1. ISMERI EUROPA Return and circular migration: recent experience in the EU Andy Fuller, Alphametrics EURES Working Party Hotel Magyar Kiraly, Székesfehérvár, Hungary 23 May 2011

2. European Job Mobility Laboratory 223-May-11 EURES Working Party ISMERI EUROPA Objectives of analysis  To examine:  scale of migration flows from Central and Eastern European countries (EU12) to EU15  the extent of return migration in response to recession in EU15 countries  characteristics of people concerned – particularly age, sex and education levels  To consider policies implemented in both EU15 and EU12 in response to return migration – done largely through case studies of Poland, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia

3. European Job Mobility Laboratory 323-May-11 EURES Working Party ISMERI EUROPA Points to keep in mind  Migration determined by push as well as pull factors  Pull factors strong – average earnings in Latvia or Lithuania around one fifth of those in more prosperous EU15 countries. In Romania, around one seventh, Bulgaria, even lower  Implication – can earn as much from working two months in EU15 as one year in EU12  But jobs need to be available and prospective gains need to outweigh costs  Costs not just financial but also social– alien culture, different language, isolation from family and friends, loss of support  Push factors in home country also important – shortage of jobs, poor living conditions, deprivation

4. European Job Mobility Laboratory 423-May-11 EURES Working Party ISMERI EUROPA Nature of migration flows  Evidence that much of migration is short-term and that return migration has always been significant  Evidence also that many of those that return go back to EU15 after a while – i.e. much migration is circular, people moving backwards and forwards on regular basis  This particularly the case for seasonal workers in agriculture, tourism and other activities where work concentrated at particular times of year, especially Summer  Circular migration most important between countries that are relatively close:  from Hungary or Slovakia to Austria or Germany  from Romania or Bulgaria to Greece or Italy

5. European Job Mobility Laboratory 523-May-11 EURES Working Party ISMERI EUROPA Gains from circular migration  Circular migration potentially of mutual benefit to all involved:  migrants and their families gain from having work and higher income  destination country can gain from labour or skill shortages being reduced – and from work migrants might create  home country can gain from income remittances – significant in Bulgaria, Romania and Latvia - but also from skills and know-how migrants bring back with them  In practice, much of circular migration involves relatively basic seasonal work – agriculture, tourism  But those travelling further take up higher level jobs – in UK or Ireland relative to Austria or Germany

6. European Job Mobility Laboratory 623-May-11 EURES Working Party ISMERI EUROPA Data issues  Acute problems in identifying scale of migration, even more so for return or circular – no EU-wide data, only irregular surveys  Recent Eurostat data on flows within EU and from outside - but for most countries only 2008 - and many countries not covered in any detail (Germany, France and UK)  Data used for analysis come mainly from EU Labour Force Survey  Advantages:  data available for run of years and up-to-date  cover characteristics of people – education level, work status as well as sex and age  Disadvantages:  can only identify net migration, not inward and outward separately  data based on relatively small sample – analysis restricted to main EU15 countries where migration from EU12 important, but no data for German

7. European Job Mobility Laboratory 723-May-11 EURES Working Party ISMERI EUROPA Characteristics of migrants  Most migrants relatively young – mostly aged 15-34, around 80% aged 15-49  Migration flows from Romania and Bulgaria predominantly to southern EU15 countries – to Italy, Greece and Spain especially  Migration flows from other EU12 countries mostly to Germany and Austria before 2004 and to UK, Ireland and Sweden after entry to EU in 2004 – the 3 countries not imposing restrictions  Large majority of those going to UK, Ireland and Sweden were from Poland and Baltic States - around 80%, two-thirds from Poland  Even balance between men and women migrating, but not to all countries – women make up over 60% of Romanians going to Italy and majority of those going to Spain  In UK, Ireland and Sweden, men in significant majority

8. European Job Mobility Laboratory 823-May-11 EURES Working Party ISMERI EUROPA Migration trends over past decade  Big increase in migration from Central+ Eastern Europe (EU12) to EU15  Migrants from EU12 aged 15-49 living in UK doubled from 2003 to 2005 and had risen by over 3 times by 2008 – peak migration in 2006  Also increase of over 3 times in migrants from EU12 living in Ireland  Much smaller increase in Sweden as well as in Austria (and Germany), where numbers already high pre EU enlargement in 2004  Romanians and Bulgarians living in Italy doubled 2005-2008  Those living in Spain increased by 3 times 2003-2007  Much smaller increase in Greece – perhaps reflecting lower income levels – and lower earnings possibilities

9. European Job Mobility Laboratory 923-May-11 EURES Working Party ISMERI EUROPA Education and skills levels of migrants  Migrants from EU10 mainly have upper secondary education (i.e. vocational qualifications) – add to stock of skilled workers in EU15  Longer-term migrants tend to have higher education levels than shorter-term ones. More women have tertiary education than men  Migrants from Romania and Bulgaria have tended to be disproportionately the lower educated, reflecting preponderance of seasonal workers  But still more of them have upper secondary qualifications than those in main destination countries – Italy, Spain, Greece  EU10 migrants going to Ireland tended to be higher educated than those going to UK, more with university degrees, fewer with only basic schooling – may reflect jobs they do

10. European Job Mobility Laboratory 1023-May-11 EURES Working Party ISMERI EUROPA Effect on labour force in host country  Migration has not only increased available workers with vocational qualifications  Without inward migration, working-age population would have declined in 2003-2008 in 8 EU15 countries – even in Ireland  Migrants from EU12 countries made significant contribution to growth of working-age population (i.e. potential work force)  But in all countries except Ireland not the main source of growth – migration from outside EU more important ….

11. European Job Mobility Laboratory 1123-May-11 EURES Working Party ISMERI EUROPA Migrant contribution to potential labour force

12. European Job Mobility Laboratory 1223-May-11 EURES Working Party ISMERI EUROPA Effect of inward migration on employment  Before EU enlargement, fear that migrants would take jobs from nationals – little sign of this  In most countries, employment rates of nationals have risen as inward migration has taken place ….

13. European Job Mobility Laboratory 1323-May-11 EURES Working Party ISMERI EUROPA Employment rates by country of birth

14. European Job Mobility Laboratory 1423-May-11 EURES Working Party ISMERI EUROPA And some early signs of effect of recession

15. European Job Mobility Laboratory 1523-May-11 EURES Working Party ISMERI EUROPA Effect of recession on migration  Outflows of migrants from EU15 back to EU10 increased markedly in 2009 as recession hit – especially among under 25s  Less sign of Romanians and Bulgarians returning from southern EU  In UK, return migration to EU10 exceeded inward flows for first time – more people leaving fewer coming, deterred by lack of jobs  In Ireland, migrants living in country declined by around 15% in 2009  Migration from Romania and Bulgaria seems to have continued  In Italy, little sign if any easing of growth – increase of 30% in migrants living there in 2009  In Greece, number increased by around 25%  In Spain, little change, though decline in those under 25  Implication – effect of recession was to increase under 25s in EU12 looking for work

16. European Job Mobility Laboratory 1623-May-11 EURES Working Party ISMERI EUROPA Characteristics of returnees Evidence suggests return migration particularly high among those with vocational qualifications – i.e. among skilled manual workers Especially so in UK, Ireland and Sweden, though also in Spain – consistent with concentration of job losses in manufacturing and construction Evidence also that in most countries, recession hit migrants more than nationals – true of all countries apart from Sweden and UK, and especially so in Ireland and Spain …

17. European Job Mobility Laboratory 1723-May-11 EURES Working Party ISMERI EUROPA Employment rates of national and migrants in recession

18. European Job Mobility Laboratory 1823-May-11 EURES Working Party ISMERI EUROPA Employment rates of national and migrants in recession Possible explanation for UK + SE: Migrants without jobs left, so pushing up employment rate of those that remained

19. European Job Mobility Laboratory 1923-May-11 EURES Working Party ISMERI EUROPA Chances of returnees finding work  Those returning much less likely to be employed in 2009 than non-migrants (those who remained in country)  Unemployment rates among returnees generally far higher  And/or a larger number among inactive wanting to work ….

20. European Job Mobility Laboratory 2023-May-11 EURES Working Party ISMERI EUROPA Employment status of non-migrants + returnees (resident in EU15 previous year)

21. European Job Mobility Laboratory 2123-May-11 EURES Working Party ISMERI EUROPA Situation of Romanians in Spain and Italy  Recession reduced net flow of Romanian migrants to Spain but much less so to Italy, numbers rose significantly in 2009  Recession hit migrants in particular, largely because of kinds jobs they do – construction, manufacturing, tourism  Migration between Italy and Romania increasingly circular – no evidence that recession has led to increase in permanent return  Adverse economic circumstances in Romania lead to many migrants who return going back to where they returned from  In Spain, most migrants prefer to remain in host country where they have access to unemployment benefits if they lose their job  Value of unemployment benefit higher than minimum wage in Romania

22. European Job Mobility Laboratory 2223-May-11 EURES Working Party ISMERI EUROPA Government policies towards migrants in Spain and Italy  In Spain, entitlement to unemployment benefit accompanied by access to free health care  Spanish Government organised access to database on vacancies in Romania – informing migrants of job possibilities should they decide to return home  But no financial inducement (unlike for those from outside EU) and measures taken in 2009 to restrict entry of family members  In Italy, little Government attempt to assist migrants – access to income support limited, but also applies to non-migrants  Quotas imposed on migrant workers in sensitive sectors – in manufacturing but not domestic service or healthcare  Many migrants becoming self-employed and starting up businesses in response to lack of jobs – rise from 28,000 to 48,000 in Romanian-owned firms in 2010.

23. European Job Mobility Laboratory 2323-May-11 EURES Working Party ISMERI EUROPA Situation in Poland and Slovakia  In both countries, marked reduction in outflows during recession  In Poland, returnees predominantly those with vocational education  Migrants mostly return to places they left, largely to rural areas and small towns rather than big cities - greater chance of maintaining themselves in subsistence farming  Returnees can claim unemployment benefits from countries where they worked – though admin problems in doing so  In Poland, Govt. policy of attracting back migrants and providing support, especially at local level – policy targeted at professionals especially  In Slovakia, number of migrants rising again despite recovery – but more to Nordic countries than UK or Ireland – higher wages + easier access to benefits. 