[email protected] migration and socio-economic cohesion in the enlarged european union”:...
TRANSCRIPT
MIGRATION AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC COHESION IN THE ENLARGED EUROPEAN UNION”: LESSONS FROM
ROMANIAN REGION
PhD. Elena Marilena PorumbFaculty of European StudiesBabes Bolyai University Cluj Napoca Romania
Wiessman Institute Toronto 30th April 1st May 2010
Content:
• Why and where migration take place
In Romania
• What mobility,employment opportunity and external migration
• What to do?
• Best practice for Romanian Inclusion Strategy for Roma People
Why the migration take place (Ciuca, Why the migration take place (Ciuca, Pirciog 2008)Pirciog 2008)
• Year by year, workers, with or without their families, temporary or even definitely choose to move to other more developed regions or countries in order to reduce the gaps between their employment and earnings related opportunities in between origin and destination regions/countries
• This is also the case of Romania which started, at the beginning of this decade, to experience increasing migration flows for other European countries, while internal migration remained insignificant
• Inequalities in terms of employment opportunities, as well as wages and quality of jobs are the most important driving forces of migration.
• At the beginning, migration was considered a “relief” for the national labour market unable to generate new jobs for those affected by restructuring, the recent years came with the first hints on the possible negative effects of unmanaged migration: skill shortages, skill gaps, depopulated areas, etc.
• Considered as a survival strategy at the beginning, now, migration for employment abroad tends to become a “life style” for many Romanians, in the common sense of the word
Context
• Estimated (roughly) migration outflow: 2 million working age people:– this is 10% of population; – this is over 25% of the
labor force.• Affects both unskilled
(mostly) and skilled
• Magnitude of outflows suggests that there are important push factors at work in Romania
Role of various factors vis-à-vis difficulty in hiring people (% of firms)
73
12
42 42 42
13
86
24
35
48
55
17
76
11
33 31
59
11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Labor forcemigration
Difficult workconditions intheir field ofexpertise
Wage level intheir field of
expertise
Marketcompetition
Training ofgraduates notaccording to
market demand
Other factor
Textile industry
Constructions
Hotels, restaurants
Source: Serban and Toth for Soros Foundation (2007)
Investigating and addressing push factors is important
for sustaining convergence and productivity growth
• Romania converges in income with EU 15
• Most income growth comes from productivity growth
GDP per person employed (EU-27=100, PPS)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Romania Bulgar ia Latvia Li thuania Estonia Poland Slovakia Czech
Republ i c
Hungary Slovenia
2001 2007
EU-27 = 100
Source: EUROSTAT
People move abroad, but much less within Romania, towards meeting labor demand
• low entry into employment, including for young;
• high young discouraged worker effects;
• low reallocation across sectors and occupations;
• high LTU;• low scores in international
education tests (ex. PISA).
Unemployment rates for age group 15 - 24 years (%)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Lithuania Estonia Latvia Slovenia CzechRepublic
EU-27 Hungary Bulgaria Romania Slovakia Poland
(%)
Source: EUROSTAT
Work emigration rate by counties, 2002
(Data source: NIS, 2002 census. Own computations. Data series were segmented by natural brake method). Graph published in Dumitru Sandu, “Community selectivity of temporary emigration from Romania “ in Romanian Journal of Population Studies, 1, 2007
Declining unemployment and increased job vacancy rates, also, gave rise to
worries about labour and skill shortages.
Tabel : Evolution of unemployment and migration for the period 2000-2007
Source : National Institute of Statistics
Therefore, it appears likely that continued labour shortages are going to constrain the functioning of the Romanian economy and nevertheless the reach of
cohesion.
Unemployment rate NE Region
05
1015202530
Years
Pe
rce
nta
ge TOTAL
NORTH - EAST
Bacau
Botosani
Iasi
Neamt
Suceava
Vaslui
Regional paradox
Typical temporary emigration composition: source D. Sandu, 2008 men – constructorswomen - housekeepers
2913 12 12 14 19
46 4850
25
56
04
571
63
3342
33 26
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
1990-1995
1996-2001
2002-2006
1990-1995
1996-2001
2002-2006
women men
other
housekeeping
constructions
agriculture
Data source:
Dumitru Sandu (coord.) Locuirea temporara in strainatate, FSD, Bucharest, 2006. For Englih version see http://www.osf.ro/en/program_articol.php?articol=34
Propensity towards mobility in RomaniaPropensity towards mobility in Romania (Pirciog, Ciuca, et a)
• Most Romanians are opened for occupational mobility in order to attain better employment - more than half of the respondents declare that they would change their occupation for a better job, while more than a third of them say that they prefer unsecured jobs with high payment as against secured jobs with low payment
• Also, almost half of the investigated individuals seem to be opened to internal migration and one third to external migration for employment purposes.
Propensity towards mobility in Romania (%)
48,2
46,2
34,9
53,3
34,9
38,8
52,3
29,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
I would prefer a secured job with low paymentas against an unsecured job with high
payment
I would work in another locality for a better job
I would work in another country for a better job
I would change my occupation for a better job
agreee disagree
Employment opportunities and external Employment opportunities and external
migration (1)migration (1) (Ciuca et a, 2008)
• Insufficient income and lack of jobs represent the most important motivations of the Romanian migrants
• Most migrants left the country due to insufficient earnings for the daily living or for a decent life
• more than 20% of migrants declare that lack of available jobs pushed them to migration. In fact, those migrating for urban areas are those looking for better jobs in terms of wages, while those migrating for rural areas are looking for any kind of jobs
• better working conditions abroad represent the second reason for migration for more than 30% of the migrants. Moreover, Romanian migrants who are currently working abroad left from marginal positions on the Romanian labour market such as: daily worker, unemployed or self employed.
Most important 2 reasons for which Romanian workers migrated
abroad after 1st of January 2002 (%)
36,64
21,12
16,96
8,32
5,6
7,2
4,16
20
10,7
7,2
17,5
9,1
4,6
30,9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
insufficient earnings fora daily leaving
insufficient earnings fora decent life
I couldn't find availablejobs in Romania
insufficient earnings tobuild a way in life
I joint my spouse/family
others
working conditions arebetter abroad
reason 1 reason 2
Migration still a problem now? ( Ciuca Pirciog 2008)
while employment opportunities motivate Romanians to migrate abroad, they don’t play a key role in driving internal migration
Moreover, rural areas display higher flows of external migration and lower flows of internal migration
Romania needs to develop a better management of its migration flows, including policies for immigration and support for the returning migrants’ integration. It is clear that Romanians’ migration in the years to come will depend to the governments’ capabilities to address development gaps and inequalities while increasing the access of vulnerable groups to employment and other opportunities
Therefore, only economic development and reduction of the development gaps between regions and areas of residence coupled with improving information on employment opportunities will increase internal migration to the detriment of external one
Rates of temporary emigration from Romania by social and demographic characteristics, 2002
54.226.8
24.423.323.0
19.7
17.316.115.8
14.814.2
13.313.3
12.412.1
11.010.910.8
10.39.79.69.59.4
9.3
8.88.78.68.68.5
7.87.6
6.76.6
6.05.7
3.62.92.52.5
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Occupation Elementary occupationsOccupation Crafts and related trades workers
age 20-29 y.oldReligion Cahtolic
Ethnicity other ethn.minorityReligion Neoprotestant
age 30-39 y.old.Education Secondary ,technical track compl
Ethnicity HungarianReligion Greek Catholic
Religion ProtestantEducation Secondary ,general track completed
Occupation Service workers ,shop salesMarital stat .Divorced
Sex Male
Education Some college completedEducation University completed
Ethnicity GypsyMarital stat .Single/never married
Residence Urban age 40-49y.old
Marital stat .Married Occupation Plant and machine operators
NATIONAL RATE
Residence RuralEducation Post-secondary technical completed
Occupation ProfessionalsEthnicity Romanian
Occupation Skilled agric .workers
Religion Orthodox age 15-19y.old
Sex FemaleEducation Primary completed
Occupation Legislators , senior officials ,managers Occupation Technicians
Occupation ClerksEducation Less than primary completed
age 50and over y.oldMarital stat .Widowed
high migration propensity
very high migration propensity
upper middle migration propensity
lower middle migration propensity
low migration propensity
Data source: Minnesota Population Center. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series-International: Version 2.0. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2006, http://international.ipums.org, sample of 10% out of the 2002 Population and housing census of Romania. Sample volume 2137967 persons. Migration figures refers to persons that were abroad of less than one year, approximately 200 thou.
Graph published in Dumitru Sandu, “Community selectivity of temporary emigration from Romania “ in Romanian Journal of Population Studies, 1, 2007
Conclusions
Migration still a problem now? ( Ciuca Pirciog 2008)
while employment opportunities motivate Romanians to migrate abroad, they don’t play a key role in driving internal migration
Moreover, rural areas display higher flows of external migration and lower flows of internal migration
Romania needs to develop a better management of its migration flows, including policies for immigration and support for the returning migrants’ integration. It is clear that Romanians’ migration in the years to come will depend to the governments’ capabilities to address development gaps and inequalities while increasing the access of vulnerable groups to employment and other opportunities
Therefore, only economic development and reduction of the development gaps between regions and areas of residence coupled with improving information on employment opportunities will increase internal migration to the detriment of external one
53
32
23
43
21 18
21
2 6
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
area of low emigrationexperience - Alexandria,
Teleorman (N=127)
area of high emigrationexperience - Focsani,
Vrancea (N=183)
NA
thought not toreturn
thought to stayshorter
thought to staylonger
no, I did notchange my mind
“Did it change your intention to stay abroad during your stay there?” (source D. Sandu 2008
Data source: “Living temporary abroad” survey of Open Society Foundation- Gallup Organisation, August 2006, regional component of the survey. For sample description Dumitru Sandu (coord.) Locuirea temporara in strainatate, FSD, Bucharest 2006,pp.12-15. The interviewees were migrants from Alexandria and Focsani areas during their August 2006 holiday short return in Romania
The migration experience of the origin region counts for the dynamics of the intention to return:
•People from high emigration areas, like Focsani, are more inclined to modify their initial plans as to stay longer abroad
•People fromareas of low emigration experience are more inclined to keep their original plans as to return home
What to do? 1. Continue to improve labor market flexibility to stimulate mobility
source Catalin Pauna WB Romania
Employing workers, 2007 (global rank)
55 57
75 78 81
96
124
145156
CzechRepublic
Bulgaria Slovakia Poland Hungary Latvia Lithuania Romania Estonia
Czech Republic Bulgaria Slovakia Poland Hungary Latvia Lithuania Romania Estonia
Employing workers in Romania, 2005 - 2007
62
33
6
62
33
6
66
31
8
Rigidity of Employment Index Nonwage labor cost (% of salary) Firing costs (weeks of wages)
2005 2006 2007
What to do? 2. Reduce transaction costs for businesses to stimulate innovation and entry
source Catalin Pauna WB Romania
Paying taxes, 2007 (global rank)
20
31
71
88
113122 125 127
134
Latvia Estonia Lithuania Bulgaria CzechRepublic
Slovakia Poland Hungary Romania
Paying taxes in Romania, 2005 - 2007
96
193
49.5
96
193
49.5
96
202
46.9
Payments (number) Time (hours) Total tax rate (% profit)
2005 2006 2007
What to do? 3. Improve infrastructure/ transportation source Catalin Pauna WB Romania
• In the short run, it is important to bring unskilled people from rural to growth poles;
• Infrastructure needs substantial upgrading;• Transport (and housing?) subsidies by rich
municipalities and employers to be considered;• Important role to be played by municipalities.
What to do? 4. Pay substantially more attention to education and skills upgrade
source Catalin Pauna WB Romania
• Low wage competitiveness erodes fast;• Access to education remains a problem in rural;• Quality and relevance of education for labor
demand needs to be addressed;• Link education performance to resources;
• More emphasis on life long training.
Romania’s Current Account Deficits, Remittances and FDIs2005 - 2008 (LAzea, 2008)
0
5
10
15
2004 2005 2006 2007
5.099 6.883 10.156 16.950
2.972
4.845
3.593
4.900
Years
EUR billion
5.1275.237
8.723
7.185
Legend: : CA deficits : current transfers (remittances), net : FDIs, net
a) - the altruistic model (Becker, 1974; Stark, 1995): the emigrant cares about the
well-being of family members left behind, but education has no effect once we
control for the heigher incomes it allows;
b) - the exchange theory (Bernheim, Shleifer Summers, 1985; Cox, 1987): the
emigrant makes transfers in return for (education) services, but remittances are a
decreasing function of education;
c) - the family loan arrangement model (Cox and Jimenez, 1992; Poirine, 1997):
remittances represent an implicit loan repayment; more educated migrants remit
more, even after controlling for the positive correlation of income and education.
Can the brain drain be compensated by larger remittancesfrom skilled emigrants (Lazea 2008)
How are the migrants sending their remittances to Romania Lazea 2008
• The modern channels (e-transfer) are gaining ground. A system devised by Societe Generale for its clients, covering emigration countries (15 from Europe, 11 from Africa) + 4 French “DomTom“. Migrants can send money home using a fix or mobile phone.
• Transfers are secured (through a number of codes), can be made from account to account or from account to cash, and execution takes 2 days + (depending on country).
• A study by Dana Diminescu et. al. (2008) covers e-transfers done in this way by migrants from Romania, Algeria, Morocco and Senegal, for 2004 - 2007, implying 7224 transfers done by 1383 persons.
Results Romania Algeria Morocco Senegal
Average number of transfers 6.8 2.9 5.0 6.4
Average volume of transfers
sent by a person (euros)
7262 2632 6447 5054
Average value of a transfer
(euros)
1073 898 1218 787
Source: David Bounie, Dana Diminescu, Christian Licoppe - “A socio-economic analysis of the e-transfer service provided by Societe Generale“, 2008
PA: Public authority with highest centrality score
CS: Civil society actor with highest centrality score
Policy networks in comparisonSouce Achim Lang (SOCCOH)
density: mediumcentrality PA: mediumcentrality CS: medium
density: lowcentrality PA: mediumcentrality CS: low
density: highcentrality PA: lowcentrality CS: medium
density: highcentrality PA: mediumcentrality CS: medium
density: lowcentrality PA: highcentrality CS: low
Policy networks in cohesion policy: conclusions
Participation profiles
National patterns and structure still dominate
Country clusters:
Central government dominance in new member states (“creeping decentralization”)
Decentralized governance prevails in Spain and Germany (“no change”)
Public authority
Civil society
density
cent
ralit
y
Policy networks:
Many different network configurations
Centrality of public authorities increases at low levels of density
Centrality of civil society increases at higher levels of density
SNA Analysis
Figure 12: Visualizing NE Region Fig 13. NE Region pattern
Romanian Inclusion Strategy for Roma People
Romania has the largest Roma population in Europe 2.5 millionpeople
April 2001
Was adopted
Romanian Government Strategy for Roma Condition Improvement
Applied in: EducationEmploymentHealth & HousingDiscriminationPoverty
It is the first governmental initiative to take a comprehensive approach to addressing the problems facing the Roma minority in Romania, undertaken as part of the EU accession process and fulfillment of the political criteria established by the Copenhagen declaration (1993)
The Strategy
National Office for Roma
Department for the Protection of National Minorities in
the Ministry of Public Information
Implemented by:
Part of:Roma Organizations
Offered in
put
Positive Development
By Government Decision
3 years later
Low level ofimplementation
The Strategy’s Objectiveshave not been successfully accomplished
The result:
November 2002
EUMAP report on minorityprotection in Romania
Published:
• monitoring the implementation of the Strategy at the local level; • developing the capacity of the Roma organizations to monitor and report on The implementation of public policies towards Roma.
Objectives:
Central Government Bodies:
The Ministry of Public Information Agency forGovernmental Strategies
The National Office for Roma The Office for Roma Issues Re-named
Transformed in:
Moved under:
The Department forInterethnic Relations
The Government General Secretariat
part of:
Funding the Strategy:
EU
The most importantfunding: €16 million
Came from:
Had been allocated throughthe following programs:
• Support to the national strategy to improve Roma conditions, Phare 2002 – €6million + €1.6 million from the Romanian government
• Improving access to education of disadvantaged groups, with a special focus on Roma, Phare 2001 – €7 million plus €1.33 million from the Romanian Government;
• Fund for Improving the Roma Situation, Phare 2000 – €1.15 million
The Strategy and new international initiatives:
Open Society Institute (OSI), World Bank
the European Union
and:
in cooperation with:
supported by:
Government Civil societyand
Started in 2003:
A Decade of Roma Inclusion and a Roma Educational Fund (REF)
were launched in on June 30–July 1 2003
The international conference “Roma in an Expanding Europe. Breaking the Poverty Cycle”in Budapest
County offices for Roma (BJR)
were the first structures created in all 41 counties and remain the most important public institutional contact point for Roma issues at the local level
the targets and tasks in the Master Plan of Measures for the Implementation of the Strategy.
BJRMain responsibilities: Organizing
PlanningCoordinating
For implementing at local level
Romanian National Council for Combating Discrimination
RNCCD staring in 2005WEAKNESSES:
1. Excessive length of the investigations; 2. Inability of the RNCCD staff to recognize clear instances of discrimination; 3. Lack of transparency of the investigations undertaken by the NCCD; 4. Inability to provide meaningful redress to victims of discrimination.
RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The RNCCD should be granted real independence from other state bodies;
2. Appointment of members of the board should reflect the independent mandate of the RNCCD;
3. The RNCCD should be given the power to apply a wider range of sanctions aimed at achieving, ‘restitutio in integrum’ for victims of discrimination;
4. Legal aid should be provided to victims of discrimination, in conformity with Article 13(2) of the Race Equality Directive and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights;
5. The six months time that the RNCCD has at its disposal for investigating and sanctioning the complaints brought to its attention should be extended;
6. Sufficient staffing and adequate resources should be allocated to the RNCCD under parliamentary supervision so that it is able to fulfil its mandate. Regionally based branches of the RNCCD should be established, to ensure greater efficacy in undertaking its work.
• http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=1844&archiv=1
Responsibilities:
evaluating the situation of Roma in their area of responsibility;
identifying solutions to the needs of the local communities;
mobilizing communityresources in order toaccomplish the objectives of theStrategy;
ensuring continuous communication with local administration authorities;
highlighting problems for which the local authorities are responsible in order to resolve them;
initiating partnerships between members of Roma communities and localauthorities;
collaborating with decentralized institutions;
mediating any interethnic or inter-community conflicts;
regular reporting to the General Directorate for Relations withPrefectures
Local experts on Roma affairs
Improve the situation of Roma at the local level
Mayor’s offices
County Offices on Roma (BJR)
Stakeholders:
Local Joint Working Groups
Public institutions
NGOs
Agency for Training and Occupation of Labor Force;The Agency for Housing;The Directorate for Labor and Social Solidarity; The Directorate for Public Health; The House for Health Insurance; The Police Inspectorate; The School Inspectorate; The Directorate for Youth and Sports;The Directorate for Culture and Denominations; The Directorate for the Protection of Children’s Rights.Local Roma NGOs alsoparticipate in the Committees
Ministry ofLabor and Social Solidarity
National Agency for Child Protection and Adoptions
The Cluj County:
Population: 703,269 Area: 6,674 square kilometers Roma population: 2.9 per cent of the county’s total population
Unofficial there are between 35,000 and 45,000 Roma living in theperimeter of Cluj county.
The main Stakeholders in Cluj County are:
County Office for Roma
Local Joint Working Groups
Prefecture
Roma non-governmental organisations
County School Inspectorate
County Office for Roma
In the implementation of the Strategy
At county level
identified somedifficulties
-the low involvement of local authorities
-the insufficient allocation of funds from the local budget
The Mayors’ offices,
substantial interaction with the Roma communities.
At local level
The achievements
- developing a relationship based on trust with the Roma;
-organizing of the Roma community at the local level so that there are one or more leaders who can represent the community in relations with local authorities;
-persuading Roma groups to work -the necessary number of hours in order to receive minimum guaranteed income;
-paving an access road to one of the Roma communities, with the directparticipation of the Roma themselves.
Local joint working group
Local Institutions
RomaNGOs
The activity of the Working Group has developed withoutspecific funds from the budget
Evaluation of the most importantneeds of the Roma community
Responsabilities:
HousingStrategyat local level
Roma persons, can live under legal conditions with rent contracts.
NGOs lack the necessaryfinancial resources for building houses
Social protection
increase the Romacommunity’s access to local services
Strategyat local level
Health care
The identification of solutions for including all Roma in the health insurance system,for registering with the family doctor and for compensatory medicines, is probably themost important issue of the healthcare area of the Strategy
Strategyat local level
Economic initiatives
tailoring, PC operation, waiting tables, bartending, and hairdressingtraining qualification courses
Strategyat local level
Job Fair for Roma250 jobs were allocated
Justice and public order
legal education and delinquency prevention carried out instate institutions or by NGOs
Strategyat local level
counseling project
hiring a local monitor on human rights
Child protection No significant developing programs and strategies
Education
Roma pupils were registered in public schools and Romani language was introduced as an optional component at the request of parents.
combating illiteracy among Roma children and the integration of Roma children in kindergartens
Phare Financing
Culture and denominations
Positive image of Roma
Combating discrimination
Strategyat local level
Strategyat local level
European Union supports the improvement of the situation of the Roma
The Delegation of the European Commission in Romania, the Projects Implementation Unit under the National Agency for the Roma and the
Central Finance and Contracts Unit under the Ministry of Public Finance today announced the 65 projects selected for financing worth 4.3 million
Euro under the EUROPEAN UNION’s Phare Programme „Support for National Strategy for Improvement of the Condition of Roma”.
The overall objective of the programme is to enhance and facilitate the active participation of Roma communities in the economic, social, educational and political life of the Romanian society and to improve their access to health
services.Out of the 531 projects submitted within the established delays, 201 projects
(38%) fulfilled the administrative and eligibility criteria. At the end of the evaluation process and as a result of site pre-contracting visits, 65 projects were
selected, as follows:
Health– 17 projects worth 647.196 Euro;Vocational training and Income Generating Activities – 34 projects worth
1.482.908 Euro;Small Infrastructure and Housing – 14 projects worth 2.189.834,28 Euro.
Phare RO 2002/000-586.01.02Support to the National Strategy for Improvement of the Condition of Roma
Vocational Training and Income Generating Activities
Health
Small Infrastructure and Housing
Conclusions:
The activity of local affairs could be improved if the following was made available:
►office space exclusively for meeting with Roma communities ►employment of community representatives as local experts on Roma affairs► assuring a closer relation with the community, and better understanding of the relevant issues;► additional employment of personnel or reducing the other responsibilities oflocal experts as the volume of work;► developing a cooperative atmosphere among Roma, ► the involvement of other local structures and their own involvement is essential;► fostering the participation and election of Roma representatives within thedecision-making structures at the local level.► the clarification of each partner’s responsibilities is essential ► the real partnership between public institutions and civil society must betransformed from an abstract concept into a common reality.
ReferencesCiuca Vasilica, Pîrciog Speranţa, Zamfir Ana-Maria, Mocanu Cristina, “Migration Flow for Work – The Romanian Case”, 2008 Bucharest Diminescu Dana et. al. (2008) covers e-transfers done in this way by migrants from Romania, Algeria, Morocco and Senegal, for 2004 - 2007, implying 7224 transfers done by 1383 persons. Lazea Valentin, Impact of Remittances on Romania’s Balance of PaymentsCatalin Pauna, Migration and the sustainability of growth in Romania. European Migration: Main Challenges ... People move abroad, but much less within Romania, towards meeting labor demand ...www.ipe.ro/papers/Migration_conference.ppt Porumb Elena Marilena, Munteanu Oana, SCSNP FP6 Project report, 2007Porumb Elena, Todoran Horea, SNA, SOCOH Project, 2008Sandu Dumitru, Why to return to, why not to leave from Romania of the current time? European Migration: comparative advantage versus cherry-picking policies, Organised by Institute for Economic Forecasting , Bucharest, June 2008http://www.romacenter.ro/noutati/brosura_sprjin_strategia_imbunatatire_situatie_romi_phare_2002.pdf