The impact of the crisis on the Romanian labor migration is evident in terms
of remittances sent from abroad. Although abroad migrants tried to continue
supporting those back home by sending either money or goods, given the
deterioration of labor market conditions in all destination countries, the
remittances entered a downfall curve and dropped, mid-2011, to about half of
the maximum level, of 2008. In 2010, two years after the onset of the
economic crisis, remittances were higher than in 2007, previous to the
recession, although recorded decreases in 2008-2009. It is important to note
that the percentage of migrants in Italy and Belgium who send ‘often’ or
‘very often’ money to Romania is significantly higher than in other countries.
Concomitantly, the study highlights the migration effects on Romania, given
the financial and economic crisis context. The crisis severely affected
Romania: soaring prices, job losses, wage cuts, VAT increase up to 24%, state
benefits cutbacks. Under these conditions, remittances from Romanians
migrants abroad and the help they offered to their families back home proved
to be vital, often representing the difference between poverty and decent life.
At the six counties level, among a hundred households, 14 receive money
from relatives working abroad and 9 receive other goods. For circa half of
these households, remittances represent a large part of the monthly income,
without which the household could not make it. The positive economic
impacts of migration overlap with negative social effects: although all
categories of interviewed persons agree that migration rather ‘contributes to
development of Romania’ and ‘helps people who leave to see how people
from other countries live’, at the same time, they outlined the negative
consequences of this phenomenon: ‘migration separates families’, ‘makes
people obsessed with money’ and ‘emphasizes the social inequalities between
the rich and the poor’.
It is clear that, at least in the case of the Romanian migrants, the only effective
strategies for avoiding the dramatic consequences of the economic crisis were
individual. The strategies consisted mainly in the orientation to other regions
or destination countries, re-professionalization or return to Romania. Thus,
for the future, the key is to develop a strategy which regulates and ensures
the effective management of migration. It is essential, given the socioeconomic crisis which flounced all over European and beyond, to reinforce
relations between decision-makers from Romania and those from the
destinations countries of the Romanian migrants.
Finally, we hope that our study The impact of the economic crisis on the
Romanian labor migration will represent a source of pertinent and documented
information regarding the realities of Romanian migration and its
manifestations in the time of crisis. Furthermore, the study is an useful and
relevant instrument for decision makers at all levels, which can be utilized in
defining, improving public policies / national strategies regarding labor
migration.
REFERENCES
•
Brădăţan, C. E. and Sandu, D. (2012) “Before Crisis: Gender and
Economic Outcomes of the Two Largest Immigrant Communities in
Spain”, in International Migration Review, vol. 46, 1 (Spring 2012):221–
243.
•
Constant A. and Zimmermann K. F. (2004) Self-Employment Dynamics
Across the Business Cycle: Migrants Versus Natives, IZA Discussion
Paper No. 1386, http://ftp.iza.org/dp1386.pdf.
•
Dăianu, D. (coord.) (2002) Balance of payments financing in Romania.The
role of remittances, Romanian Center for Economic Policies, Bucharest.
•
European Commission (2010) Employment in Europe 2010,
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=593
•
Holst E. and Schrooten M. (2006) Migration and Money – What
determines Remittances? Evidence from Germany, DIW Berlin, SOEP,
and University of Flensburg, Berlin.
•
Koehler J., Laczko F., Aghazarm C. and Schad J. (2010) Migration and
the economic crisis in the European Union: implications for policies,
Research and Publications Division, IOM,
http://www.iomdublin.org/Migration_and_The_Economic_Crsis_in%
20_he%20_U.pdf
•
López-Sala A. and Ferrero-Turrión, R. (2009) Economic Crisis and
migration policies in Spain: The big dilemma, Paper presented at the
annual conference of the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society,
University of Oxford, New Times, Economic Crisis, geo-political
transformation and the emergent migration order.
•
Metro Media Transilvania and Agenţia pentru Strategii
Guvernamentale (2007) Comunitatea românească în Italia: condiţii
sociale, valori, aşteptări, www.mmt.ro/cri.pdf.
•
Montagnana, S. (2010) Impactul crizei asupra pieţei muncii din România,
published at 5th May 2010 at
http://www.sapereproject.ro/index.php?option=com_content&view=
article&id=60%3Aimpactul-crizei-asupra-pietei-muncii-dinromania&catid=23%3Amonografii&Itemid=66
•
More I., Godenau D., Yurena Gonzalez D., Kurzawinska E. and
Moreno Alberto, I. (2010) Immigracion y remesas informales en Espana,
Ministerio de Trabajo e Inmigracion, Documentos del Observatorio
Permanente de la Inmigracion, www.remesas.org.
•
Neef R. and Adair Ph. (coord.) (2004) Shadow Economies and Social
Transformation in Romania, LIT Verlag Munster.
•
Neef R. and Stănculescu M. S. (coord.) (2002) The Social Impact of
Informal Economies in Eastern Europe, Ashgate.
•
Observatorul Social, University of Bucharest, 2010, Barometru de
incluziune socială, sondaj reprezentativ la nivel naţional pentru
angajatorii şi angajaţii din România,
http://media.unibuc.ro/attachments/article/909/Barometrul%20de%20
Incluziune%20Sociala%202010_Angajati_Angajatori_07.10.2010.pdf.
•
OECD (2009) International Migration and the Economic Crisis:
Understanding the Links and Shaping Policy, in Responses in
International Migration Outlook,
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/18/46292981.pdf .
•
Pajares M., (2010) Inmigración y mercado de trabajo. Informe 2010.
Análisis de datos de España y Cataluña, Documentos del Observatorio
Permanente de la Inmigración, Madrid.
•
Pajares M., (2009) Inmigración y mercado de trabajo. Informe 2009.
Análisis de datos de España y Cataluña, Documentos del Observatorio
Permanente de la Inmigración, Madrid,
http://extranjeros.mtin.es/es/ObservatorioPermanenteInmigracion/Pu
blicaciones/archivos/Inmigracion__Mercado_de_Trabajo_OPI25.pdf
•
Papademitriou D. G., Sumption M., Terrazas A. cu Burket C., Loyal
S., Ferrero-Turrion R. (2010) Migration and immigrants two years after
the financial collapse: where do we stand?, Migration Policy Institute,
Washington DC, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/MPIBBCreport-2010.pdf
•
Pittau F., Ricci A. and Ildiko Tims L. (coord.) (2010) Românii din Italia
între respingere şi acceptare, Confederation Caritas Romania and
Caritas Italiana, http://www.caritascluj.ro/download/Romanii%20din%20Italia%20intre%20respingere%
20si%20acceptare.pdf
•
Ratha D., Mohapatra S. and Silwal A. (2009) „Outlook for Remittance
Flows 2009-2011: Remittances expected to fall by 7-10 in 2009”, in
Migration and Development Brief, no.10, World Bank,
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/33493
41110315015165/Migration&DevelopmentBrief10.pdf
•
Roman M. and Ileanu B. (2011) Modelarea deciziei de remitere a
emigranţilor est europeni, http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/31776/1/CiBERom_articol_Roman_Ileanu_final.pdf.
•
Sandu, D. (2005) „Emerging Transnational Migration from Romanian
Villages”, în Current Sociology, vol 53, 4:555-582.
•
Sandu, D. (coord.) (2006) Locuirea temporară în străinătate. Migraţia
economică a românilor: 1990-2006, Soros Foundation Romania,
Bucharest.
•
Sandu, D. (2007) „Community selectivity of temporary emigration
from Romania”, in Romanian Journal of Population Studies, vol. I, 1-2:
11-45.
•
Sandu D. (coord.) (2009) Comunităţi româneşti în Spania, Soros
Foundation Romania, www.soros.ro/ro/publicatii/content15?15#.
•
Sandu D., Voineagu V. and Panduru F. (2009) Dezvoltarea Comunelor
din România, Report INS and University of Bucharest,
http://sites.google.com/site/dumitrusandu
•
Sandu D. (2010) Lumile sociale ale migraţiei româneşti în străinătate,
Polirom, Iaşi.
•
Soros Foundation Romania (2009) Accesul Autorităţilor Locale la
Fondurile Europene, decembrie 2009,
http://www.soros.ro/ro/publicatii.php?pag=5#
•
Stănculescu M.S., Marin M. and Hommes G. (2009) Economia
Informală în România 2008, INS, PHARE project „Development of
Economic Statistics” (2005/017-553.03.07.02), September 2007 –
February 2009, Bucharest.
•
Stănculescu M.S. (2010) “Incluziune socială la nivel local în
România”, in A. Toth, C. Dărăşteanu and D. Tarnovschi, 2010,
Autorităţile locale faţă în faţă cu fondurile europene, pp. 48-63, Soros
Foundation Romania, Bucharest.
•
Şerban, M. and Toth, Al. (2007) Piaţa forţei de muncă în România şi
imigraţia, Soros Foundation Romania, Bucharest.
•
Toth, G., Toth, Al., Voicu, O. and Ştefănescu, M. (2007) Efectele
migraţiei: copiii rămaşi acasă, Soros Foundation Romania, Bucharest.
•
Voinea, L. (2010) Raport de avertizare timpurie: piaţa muncii, Biroul
pentru observarea pieţei muncii şi a calităţii locului de muncă,
POSDRU, Bucharest.
Data
•
ANOFM, Rapoarte de activitate, 2009 and 2010, www.anofm.ro.
•
National Bank of Romania, http://www.bnr.ro/Publicatii-periodice204.aspx
•
Eurostat,
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home
•
ILO Department of Statistics, Romania: country profile, February 2011.
•
Instituto Nacional de Estadística, http://www.ine.es.
•
National Institute of Statistics, Anuarul Statistic, for 1977 and 1992;
Forţa de muncă în România. Ocupare şi şomaj, for 2000 and 2007,
www.insse.ro/
•
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, www.madr.ro.
•
World Bank (2010) Remittances Data Watch,
http://blogs.worldbank.org/peoplemove/remittances-data-watch.
Articles in newspapers
•
FADERE, Comunicat remis ziare.com, Jumătate din românii cu vechime
în Spania afectaţi de restricţii, August 2011,
www.ziare.com/diaspora/romani-spania/jumatate-din-romanii-cuvechime-in-spania-afectati-de-restrictii-1114945.
•
Ilie, L. ”Banii trimiși din străinătate – fenomen social”, 17 July 2006,
http://www.euractiv.ro/uniuneaeuropeana/articles|displayArticle/articleID_7456/Bani-pentruacasa.html
•
Marga A. “Emigrare şi Imigrare”, Ziua de Cluj, January 2011,
http://www.ziuadecj.ro/eveniment/emigrare-si-imigrare--59222.html.
•
Pirloiu, M. ”Se adâncește criza banilor trimiși acasă de românii care
lucrează afară”, Capital, 18 May 2011, http://www.capital.ro/detaliiarticole/stiri/se-adanceste-criza-banilor-trimisi-acasa-de-romaniicare-lucreaza-afara-147359/pagina-comentarii/1.html
•
Stoiciu, V. ”De ce e mai bine vânzător în Cipru decât patron în
România”, România Liberă, 12 May 2010,
http://www.romanialibera.ro/exclusiv-rl/reportaj/de-ce-e-mai-binevanzator-in-cipru-decat-patron-in-romania-186226.html
•
Stoiciu, V. ”Migranţii români, prinși între două crize”, Dilema Veche,
http://86.124.112.53/sectiune/societate/articol/migrantii-romaniprinsi-intre-doua-crize
•
Voiculescu L. „Fraţilor, mai vreau să muncesc, mă va ajuta cineva?
Totul despre cum vor mai munci românii în Spania”, Gândul, July
2011, http://www.gandul.info/financiar/fratilor-vreau-sa-lucrez-mapoate-ajuta-cineva-totul-despre-cum-vor-mai-munci-romanii-inspania-8509925.
LIST OF GRAPHS
Part I
FIGURE 1. Remittances of the Romanian workers abroad by quarter ............16
FIGURE 2. Citizenship of the EU and non-EU migrants, residents of EU-27
(2010) .................................................................................................................23
FIGURE 3. The evolution of Romanian migrants legal residents in Spain......24
Part II
FIGURE 2. 1. The crisis affected ‘(very/rather) much’ country and population
(%)......................................................................................................................49
FIGURE 2. 2. Effects of the crisis on incomes (%) ...............................................51
FIGURE 2. 3. Impacts of the crisis (%) ..................................................................54
FIGURE 2. 4. The kinship relations between respondents and migrants still
working abroad (% migrants working abroad)...........................................61
FIGURE 2. 5. Distribution by age categories – comparison between migrants
and resident population at the origin (%) ....................................................62
FIGURE 2. 6. Distribution of types of migrants by the year when they left for
work abroad for the first time (%).................................................................63
FIGURE 2. 7. Distribution of types of migrants by the destination country /
country where from migrants have returned (%) .......................................64
FIGURE 2. 8. What determined you to leave for work abroad? (%) ................67
FIGURE 2. 9. Employed population (15 years or over) by occupational groups
(%)......................................................................................................................73
FIGURE 2. 10. The occupational mobility of migrants residing abroad ..........74
FIGURE 2. 11. Number of employment years in Romania and abroad by type
of migrants (%).................................................................................................76
FIGURE 2. 12. The economic sector in which the migrants work/ worked, in
Romania before the first departure and abroad in August 2010 (%) .......77
FIGURE 2. 13. The age of the ‘first time’ departure for women and men (%) 80
FIGURE 2. 14. The perceived effects of the crisis on migrants (%)...................83
FIGURE 2. 15. Types of migrants by age categories and marital status (%)....87
FIGURE 2. 16. The distribution of migrants by siblings living abroad (%) .....88
FIGURE 2. 17. The distribution of natives and Romanians with whom
migrants interact also for leisure (%) ............................................................91
FIGURE 2. 18. With whom migrants dwell abroad (%) .....................................99
FIGURE 2. 19. Factors of integration of migrants in the host society (%)......100
FIGURE 2. 20. The aspects Romanian migrants liked/disliked abroad (%) ..101
FIGURE 2. 21. The reasons for returning from work abroad (%) ...................115
FIGURE 2. 22. Satisfaction with return to Romania (%)...................................121
FIGURE 2. 23. Frequency of cash transfers from migrants abroad to Romania
(%)....................................................................................................................125
FIGURE 2. 24. The contribution of remittances to the total income of
households with migrants for work abroad (%) .......................................127
FIGURE 2. 25. (A) The frequency of money transfers to Romania by county
(%) and (B) The percentage of households receiving in kind remittances
(parcels) from the members abroad, by county (%)..................................130
FIGURE 2. 26. The evolution of cash remittances from abroad in the last six
months ............................................................................................................133
FIGURE 2. 27. The common usage pattern of remittances sent by migrants
abroad to households in Romania, in the past year (%)...........................134
FIGURE 2. 28. Migrating for work abroad – experience in the last 2 years and
future intentions (%) .....................................................................................138
FIGURE 2. 29. The reasons for departure of prospective migrants (%) .........144
LIST OF TABLES
Part I
TABLE 1. Concentration of the migrant workers within the economic sectors
that employ unskilled labor ...........................................................................10
TABLE 2. Evolution of remittances, 2006-2009, by region, in USD millions ...15
TABLE 3. Number of unemployed persons among the main immigrant
groups in Spain ................................................................................................25
TABLE 4. Fluctuations of the employed migrants by main immigrant groups
in Spain .............................................................................................................26
TABLE 5. The evolution of the foreign citizens in Italy (2007-2009) ................33
TABLE 6. The number of the established employed and of the newly
employed Romanian migrants in Italy .........................................................34
Part II
TABLE 2. 1. Distribution of population and sample by county, gender and
age categories (%) ............................................................................................40
TABLE 2. 2. Distribution of population and sample by county and locality
size (%) ..............................................................................................................41
TABLE 2. 3. The socio-demographic profile of respondents from the sample
representative at the population level, 2010 (%) .........................................46
TABLE 2. 4. Changes of living conditions in the last 6 months (February August 2010) (%) .............................................................................................52
TABLE 2. 5. Rate of departures for work abroad and rate of returns in the
country (% households)..................................................................................58
TABLE 2. 6. The occupational status of Romanian migrants, previous to ‘the
first time’ departure, abroad in August 2010 or before returning to
Romania (%) .....................................................................................................70
TABLE 2. 7. The profiles of the types of migrants by gender-age categories
(%)......................................................................................................................79
TABLE 2. 8. The occupational status of migrants residing abroad, in Romania
previous to the first departure and at destination in August 2010, by
gender (%) ........................................................................................................81
TABLE 2. 9. The marital status of migrants previous to the ‘first time’
departure (%) ...................................................................................................86
TABLE 2. 10. Marital behavior of migrants residing abroad by the marital
status previous to the ‘first time’ departure abroad (%) ............................87
TABLE 2. 11. Support networks by type of migrants (%) ..................................89
TABLE 2. 12. The types of migrants by housing arrangements abroad (%)....98
TABLE 2. 13. Eplanatory models of return migration to Romania.................111
TABLE 2. 14. How long intend the returned migrants to stay in Romania (%)
..........................................................................................................................122
TABLE 2. 15. Plans of the returned migrants during their stay in Romania (%)
..........................................................................................................................122
TABLE 2. 16. The percentage of households receiving cash and in kind
remittances from the members abroad, by county ...................................129
TABLE 2. 17. Profile of prospective migrants for work abroad (% A+B1 –
representative sample at population level)................................................140
TABLE 2. 18. Plans of departure of prospective migrants (% persons who
intend to migrate ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’) ..............................................145
TABLE 2. 19. Long-term plans of prospective migrants (% persons who
intend to migrate ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’) ..............................................146
LIST OF BOXES
BOX 1. Romanian migrants caught in between two crises ................................13
BOX 2. Identity crisis and the invisible Romanian migrant community .........29
BOX 3. Why being a seller in Cyprus is better than being a company owner in
Romania ............................................................................................................35
BOX 4. Geographic mobility is for the Romanian migrants a success coping
strategy..............................................................................................................66
BOX 5. Migration as life story................................................................................68
BOX 6. The circulatory seasonal migration of agricultural workers ................72
BOX 7. Family/couple migration ...........................................................................82
BOX 8. The deterioration of the labor market......................................................84
BOX 9. Social networks in the host society ..........................................................93
BOX 10. The migration experience in times of economic crisis and the
perception of the destination country.........................................................102
BOX 11. A different kind of migration experience............................................108
BOX 12. Coming back to Romania ......................................................................115
BOX 13. Requirements for the successful return of Romanian migrants, back
home................................................................................................................124
BOX 14. The money transfers of Romanian migrants abroad .........................131
BOX 15. The investments of migrants in Romania ...........................................136
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
QUESTIONNAIRE A
START TIME (HH: MM) |___|___| : |___|___|
Good afternoon! I am an interview operator working for CCSB Survey Company and we are
doing a sociological study on aspects of public life in Romania. In order to comply with the
statistical standards, I would like to talk to the member of your household who is older than 18
and has most recently celebrated their birthday.
SEL 1 Recently, did any member of this household returned from work abroad?
Only if they ask what is ‘recently’: current year (2010)
1. Yes
2. No
99. DK/NA
SEL 2 If YES,
Are you here for just a few days, maximum two or three weeks, on vacation,
to visit your relatives or do you intend to stay longer in the country?
1. Intends to stay longer
2. Just for a few days, on vacation
99. DK/NA
If YES, to STAYING LONGER → QUESTIONNAIRE C
Talk to the returned person.
If more than one, randomly select, the one who is nearest to their birthdate.
If YES, to ON VACATION → QUESTIONNAIRE B
Randomly interview the member of the Romanian household who is about to celebrate their
birthday. We recommend having that temporarily returned person from abroad to participate
in discussions (questions regarding facts, not opinions, i.e. when did you first go abroad? In
which country did you go?)
SEL 3 If NO member of the household has recently returned from working abroad
Does any member of your household work abroad?
1. No
2. Yes
99. DK/NA
If YES, a member of the household is gone to work → QUESTIONNAIRE B
Randomly interview the member of the household who is about to celebrate their birthday.
We recommend having the head of family or their spouse to participate in discussions
(questions regarding facts, not opinions, from questionnaire B, which most likely are more
accurately answered by the head of the family or their spouse).
If NO → QUESTIONNAIRE A
Attention! In the case of the questionnaire B:
Questions regarding opinions (what do you think? Is it better? Is it worse?) are to be answered
by random means (birthday method) → we need representative opinions. At the end of the
interview, for socio-demographics answers the person randomly chosen (birthday method) →
we need representative sample.
Factual questions (Where? When? Do you think he/she will return?) are best to be answered
by the head of the family or the member on vacation in Romania -> we need precise answers.
Q01. Most likely you have heard about the current economic crisis which is affecting many
countries, all over the world. How much do you think the economic crisis affected Romania?
5. Very much
4. Much
2. Little 1. Very little
99. DK/NA
Q02. How much did the crisis affect you and your family?
5. Very much
4. Much
2.Little 1. Very little
99. DK/NA
Q03. How exactly did the crisis affect you or your family?
NO
a. you or a member of the household lost his/her job
b. household income shrunk
c. you work overtime because you fear of losing your job
d. household savings reduced
e. things you used to afford before, which now you no longer
afford
f. paying the bank installments is difficult
g. household members gone abroad had to return to Romania
h. the money sent by household member working abroad has
reduced
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
YES
DK/NA
99
99
99
99
99
0
0
0
1
1
1
99
99
99
Q04. Compared to one year ago, your family spends more or less for
of goods/services
Spends Spends
more
less
A. food
3
1
B. education
3
1
C. health
3
1
D. holidays
3
1
E. heating and other dwelling utilities (waste, 3
1
cold water, sewage, hot water, etc.)
F. repairs
3
1
G.
agriculture
(farming
machineries, 3
1
equipments, etc.)
the following categories
Spends
the same
97
97
97
97
97
DK/NA
99
99
99
99
99
97
97
99
99
Q05. In the following year, do you believe that the economic situation of Romania will
improve or worsen?
5. Will considerably improve
4. Will improve just a little
3. Will stay the same
2. Will worsen a little
1. Will considerably worsen
99. DK/NA
Q06. Which of the following statements describe best the changes in your living conditions in
the last 6 months?
5. They have become very good (we can afford everything we need)
4. They have become good (good enough for us to afford expensive things, but with limitations
in other areas)
3. They have become satisfactory (enough to make a decent living, but we cannot afford
expensive things)
2. They have worsened (just enough for bare necessities)
1. They have become very bad (not even enough for bare necessities)
99. DK/NA
Q07. Compared to last year, in your community, do you think the number of people working
abroad reduced or increased?
5. Increased a lot
4. Increased a little
If increased (code 5, code 4), go to Q9.
3. Remained the same
If stayed the same (code 3) or 99 DK/NA go to Q10.
2. Reduced a little
If reduced (code 1, code 2), go to Q8.
1. Reduced a lot
99.DK/NA
Q08. If it decreased (code 1 or 2) In your opinion, do you think that the decrease of persons
going for work abroad is a result of: (multiple answer, max. 3 choices)
a. Job loss in the host country
1
b. Smaller incomes in the host country
2
c.
Achieving the set objectives for working abroad (enough money earned,
3
etc.)
d. Finding a job in Romania
4
e.
Health reasons
5
f.
Homesickness
6
g. Tougher legal conditions in the host country
7
h. The authorities in the host country assisted with the return to Romania
8
i.
The foreign native attitude towards migrants deteriorated
9
Q09. If it increased (code 4, code 5; multiple answer)
In your opinion what are the causes of the increase of persons going for work abroad:
a. Decline of the economic situation in Romania as a result of the crisis
(job loss, lower incomes)
b. They intended to leave anyway
c.
Disappointment with living conditions and opportunities in Romania
d. They had family members working abroad
1
2
3
4
Q10. Do you think migration has a positive or negative influence on Romania?
1. Negative
2. Positive
99. DK/NA
Q11. Looking at the following statements, with which do you agree or disagree?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
migration contributes to the development of Romania
migration tears families apart
migration makes some people richer and other poorer
migration makes people think only about money
migration is the only way for some to make a decent living
migration helps those that emigrate to experience life in
other countries
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
5. Total agree
4. Partial agree
2. Partially disagree
1. Totally disagree
99. DK/NA
2
1
99
2
1
99
2
1
99
2
1
99
2
1
99
2
1
99
Q12. If you were unemployed and it would be difficult to find a job in the neighboring
regions, would you be willing to leave your home and go work in another county?
If unemployed, change “If you were…” with “Given that you are…”
Q13. If YES (code 5 or 4), In comparison with how much you earn or would earn here, what is
the estimated salary that will motivate you to move to another county?
Attention! The total sum, nu just more than now
Q12.
5. YES, definitely I would
leave
4. YES, probably I would
leave
2. NO, probably I would
not leave
1. NO, definitely I would
not leave
99. DK / NA
In another
county
IF YES
(5 or 4)
Q13. How much should the
offered salary be?
Write exactly as mentioned,
including the currency (RON,
Euro, US dollar etc.)
If yes ---->
...........................................
Q14. What about going abroad? If you were unemployed and it would be difficult to find a
job in the neighboring regions, would you be willing to leave your home and go work
abroad?
the estimated salary that will motivate you to go work abroad?
Q14.
leave
leave
not leave
not leave
99. DK / NA
In another
county
IF YES
(5 or 4)
offered salary be?
If yes ---->
...........................................
Q16. Have you worked or lived abroad in the past 2 years?
1. Yes
2. No
99. NA
Q17. Do you intend to leave to work abroad?
5. Definitely YES
4. Probably YES
2. Probably NO
→ Skip Q14 – Q18
1. Definitely NO
→ Skip Q14 – Q18
99. DK/NA
→ Skip Q14 – Q18
Q18. If yes, What are the reasons for which you want to go work abroad?
___________________________________________________________________________99. DK/NA
1. The Romanian economic crisis
2. The desire to live in a foreign country
3. More opportunities abroad
4. Lack of job opportunities in Romania
5. I have relatives abroad with whom I want to live
6. I earn better abroad than in Romania
80. Other. Which ? _________________________________
99. DK/NA
Q19 If yes, When do you intend to go work abroad?
1. Very soon, in maximum 1 month
2. Pretty soon, in about 2-3 months
3. In about 6 months
4. In about one year.
5. In more than one year
80. N/A (Does not intend to leave) 99 DK/NA
Q20. If yes, What are your long-term plans in the case you manage to go abroad?
1. I work maximum 6 month and then return to Romania
2. I work maximum one year and then return to Romania
3. I work maximum 2 years and then return to Romania
5. I am going abroad indefinitely
99. DK/NA
Q21. If yes, In what foreign country would you go?
____________________________________________________ 99. DK/NA
Q22. If yes, Why would you prefer to go in that foreign country?
____________________________________________________ 99. DK/NA
Q23. Please tell me whether you consider true or false the following statement: "If you worked
abroad in different EU countries and you retire, the retirement fund is calculated based only
on your contribution made in the country where you last worked”?
1. True
2. False
99. DK/NA
Finally, some questions about socio-demographics
D1. GENDER
1. Man
D2. AGE ( years)
|___|___|
2. Woman
99. NA
D4. How many persons are there in your household?
Including children
|___|___|
99. NA
D5. How many children (under 18 years) are in the household
|___|___|
99. NA
D11. ETHNIC ORIGIN
1. Romanian
2. Hungarian
3. Roma/gipsy
6. Other. Which one? _____________________________
99. NA
D12. EDUCATION (graduated)
1. No education
2. Primary (4 grades)
3. Secondary (7, 8 grades)
4. Vocational / training high school
5. High-school (12 grades, Baccalaureate)
6. College
7. Undergraduate
8. Post-graduate (masters, PhD, post-doc degrees)
D13. EMPLOYMENT
You are currently employed as?
______________________________
99. DK/NA
D14. STATE/PRIVATE
If he/she is employed Are you employed by STATE or PRIVATE establishment?
1. State institution
2. Private company
80. N/A (not applicable, inactive)
99 DK/NA
D15. RELIGION
If he/she states “Christian”, ask what type of a Christian? ______________________ 99. DK/NA
D16. How many mobile phones are there in your household? ______________ 99. DK/NA
D17. How many cars (motor-vehicles) are there in your household? _________ 99. DK/NA
D18. How many PCs are there in your household? ______________________
99. DK/NA
D21. Personal income (VEN P)
How much was your NET PERSONAL income (‘in the hand’) in that last month?
_______________ ROL 99. DK/NA
D22. Household income (VEN G)
How much was you NET HOUSEHOLD INCOME in the last month?
_______________ ROL 99. DK/NA
D23. CITY/TOWN/COMMUNE/VILLAGE __________________________________
D24. COUNTY __________________________________
D25-32. Address and contacts
END TIME (HH: MM) |___|___| : |___|___|
QUESTIONNAIRE B
START TIME (HH: MM) |___|___| : |___|___|
1. Yes
2. No
99. DK/NA
SEL 2 If YES,
99. DK/NA
1. No
2. Yes
99. DK/NA
5. Very much
4. Much
99. DK/NA
5. Very much
4. Much
99. DK/NA
NO
afford
reduced
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
YES
DK/NA
99
99
99
99
99
0
0
0
1
1
1
99
99
99
of goods/services
Spends Spends
more
less
A. food
3
1
B. education
3
1
C. health
3
1
D. holidays
3
1
1
F. repairs
3
1
G.
agriculture
(farming
machineries, 3
1
equipments, etc.)
Spends
the same
97
97
97
97
97
DK/NA
99
99
99
99
99
97
97
99
99
improve or worsen?
99. DK/NA
the last 6 months?
in other areas)
expensive things)
99. DK/NA
5. Increased a lot
2. Reduced a little
1. Reduced a lot
99.DK/NA
j.
Job loss in the host country
1
k. Smaller incomes in the host country
2
l.
Achieving the set objectives for working abroad (enough money earned,
3
etc.)
m. Finding a job in Romania
4
n. Health reasons
5
o. Homesickness
6
p. Tougher legal conditions in the host country
7
q. The authorities in the host country assisted with the return to Romania
8
r.
The foreign native attitude towards migrants deteriorated
9
e.
Decline of the economic situation in Romania as a result of the crisis
f.
They intended to leave anyway
g. Disappointment with living conditions and opportunities in Romania
h. They had family members working abroad
1
2
3
4
1. Negative
2. Positive
99. DK/NA
Q11. Analizând următoarele afirmaţii, cu care dintre acestea sunteţi sau nu de acord?
5. Total de acord
4. Parţial de acord
2. Parţial împotrivă
1. Total împotrivă
99. NS / NR
a. migraţia contribuie la dezvoltarea României
5 4 2
b. migraţia destramă familiile
5 4 2
c. migraţia face ca unii să fie mai bogaţi şi alţii mai săraci
5 4 2
d. migraţia face ca oamenii să fie interesaţi numai de bani
5 4 2
e. migraţia este singura şansă pentru cineva să câştige un ban decent
5 4 2
f. migraţia îi ajută pe care pleacă să vadă cum se trăieşte în alte părţi
5 4 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
99
99
99
99
99
99
Q12.
leave
leave
not leave
not leave
99. DK / NA
In another
county
IF YES
(5 or 4)
offered salary be?
If yes ---->
...........................................
abroad?
Q14.
leave
leave
not leave
not leave
99. DK / NA
In another
county
IF YES
(5 or 4)
offered salary be?
If yes ---->
...........................................
1. Yes
2. No
Q17. Do you intend to leave to work abroad?
5. Definitely YES
4. Probably YES
2. Probably NO
→ Skip Q14 – Q18
1. Definitely NO
→ Skip Q14 – Q18
99. DK/NA
→ Skip Q14 – Q18
99. NA
___________________________________________________________________________99. DK/NA
1. The Romanian economic crisis
2. The desire to live in a foreign country
3. More opportunities abroad
4. Lack of job opportunities in Romania
5. I have relatives abroad with whom I want to live
6. I earn better abroad than in Romania
80. Other. Which ? _________________________________
99. DK/NA
Q19 If yes, When do you intend to go work abroad?
1. Very soon, in maximum 1 month
2. Pretty soon, in about 2-3 months
3. In about 6 months
4. In about one year.
5. In more than one year
80. N/A (Does not intend to leave) 99 DK/NA
Q20. If yes, What are your long-term plans in the case you manage to go abroad?
1. I work maximum 6 month and then return to Romania
2. I work maximum one year and then return to Romania
5. I am going abroad indefinitely
99. DK/NA
Q21. If yes, In what foreign country would you go?
____________________________________________________ 99. DK/NA
Q22. If yes, Why would you prefer to go in that foreign country?
____________________________________________________ 99. DK/NA
1. True
2. False
99. DK/NA
Q24. Please list the household members which are working abroad. The following questions
apply for each abroad person.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Gender 1 Man
2 Woman
99 DK/NA
Age
99 DK/NA
Kin relation with the respondent
Until now, for how many years did he/she work abroad?
In what country is he/she right now?
Where is he/she currently residing? If unknown, mention region.
He/she is working abroad as?
In what activity sector does he/she works abroad?
Is he/she member of any abroad work union?
0 No
1 Yes
99 DK/NA
Before returning in Romania ...?
1. Was an entrepreneur/business owner
2 Was an employee
3 Was unemployed 99 DK/NA
If unemployed, What was his/her job previous to unemployment?
If unemployed, In what activity sector did he/she work previous to unemployment?
If unemployed, During the abroad unemployment period, did he/she receive any
benefits or not?
0 No
1 Yes
99 DK/NA
While abroad, did he/she have the same occupation or changed occupations?
1 One occupation 2 Several occupations
In case of several jobs, What other occupations did he/she had previous to the current
one? If more, separate by coma
How many times did he/she go abroad to work?
If more than once, In what countries did he/she work abroad? If more, separate by coma
If more than once, What was the first country where he/she went?
In what year did he/she go working abroad for the first time?
Previous to the first work abroad experience, what was his/hers occupation in
Romania?
Previous to the first work abroad experience, how many employment years did he/she
have in Romania?
0 = None
Previous to the first work abroad experience, for how many years did he/she work
legally (with papers) in Romania?
0 = Never had a work contract
Previous to the first work abroad experience, what was his/her marital status?
After going abroad, did he/she marry or remarry?
1. Yes, with a Romanian
2. Yes, with a foreigner
3 Did not marry, but lives together with a Romanian
4. Did not marry, but lives together with a foreigner
5. No 99 DK/NA
Previous to the first work abroad experience, did he/she have any minor children or
not?
0 No
1 Yes
27
28
29
30
Do you think he/she will indefinitely return to Romania or ultimately, settle
indefinitely abroad?
5 Definitely YES
4. Probably YES
2 Probably NO
1. Definitely NO
99 DK/NA
If yes (code 5 or 4) When do you think he/she will return indefinitely to Romania?
1. In maximum 6 months
2. Between 6 months to 2 years
3. Later
80 N/A (I do not think he/she would ever come back)
99 DK/NA
What are the dwelling conditions of the abroad member?
1 Personal house, complete purchase
2 Personal house, incomplete purchase (still paying installments/debts)
3 Rent
80 Other (social housing, homeless etc.)
99 DK/NA
Does the abroad member have any siblings abroad?
1. Yes, they are all abroad
2. Some are abroad, some are in Romania
3. All siblings are in Romania
90. N/A (does not have any siblings)
99 DK/NA
Q25. What are the reasons for which the member(s) of your household went to work abroad?
______________________________________________________________________
Q26. How did the economic crisis affect the member(s) of your household working abroad?
________________________________________________________________________________
Q27. Out of the information you have from the abroad member(s) of your household, which
were the effects of the crisis on the migrants? (Multiple answer)
DK/
NO
YES
NA
1. More and more migrants are losing their jobs?
0
1
99
2. The attitude of the locals/natives became reserved / negative?
0
1
99
3. The revenues, salaries, incomes of migrants have decreased?
0
1
99
4. The living costs have increased?
0
1
99
5. The authorities of the host country became stricter?
0
1
99
6. Many migrants began losing their housing conditions? (??)
0
1
99
80. Other. What?
0
1
99
Q28. Did the household receive any money from abroad in the last year or not?
1. Yes, very often
2. Yes, often
3. Yes, rarely
4. Yes, very rarely
5. No, never
99. DK/NA
Q29. How much do the received amounts account for in the total household income?
1. A very insignificant amount. It is the same with or without it.
2. An insignificant amount. It makes a sensible difference in the household income. However, we
can manage without them.
4. A significant amount. It makes quite the difference in the household income, it helps a lot.
5. A very significant amount. It makes a major difference in the household income. I do not know
what we would do without it.
6. The received money is the sole income source of the household.
99. DK/NA
Q30. How did the abroad revenues fluctuate in the past 6 months?
5. They sent considerably more
4. They sent more
3. The same
2. They sent less
1. They sent considerably less
97. They did not send any
99. DK/NA
Q31. Usually, for what are the received revenues from abroad used for? (Multiple answer max.
5 choices)
1. For current consumption of the household/daily life
1
2. To pay off debts
2
3. For the acquisition of long-term goods, other than cars (i.e. home appliances and
3
electronics) If yes, what type of devices? __________________________
4. For repairs/renovations/extension of the current house
4
5. For the construction/acquisition of a new house/apartment
5
6. For savings
6
7. For investments/business
7
8. For the education of children
8
9. For leisure (tourism)
9
10.
For donations or charities
10
80. For something else. What? _____________________________
80
99. DK/NA
99
Q32. Except for money, do the household abroad members send other things as well?
1. Yes
2. No
99. DK/NA
D1. GENDER
1. Man
D2. AGE ( years)
|___|___|
2. Woman
99. NA
Including children
|___|___|
99. NA
|___|___|
99. NA
D11. ETHNIC ORIGIN
1. Romanian
2. Hungarian
3. Roma/gipsy
6. Other. Which one? _____________________________
99. NA
1. No education
6. College
7. Undergraduate
D13. EMPLOYMENT
______________________________
99. DK/NA
D14. STATE/PRIVATE
2. Private company
99 DK/NA
D15. RELIGION
99. DK/NA
_______________ ROL 99. DK/NA
_______________ ROL 99. DK/NA
D24. COUNTY __________________________________
END TIME (HH: MM) |___|___| : |___|___|
QUESTIONNAIRE C
START TIME (HH: MM) |___|___| : |___|___|
1. Yes
2. No
99. DK/NA
SEL 2 If YES,
99. DK/NA
1. No
2. Yes
99. DK/NA
5. Very much
4. Much
99. DK/NA
5. Very much
4. Much
99. DK/NA
NO
afford
reduced
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
YES
DK/NA
99
99
99
99
99
0
0
0
1
1
1
99
99
99
of goods/services
Spends Spends
more
less
A. food
3
1
B. education
3
1
C. health
3
1
D. holidays
3
1
1
F. repairs
3
1
G.
agriculture
(farming
machineries, 3
1
equipments, etc.)
Spends
the same
97
97
97
97
97
DK/NA
99
99
99
99
99
97
97
99
99
improve or worsen?
99. DK/NA
the last 6 months?
in other areas)
expensive things)
99. DK/NA
5. Increased a lot
2. Reduced a little
1. Reduced a lot
99.DK/NA
s.
Job loss in the host country
1
t.
Smaller incomes in the host country
2
u. Achieving the set objectives for working abroad (enough money earned,
3
etc.)
v. Finding a job in Romania
4
w. Health reasons
5
x. Homesickness
6
y. Tougher legal conditions in the host country
7
z. The authorities in the host country assisted with the return to Romania
8
aa. The foreign native attitude towards migrants deteriorated
9
i.
Decline of the economic situation in Romania as a result of the crisis
j.
They intended to leave anyway
k. Disappointment with living conditions and opportunities in Romania
l.
They had family members working abroad
1
2
3
4
1. Negative
2. Positive
99. DK/NA
Q11. Analizând următoarele afirmaţii, cu care dintre acestea sunteţi sau nu de acord?
5. Total de acord
4. Parţial de acord
2. Parţial împotrivă
1. Total împotrivă
99. NS / NR
g. migraţia contribuie la dezvoltarea României
5 4 2
h. migraţia destramă familiile
5 4 2
i. migraţia face ca unii să fie mai bogaţi şi alţii mai săraci
5 4 2
j. migraţia face ca oamenii să fie interesaţi numai de bani
5 4 2
k. migraţia este singura şansă pentru cineva să câştige un ban decent
5 4 2
l. migraţia îi ajută pe care pleacă să vadă cum se trăieşte în alte părţi
5 4 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
99
99
99
99
99
99
Q12.
leave
leave
not leave
not leave
99. DK / NA
In another
county
IF YES
(5 or 4)
offered salary be?
If yes ---->
...........................................
abroad?
Q14.
leave
leave
not leave
not leave
99. DK / NA
In another
county
IF YES
(5 or 4)
offered salary be?
If yes ---->
...........................................
1. Yes
2. No
99. NA
Q28. Please answer the following questions regarding your work abroad experience.
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
Gender 1 Man
2 Woman
99 DK/NA
Age
99 DK/NA
For how many years did you work abroad?
From what country did you return to Romania?
Previous to returning to Romania, where did you reside abroad? If unknown, mention
region.
Previous to returning to Romania, what was your occupation abroad?
Previous to returning to Romania, in what activity sector did you work abroad?
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Abroad, were you a member of a work union?
0 No
1 Yes
99 DK/NA
Before returning to Romania...?
1. I had my own business
2 I was employed
3 I was unemployed
99 DK/NA
If unemployed, What was your previous job to unemployment?
If unemployed, In what activity sector did you work previous to unemployment?
If unemployed, During your unemployment period abroad, did you receive any benefits or
not?
0 No
1 Yes
99 DK/NA
While abroad, did you have the same occupation or changed occupations?
1 One occupation 2 Several occupations
In case of several jobs, What other occupations did you have previous to last one? If more,
separate by coma
For how many times did you go for work abroad?
If more than once, In what countries did you work abroad? If more, separate by coma
If more than once, Which was the first country you migrated to?
In what year did you go for the first time to work abroad?
Previous to your first work abroad experience, what was your occupation in Romania?
Previous to your first work abroad experience, how many employment years did you
have in Romania?
0 = None
Previous to your first work abroad experience, for how many years did you work legally
(with papers) in Romania?
0 = Never had Employment Record Card (??)
Previous to your first work abroad experience, what was your marital status?
After going abroad, did you marry or remarry?
1. Yes, with a Romanian
2. Yes, with a foreigner
3 I did not marry, but I live together with a Romanian
4. I did not marry, but I live together with a foreigner
5. No 99 DK/NA
Previous to your first work abroad experience, did you have any minor children or not?
0 No
1 Yes
Do you consider to have returned indefinitely to Romania or are you considering going
again for work abroad? (not only short-stays, visits, vacations)
5 Definitely YES, I will not go abroad
4. Probably I will not go abroad
2 Probably I will go abroad
1. Definitely, I will go abroad 99 DK/NA
If going abroad (code 2 or 1), Do you believe that, ultimately, you will return indefinitely to
Romania?
5. Certainly YES
4. Probably YES
2. Probably NO
1. Certainly NO
99 DK/NA
28
29
30
If returning to Romania (code 5 or 4) When do you think you will return indefinitely to
Romania?
1. In maximum 6 months
2. Between 6 months to 2 years
3. Later
80 N/A (I do not think I will return)
99 DK/NA
Last time you were abroad, in what type of dwelling did you live?
1 Personal house, complete purchase
2 Personal house, incomplete purchase (still paying installments/debts)
3 Rent
80 Other (social housing, homeless etc.)
99 DK/NA
Do you have any siblings abroad?
1. Yes, they are all abroad
2. Some are abroad, some are in Romania
3. All siblings are in Romania
90. N/A (does not have any siblings)
99 DK/NA
Q29. What determined you to go to work abroad? (Instant answer)
_____________________________________
99. DK/NA
Q30. When you went abroad (if he/she left several times: the first time departure), was
someone waiting for you or not?
1. No, no one expected me.
2. Yes, a family member expected me. Who? (Kin relation) ______________________________
3. Yes, someone expected me, not a family member. Who? (Type of relation: friends, neighbors,
colleagues from work, etc.) ______________________________
99. DK/NA
Q31. Previous to returning to Romania, did you live alone or shared housing?
1. I lived alone.
2. I shared with a family member. Who? (Kin relation) _______________________________
3. I shared with someone, not a family member. Who? (Type of relation: friends, neighbors,
colleagues from work, etc.) ________________________________
99 DK/NA
Q32. If shared (2 or 3), with how many people did you share housing? |___|___|
Q33. While abroad, at your work place, were you alone or did you know others from
Romania?
1. I was alone, I did not know anyone.
2. I was with a family member. Who? (Kin relation) _________________________________
3. I knew someone, not a family member. Who? (Type of relation: friends, neighbors, colleagues
from work, etc.) _________________________________
99. DK/NA
Q34. Once abroad, did you invite others to join you? (Did you ‘drag’ along others)?
1. Yes
2. No
99. DK/NA
Q35. If yes, how many persons did you invite?
|___|___|
Q36. In general, did you make friends/acquaintances among foreigners (natives of that
country), with whom to keep in touch even outside the work environment?
1. Yes
2. No
99. DK/NA
Q37. If yes, who were these foreigners? (Multiple answer)
1. Work colleagues
2. Bosses/Owners/Managers
3. Neighbors
4. The flat-mate(s)
5. The priest
6. The religious community
80. Other. Who? __________________________
90. N/A (not applicable, no friends among foreigners)
99. DK/NA
Q38. In general, did you make friends/acquaintances among abroad Romanians, with whom
to keep in touch even outside the work environment?
1. Yes
2. No
99. DK/NA
Q39. If yes, who were these Romanians? (Multiple answer)
1. Close family. What kin relation? _________________
2. Friends/neighbors/acquaintances from Romania
3. Friends made abroad
4. Work colleagues
5. Bosses/Owners/Managers
6. Neighbors
7. The landlord
8. The priest
9. The religious community
80. Other. Who? _____________________________
90. N/A (not applicable, no friends among Romanians)
99. DK/NA
Q40. Usually, while abroad, with who did you got along better, with whom did you spend
your time at work: Romanians or foreigners?
1. Only Romanians
2. Only foreigners
3. With both
4. With neither
99. DK/NA
Q41. Usually, while abroad, with who did you got along better, with whom did you spend
your time outside of work, leisure time: Romanians or foreigners?
1. Only Romanians
2. Only foreigners
3. With both
4. With neither
99. DK/NA
Q42. In general, while abroad, when you had a personal problem (health, money, others), who
did you turn to for help: Romanians or foreigners?
1. Local Romanians
2. Local foreigners
3. Both local Romanians and foreigners
4. None, I ask those in Romania
80. None, I managed alone
99. DK/NA
Q43. Where do you have more friends and acquaintances, in the foreign country where you
worked or in Romania?
1. In Romania
2. Abroad
80. Do not read! I have as many friends in Romania and abroad
90. Do not read! I do not have many friends either in Romania or abroad
99. DK/NA
Q44. In general, do you consider that your travel abroad was a positive or a negative
experience?
5. It was definitely a positive life experience; I had only to gain, both financially and personally.
4. It was rather a positive experience, with both good and bad, but mainly good.
2. It was rather a negative experience, with both good and bad, but mainly bad.
1. It was definitely a negative life experience; I had only to lose, I should have stayed home and
never go abroad.
99. DK/NA
Q45. Which were the things you liked abroad?
_______________________________________________________________
99. DK/NA
Q46. Which were the things you did not like or annoyed/bothered you abroad?
_______________________________________________________________
99. DK/NA
Q47. Overall, do you think you managed to integrate abroad or not?
5. Definitely yes, I integrated very well
4. Somewhat yes, I integrate relatively well
2. Somehow no, I did not really integrate
1. Definitely no, I did not integrate at all
99. DK/NA
Q48. Why do you consider to have integrated or not?
________________________________________________________________
99. DK/NA
Q49. Previous to returning to Romania, how did your abroad income fluctuate in the last 6
months?
5. I earned way more than before/usual
How much more? ___________ EUR
4. I earned more than before/usual
How much more? ___________ EUR
3. I earned the same
2. I earned less than before/usual
How much less? __________ EUR
1. I earned way less than before/usual
How much less? _________ EUR
97. I did not earn anything/made no money
99. DK/NA
Write down the amount exactly as mentioned, in absolute value, in currency mentioned above. If
indicating the percentage, allow it, but only at the initiative of the respondent.
Q50. Usually, while abroad, did you sent money back home to Romania?
1. Yes, very often
2. Yes, often
3. Yes, rarely
4. Yes, very rarely
5. No, never
99. DK/NA
Q51. While abroad, how were you employed, predominantly legal or illegally, without
papers?
5. I only worked legally, with papers
4. I worked predominantly legally, with papers, with moments/periods when I worked illegally
2. I worked predominantly illegally, without papers, with moments/periods when I worked
legally
1. I only worked illegally, without papers
99. DK/NA
Q52. When did you return to Romania? (Preferably the accurate date, such as the month - for
instance, April 2008. If not possible, then the moment in time: one day ago, one week ago, 3 months ago,
one year ago, etc.) ________________________
Q53. How long do you intend to stay in Romania? (Period: one day, one week, 3 months, one
year, etc.)
_______________________________________________________________
99. DK/NA
Q54. What determined your return to Romania? (Instant answer)
________________________________________________________________
99. DK/NA
Q55. Of the following statements, which made you return to Romania? (Multiple answer)
0. No
1. Yes
99.DK/NA
1
Family reasons
2
I decided to continue my education
3
I achieved my goals for which I went abroad
4
I lost my job abroad
5
My earrings abroad decreased
6
I had problems with the foreign authorities
7
My legal residence permit expired
8
The attitude of the foreign natives deteriorated towards migrants
The authorities of the foreign country offered financial assistance to
9
ease the return
10
More convenient work opportunities appeared in Romania
80
Other, what else ___________________________________
Q56. Are you satisfied or not with the return to Romania?
5. Very satisfied
4. Satisfied
2. Dissatisfied
1. Very dissatisfied
99. DK/NA
Q57. Why are you satisfied/dissatisfied with the return to Romania?
_______________________________________________________
99. DK/NA
Q58. Do you consider that in Romania you live better or worse than abroad?
5. I live way better in Romania than abroad
4. I live better in Romania than abroad
3. It is somewhat the same, either in Romania or abroad
2. I live worse in Romania than abroad
1. I live way worse in Romania than abroad
99. DK/NA
Q59. Why do you consider to live better/same/worse, here, in Romania than abroad?
_____________________________________________________________ 99. DK/NA
Q60. Would you consider going abroad again or not?
5. Definitely YES
4. Probably YES
2. Probably NO
1. Definitely NO
99. DK/NA
Q61. If YES (code 4 or 5), Where do you would you go to work abroad?
1. In the same country, at the same place where I worked last time
2. In the same country, but in a different place from where I worked last time
3. In a different country. Where? ______________________
99. DK/NA
Q62. If a different place (2, 3), Why do you consider going in a different place than where you
previously were?
_________________________________________________________
99. DK/NA
Q63. At the place you are considering as destination, are there other people you know or not?
1. Yes
2. No
99. DK/NA
Q64. If yes (code 1), Are they Romanians or foreigners?
1. Only Romanians
2. Only foreigners
3. Both Romanians and foreigners
4. Neither
99. DK/NA
Q65. What changes do you think recently occurred abroad, in the country where you last
worked, previous to your return to Romania? (Instant answer)
_______________________________________________________
99. DK/NA
Q66. Previous to returning to Romania, which of the following changes do you think have
recently occurred in the foreign country were you last worked?
No
Yes
DK/NA
1
Many migrants began losing their jobs
0
1
99
2
The attitude of locals became more reserved/negative
0
1
99
3
The salaries of the migrants got reduced
0
1
99
4
The cost of living increased
0
1
99
5
The authorities in the host country became stricter
0
1
99
6
Many migrants started losing their dwellings (??)
0
1
99
80 Other, what?_____________________________
1
Q67. What are do you intend to do during your stay in Romania? What are your plans in
Romania?
_____________________________________
99. DK/NA
Q68. What are do you intend to do during your stay in Romania? What are your plans in
Romania? (Multiple answer)
0. No
I will try
I have
1. Yes
to... / I
already
99. DK/NA
intend to...
...
1
Find employment
2
Become a farmer
3
Live as long as I can with the money I earned abroad
4
5
6
7
80
Get unemployment benefits
Start my own business
Get a bank loan. If yes, for what purpose? _______________
To obtain European funds for business / development
Other, what? ____________________
Q69. After your return to Romania, did you get employed or not?
1. Yes, I got employed at the same place where I worked previous to going abroad
2. Yes, I got employed at another place than previous to going abroad
3. Yes, I got employed for the first in Romania
4. I came back to my business which I employed previous to going abroad
5. I started my own business
6. I am currently not employed
80. Another situation. Which? ______________________________
99. DK NA
Q70. If employed (code 1, 2, 3), How satisfied are you with your employment in Romania, in
comparison with the one abroad?
3. I am more satisfied with the job I have in Romania than with the one abroad
2. I am equally satisfied with the job I have in Romania and abroad
1. I am dissatisfied with the job I have in Romania than with the one abroad
99. DK/NA
Q71. Why are you satisfied / dissatisfied with your employment in Romania than the one
abroad?
_________________________________________________________
99. DK/NA
Q72. If business owner (cod 4,5), How is your business in Romania going?
5. Very good
4. Good
2. Bad
1. Very bad
99. DK/NA
Q73. If business owner, Why is business going good/bad?
_______________________________________________________
99. DK/NA
Q74
leave
leave
not leave
not leave
99. DK / NA
In another
county
IF YES
(5 or 4)
offered salary be?
If yes ---->
...........................................
abroad?
Q76.
leave
leave
not leave
not leave
99. DK / NA
In another
county
IF YES
(5 or 4)
offered salary be?
If yes ---->
...........................................
1. True
2. False
99. DK/NA
D1. GENDER
1. Man
D2. AGE ( years)
|___|___|
2. Woman
99. NA
Including children
|___|___|
99. NA
|___|___|
99. NA
D11. ETHNIC ORIGIN
1. Romanian
2. Hungarian
3. Roma/gipsy
6. Other. Which one? _____________________________
99. NA
1. No education
6. College
7. Undergraduate
D13. EMPLOYMENT
______________________________
99. DK/NA
D14. STATE/PRIVATE
2. Private company
99 DK/NA
D15. RELIGION
99. DK/NA
_______________ ROL 99. DK/NA
_______________ ROL 99. DK/NA
D24. COUNTY __________________________________
END TIME (HH: MM) |___|___| : |___|___|
INTERVIEW GUIDE
This guide presents the main questions of the research, but during discussions also additional questions
appeared.
General discussion about migration and the socio-economic situation of the host country /
destination
- Personally, do you believe that in the last year you lived better or worse than before?
- What were the main factors that influenced your own and your family’s economic situation?
- How do you think things are going in Romania? What about Spain / Italy?
- Do you consider that in the past 2 ½ years, the economic situation deteriorated? How come?
The migration history
- For how long have you been working in Spain / Italy?
- How did you first arrive? Did someone help you to go abroad? Did you have family/friends at
the destination?
- How did you find work?
- What are the main reasons for which you came to work in Spain / Italy?
- Before coming to Spain / Italy, were you employed in Romania? In what activity sector were
you active?
Working abroad
- In what activity sector do you work in Spain / Italy?
- How many jobs did you have until now? In what activity sectors/cities?
- Since you came to Spain / Italy, have always been employed or where there periods of when
you were unemployed? If yes, when? Can you please tell us about the unemployment periods
and whether you received unemployment benefits? About how much would that amount to?
The mobility of labor migrants
- Before coming to Spain / Italy have you worked in other foreign countries?
- Have you ever considered the possibility of going to other besides Romania? If yes, which?
Why?
The economic crisis and its effects
- You have probably heard about the economic crisis, do you believe it affect you and or not? If
yes, in what manner did the crisis affect you?
- From what you heard from those back in Romania, where do you think the crisis was most
acute – abroad or back home? Can you please explain?
- Do you believe that in near future the situation in Spain / Italy / Romania will improve or not?
Please detail?
- Since the appearance of the economic crisis, did you have any reservations regarding job loss or
salary reduction?
- If you were to lose your job, would you seriously consider returning to Romania? If yes, why?
If not, why?
Incomes and remittances
- How do you manage your money / savings earned in Spain / Italy?
- Currently, are you sending more or less money to Romania than two years ago?
- Have you ever taken into consideration investing the money earned abroad in Romania? If yes,
in what sector and for what purposes? If not, why?
- Many Romanian which worked in Spain / Italy have purchased houses abroad. Did you ever
think about this possibility?
Connection with Romania
- The rest of your family are also in Spain / Italy or remained in Romania?
- Do you have many relatives (siblings, cousins, etc.) in Romania? What about friends? How and
how often you communicate with them?
- Are you following the political, social and economic developments in Romania?
Integration at the destination country
- In your opinion, where do you have most friends in Romania or Spain / Italy?
- If you have a serious problem for example a health issue, where would you seek help: from
Romanian friends made in Spain / Italy, from Spanish / Italian friends, from family back in
Romania?
- Personally, how do you find the Spanish / Italians?
- Overall, do you consider understanding better Romanians or Spanish / Italians?
- How satisfied are you with the attitude and treatment of Spanish / Italian? Does it seem that in
recent years their attitude changed? In what way? Can you please give an example?
- With whom do you prefer to spend your free time abroad?
- How would you describe the Romanian community in Spain / Italy?
Future Plans
- In the long run, what are your future plans?
- Do you intend to go to work in other countries?
- Where/how do you see yourself in 5 years from now?
Return to Romania
- Do you intend to return to Romania or remain abroad? What are the reasons on which you took
this decision?
Socio-demographics
Gender
Age (years old)
Last graduate school
The kin relation with the migrant (if the case)
Occupation (in August 2010)
Origin settlement
Destination country/settlement

Carte_migratiei_EN_ final

Transcription

Similar documents

review of reviews - Romanian Review of Political Sciences and

April 20, 2011 - La Sierra University

Conference Program

Company profile - Credit Europe Asigurari

Fall 2010

Romania IT Talent Map, 2014

25 years of... commitment, Romania.

RECENT ADVANCES In

20160121 smile通信vol.06英語版

“A solid local Romanian law firm operating with the standards of an