sociological survey report

European Union External ActionGrant 2010 / 228-991

This project is funded byThe European Union

A project implemented byHilfswerk Austria International

SOCIOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT

SURVEY ON THE INFLUENCE OF MIGRATION OVER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

(IN THE VISION OF HOUSEHOLDS OF THE FORMER COUNTRY OF ORHEI)

Hilfswerk Austria International

Center of Sociological Investigations andMarketing Research „CBS-AXA”

SoCIologICAl SuRvey RepoRt

SuRvey on tHe InfluenCe of MIgRAtIon oveR CoMMunIty

developMent in the vision of households of the former Country of orhei

Valeriu Mosneaga and Veaceslav Batrinescu

Report produced within the project „Remittances Developing Moldovan Communities” implemented by Hilfswerk Austria International in partnership with the National Assistance and Information

Centre for NGOs in Moldova – CONTACT with financial support of European Union.

The views expressed in this publication belong exclusively to authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.

This project is funded by the European Union

Delegation of The European Union to Republic of Moldova

12 Kogalniceanu Street,Chisinau, MD-2001, Republic of Moldova

Tel.: (+373 22) 50 52 10 Fax: (+373 22) 27 26 22

A project implemented by Hilfswerk AustriaInternational

85 Alexandru cel Bun Street,Chişinău, MD-2012,Republica Moldova

Tel.: (+373 22) 21 25 41Fax: (+373 22) 21 25 54

2

Sociological Survey report

Contents:

CHAPTER I. IMPACT OF LABOUR MIGRATION IN MOLDOVA (overview based on previous research)

1.1. Introduction 41.2. Main Effects of the Impact of International Labour Migration 61.2.1. Remittances, Material Welfare of Migrants and of Their Families, Social-Economic Development Prospects of the Country 61.2.2. Employment Level of the Population and Labour Market Development 111.2.3. Demographic Structure (Age, Gender, Ethnicity, Education and Qualification, Territorial Dispersion) of the Population 161.2.4. Socially Vulnerable Layers of the Population 191.2.4.1. Children 191.2.4.2. The elderly 211.3. Moldova’s Policy on Workforce Migration 22

CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGY 2.1. Sampling methodology 25

CHAPTER III. GENERAL ATTITUDES REGARDING MOLDOVA 3.1. Opportunities and conditions in the Republic of Moldova 263.1.1. Work/employment opportunities in Moldova 263.1.2. Favourable conditions for creating a family in Moldova 263.1.3. Investment opportunities in Moldova 263.2. Stringent problems for Moldova today 263.3. Living standards over the last two years 273.4. Migration’s contribution to the development of Moldova 283.4.1. Important things that Moldovan migrants can do in order to contribute to the development of Moldova 283.4.2. Negative impact (influence) of emigration over Moldova 293.4.3. Positive impact (influence) of emigration over Moldova 29

CHAPTER IV. COMMUNITY ASPECTS 4.1. Community aspects for the last five years 304.1.1. Aspects that deteriorated in the society over the last five years 304.1.2. Aspects that improved in the community for the last five years 304.1.3. Social-economic conditions in the community over the last five years 304.2. Solved community problems 304.2.1. Population’s cooperation towards solving community problems 304.2.2. Participation of migrants in solving community problems 314.2.3. Population’s contribution to community projects over the last three years 31

CHAPTER V. MIGRATION 5.1. Situation of Moldovan migrants 335.1.1. Number of migrants and their destination 335.1.2. Fields of work of Moldovan migrants abroad 335.1.3. Social-demographic characteristics of migrants 335.1.4. Migrants’ intentions for the future 34

CHAPTER VI. REMITTANCES FROM MIGRANTS 6.1. Money transfers from abroad 356.2. Donations by migrants 35

3


CHAPTER VII. UTILIZATION OF REMITTANCES 7.1. Utilization of money earned abroad 367.1.1. Utilisation of money earned abroad over the last 12 months 367.1.2. Spending remittances in the following 12 months 367.1.3. Accumulated capital 36

CHAPTER VIII. BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP 8.1. Owning a business or planning to open a business 37

CHAPTER IX. SOCIAL-ECONOMIC SITUATION OF FAMILIES 9.1. Families’ incomes and welfare 38

CONCLUSIONS 39

BIBLIOGRAPHY 41

ANNEX LIST OF TABLES 44

4


CHAPTER I.

IMPACT OF LABOUR MIGRATION IN MOLDOVA (overview based on previous research)

1.1. Introduction

Beginning with the second half the 90s, last century, Moldova witnessed an escalation of the international labour migration. To a great extend, labour migration was a reaction to the difficult social-economic situation in the country. At the same time, it was a reactive individual answer of the population to the efficiency of social and economic reforms. As G.Tapinos said „when a person decides to emigrate, - it is its personal decision, but when the person decides to remain, - it is the trust to the government and market.” (Rodriges Rios 2006: p.65).

International labour migration is the most massive migration of population from the country and is one of the most pressing problems faced by the Republic of Moldova. Figures presented in mass media vary from 340,000 to 1 million persons. According to the census of Moldovan population (November, 2004), about 600,000 of people are involved in the labour migration, or one third of the able to work citizens of Moldova (Population Census, 2004). Currently, according to the World Bank data, labour migration in Moldova implies over 700,000 persons, which is half of the able to work population of the country (Moldova 2011: p.60).

Moldova is located at the crossroads of two regional migration systems: European (EU) and post-Soviet (CIS). Russia is the major attraction among the CIS countries (Moscow and Moscow region). In the European Union, the main attraction, or “the migrant’s dream country” is Italy. Over the last decade, the role of the European migration system is growing. While the leading tendency of Moldovan labour migration in the past was mainly to the CIS countries, and first of all to Russia, nowadays new vectors of western and south-western labour migration emerged along with the traditional labour migration to the east.

The highest number of Moldovan migrants is registered in Russia (58.2%), Italy (19%), Portugal (5%), Spain, Greece, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Ireland, Cyprus, Romania, Turkey, Israel and Ukraine (Lucke 2009). The main attraction poles for Moldavian migrants are Russia and Italy. Amendments to migration policies in the hosting countries have a direct impact over the number and proportion of migrants in the destination countries. According to the survey, Russia’s share, which is promoting a more liberal migration policy since 2007, increased up to 63%, while Italy’s share, which started tightening its migration policy, decreased down to 14%. Nevertheless, the number of migrants from Moldova to Italy remained the same (Impactul 2009).

A concentration of migrants in big towns is noted. Almost ¾ of all Moldovan migrants are concentrated in 10 cities, as part of the regional migration systems (Moscow, Rome, St.Petersburg, Paris, Lisbon, Venice, Milano, Istanbul, Odessa, Tyumeni) (Lucke 2007: p.26). A division by gender of the host countries is noted: there are countries that are attractive for male migrants (Russia, Ukraine, France, the Czech Republic, Portugal), as well as for female migrants (Italy, Turkey, Spain, Greece, etc).

The 2008-2010 crisis showed that a mass return of Moldovan labour migrants to the country is not taking place. Expert S.Sainciuc (Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Family of Moldova, deputy-minister) notes that “the weekly number of labour migrants, who have requested to return to Moldova in all diplomatic and consular institutions of our country abroad, was of about one hundred people” (Mosneaga 2010: p.14).

Surveys carried out by the Research Center CASE-Moldova (July-November 2008) and by CBS AXA (December 2009) in rural areas showed that migrant workers do not plan to return to the country, even in the case of a

5


dramatic cut in their salaries, and will continue sending money to their relatives in Moldova. Expert E. Hristev (Research Center CASE-Moldova): „Our Center has performed a sociological survey on migration in rural areas (July-November 2008). We asked respondents, both migrants and members of migrants’ families, what wage would make people stay in the country, rather than going to work abroad, and would make migrants return home to work. Members of migrants’ families said that with a wage of 500-600 dollars, the potential migrant would remain to work in the country. Migrants themselves say they would return home only for an income of 700-800 dollars” (Mosneaga 2011: p.228-229).

Expert N.Vladicescu (sociological investigations company CBS-AXA): „Migrants say that at present, under the economic crisis conditions, it is more difficult to find a job than it was two years ago. Moldovan migrants, working in the European Union, say they are not going to return home, even if their wage is reduced by 20-30% (from 1,500 down to 1,000 euro, or from 800 down to 500 euro). As even in this situation, their wage will still be higher than the wage they could earn in Moldova.

Both migrants and their families (recipients of remittances) will reduce the cost of their consumption should their incomes decrease. At the same time, migrants say they will not reduce money transfers for the current needs of their families in Moldova (Mosneaga 2011: p.226-227).

Monitoring surveys, carried out by CBS AXA in 2008-2009, show that this trend is not changing. People continue hoping and still are willing to work abroad. More than that, in crisis times, these aspirations of people are getting a new impulse.

Speaking about prospects of the work force migration from Moldova, we want to draw the attention to answers by the employable respondents (20-55 years) to the question: “Why don’t you plan to leave abroad for a job in the near future?” Only 40% of respondents gave a clear answer: „I have no reasons to emigrate” (36%), “sufficient incomes” (7%). The remaining respondents expressed their will to leave, but they also mentioned some constraints making them stay in Moldova: “I don’t want to leave my family” (26%), “migration is expensive” (13%), “it is difficult to find a job” (7% ), “I have to carry out agricultural works” (6%), others (5%).

Fig. 1. “Why Aren’t you Planning to Leave Abroad for a Job in the Near Future?”PICTURE 1. “WHY AREN’T YOU PLANNING TO LEAVE ABROAD FOR A JOB IN THE NEAR FUTURE?”

I have no reasons to emigrate

Su�cient incomes

I don’t want to leave my family

Migration is expensive

It is di�cult to �nd a job

I have to carry out agricultural works

Others

40%

7%

7%

6%5%

26%

13%

6


We note that the labour force migration study in Moldova started at the end of the 90s last century. So far, a large amount of empiric and analytical data on the migration of Moldova’s population were collected. Apart from statistical yearbooks with extended rubrics on migration, Moldova is also publishing the specialized collection “Workforce Survey,” containing the results of empiric sociological surveys, carried out on a quarterly basis by the National Bureau of Statistics on a representative sample at the national level. A significant part of this collection reflects the social-demographic profile of the labour migration from Moldova.

Sociological surveys on labour migration, with the application of the whole spectrum of empiric sociology (questionnaires, in-depth interviews of respondents, of experts, focus-groups, content analysis) are carried out in Moldova from the beginning of the 21st century. The following structures have accumulated a wide experience in performing researches on the labour migration: sociological investigations companies, like CBS AXA, CIVIS, sociological structures from the State University of Moldova (departments of Sociology and Social Assistance, International Relations, Political and Administrative Sciences). Moldova also has the experience of monitored sociological surveys (CBS AXA - 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2009). Surveys are funded by international organizations (International Labour Organization, International Organization for Migration, World Bank, UNICEF, and others). From 2004, the Barometer of Public Opinion, performed twice a year since 1998, contains questions regarding the workforce migration.

The labour migration issue has been also approached in researches by the academic community. The labour migration phenomenon is being studied by representatives of several social sciences. Specialists are studying various aspects of the labour migration (positive and negative effects, remittances, employment, demographic (gender, age, profession, territorial-regional and ethnic aspects), social-psychological and cultural data, linguistic aspects of migration, exodus of qualified labour, the youth, legal and social protection of migrant workers, return and reintegration, situation of socially-vulnerable groups (children, elderly), policy on labour migration, etc..

It looks like the accumulated material is sufficient to switch from the analysis of external effects of labour migration to the analysis of internal changes in the Moldovan reality, conditioned by the impact of international labour migration at the contemporary stage. Naturally, such a switch supposes an appropriate context, the change and identification of goals, to be set up for the sociological surveys that will provide with the needed data for an empiric analysis.

1.2. Main Effects of the Impact of International Labour Migration

International labour migration from Moldova has a diverse social and political impact over the population and situation in the country. Below we will analyse the most significant effects.

1.2.1. Remittances, Material Welfare of Migrants and of Their Families, Social-Economic Development Prospects of the Country

Principalul efect pozitiv sînt remitenţele migranţilor în ţara de origine (Moşneaga 2006). Transferul de bani înspre Moldova se realizează atît prin canale oficiale, cît şi neoficiale. Transferurile migranţilor de muncă moldoveni sînt suficient de mari, iar volumul lor creşte an de an.

The increase in remittances has a positive effect on the development and strengthening of the banking system. This has an important role in the money transfer to Moldova. Surveys show that the majority of commercial banks’ clients (migrants) send money home via the fast money transfer system.

In the opinion of some researchers, migration of the workforce, which is not used in the country, is in fact absolving Moldova from the internal unemployment problem. (Vaculovschi 2009).

7


Table 1. Dynamics of Remittances in Moldova, 1998-2011, (USD mln)

Year Total Through fast money transfer % of GDP

1999 89,62 52,21 9,32000 152,94 101,77 12,32001 211,99 140,08 15,12002 254,12 161,35 16,52003 317,76 176,05 23,52004 412,70 226,18 27,12005 683,24 497, 84 31,72006 854,55 628,61 38,22007 1218,30 919,71 36,22008 1612,12 1386,17 30,82009 1182,02 982,23 30,82010 1244,14 1072,24 29,82011 1453,79 1276,61 30,3

Source: National Bank of Moldova (www.bnm.md)

Remittances allow maintaining social stability in the country, reducing social conflict tensions. Since the early 90s of the last century, basically there were no manifestations of social conflicts due to material problems of the population in Moldova (Zavtur 2000, Moraru 2012). At the same time, the decrease in the economic potential and living standards was significant.

Labour migration and funds originating from abroad have a positive influence over the social structure of Moldova, increasing numerically the middle class, and hence, reducing the number of the poor and very poor people (Population 2000). The social statute of the migrant worker is improving in Moldovan communities, thanks to his/her professional qualifications and developments, his/her authority and influence in the decision-making process in the community is also growing, along with the “crediting of neighbours,” and woman’s role in the family, etc. (Postolachi 2007).

The financial situation of households with members involved in the labour migration is in a more favourable position. They have more opportunities to avoid the risk of a social transformations period. M.Orozko, in his survey on savings of the Moldovan population, has concluded that savings of over 500 US dollars are available in 8% of households without labour migrants, and in 29% of households with labour migrants (Orozko 2007: p 0.4).

Table 2. Financial Situation of Households Depending on the Presence on Labour Migrants, %

Category Period Very good Good Difficult Very difficult No answer

FoodBefore migration 1,6 57,1 34,3 5,6 1,4After migration 7,4 71,6 18,5 1,0 1,5

HousingBefore migration 1,6 52,1 38,2 6,3 1,9After migration 4,7 70,4 21,5 1,6 1,8

ClothingBefore migration 1,1 46,9 45,0 5,3 1,7After migration 4,5 68,1 24,3 1,4 1,7

HealthBefore migration 1,6 50,7 38,3 7,6 1,8After migration 2,8 57,6 33,2 4,7 1,7

EducationBefore migration 1,9 47,4 35,5 4,6 10,6After migration 3,3 60,1 20,8 1,8 14,0

EntertainmentBefore migration 1,0 31,8 46,7 12,9 7,5After migration 2,3 47,3 35,6 7,1 7,7

Surveys showed that in 2/3 of the total households, with migrant workers among their members, the material situation is mainly based on remittances. The contribution of the migrant worker, through remittances, to

8


the household’s budget is significant (65% or more). In the case of one third of households, the contribution of the migrant worker exceeds 85% of the family budget.

Table 3. Contribution of the Migrant Worker to the Material Welfare of his/her Family

Contribution of the migrant worker to the material welfare of his/her family % of households

Up to 15% 6,4From 15 to 35% 7,7From 35 to 65% 17,5From 65 to 85% 33,6Over 85% 34,8

Source: Ghencea (2005)

It is difficult to establish now the proportion of migrants’ capital to businesses in Moldova, but definitively a good part of the almost 50,000 micro, small- and medium-sized enterprises (National 2011) was set up based on the money earned abroad.

“One of the reasons we left abroad was to ensure a future for our daughters. We have built a nice house for them. When we started the construction, we tried to take into account the Italian experience: architecture and layout of the house, infrastructure, bathroom, bedrooms. Construction materials were purchased in Italy and transported to Moldova, as we wanted a house of good quality. My husband, during the holiday period, personally supervised the workers, to make sure they do their work conscientiously. We paid them well. We have employed skilled workers, Moldovans, with work experience abroad, either Italy or Spain. Moldovan builders are often working so-so, and after them, the owner has to fix a lot.

We have built a two-level house, with two separate entrances. Our daughters live together, in the same yard, and separately, at the same time, each in her own house…

But the house was only part of what we were planning to do. We also had to contribute, to help them open a business. The state does not provide them with a job. And even if it does, wages are low. Working in a state-run enterprise is dangerous, there are no guarantees. Today you have a job, tomorrow you may be fired. There is no protection either. While owning a business means having a piece of bread. Don’t be lazy, work consciously and you will have clients, revenue and profit.

My daughters are tailors, hence, at the family council, we have decided to open a tailor’s shop in our town. There used to be a tailor’s shop in the downtown in the Soviet era. I don’t really remember well. Then everything became unprofitable, useless. The state forgot about this shop. The walls were demolished. There were weeds everywhere and the place was shabby.

Together with my husband we bought this piece of land, have cleared it and build a construction for the future tailor’s shop. Today this is a beautiful building, in the downtown, a convenient place for the people. This is a European style construction. Any business hosted in this building is a guaranteed success. But villagers have understood this only when we have build the tailor’s shop for our daughters.

People understood now this is a profitable business. At present, this is a busy place. However, when this place was shabby, there were not so many people willing to buy that piece of land. We have been asked to sell or to rent it for another business. These people have offered us a lot of money, but we have refused the offer. It’s not good to have several offices in one building. People will not even notice the tailor’s shop of my daughters.” (Aurica, 60, secondary specialized education (nurse), Alexandru, 60, secondary specialized

9


education (zootechnician), labour migrants to Italy, 12 years).

„I am a migrant worker for more than 11 years… I returned home now… Actually, I am a zootechnician. I like very much my profession. I like looking after animals. Now at least I will come back to my vocation. I returned to Moldova in September and set up my household, made up of 150 geese and other animals (sheep, cows, rabbits). I want to increase the number of the poultry up to 300, and to have good animal breeds. And everything will be ok. I have the experience, the will and the knowledge.” (Alexei, 61, higher education (zootechnician), migrant worker to Spain, back home in 2010).

Of course, not everyone in the village likes this external easiness of starting up a business. Our empiric observations suggest that non-migrants are already manifesting envy (although still unique cases) of the wellbeing of the migrant workers, we are already witnessing confrontations between the poor non-migrants and rich migrant workers. We have to mention that the international labour migration, remittances contribute not only to improving the material welfare of migrant workers and of their families, but also to increasing the social layering between migrants and their families, on one hand, and non-migrants and their families, on the other hand.

The poverty level in the country started decreasing, thanks to remittances. If in 1999, as many as 73% of the population were living under the poverty level, now this figure has decreased significantly: about 33% (2007) of Moldova’s population lives under the poverty level (World Bank 2009).

Experience of other countries shows that Moldova, in this regard, is not an innovator, but is rather developing according to existing world trends. Spending money for food is a typical phenomenon in poor countries, including Moldova. Providing decent conditions for existence, maintaining households in order is a normal answer, a reaction to the difficult living conditions. Thanks to the labour migration, to the money earned abroad, people and their households can survive.

An analysis of the distribution of money received from abroad within the household shows that in the poor families, the largest share of remittances is spent on food. Part of the money is spent to satisfy “development needs”: education, health, tourism, purchase of goods used to improve the level of information, knowledge, develop capacities of people (computer, information and communication services), to start-up or develop a business (Management 2008). Doing business is not just about opening a market or a production workshop. Borrowing money for migration purposes is also a business, an investment. Moreover, we have noticed that it is quite demanded and excludes formal relations with the state, with civil servants.

Table 4. Distribution of Remittances in Households

Categorii de cheltuieli %

Food, clothing 43,1Utilities/Maintenance 18,2Household goods (without home appliance) 17,2Reparation of the house/flat 15,3Education (to pay the contract) 12,8Therapy 12,5Pay off debts 11,7Pay off debts related to the travel 10,4For agricultural works 10,5Savings for the “rainy days” 8,5Bank accounts 1,6

Source: Transferuri (2004)

10


Below is a description of plans on how to spend the earned money in the nearest future as well as during the current year.

Table 5. Plans on the Distribution of Remittances over “the following 12 months”

Categorii de cheltuieli „AMF-2004” %

„OIM-2004”Primarypriority

%

Secondarypriority

%Pay off debts 8,3 11,8 5,1Current expenditures (food, clothing, services, etc) 21,7 45,4 21,7

Specific expenditures (education, health, purchase expensive goods, to lend money, etc)

20,0 (bani împru-mutaţi – 4,2)

10,6 24,6

Household investments (purchase a vehicle, real estate, reparation works in the apartment/house, weddings, funerals, bank deposits)

22, 0 15,5 22,8

Investments in production (acquisition of land plots, trucks and agricultural machinery, poultry, animals) 6,5 1,5 4,8

Others 0,7 0,2Savings (bank deposits) 20,7 - -Did not answer 9,8 2,4

Source: Transferuri (2004), Ghencea (2005)

It shall be mentioned that a significant part of the money earned by migrant workers is spent on the education of their children and medical treatment. On short term, these expenditures can be considered as consumption. But on long term, they are considered as a significant investment in creating and developing the human capital (Kring 2007: p.7). In this approach, the share of investments will be much higher than 6.5% (Ghencea 2005), which are directly oriented to the opening/development of a business by the members of the migrant’s household.

At the same time, we notice that in spite of the high amounts of remittances received from the Moldovan migrants working abroad, direct investments in the social and economic development of Moldova are very low.

According to sociological surveys (Transfers 2004), only 16.8% of respondents intent to accumulate funds received from migrants and to start their own business. For those who see the future of investments in business, the most attractive are the following fields (in order of priority): agriculture, business, transport, bar (booth), acquisition of equipment, entertainment, acquisition of real estate.

Part of the money earned by the migrant workers is directed for the development of the community where migrant workers were born in, live, and from which they have left abroad to work. Sociological surveys found that every 9th migrant worker offers assistance, financial/material support to the church, sports clubs, or financially supports community projects (Sigvardsdotter 2006). However, interviews with representatives of the local public administration showed that these processes do not happen everywhere; in some localities, communities, migrant works play an insignificant role in the local functioning and development (Turcan 2006, Filipov 2009, Hristev 2009).

The social-economic development of the country was gradually oriented towards a model based on the reception and utilization of growing money flows from abroad. This development model, given the changing demographic trends (decrease in the birth rate and ageing of the population in Moldova), has a very high cost. This includes the increase in imports (funded from remittances) up to an extremely unstable level, as well as the strengthening of the national currency, which leads to a lack of competitiveness of exports; moral risks for migrants’ families and for the government, development of the “social orphans” phenomenon - children abandoned by their migrant parents; restructuring of the gender roles within families, communities and country on the whole, destruction of social networks, which have played, over the last years, an important role in reducing poverty. All these lead to an increase in conflicting assessments of economic and

11


social-political consequences of the labour migration (workforce emigration) from Moldova, as well as in the perception of the stability of such a social-economic development model.

The 2008-2010 crisis, along with worsening the money transfers issue, has raised the problem of effectiveness and viability of such a development model of Moldova. The survey (by CBS AXA – 2009) showed that two thirds of respondents have ascertained the decrease in remittances. One of five respondents (20.7%) said he/she stopped receiving remittances after the crisis (World 2009).

The assessment by the World Bank experts showed that the decrease in remittances has a direct impact over the increase in the poverty level. A simple simulation shows that a decrease in remittances by 50% leads to an increase in the poverty level by 1.2% per year; while in rural areas the decline reaches 1.6%.

Fig. 2. Estimated Direct Impact of Decreases in Remittances on Poverty Rates in Moldova (percent)

Source: World (2009)

The decrease in remittances affects in various ways the increase in consumption per different social groups. For the poorest, this decrease is of 7%, while for the rich people, this decrease is of 2.7% only (World 2009).

According to the World Bank representatives to Moldova M.Marlett, “The world financial and economic crisis showed that Moldova should develop another economic development model” (Mosneaga 2010: p.14).

There is absolutely no doubt that the current crisis was like a warning, which has revealed the fragility of the existing model of social and economic development model of Moldova. We shall mention, however, that transition to another model, particularly to a sustainable economic and social development one, is unlikely. Also, it is unlikely for Moldova to independently achieve this transition.

1.2.2. Employment Level of the Population and Labour Market Development

Over the 20 years of transition, the employment level of the population decreased, though insignificantly. At the same time, the workforce supply increased significantly, as a result of mass layoff, due to the privatisation process and extended economic crisis in the 90s of the last century. It shall be mentioned that growing prospects of the national economy potential are not expected. At the same time, the official unemployment rate is of about 2% - extremely reduced for an economy in crisis. Under these conditions, the largest part of the workforce unemployed in Moldova (not registered with the employment offices), is earning its living either in the underground economy, or by leaving abroad for a job.

25.9 26.1 26.2 26.5 26.9 27.1

18.2 18.3 18.3 18.6 18.7 18.7

31.831.6 32.0 32.3 32.8 33.2

BASE 2007

- 10% - 20% - 30% - 40% - 50%

25

1517192123

2729313335

TotalUrbanRural

12


Practice has shown that migrant workers are even those who are employed in Moldova. The exodus of work force from Moldova searching for an income remains a stringent problem, and quite often it is the only alternative for existence. For the majority of Moldova’s population, a job abroad is the only possibility to run away from the “arms” of the poverty in the country. Unfortunately, the substantial increase in the GDP, remarked 5-6 years before the global crisis (average annual growth was of about 5%), did not stimulate the increase in the workforce demand, and rather led to a decrease in the number of employees in economy (the average annual decrease in the work force employment was 2.4%).

Unfavourable processes on the labour market can be considered as determinants in the international labour migration from Moldova. An analysis of Moldova’s labour market over the last years points out to a constant decrease in the basic indicators of the employment. The public opinion survey carried out by the National Bureau of Statistics points out to a reduction in the number of the economically active population, number of employees and number of wage earners. From 2001 through 2008, the economically active population decreased from 1,616,800 down to 1,302,800 persons.

We note that the employment rate is decreasing together with the reduction of the employment level. The number of the unemployed, calculated following the IOM methodology, decreased over 2001-2008 from 117,700 down to 51,700 persons, and the number of the unemployed registered from the employment offices decreased from 27,600 to 23,200 persons (Vaculovschi 2009).

Under the conditions of the global financial crisis from 2008-2010, the situation on the Moldovan labour market worsened (Vaculovschi 2011a). Surveys showed that because of the crisis, 25% of respondents have lost their jobs (either personally or one of their family members). Under these conditions, the migration potential is growing: every third respondent intends to search for a job abroad or does not know what to do. This figure is even higher, about 50%, among respondents’ family members (Impactul 2009).

Table 6. Possible Actions in Case of Becoming Unemployed, %

Actions Respondent Family member

I am employed 12,4 11,5I look for a job in the locality I live 29,8 21,1I look for a job in another locality in Moldova 20,2 13,3I look for a job abroad 12,4 21,9I apply for the unemployment allowance 4.6 4,7Other actions 4,3 2,2I don’t know; I don’t have an answer 16,5 25,4

Source: Impact (2009)

One of the ways to overcome a difficult situation, conditioned by the loss of the job, is to open a business. The comparative analysis of surveys carried out by CBS AXA in 2008 and 2009 shows that, though the attractiveness of business projects is growing, but, in general, they do not cover the pessimism of those who have lost their jobs and are looking for another job, for means of survival (Impactul 2009, Lucke 2009).

13


Table 7. Intention to Initiate a Business Project, %

Actions CBS AXA – 2008 CBS AXA – 2009

I have my own business 4,0 4,1I have had a business in the past, but I do not intend to start up a new one 1,3 2,9I have had a business in the past and intend to start up a new one 0,6 0,8I had no business in the past, but I do intend to start up a new one 7,6 10,8Number of potential entrepreneurs 12,4 15,5

Source: Impactul (2009)

The comparative analysis has ascertained the will of the former migrant workers to have or to start up a business.

Table 8. Intention of the Former Migrant Workers to Have or to Start up a Business, %

Actions CBS AXA – 2008 CBS AXA – 2009I have my own business 6,8 2,4I have had a business in the past, but I do not intend to start up a new one 2,6 5,2I have had a business in the past and intend to start up a new one 1,7 1,9I had no business in the past, but I do intend to start up a new one 14,5 17,5Number of potential entrepreneurs 23,0 21,8

Source: Impactul (2009)

The question arises, what factors have caused such estimations by the Moldovan population, both of the real and potential entrepreneurs.

Table 9. Problems Faced by Enterprises Over the Last 6 Months, %

Problems %Lower income 50,0Decrease in the sales volume 44,0Increase in the raw material prices 36,1Reduction in the employment level 31,9Decrease in production 31,5Commercial partners are in default 29,5Reduction in the number of employees 28,0Impossibility to pay full salary to employees 27,6Fiscal debts to the state 23,0

Sursa: Impactul (2009)

Assessing the living conditions in crisis times, every second respondent has mentioned that these have worsened and became more difficult. As concerning the possibility to save money, only 30% of respondents managed to save money over the last 6 months. Almost 43% of the questioned persons said they have earned money, but were unable to save money. At the same time, almost one out of four respondents (23.4%) admitted he/she has debts (Impactul 2009).

It shall be mentioned that labour migration has influenced the modification of the labour concept not only as an important social institution, but also as a social-political value of the society and of every person apart.

14


Table 10. Relationship Between the Social Statute and Work Abroad: Horizontal Section, %

If you are unemployed, what is your statute? Have you worked abroad? TotalYes No No answer

Employed 31,6 66,6 1,9 100,0Pupil 0 100,0 0 100,0Student 12,7 87,3 0 100,0Retired person (by age or health condition) 6,6 92,0 1,5 100,0Housewife; child care leave 30,8 68,3 1,0 100,0Temporary unemployed; looking for a job 50,7 47,4 1,9 100,0Unemployed; not looking for a job 51,5 48,5 0 100,0No answer 25,0 58,3 16,7 100,0Total 29,5 69,0 1,6 100,0Number of respondents 339 793 18 1150

Source: Barometrul (http://www.ipp.md)

Table 11. Relationship Between the Social Statute and Work Abroad: Vertical Section, %

If you are unemployed, what is your statute?Have you worked abroad?

Yes No No answerEmployed 35,1 31,7 38,9Pupil 0 1,0 0Student 2,4 6,9 0Retired person (by age or health condition) 5,3 31,8 22,2Housewife; child care leave 9,4 9,0 5,6Temporary unemployed; looking for a job 31,3 12,5 22,2Unemployed; not looking for a job 15,6 6,3 0No answer 9 9 11,1Total 100,0 100,0 100,0Altogether 1,150 respondents 339 793 18

Source: Barometrul (http://www.ipp.md)

Table 12. Age, Social Statute and Experience of Working Abroad Relation, %

1 2If you have worked abroad, what was your statute?

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TotalYes 18-20 50,0 0 0 0 12,5 25,0 12,5 100,0No 18-20 5,5 12,7 52,7 1,8 7,3 12,7 7,3 100,0Yes 21-30 21,2 0 7,7 0 18,3 30,8 21,2 1,0 100,0No 21-30 34,2 6 15,5 6 18,0 21,7 6,2 3,1 100,0Yes 31-40 48,0 0 9,0 33,0 10,0 0 100,0No 31-40 49,1 3,4 19,0 20,7 6,9 9 100,0Yes 41-50 40,6 1,6 3,1 34,4 20,3 100,0No 41-50 53,8 10,4 9,4 18,9 7,5 100,0Yes 51-60 36,0 0 16,0 2,0 30,0 12,0 4,0 100,0No 51-60 42,2 6 33,1 3,6 7,8 12,0 6 100,0Yes 61 and more 7,1 64,3 0 21,4 7,1 100,0No 61 and more 4,2 95,2 5 0 0 100,0

Nota: 1 – You have worked abroad; 2 – Age (years); 3 – Working; 4 – Pupil; 5 – Student; 6 – Retired person (by age or health condition); 7 - Housewife, child care leave; 8 – Temporary unemployed, looking for a job; 9 - Unemployed, not looking for a job; 10 – No Answer

Source: Barometrul (2011)

15


Moldovan citizens who have worked abroad have a different vision regarding work, employment, employment level on the internal labour market, as compared to the people without such an experience. This can be noticed in the fact that they are more actively looking for a job and are employed. Also, this is confirmed by data from tables 1-3 (positions “employed,” “temporarily unemployed, looking for a job”), which show the relation between the age of people, social statute in Moldova and experience of work abroad.

Hence, among the employed ones, the percentage of persons with work experience abroad is higher, than among those who do not have such an experience. At the same time, among those who “are temporarily unemployed and are looking for a job” the percentage of persons with experience of migration is by 2.5-fold higher, than among the non-migrants. Also, we note the “unemployed, not looking for a job” position. For this position, the number of migrant workers is by 2.5-fold higher than of the non-migrants. There is no doubt that this group may also include those who have returned home for a rest, or for some medical treatment…

However, there are also other situations, worth to be considered. Persons with the work experience abroad become “capricious” on the national labour market. They do not accept any jobs. Unlike their countrymen, who did not work abroad, they compare with the situation from the countries they have worked in. They are looking for an esteemed and well paid job. “...Larisa, her husband and son Andrei returned to Moldova. They live in Chisinau, in their own flat. Their daughter remained in Portugal, she is an opera singer.

Andrei goes to school. The husband does not work. However, he has a lot of activities/occupations. He meets with his relatives in his native village. He makes wine. In general, he is happy with his life.

As for Larisa, the reintegration process is not simple. She is looking for a job for two months already. A wage of 2,000 lei (less than 200 US dollars) does not satisfy her, compared with 1,000 euro she used to earn in Portugal by working in two jobs. She yearns for the life in Portugal, for her job there, for her incomes, friends, communication circle, for that life style” (Larisa, 45, secondary professional education (public food technologist), Andrei 46, secondary education (driver), labour migrants to Portugal, 12 years).

For them, work in terms of cost is a value, something that we do not remark at their countrymen, who estimate their professional experience following the reality in Moldova. While abroad, they have received another work experience, another quality and remuneration. And they do not want to lose, to replace or to reduce down to the level of the work force in Moldova that experience and cost of the work.

“I am watching how our Moldovans do work here: they have smoking breaks, they pretend they are working. Therefore they are not well paid. Yes, I am asking a lot for my labour. If compared to Moldovan standards. But according to European standards, this is normal. This is not greed. This is a normal salary. I work fast and well. What they do in one month, I will do in 3-4 days. I don’t need to be supervised by a master … to hurry me. I appreciate my time and my labour. And I want a normal pay for my work. If I cannot find such a job here, I will leave to work abroad. I spent 10 years working in constructions in Spain, in Portugal … I know how to work, I know their requirements (western requirements). My labour was appreciated there.

Of course, for a Moldovan employer working with me is more difficult than working with local people. On one hand, he has to pay me a better salary (according to Moldovan standards). On the other hand, he cannot cheat me, by telling me, well, today my supplier did not deliver the tile, or the brick, mortar… He has to provide me with appropriate working conditions… I am not going to wait until his supplies are delivered. Local people can wait and do nothing while waiting. But in this case, they will not be paid a salary for these days” (Nicolae, 39, constructor).

16


At the same time, let us compare the attitude of another respondent, who, also, has the experience of work abroad. Although he worked in Italy for 1.5 years, he kept his Moldovan mindset and attitude towards work, which makes him to be closer to Moldovan workers who have not been abroad, who live and work in the Moldovan reality. And this suits them.

“I have worked in Italy for a year and a half, and returned home half a year ago. I will never go to work in Italy again, nor in other country… I was a worker at a factory. We were working eight hours in a row. For a salary of 1,350 euro. In some of the months, for example, in August, I earned 2,000 and even more. In August, many people take holidays, hence there are fewer workers at the factory and I had the possibility to earn more. It’s true that the work was very difficult. I had pains in all my body, although I am a physically strong and trained man, and practiced sports for all my life, and even worked as a trainer at the university, the physical education chair.

So, the work was the first reason why I returned home. You see, it’s better to live home, in Moldova. Maybe we do not have high salaries here, but work is easier here, it is possible to buy time… I am not a dray horse, to dedicate myself body and mind to the work at the factory. Of course, they have a lot of devices, aiming to ease the work (by the way, I brought several such devices), but for one thousand euro one has to work hard.” (Anatol, 51, physical education teacher).

1.2.3. Demographic Structure (Age, Gender, Ethnicity, Education and Qualification,

Territorial Dispersion) of the Population

At the initial stage, representatives of national minorities were more active in the labour migration. Today, migration involves representatives of all ethnic groups, including the titular nation (Turcan, 2000). We note that, except for Transnistria and Gagauzia, the vector in the international labour migration is, particularly, Russia and Turkey, respectively other regions and zones of the Republic of Moldova, and the ethnic/linguistic component does not determine the migrating behaviour of the population. Social networks, presence of family members, of people from the same village, or friends in the respective country, play an important role in selecting the destination country in the international work migration. This fact is reflected in the gender orientation and destination selection in the international work migration of some entire communities.

Tableul 13. Demographic Indexes of Moldovan Work Migrants (over 15 years),

Who Left to Work Abroad in 2010 (thousands)

In total 15-24 years 25-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 55-64 yearsIn total (thsnd persons) 311,0 69,7 102,2 68,6 58,3 12,2

Town (urban) 90,6 12,3 31,7 19,7 20,9 5,9Village (rural) 220,5 57,3 70,5 48,9 37,3 6,4

Men 198,0 51,6 70,3 40,0 29,7 6,3Women 113,0 18,1 31,9 28,6 28,5 5,9

Education

Higher 33,3 4,7 15,9 4,2 6,3 2,2Secondary specialised 40,7 4,1 8,3 12,8 12,5 3,0

Secondary professional 79,5 13,4 20,9 23,9 18,0 3,2

Lyceum, general school 79,4 16,7 24,8 19,2 16,1 2,7

Gymnasium 76,2 29,7 31,6 8,5 5,3 0,0Primary or without education 1,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

Source: Biroul (2011)

17


Different groups by age, gender, education and professions participate in the international work migration. The youth and middle age persons are the most active (over 70% under the age of 40, and almost 40% aged 30 years) (Weeks 2005: r.116). The average age of the migrant worker is 35-36 years.

Fig. 3. Distribution of Moldovan Work Migrants by Age Groups (thsnd persons).

Source: Poalelungi (2010)

The analysis of the distribution of people who left abroad for a job, by age, gender and education, shows that migration flows are mainly composed of persons aged 25-34 years – 33.9%, with men prevailing – 63.6% and, also, by persons with secondary, secondary professional and gymnasium education - 75.6%, who, as a rule, perform unqualified jobs that do not required considerable investments in the human capital development. This is explained by the fact that these people can easier find a job on the foreign market, generally, fulfilling unskilled work.

Although most of the migrant workers are males, the proportion of women is high and represents up to one quarter of Moldovan work migrants (Ovsianikov 2006, Vaculovschi 2010). Male work migrants are employed in constructions, transports, industry and agriculture. Most of Moldovans work in constructions – 51%. Migrant women work in the service provision and trade areas; they care for the elderly, sick people, children; also they work as housekeepers and in the sexual services sector. Most of the work migrants do not work by their speciality/profession. However, unlike the Western Europe countries, where the majority of migrant workers do not work by their professions, in Russia, the possibility to be employed according to the education is higher (constructions, agriculture, transport, industry, services, trade).

The work migration involves both qualified specialists and unskilled labour, representatives of the budgetary sector (teachers, engineers, doctors), industry, transport, constructions, agriculture (Rusnak 2007, Brain 2011).

Labour migration to Russia and European Union country differs by time. Moldovan workers plan to work in Russia 5.5 months on the average; but in fact, they spend in Russia an average of 7 months. Moldovan migrants represent the permanent flow of temporary, and even seasonal labour in Russia (Moraru 2012). In the EU member states, the average length of staying exceeds one year (14-16 months).

Surveys among migrants showed that most of the persons who have migrated from Moldova have vocational and gymnasium education (25.5% and 25.6% of the total number of immigrants in 2010). These persons did not achieve themselves (due to the lack of jobs and attractive wages) in the country and have left abroad for a temporary or permanent staying. Besides, most of the youth from the country, who are studying in Russia, Romania and other Westen Europe countries, remain to live and work in those countries. Hence, Moldova, to

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59

thousands persons

18


its own detrimental, becomes a supplier of skilled labour to other countries (Brain 2011).

Given that the qualified labour cannot be fully utilized in the country, and Moldova’s economy is unable to identify a fair utilization and remuneration to it, “the loss of the human capital” can be justified. Hence, the emigration of qualified labour can be appreciated as a way to keep its potential.

At the same time, the degradation of the human capital creates an unbalance negatively affecting the sustainable social-economic development of the country, the future of Moldova.

The workforce in Moldova is more and more selective. When looking for a job in the country, people compare incomes “from here,” in Moldova, and revenues “from there,” outside Moldova. The situation “from there” is mostly prefered. As before, the low salaries in Moldova and the higher wages abroad stimulate the high skilled workers to leave abroad for a permanent or long-term job. For the work resources in Moldova, the phenomenon was a destructive one, and has led to a disqualification of the staff, a fact that is not favourable for the sustainable economic development and brings the professional development issue on the forefront, which, in its turn, is connected to the state budget.

The mass work migration leads to the fact that the country has a chronic shortage of specialists. There are cases when production projects cannot be implemented, or foreign investors are losing any interests in Moldovan economy due to the shortage of skilled workers. The multiplication effect does not take place - there are no direct foreign investments in the production sector, remittances by Moldovan migrants are not used in the economy of the country (Mosneaga 2006).

We have mentioned earlier that 40% of migrant workers are young people under 30. Many of them managed to get the legal stay and work status in the host country and remain abroad for a permanent living, they are take their children with them. This process escalated in the first half of the 2000. According to unofficial data, over the period of 2003-2004, about 100,000 children were issued passports. In 2004, Moldovan authorities issued by 2.5 fold more passports than in 2003. It is obvious that most of them leave Moldova for a permanent living in the migration country of their parents. This fact is worsening the demographic situation in Moldova.

Sociological surveys show that modern labour migration processes are affecting the entire Moldovan society, all localities in the country. The largest part of migrants originate from villages or small towns. As a result, migration of persons looking for a job from rural areas is more intense than from urban areas, and in 2010 it accounted for 70.9% of all emigrants (Национальное 2011).

Work migration contributes to changing the social-demographic situation the country, particularly in the rural environment. Currently, a locality, where, like in the war times, there are no men able to work, became a frequent phenomenon. At the same time, in some villages, particularly in the south, there are situations not less dangerous, when there are no employable women at all. Women work abroad: in the rural area, at weddings, men dance with men (Moraru 2012).

Work migration is changing the patriarchal model in the family. Migration supports the family from the material point of view, but destroys it from the moral aspect. Persons, family members are getting estranged from each other (Gagauz 2006, Savelieva 2009, Enachi 2010). A consequence of this situation is the frequent divorces.

By working abroad, in an attempt to earn more and send the money to their families in Moldova, work migrants are saving at the expense of their health, food, living conditions, safety. Quite often there are cases when migrants die abroad, or when they suffer from accidents at work or they are falling ill. Hence, the

19


“health threshold” of migrants from Moldova, and of all migrants, in general, is decreasing (Zimmermann 2006).

Trafficking in human beings for the sexual exploitation of women and children, trade of human organs, is another negative consequence of the work migration. Unfortunately, Moldova, along with Albania and Romania, is one of the unsafest countries in Europe, by this indicator (Zubco, 2008). We shall note that sexual migration, either voluntary or involuntary, leads to a reduction in the moral threshold of the population, to the moral rehabilitation of prostitutes’ labour, being identified in the public opinion as an “ordinary” human activity.

We see that international work migration, in general, emphasises the contradiction between economic benefits and social costs of migration (destruction of families, worsening of health condition, departure of the youth and of the skilled labour, deterioration of the country’s human potential). Socially vulnerable and weakly protected layers of the population, particularly children and the elderly, left unsupervised by their parents/children, relatives and the state, became a common phenomenon.

1.2.4. Socially Vulnerable Layers of the Population

1.2.4.1. Children

According to data by the Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Family (2011), households with children represent 37.8% of the total households in Moldova. Of them, 57.2% are in rural areas, where 53.3% are households with one child; 35.6% - with two children, and 11.1% - with three and more children. An average household counts 4.1 persons: in towns - 3.8 persons, in rural areas - 4.4 persons. At the same time, 5% of families are single-parent families. In 2010, 24.2% of children (188,600) were living in absolute poverty conditions, and 1.9% (14,800) in extreme poverty conditions. The same indicators for the entire population represent 21.9% and 1.4%, respectively.

Table 14. Dynamics of Absolute Poverty Indicators Among Children, %2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

All population 30,2 25,8 26,4 26,3 22,9All children 32,8 27,3 27,2 28,3 24,2Children from towns 25,6 18,1 13,9 12,8 9,8Children from villages 37,0 33,0 34,9 37,7 33,0

Source: Ministerul (2011)

Poverty level among children depends on the number of children in the household: 18.8% of households with one children are poor; 21.5% of households with two children are poor; 36.8% of households with three children are poor; 28.8% of families where three generations (grandparents, parents, children) are poor; 20.8% of families with both parents are children are poor. And 19.7% of one-parent families are poor (Sandu 2011: p.13).

Hence, the presence of children in the household is one of the important factors stimulating the work migration in Moldova. Migration level is higher in families with children. Every fifth family with children has a migrant worker among its members. At the same time, the national indicator is this regard is slightly lower – every seventh family has a migrant member. Approximately 17% of all children live in families with migrant workers among the members. At the same time, these households are described as follows: migrant-mother (60% of households); migrant-father (30% of households); both parents are migrant workers (10% of households) (Sandu 2011: p. 11-12).

International work migration contributes to the material prosperity of families, it reduces the poverty risk. For example, among families where both parents are home, 27% are poor. Among families where the father

20


is a migrant worker, 14% are poor; and mother – 9.4% are poor. Only 3.6% of families where both parents are migrant workers are poor (Sandu 2011: p.13).

It’s not surprising that the number of children, growing in families with one or even both parents working abroad, is increasing. Children are left to be looked after by their grandparents (Studiul, 2010, Cheianu-Andrei 2011), but often they are left to be looked after by neighbours or the “street”. According to UNICEF data and data by the Child Rights Information and Documentation Centre, in 2005, because of migration, Moldova counted about 200,000 minors left alone or being brought up by one parent.

Tableul 15. Number of Children Left Alone or Brought up by One Parent as a Result of Migration, %

2000 2005 Without both parents 2 7Without one parent 18 31Total % 20 38Children 200000

Source: UN (2006)

We believe that today, the number of children without parental care, due to the work migration of parents, did not decrease significantly. The table below presents data on children of migrant workers, of school age, brought up without one or both parents.

Table 16. School Age Children (7-18) Whose Parents Are Working Abroad

2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 1st trimester

Number of school age children, whose parents are working abroad (thsnd) 110,0 94,1 99,5 110,5 84,2

Ratio between the number of these children and total number of children, % 20,1 18,2 20,3 24,0 …

Source: Buciuceanu (2011)

În context regional, potrivit Ministerului Educaţiei al Republicii Moldova, situaţia se prezintă în modul următor: în zona de centru a ţării – mai mult de 40% din elevi sînt copii de muncitori migranţi şi cresc în familii monoparentale (41,5%), în zona de nord – 35,8% şi în zona de sud – 22,7% (Buciuceanu 2011: p. 171).

Conform datelor organizaţiilor neguvernamentale (Alianţa ONG-urilor active în domeniul protecţiei sociale a copilului şi familiei, anul 2008), numărul şcolarilor ai căror părinţi sînt plecaţi la muncă în străinătate a crescut în mod semnificativ. În anul 2006, din această categorie făcea parte fiecare al patrulea şcolar (177000 de copii), în anul 2007 – 200000 de copii (Evaluarea 2009: p. 11).

Astfel, copiii din familiile migranţilor devin o nouă grupă de risc (Cheieanu-Andrei 2011), deoarece cresc fără căldură părintească, educaţie şi sînt cei mai expuşi influenţei străzii, marginalizaţi în plan social, psihologic, moral şi educaţional (Postolachi 2007). Impactul migraţiei asupra sănătăţii copiilor este multidimensional: dezvoltare mentală retardată, dezavantajare emoţională şi psihologică (Cernei-Bacioiu 2010), dezinteres faţă de propria sănătate, risc sporit de accidentare şi de îmbolnăvire, diagnosticare şi tratament medical întîrziate, neglijare a sănătăţii dentare, creştere a bolilor mentale, vulnerabilitate emoţională sporită etc.

Adesea, copiii migranţilor devin victime ale mediului criminal. Potrivit datelor organelor de drept, copiii rămaşi fără îngrijire părintească din cauza migraţiei comit 55-60% din toate infracţiunile. Printre infractorii minori, 18% sînt copii din familii de migranţi (Buciuceanu 2011).

21


Statul îşi propune să ajute copiii din familiile sărace, inclusiv copiii lucrătorilor migranţi. Astfel, prin decizia Guvernului Republicii Moldova (iunie 2010), a fost aprobat Planul Naţional de Acţiuni privind protecţia socială a copiilor rămaşi fără îngrijire părintească pentru anii 2010-2011. Cu toate acestea, în opinia experţilor, acţiunile întreprinse sînt sporadice, de multe ori reducîndu-se doar la colectare de date (Buciuceanu 2011: p. 172).

1.2.4.2. The elderly

The Moldovan society is ageing. If in 2000, the average age of the population was 33.4 years, then in 2010, the average age was 36.3 years. Over the same period, the proportion of children (0-15 years) of the total population decreased from 24.8% down to 18.2%. At the same time, the proportion of old persons (60 years and over), increased from 14.5% to 15.5%. Also, the number of dependants per 100 employees decreased from 65.8 (in 2000) down to 50.1 (in 2010). This fact, according to experts, is due to a decrease in the number of children in the general structure of Moldova’s population (Sandu 2011: p. 12).

According to UNICEF forecasts (2009), Moldova’s population will age rapidly over 2009-2020.

Table 17. Dynamics in the Age Structure of Moldova’s Population for 2009-2020

2009 2012 2020 changes 2009-2020Total of country’s population (thsnd persons) 3,571 3,549 3,456 - 121Children (age 0-17) 773 716 665 - 131Adults (age 18-59) 2,327 2,315 2,161 - 156Retired people (60 and over) 471 519 630 167% of populationChildren (age 0-17) 22 20 19 - 3Adults (age 18-59) 65 65 63 - 2Retired people (60 and over) 13 15 18 5Population, needing social services 418 428 443 23Children (age 0-17) 46 43 40 - 19Adults (age 18-59) 233 232 217 - 17Retired people (60 and over) 139 153 186 47

Source: UNICEF (2009)

In 2011, Moldova counted 512,000 persons aged over 60 years; of them, 62% were living in the rural area, and 60% were women. As many as 25% of them were aged 62-64, and 14% - over 80 years. According to the workforce survey among the economically active population, 5.3% are aged over 60 years. This represents 13% of the total number of persons aged 60 (National 2011).

The elderly, just like children, represent one of the most vulnerable and weakly protected social groups. In comparison with other groups of Moldova’s population, they are the most exposed to the poverty risk. In 2010, as many as 25.6% of the total aged people in the country was living in absolute poverty. Poverty in rural areas is by about two-fold higher than in towns. These indicators were of 31.7% and 16.5%, respectively (Sandu 2011: p.20).

According to the National Bureau of Statistics (2011), 18% of the total number of households in Moldora are made up of aged people only, who are over 65 years, and have a poverty rate of 30%. As many as 36% of households are made up of retired people (aged 57-62 years). Their poverty level is assessed with 28%. About 75% of the poor households with aged members are located in rural areas.

22


Table 18. Dynamics of Absolute Poverty Indicators Among the Elderly, %

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Total population 30,2 25,8 26,4 26,3 22,9Households of retired people 41,8 33,5 37,3 35,6 28,1Households of aged persons (65 years and over) 42,9 37,3 38,2 39,6 30,2

Source: Sandu (2011)

The intensification of international work migration has led to a dramatic reduction in the number of employees on the Moldovan labour market, which, as a result, has led to a decrease in financial flows ensuring the normal functioning of the social welfare system – the main component of the social protection of the elderly. This situation has led to the reduction of possibilities to increase the life quality of the elderly, which would be expressed either in a gradual increase in pensions, or in the development of specific social services, required to satisfy the needs of these categories of persons.

The intensification of the international work migration has led to another phenomenon related to the situation of the elderly, and namely, the increase in the number of helpless aged people, left without the care of their family members. This situation has led in its turn to a sudden increase in the number of applications by the elderly to the social security system, which was unable to cope with this number of demands. And this resulted in a decrease in the quality of social services provided to the elderly.

A sociologic qualitative survey was performed with the support of the Czech Development Agency and the International Organization for Migration, aiming at identifying a list of social services specific for the elderly, left without the care of their family members who are working abroad (Vaculovschi 2011c).

1.3. Moldova’s Policy on Workforce Migration

Being worried by the spread of the work migration by Moldova’s population, aggravated by problems on the national labour market, exhaustion of the demographic, professional and intellectual potential of the country, Moldovan authorities are trying to diminish the effects of these processes, by developing and applying appropriate policies in the workforce migration field.

We shall note that national policy in this area has undergone major amendments, with four main stages that can be identified (Mosneaga 2007).

The first stage (1990-1994) regulated the migration processes characteristic for the Soviet and post-Soviet geopolitical space. Regulation of migration, including work migration, was oriented against immigrants, but it did not contain any provisions regarding Moldova’s population leaving the country. Once the independence was declared, Moldovan authorities were trying to protect the rights of Moldovan citizens who were working or are working outside Moldova, in the CIS countries.

The second stage (1995-2000) is characterized by Moldova’s integration into the migration processes at the global level, and first of all, at the European level. A particularity of this process is that the migration of Moldovan workforce and integration of governmental structures into a single migration area appear as two separate processes, that do not interact.

At the same time, state structures designed to regulate the workforce migration, are rather guided by the priorities of migration oriented towards Europe, taking over and learning from the experience of the European countries as concerning the regulation and control of workforce migration, than on the acuity of the problem of work migration from Moldova. Attempts are made to protect Moldovan legal work migrants

23


abroad (EU).

The third stage (2001-2006) is described by an intense activity and will to promote the image of migration structures internally among the Moldovan population, as well as externally.

With the migration policy, Moldovan authorities try to overcome deficiencies of previous legal approaches and migration regulation practice (Mosneaga 2004). This aims at protecting not only the ones working legally abroad, but also Moldovan illegal workers, in order to help them to legalize their stay. Expert O.Poalelungi (Institute of European Integration and Political Sciences, Academy of Sciences of Moldova): “... They have faced a mass emigration issue. Over 2002-2003, many counsellors proposed to apply the Filipino experience of the workforce export. Others were proposing to follow Russia’s and European Union’s example – to bring workforce, that is to focus on immigration… Moldova did not have a clear concept of “what needs to be done”: to export/import workforce or to accept other models. In 2005, when the first forecast and calculation of Moldova’s population development by 2050 was produced, results showed that we were witnessing a fast rhythm of the depopulation process. Hence, speaking about workforce export in the Filipino version was not serious. So, a series of documents, regulations, focused on ensuring the circulation of the workforce.”

An adjustment of the national legislation to international standards was also carried out over this period.

The fourth stage (from May 2006) was represented through the redesign of fundamental approaches, a switch from a single migration policy to a diversity of policies on migration, providing multiple protection mechanisms of Moldovan work migrants, within the context of the “Eastern neighbourhood” with the EU (Moraru 2012). The main activity field is the use of migration for the social-economic development of Moldova. In this context, the migration policy is considered an integral part of the social policy. The economic recovery of the state is one of the important directions in reducing international work migration of Moldova’s population (Programme “Rebirth of Economy is Rebirth of the Country”).

The main source of direct investments in the country’s economy should come from remittances of Moldovan work migrants, who should be stimulated to invest in local projects, in community development (Programme “Moldovan Village,” “More than fighting against poverty: Develop an institutional and law structure of the regulatory framework for the use of transfers to develop entrepreneurship in Moldova.”) For this purpose, it is important and necessary to inform the population, migrant workers regarding the benefits of bank transfers by migrants and benefits of bank accounts (2007-2008).

Another policy in the migration field is about setting up the visa-free regime with the European Union (2010) as a basis for the return of work migrants to Moldova (Peru-Balan 2011). Close cooperation with the European Union in the migration and security, mobility and return areas. Dealing/tackling aspects related to the workforce migration, taking into account the needs of the internal market, in order to ensure the social integration of immigrants.

Moldova continues undertaking actions towards the development of bilateral and multilateral cooperation with the destination countries, conclusion of agreements in the workforce migration and migrants’ rights protection fields (Poalelungi 2010). Expert E.Buracec (Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Family, head of the Migration Policy Department): “Ensuring migration on legal grounds is an imperative of the migration policy. In this context, conclusion of agreements in the workforce migration field is essential for ensuring the rights of migrants and improvement of their social status. At the same time, agreements provide mechanisms for the management of migration flows, which makes the process to be manageable and predictable. Not less important is the need to inform potential migrants on the legal emigration, which in fact helps reducing the number of illegal migrants, as well as eliminates the trafficking in human beings.”

24


The maintenance and development of relationships with Moldovan Diaspora plays an important role (National Action Plan on Diaspora Management). Scientific Diaspora stands out in the collaboration relations with Moldovan Diaspora. Expert L.Romanciuc (Academy of Science of Moldova): “These approaches are in line with EU’s policies in the highly skilled labour migration field. What strategies have been presented at the European level? First of all, to make the scientific career more attractive for the youth. To eliminate gaps between graduates and employment in the areas they have been trained. Secondly, the feminization of the highly skilled migrants requires the active recruitment of women in these processes. And thirdly, mobility extension in the training and research field. Which would allow a researcher to carry out researches not only in his/her country, EU member, but to enjoy the mobility in other countries as well, given that the European Union is made up of several countries, with different technical capacities and infrastructures. Improvement of research perspectives in the EU and the opening of these for representatives of the third countries. In principle, these are the goals and objectives that were specified in the “Eastern Partnership.”

In conclusion, we note that labour migration was that lifebuoy, which helped and is helping Moldova to survive, to ensure not only the existence, but also the development of the country’s citizens, a significant number of its citizens, migrant workers and their families. However, as the international labour migration processes are developing and consolidating, the negative effects of the migration are also coming up. The 2008-2010 social and economic crisis highlighted the fragility of the social-economic development model of the country, based on remittances by Moldovan citizens.

Generally, the international labour migration enhances the tension between economic benefits and social costs of migration (destroyed families, declined health condition, exodus of the youth and highly skilled specialists, deterioration of the human potential of the country). Socially vulnerable and weakly protected layers of the population, particularly children and the elderly, left unsupervised by their parents/children, by the state, became a common phenomenon in Moldova.

Moldova endeavours to minimize the negative impact of the international labour migration and to strengthen the positive effects of it. Through attempts and errors, based on the international experience and cooperation, Moldova aims at identifying the best ways and mechanisms to regulate labour migration, channelling it towards the sustainable development of the country. Over the short period of its independence, Moldova went a long way in being aware of the complexity and antagonisms of researches in order to develop efficient policies in the labour migration field.

Without listing the missed opportunities and drawbacks, we shall mention that Moldovan authorities have drawn the necessary conclusions. They have achieved this with the indisputable assistance by international organizations, European Union, providing Moldova with intellectual, financial, etc. support.

These conclusions lie in the fact that the international labour migration issue should be the central point of current employment policies, social policies in the child, youth and elderly protection field. At present, the labour migration issue is a topical social-political issue for Moldova. Today, the emphasis is on the implementation of projects related to the attraction of migration capital, of remittances in the development of local communities, creation of conditions for the return of migrants home, solution of urgent problems for Moldova’s population.

25


CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGY

2.1. Sampling methodology

Given the goal of the survey, as well as the pre-established methodological requirements, the survey was carried out on a total sample of 1,107 interviews among the population aged over 18 years, and 107 interviews with local community leaders.

Recording method: standard face to face interview, at the house of respondents in case of households, or at the work place in case of local leaders;

Sample size: - 1,107 households in total and 107 local leaders. The sample does not include Transnistria;

Target group: - population aged 18+ years on the right bank of the Dniester River.

Sampling strategy:

The survey was carried out on a layered, probabilistic, multi-stage sample.

Layering requirements: Four districts, residential environment, and size of rural communities (3 types).

Sampling points contained groups of 5 interviewed persons. Selection of localities and subjects was performed through probabilistic modes.

Selection of addresses where interviews were performed was done through the random route method. Statistic step applied to select households is 3, e.g., 1, 4, 7, etc.. In case the interview could not be carried out (refusal, nobody home) interviewers went to the following neighbour households, and then when the questionnaire is over, next household is taken according to the established step 3.

At the level of households, in order to select the subjects to be questioned, we did apply the method of „the nearest birthday” for the case of households without any family member abroad, while in the case of households with migrants among their members, the interview was performed with that family member who was abroad over the last two years, or with the master of the house who remained home, if the migrant was not home when the operator visited them.

26


CHAPTER III. GENERAL ATTITUDES REGARDING MOLDOVA

3.1. Opportunities and conditions in the Republic of Moldova

3.1.1. Work/employment opportunities in Moldova To the question: Are there many work/employment opportunities in Moldova?, 15.7% of respondents have answered that more or less they agree with this statement, of them more than half are from households that do not receive remittances, hence we can say that these are the persons who have a job here in Moldova, which is hard to say about the 82.8% (see table 5) of respondents who did not agree with the statement above, as surely in these households there is at least one member working abroad, because more than half of those who did not agree with this statement, receive remittances. Only 1.4% of respondents could not say their opinion and answered don’t know/don’t answer.

3.1.2. Favourable conditions for creating a family in MoldovaIn the paragraph above we saw that respondents consider that there are not many employment opportunities in Moldova, however, the number of those who consider that: Moldova is a favourable place to create a family/life quality is good, accounts for 28.6%, and 69.4% (see table 5) of respondents do not agree with this statement. Two percent of respondents could not give either a positive or a negative answer. Of those who agree with this statement, more than half are from the rural area and of those who do not get remittances, which indicates that Moldovans who are in the country want to stay in the country and to create a family, and those who have somebody abroad want to leave the country as fast as possible and form a family abroad or to take their family from Moldova and leave abroad together. This phenomenon is very often noticed in the Moldovan society over the last time. Hence, the number of respondents who did not agree with this statement is higher among those who receive remittances and live in one of the towns where the survey was carried out.

3.1.3. Investment opportunities in MoldovaOne third of respondents, or 33.6%, said they agree with the fact that Moldova has big investment opportunities, and 59.9% of respondents (see table 6) don’t agree, and only 6.4% could not give an answer. Most of those who said there are investments opportunities in Moldova come from a high social-economically developed household, while those who said there are no such opportunities in Moldova, are from average or low social-economically developed household. Hence, we can say that respondents from the richer households have an absolutely different vision, have investment ideas, they analyse, think how to open a business to keep their family, while those with average or low incomes find these ideas less interesting, therefore they do not see in what they could invest, nor do they have the necessary resources for investments.

3.2. Stringent problems for Moldova todayIt is known that Moldova has been always facing a number of various problems. According to the Survey data, respondents have classified Moldova’s problems in the following order (see figure 4): the problem with the maximum percentage is the one about low wages and pensions – 28.9%, followed by another important problem according to respondents, and namely high prices, with 18.9%, another important problem is the unemployment – 18.2%, inefficient governance – 14.5%, corruption is seen as a problem by 9.7% of participants, another 5.3% consider economic crisis as a problem, and with a lower percentage, but also seen as a problem, is the emigration – 1.2%; also respondents have listed a few other important problems, like: lack of a delivery market, Transnistria issue, poverty, bad roads, population’s health, etc..

27


Fig. 4. Important/stringent problems of Moldova

3.3. Standards of living over the last two years

In general, over half of respondents mentioned that now they live worse than they did two years ago, 36.3% of them said their life now is the same as two years ago, that is without big changes, and only 10.9% said that they are doing better now. It should be mentioned that those who receive remittances live better now, while those without remittances live worse (see table 9).

When analysing living standards for the last two years following several indicators very important for vital needs, than we can say that almost half of the interviewed population answered that the situation is worse now for all indicators mentioned in the survey (see table 9-11).

1. Food is one of the appreciation indicators, to which we got the following answers: 47% of respondents said that food products are worse now, 42.2% of respondents said that nothing has changed, and only 10.2% of them said that now their family is doing better as concerning the food, while 0.1% of respondents could not answer this question.

2. Dwelling is another indicator: 43.5% of respondents said that their situation now for this chapter is worse than two years ago, 46.6% of respondents indicated that the situation remained unchanged, while 9.8% said their situation is better now than it was two years ago from this point of view, and only 0.1% could not answer this question.

3. Clothing/footwear is another appreciation indicator and results for this indicator are as follows: 47.7% said that now their situation and possibilities to buy clothing and footwear is worse than two years ago, 42.4% consider nothing has changed, and 9.8% of respondents said they can afford now buying more cloths than two years ago, while 0.1% of the interviewed persons could not answer this question.

4. As for the health indicator, more than half of respondents said their health condition is worse now than it was two years ago, 36.6% of respondents consider their health condition did not change and remained the same, and only 7% of them said they are doing better for this chapter, while 0.1% could not answer.

5. Entertainment is also an indicator which is telling us that the population is entertaining less now than

28,9%

18,9%

18,2%

14,5%

9,7%

5,3%

1,2%

2,7%

0,7%

Low wages/pensions

High prices/in�ation

Unemployment

Ine�cient Government

Corruption

Economic crisis

Emigration

Other

Don’t know

28


two years ago, given that 48.3% of respondents consider that two years ago they were going more often to various entertainment events, because their health condition was better or they were younger, 43.9% of respondents said their situation regarding this chapter did not change, and only 7.6% of respondents said they go more often to entertainment events than two years ago, and these are of course the young people, who two years ago were younger, while 0.2% of respondents could not give an answer for this indicator.

When analysing the data for all indicators, we see that the percentage of those who said that now they are doing better, or that their situation did not change, is higher in the rural area, while respondents from the urban area mentioned that their situation for these indicators is worse now.

3.4. Migration’s contribution to the development of Moldova3.4.1. Important things that Moldovan migrants can do in order to contribute to the

development of Moldova (see Fig. 5)

Persons who participated in this survey have proposed to Moldovan migrants a few ideas for the country’s development: hence, migrants can help the Republic of Moldova by the fact that they are sending money home for the household needs/construction, reparation of the own dwelling, this is the opinion of most of respondents, and namely 41.6%; also, migrants can send money home for starting a new business – this is the opinion of 20.9% respondents, and of course, with the money sent from abroad they can finance their existing business – 4.1% of respondents, or they can send money home to donate them to community projects – this is the opinion of 2.4% respondents. Certainly, migrants’ input is not limited to sending money to the country only, they can also promote the country’s image abroad – this is the opinion of 5.2% of participants, also they can promote interests of the country abroad – 5.1% of respondents, and according to 4.6% respondents, migrants can help the country in the crisis times, and a big help could be if Moldovan migrants could set up cultural connections/relations with the people from the countries they work in – this is the opinion of 3.6% respondents, while 2.1% of the interviewed persons consider that if Moldovan migrants would buy exported Moldovan products available in the countries they work, this would contribute a lot to the development of the Republic of Moldova.

Fig 5. Important things that Moldovan migrants can do in order to contribute to Moldova’s development

41,6%

20,9%

5,2%

5,1%

4,6%

4,1%

3,6%

2,4%

2,1%

1,3%

1,3%

7,9%

To send money for household needs

To send money to launch a business

To promote the country’s image abroad

To protect the interests of Moldova abroad

To help the country in times of crisis

To send money/invest in an already existing business

To create links/cultural relationships with people from other countries

To send/to donate money for community projects

To buy Moldovan export products being abroad

To remain politically active (vote, etc.)

Other

Don’t know

29


3.4.2. Negative impact (influence) of emigration over Moldova

The following are the data we got for the question Do you think that emigration has a negative impact (influence) over Moldova? (see table 14): 35.3% - fully agree, 26.3% rather agree, 18.1% do not quite agree, 13.7% fully disagree, and 6.6% could not answer the question. Given these answers, we can say that more than half of respondents consider that migration has a negative effect over Moldova.

For a more detailed analysis, respondents were asked the following question: What in your opinion are the three most negative consequences of the emigration? (see tables 15, 16) and the following data were obtained: 77% of respondents consider that because of the emigration, children remain without parental care, hence children stay with their grandparents, relatives, neighbours, etc.. It affects a lot the psycho-emotional development of children, with 73.5% of respondents considering that many families are decaying and the divorce rate in the country is increasing, 58.8% said there are no more young people in Moldova, as due to the lack of job opportunities here, the youth are trying to find a job abroad in order to earn their living, 31.5% consider that a brain drain is taking place (no more professionals left), 18.3% consider that young people become dependent on the money they receive from their parents abroad, and this makes them more aggressive, more vulgar, their performance at the school is bad, they begin consuming alcohol, cigarettes and drugs, 12.9% consider that migration leads to an increase in criminality, in criminal networks and trafficking in human beings, 10.4% said that migrants have an unhealthy life style abroad, sleeping in basements and consuming lower quality products, while 5% of respondents said that there are no investments made into the country because every person is trying to work abroad and prefer to send money home for their families, rather than to invest into a business in Moldova; other negative effects indicated by respondents are: growing inflation because of remittances, plough land remaining unattended, the high number of old people remaining in the country without any help from their children, decreasing birth rate, etc.

3.4.3. Positive impact (influence) of emigration over Moldov In order to find out whether migration has any positive impacts over Moldova, respondents have been asked to answer the following question What in your opinion are the three biggest advantages of the emigration? (see table 17) The following are the advantages of migration: 77.1% of respondents consider that migration contributes to increasing the living conditions of migrants’ families; 39.3% - migration gives more opportunities for families to offer higher education to their children; 39.7% - consider that migration is rising the economic level of the country, 28.4% said it gives more opportunities to families to have a wider access to healthcare services, 24.7% - new enterprises open in the country and in the communities of migrants; 24.3% of respondents said that another advantage is the infrastructure development in their community (reparation of roads, schools etc.).

Based on the answers to this question, we see that all advantages are connected to the economic factor, that is if money is sent from abroad, than the living conditions are growing, families can offer education to their children, they have access to healthcare services, etc., but this leads us to another question, why migration does not bring any advantages to the social factor? For example, migration contributes to raising the birth rate, marriage rate; migration contributes to a significant drop down of the divorce rate, mortality and morbidity rates, etc.

30


CHAPTER IV. COMMUNITY ASPECTS

4.1. Community aspects over the past five years

4.1.1. Aspects that deteriorated in the society over the last five years

According to survey data, we can say that over the last five years, the following community aspects deteriorated significantly (see table 18-21 ): 42% said that roads have deteriorated, 32.7% wages and pensions, 31% –employment opportunities, 22.8% – access to healthcare services/number of doctors, 15.3% – dwellings, 11.9% – criminality has increased, 11.4% – gas supply is worse now, same is for water supply – 11.2%, transport – 9.9%, access to education – 9.6%, situation for children – 9.2%, environment/sanitation – 9%, power supply – 4.2%, connections with families in the community – 3.4%, other aspects that deteriorated in the community are: social cohesion, markets, increase in prices, mayoralty, living standards, children remaining without parents, conditions in kindergartens, street lighting, access to internet, reparation of churches, corruption; only 14% said that nothing has worsened in the community.

4.1.2. Aspects that improved in the community for the last five years

According to the survey data, we can say that over the last five years things have rather worsened than improved; hence, the following are the improved aspects (see tables 22-25): 25.4% said that roads have improved, 24.8% – access to education also has improved, 22% – water supply, 17.1% – gas supply, 13.6% – markets, 11.1% – access to medical care/number of doctors, 10% – dwellings, 7% – power supply, 4.8% –conditions for children, 4.4% – environment/sanitation, 2.6% – connections with families in the community, 2.3% – criminality decreased; other improvements: social cohesion, wages/pensions, reparation of churches, employment opportunities, street lighting, construction of bus stations, etc., and of the total of respondents, 32.6% said that nothing has improved in their community compared with five years ago.

4.1.3. Social-economic conditions in the community over the last five years

According to survey data, we can say that social-economic conditions in the communities where the survey was performed have improved significantly, or have improved a little, this being the opinion of only one fourth of respondents. As many as 39% of respondents consider that social-economic conditions remained the same, while one third of respondents answered that social-economic conditions in their communities have deteriorated slightly or significantly. In our opinion, those respondents who said that social-economic conditions in their communities have improved, are from the communities that have benefited from some financial support from the state or from foreign investors within national or international rural development projects, which helped to repair the roads, schools, kindergartens, houses of culture, develop parks, etc. While respondents from other communities, where such projects have not been implemented, said that things did not change or have deteriorated.

4.2. Solved community issues

4.2.1. Population’s cooperation towards solving community problems

The main community problems for which respondents are ready to cooperate in order to solve them, are, of course, those related to infrastructure, (see table 27); almost half of respondents said they want that roads in their community to be repaired, as they are in disastrous conditions, 22.8% of respondents want the gas pipe to provide gas to the households in their community, and 21.3% want community residents to be

31


supplied with water, 12.8% want to develop the park, and 19.4% - to solve the sanitation problem in their community. Apart from these infrastructure issues, respondents have also mentioned some social problems that need to be urgently solved, like: 31.3% of respondents are ready to cooperate in order to improve the hospitalization conditions in medical institutions, 28.8% want better conditions in the community education institutions, 22.5% want to build or repair the church in their community, other 18.2% consider it is necessary to reconstruct or to repair the leisure venues.

4.2.2. Participation of migrants in solving community problems

The analysis of survey data showed that communities need to solve some community problems, like: school problems, problems related to the medical unit, local conflicts, problems related to the quality of roads, problems of the most in need persons, problems related to the supply of drinking water/collection of household waste, gas supply problems (see table 30-33). In all communities we noticed the need to solve these problems, but only almost one fourth of respondents mentioned that migrants from their community contribute to the solution of these problems, while for each problem, almost 50% of respondents indicated that migrants do not help at all to solve then, the rest of respondents could not give an answer. Migrants do not contribute to the solution of community problems, because they, first of all, attend to their families and households, so that these are fairly well off. These migrants’ contribution to the solution of community problems is same as of other community residents.

4.2.3. Population’s contribution to community projects over the last three years

As one can notice from the survey data, population prefers to donate a certain amount of money to solve community problems rather than to contribute by work. Calculations are made for a started project in the community, and in order to cover the estimated expenditures, each household has to contribute with 100-200 lei, hence the population is ready to pay this sum, provided that the problem is solved; but people do not agreed to work one-two days for the project. Most of respondents mentioned (see table 34-38) that they have contributed by work only to the solution of sanitation issues – 12.1% of respondents, because they had to collect by themselves the waste they did throw in forbidden areas. Also, by almost 4% of respondents stated they have contributed by work to the reparation of the local kindergarten and school. Those who have mostly contributed with money are from communities that have been connected to water pipelines – 19.6%, where roads have been repaired – 14.9%, that have been connected to gas pipelines – 14.7%; for such community projects the population can only contribute with money, as works have to be performed by professionals.

Asked What categories of population from the community are more engaged (by donating money, contributing with labour), in the implementation of these community projects? (see table 39), most of respondents - 35.9% - said that all residents contribute to the same extent; however, 14.4% of respondents said that nobody involves in the implementation of community projects, in our opinion these persons are not sufficiently informed about the community projects held in their community, therefore they do not participate. As many as 20% said that more involvement comes from families without migrants, while 12.6% said that families with migrants are involved.

Because of the difficult situation in the country and the low standards of living in Moldova, important community projects have suffered, as a project can be cancelled if the required financial contribution from the community is not provided; this has been also proved by the survey data. For the reparation of the main road in the locality (see table 40), 28.2% of respondents said they would contribute with nothing for this project, 29.4% said they could donate up to 100 lei, 13% would contribute with up to 200 lei, by about 7% of respondents said they count donate up to 300 lei and up to 500 lei respectively, and other 5.5% said that for

32


such projects they would be ready to contribute with up to 1,000 lei. The road is the face of the community, therefore it should have a decent look, but because of the lack of financial resources and of the will to collaborate, such projects are not implemented.

Although to the questions above respondents said that migrants to not contribute much to the solution of community’s problems (see tables 41-44), over 50% of respondents consider that the situation in their community would have been much worse if nobody would have left abroad, about one third of respondents consider that nothing would have changed if nobody would have left abroad, and about 10% of respondents consider that situation in their community would have been much better.

In our opinion, things would have been much worse if population would not have left abroad to work, as in the rural, as well as urban localities it is very difficult nowadays to find a well-paid job, sufficient to support the family, maybe part of migrants would have found a job in their communities, but not all, the rest would have to be employed as day labourers to survive, given the lack of other options, moreover after the destruction of all cattle and pig farms that existed in most of localities, where most of the local residents used to work in the past.

33


CHAPTER V. MIGRATION

5.1. Situation of Moldovan migrants

5.1.1.Number of migrants and their destination

This survey data show that over the last two years, 62.3% of respondents did not have any family members abroad, while 37.7% of respondents had at least one family member working abroad.

The main destination countries for Moldovan migrants are (see table 46.47): Russia 82.5%, Italy 26.1%, Portugal, the Czech Republic 3.4%, France 2.9%, Spain 2.6%, Greece 2.4%, Romania 1.7%, Israel, Ukraine, Germany 1.4%, Turkey, USA 1.2%. Other countries less populated by Moldovan migrants are: Canada, Cyprus, Poland, Ireland, Great Britain, etc. These destination countries have been always preferred among Moldovan migrants.

Of all migrants referred to in the survey, 62.4% left abroad in 2010-2011, for the second time or more, and only 37.6% of migrants left abroad for the first time in 2010-2011. This figure points out that more and more young persons after graduating from the education institution, either gymnasium, lyceum, vocational school or higher education, are ready to leave abroad for a job.

According to the survey data, of the total of those who left in 2010-2011, only 12.5% returned home for good, this might be because the migrant is already too aged and is unable to perform the physical work he/she had to carry out abroad, or because of the illness, as many Moldovan migrants have performed hard works and often they suffer from accidents, injuries, and come home for treatment.

5.1.2. Fields of work of Moldovan migrants abroad

It is known that most of Moldovan migrants have always performed difficult physical works, like constructions, and this is exactly what is shown by the survey data, where we have 71.6% of migrants working in constructions, 12.8% performing household services (baby-sitters), 8% - in commerce, 7.5% - in agricultural farms, 6.3% - in industry, 5.8% - hotels and restaurants, 5.1% - transport and communications, etc. All activities performed by Moldovans abroad are appreciated differently in different countries; hence a Moldovan migrant is paid an average wage of about 9,000 lei a month; if making a comparison among the migration countries, then we can say that those working in the Russian Federation or another CIS country have an average salary of 8,000 lei, migrants working in the European countries also are remunerated with 8,000 lei on the average, while those working in other countries but the CIS and Europe, have an average salary of up to18,000 lei.

5.1.3. Social-demographic characteristics of migrants

Persons who left abroad for a job in 2010-2011, according to the survey data, have the following social-demographic characteristics: men represent 63.2% of migrants, and the number of women is also quite high – 36.8%. One fourth of migrants are older than 40 years, 29.8% are aged between 31 and 40 years, 39.9% are between 21 and 30 years, and only 3.7% of migrants are under 20 years. As it has been mentioned above, most of Moldovan migrants do not have specialised education, only one fourth of migrants have incomplete higher education (college) or University, the rest have gymnasium, middle or vocational education. Every second migrant is single, and seven out of ten migrants are married, the rest being divorced or widowed.

The following can be mentioned: most of migrants are married men and women, who leave abroad for the possibility to support their families and to cover their needs; among migrants there is also a high number of

34


young and single people, who in their turn want to set up a family, but it is difficult to do it in Moldova due to the low incomes.

5.1.4. Migrants’ intentions for the future

Most of migrants (see table 53), or app. one third, intend to work abroad for another about five years, then return to Moldova, 18.2% of respondents said that their family members who are abroad want to work there for another year then return to Moldova, 10.1% of respondents said that their family members currently working abroad, might stay in Moldova after returning, but they were not sure about this. Another 8.4% of respondents were certain that migrants from their families will definitely remain in Moldova; at the same time, among migrants who want to return there are also people who certainly want to move alone or with their families for permanent residence abroad – 17.6%.

About half of respondents said that their family members who are abroad regularly leave and return, spending app. the same period of time abroad and home, usually these migrants stay for about three months abroad, then they return home for a while, 15.1% said that migrants are permanently abroad and come home once a year, one fourth of respondents said that migrants from their family are permanently abroad and come home less than once a year. Only 8.9% of migrants are those who spend most of the time home and leave abroad only in certain periods of the year, these could be the migrants who leave abroad for seasonal agricultural activities.

35


CHAPTER VI. REMITTANCES FROM MIGRANTS

6.1. Money transfers from abroad

Of the total of those working abroad, only 76% have send money home, the remaining 24% of migrants do not send money home, but we believe they bring all their money earned abroad when they return home.

About one third of respondents said that remittances account for over 75% of the total family’s income, one fourth of respondents said that the money they receive from abroad represent between 50% and 75% of their family’s total incomes, while for the others, remittances account for 50% of the family’s total income.

The most often Moldovan migrants sent money from abroad once or twice a month - 43%, about 25% of migrants send money home once in two months, another 23.5% of migrants send money home once in three months or more rarely. The average amount of a transfer stated by respondents is of about 4,000 lei. The amount with which the migrant returns home depends on the period of time worked and the country he/she worked in, but in general, the average amount a migrant brings home is about 15,000 lei.

6.2. Donations by migrants

Of all the Moldovan migrants (see tables 64, 65), only 34.5% have donated money or assets to certain community organisations or projects. All these migrants have donated money to the church, roads, school or kindergarten, for the water or gas supply, etc. By donating money, migrants have made their lives easier and more comfortable, since they can now travel on a better road, their households are supplied with natural gas and drinking water, while their children can go to kindergarten and school without being worried for their safety and they have the possibility to benefit from qualitative education.

36


CHAPTER VII. UTILIZATION OF REMITTANCES

7.1. Utilisation of money earned abroad

7.1.1. Utilisation of money earned abroad over the last 12 months

It is known that it is so hard to earn and so easy to spend the money. This is the situation of respondents who have participated in this survey. The money earned over the last 12 months was mainly spent for their household. Hence, 71.2% of respondents said they spend the money for daily needs (food, clothing, utilities, etc.), 48.9% – to buy a flat or a house, 38.4% – to buy household appliances (TV set, fridge, PC, etc.), 18.2% – for the education of their children (school contribution, payment of contracts, supporting students), 17.5% – for medical treatments, 8.9% – to purchase a vehicle, 8.4% – to purchase domestic animals/land improvement products (seeds, fertilizers, etc.), 6.5% – to pay debts, etc. All these expenses have been made for internal use only, that is all that respondents have purchased, was to be used in their households; very few people used this money for savings – 6%, to purchase/rent land – 1.9%, to invest in other income generating activities – 1.2%. This once again proves that Moldovan migrants earn money only for supporting themselves and their families.

7.1.2. Spending remittances in the following 12 months

Figure 6 highlights very well respondents’ intention to spend the money they will receive from abroad in the following 12 months. Hence, as it is expected, respondents intend to mainly use remittances to invest in the house (vehicle, house/apartment, reparation of the house/apartment, wedding/funeral, bank deposits) – 29.3%, current expenses (food, clothing, utilities, household appliances) – 29%, special consumption (education, health, furniture, loans, etc.) is by three times less than the previous – 9.4%, also Moldovans do not forget to pay off their debts – 6%, and only 2.2% will invest in business. We can affirm that the trend of expenditures for the following 12 months does not change at all from the trends for the last 12 months, since needs and requirements remain the same, hence the priority of expenses will be the same.

Fig. 6. Plans to spend the money earned abroad in the following 12 months

7.1.3. Accumulated capital

Of the total of households with migrants, only 11.3% said they have managed to accumulate a certain amount of money while working abroad. The average capital accumulated is about 50,000 lei. This money is, we think, accumulated to purchase a vehicle, to buy/repair the house/flat, or maybe to invest in a business.

29,3%

29,0%

9,4%

6,0%

2,2%

24,2%

Investments in house

Daily consumption

Special consumption

Payment of debt

Investment in business

Don’t know

37


CHAPTER VIII. BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP

8.1.Owning a business or planning to open a business

According to the collected data, we notice that about 85% of respondents do not own any business and do not plan to open a business in the nearest future, while only 3.8% of respondents said they own a business, and 12.2% of respondents plan to open a business in the near future. Of these, most intend to open a trade related business – either wholesale or retail - (market, bar) – 42.2%, another 23.1% of respondents plan to open a business in agriculture and silviculture, 12.1% - food service, hotel services, 6.9% – constructions and territory development, environment, 4.6% transport and communications, by 1.7% in: 1. Industry and energetic, 2. Finance, credits, insurance, real estate transactions, 3. Culture, art, sport. All these businesses are or can be started up based on loans (see table 75), either from the bank, or from relatives in the country or from abroad – 69.1%, this also includes the own money earned in Moldova – 57.1%, own money earned abroad – 26.2% and of course, those who already have a business will use the money from their current business – 14.3%.

The survey has identified 12 respondents who said that they have had a business in the past, but they had to stop because it was no longer profitable, they were losing money, because of the lack of delivery market, because of disloyal competition, or they have found a better job abroad. Most frequently a business is stopped because of the lack of clients, lack of profit and high competition.

38


CHAPTER IX. SOCIAL-ECONOMIC SITUATION OF FAMILIES

9.1. Family’s incomes and welfare

As it is known, the standard of living in the Republic of Moldova is quite low and therefore there are few families who can afford a decent living, and data from this survey proves this situation one more time. Hence, those who said they have anything they need and can afford any purchase account for 1.3% of respondents, 3.1% - can afford buying some expensive goods, but they would have to limit themselves in other areas; 15.4% of households said the following: our income is sufficient for a decent living, but we cannot afford purchasing any expensive things, this was the percentage of those who said they can afford to live it up. At the same time, 40.5% of respondents said their income is sufficient to cover the essential needs only, while 39% of respondents live under the poverty level and do not have resources for their essential needs even.

A detailed analysis of migrants’ contribution to the household’s budget, point out to the following: 37.4% of respondents who have at least one migrant among their family members, stated that migrants contribute a lot or very much to the family’s budget, while 24.6% of respondents stated that migrants contribute little or very little to their family’s budget, also, in 6.5% of cases migrants do not contribute at all to the family’s budget.

Based on the collected data, we can affirm that households with migrants have a better living than families without migrants. This is also proven by data from tables 79-84, where one can clearly see that the situation of households with members who are now abroad is much better than before the migrant/migrants have emigrated. Hence, if analysing each of the following indicator: food, dwelling, clothing, health, education, leisure, we will notice that for each of the above listed indicators, data are almost equal. Before the emigration of one or more family members, more than half of respondents stated that their situation was difficult or very difficult, while after the emigration of one of more family members, their situation has changed, became better or very good.

The highest monthly average expenses for a Moldovan household are for the following: food products – 1,280 lei, utilities and house/apartment maintenance – 406 lei, followed by medicines – 385 lei, clothing – 382 lei, and, of course, education – about 200 lei. According to respondents, these expenses are covered from the following sources: remittances – 18.2%, pension – 29.7%, occasional work or agricultural activity – 27.1%, and only 23.5% said they have a permanent job.

39


CONCLUSIONS

If we are to believe the survey data, then we can say that there are not too many employment opportunities, or opportunities to create a family and to invest in Moldova, or at least this is what more than half of respondents believe.

The main three problems currently faced by Moldova are: low wages and pensions, high prices and the unemployment. As long as a society will have these problems, this society will be unable to develop, and these problems generate other problems that could lead the country into chaos.

The majority of population leaves as bad as two years ago, very few people said they are currently doing better than two years ago.

According to respondents, migrants can contribute to the development of Moldova through the fact that they send money from abroad. And this money is used in our country, to buy the necessary things for their households (food products, household appliances, etc.), to set up a new business and to invest in the existing business. Also, migrants can defend the interests and promote the image of the country abroad.

Although remittances help improve the standard of living of several families (that can afford setting up a business, pay the education of their services and have access to qualitative healthcare services), still most of the population is unhappy that Moldovans have to migrate for a job abroad. This is because children remain without parental care, very many families are separating, all young people and specialists are leaving Moldova, also the young people who stay home become dependent on the money their parents send from abroad and they do not want to continue their education or to work.

Situation in the surveyed communities worsen in very many fields over the last five years, but at the same time it did improve for some chapters, hence three of the most frequent problems are: roads, wages and pensions and employment opportunities. These are the three things that deteriorated over the last five years and the ones where the situation improved is: one would be surprised, but roads improved in many communities, access to education, water and gas supply also improved. All these improvements are due to the community projects implemented in these localities.

Although people from many communities said they have improved their infrastructure, like roads, water and gas supply, etc., other communities are still struggling to solve these issues; therefore they are ready for any cooperation provided that this will help their situation. Most of respondents agree to financially contribute with up to 200 lei; others prefer to work, in order to solve these problems.

However, migration has improved the situation in Moldovan communities, this being the opinion of over half of respondents who consider that if nobody would have left abroad, the situation in their community would have been much worse.

Russia, Italy, as well as other countries from Europe and the CIS, remain the main destinations for Moldovan migrants. Of all migrants who left in 2010-2011, about 38% left abroad for the first time, and only 12.5% returned home for good.

Employment preferences of Moldovan migrants abroad are the same as indicated by other statistic data currently available, hence the situation is as follows: most of migrants work in constructions, in the house (as baby-sitters), in wholesale or retail, agricultural farms, industry, hotels and restaurants. The average wage paid to a Moldovan migrant account for 9,000 lei, depending on the destination country.

40


Most of migrants are men aged up to 40 years, and over half of them having families they need to support.

Over half of migrants want to continue going abroad for a job, but the most tragically is that almost one fifth of migrants want to permanently live abroad, either alone or with their families.

Remittances account for 50% of the family’s income in more than half of families who receive money from abroad. Most frequently migrants send money from abroad once a month to support their families.

According to respondents, they have spent the money they received from abroad over the last 12 months to invest in the house (vehicle, house/flat, reparation of the house/flat, wedding/funeral, bank deposits), current consumption (food, clothing, utilities, household appliances), as well as special consumption (education, health, furniture, loans, etc.). Exactly the same are the plans/intentions to spend the money they will received in the following 12 months.

Almost 16% of respondents stated they have planned to open a business in the near future. Most will do that with borrowed money, or money earned in Moldova or abroad. The main activity fields for the planned or existing businesses are: trade, agriculture and silviculture, food service and hotel services.

The majority of population lives at the poverty limits or even under the poverty level, because very many respondents stated their incomes are sufficient to cover the essential needs only or they do not have resources even for these.

The situation in families with migrants has improved significantly after the migrant/migrants have left abroad; hence their nourishment level, condition of their dwelling, as well as clothing, health, and leisure have improved.

Respondents mainly use money to buy food products, pay utilities and maintain their dwelling, buy medicines, clothing and pay for the education.

41


BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. (2011) “Barometrul Opiniei Publice”. Mai 2011. – Chişinău: IPP, (http://www.ipp.md)

2. (2011) Buciuceanu-Vrabie M. “Copiii rămaşi singuri acasă în urma migraţiei părinţilor: riscuri şi provocări”. În: Revista de filozofie, sociologie si ştiinţe politice, nr.1.

3. (2010) Cernei-Bacioiu M. “Impactul fenomenului migraţional asupra copiilor”. In: Dezvoltarea umană: realizări, tendinţe, perspective. – Chişinău: „Print-Caro”, pp.249-256.

4. (2011) Cheianu-Andrei D., Grama R., Milicenco S., Priţcan V., Rusnac V., Vaculovschi D. “Necesităţile specifice ale copiilor şi vîrstnicilor lăsaţi fără îngrijirea membrilor de familie plecaţi la muncă peste hotare”. – Chişinău.

5. (2010) Enachi V. “Familia versus migraţia: efecte şi consecinţe”. In: Moraru V. (Coord.) Republica Moldova: provocările migraţiei. – Chişinău, Ştiinţa, рp.90-94.

6. (2009) “Evaluarea reformei sistemului de îngrijire a copilului şi asistenţa tehnică pentru consultarea subregională – Moldova”. – Chişinău.

7. (2009) Filipov I. “Factorii specifici în determinarea migraţiei la nivelul comunităţilor locale”. In: Conferinţa ştiinţifică internaţională „Procesele sociodemografice în societatea contemporană: de la meditaţii la acţiuni”. Materialele conferinţei. Chişinău, 15-16 octombrie 2009. – Chişinău: ASM, pp.171-174.

8. (2006) Gagauz O. “Unele aspecte ale comportamentului familial al femeilor migrante de muncă”. In: Analele ştiinţifice ale USM, Seria ştiinţe socioumanistice, Vol.3. – Chişinău, USM.

9. (2008) “Gestionarea finanţelor de către gospodăriile casnice din Moldova”. – Chişinău: Organizaţia Internaţională a Muncii.

10. (2005) Ghencea B., Gudumac I. „Migraţia de muncă şi remitenţele în Republica Moldova (2004)”. – Chişinău: Organizaţia Internaţională a Muncii.

11. (2005) Гудым А., Шеларь Г. “Две точки зрения на проблему экономического роста и снижения бедности”. In: Puterea şi opoziţia în contextul managementului politic. – Iaşi, Pan-Europe.

12. (2009) “Impactul socio-economic al crizei economice asupra migraţiei şi remitenţelor în Republica Moldova”. – Chişinău: IOM.

13. (2009) Hristev E., Mincu G., Sandu M., Walewski M. “The Effects of Migration and Remittances in Rural Moldova”. CASE Network Studies and Analyses, No.389/2009, [http://ssrn.com/abstract=1436415.

14. (2007) Kring T. “Moldovan Migrants in Italy: Remittences and the Role of the ILO’s Social Partners”. November 2007. – Chişinău: IOM.

15. (2009) Lucke M., Mahmoud T.O., Steinmayr A. “Labor migration and remittances in Moldova: is it boom over?” – Chişinău, IOM.

16. (2007) Lucke M., Mahmoud T.O., Pinger L. “Patterns and trends of migration and remittances in Moldova”. – Chişinău: IOM, june.

17. (2011) “Moldova after the global crisis: promoting competitiveness and shred growth”. April 4, 2011. World Bank.

18. (2012) Морару В., Мошняга В., Руснак Г. “Маятник миграции”. – Кишинев: Sirius.

19. (2011) Moraru V. (coord.) “Brain drain: cazul Republicii Moldova”. – Chişinău: Sirius.

20. (2011) Mosneaga V., Moraru V., Rusnac Gh., Ţurcan V. “Faţetele unui proces: migraţia forţei de muncă din Republica Moldova în Italia”. – Chişinău: Editerra prim.

42


21. (2010) Мошняга В. „Экономический кризис и мигра ция: case study Республика Мол до ва”. In: Premisele dezvoltării economiei naţionale în contextul crizei economice. Materialele conferinţei ştiinţifico-practice internaţionale. – Bălţi, Pre sa universitară bălţeană.

22. (2007) Мошняга В. „Регулирование трудовой миграции в Республике Молдова: основные этапы и их специфика”. In: MOLDOSCOPIE (Probleme de analiză politică). Nr.1 (XXXVI), 2007 – Chişinău: USM, рp.33-48.

23. (2006) Мошняга В., Руснак Г., Цуркан В., Завтур А. „Эффекты трудовой миг ра ции мо л давского населения в европейс ком контексте”. In: Coope ra re regională şi integrare europeană în sud-estul Europei: studii de caz. – Chişinău, CE USM, рp.76-99.

24. (2004) Мошняга В., Цуркан В., Руснак Г. „Специфика трудовой миграции и особенности ее регулирования в европейских государствах СНГ (из опыта Республики Молдова)”. In: MOLDOSCOPIE (Probleme de analiză politică). Partea 2 (XXVI). – Chişinău, USM, pр.102-121

25. (2000) “Население Мол до вы и трудовая миграция: сос тояние и современные фо р мы”. – Ки шинэу, CAPTES.

26. (2006) “ООН обеспокоена увеличением количества детей в Республике Молдова, оставленных иммигрировавшими родителями”. In: Информационное агентство „Info Prim Neo”, 8 декабря.

27. (2007) Orozco M. “Looking forward and Including Migration in Development: Remittence Leveraging Opportunities for Moldova”. September 2007. – Chisinau, IOM.

28. (2006) Овсяникова М. „Труд женщин-мигрантов как один из факторов дискриминации”. In: MOLDOSCOPIE (Probleme de analiză politică). – Сhişinău: USM, nr.3 (XXXIV, рp.50-65.

29. (2007) Postolachi V., Poalelungi O., Moşneaga V., Gonţa V. „Republica Moldova – problemele migraţiei”. – Chişinău: Institutul Muncii al Sindicatelor din Republica Moldova; Institutul Muncii GSEE.

30. (2006) “Recensămîntul populaţiei = перепись населения = population census. 2004”. (în 4 volume). Volumul 2. Том 2. Volume 2. Migraţia populaţiei = миграция населения = population migration. – Chişinău, Biroul Naţional de Statistică al Republicii Moldova.

31. (2006) Rodriges Rios R. (coord.), “Migration Perspectives, Eastern Europe and Central Asia”, Report of IOM. (http://iom.ramdisk.net/iom/images/uploads/Website%20version%20Migration%20Perspectives%20eng%20protected_1169046292.pdf)

32. (2011) Peru-Balan A., Bahneanu V. „Gestionarea fenomenului migraţiei în contextul liberalizării regimului de vize între Republica Moldova şi UE”. In: MOLDOSCOPIE (Probleme de analiză politică). – nr.2 (LIII), 2011. – Chişinău: CEP USM, pp.94-108.

33. (2010) Poalelungi O. „Aspecte ale securităţii sociale a lucrătorilor migranţi din Republica Moldova: între prezent şi viitor”. In: Revista de filozofie, sociologie şi ştiinţe politice, nr.3, pp.122-129.

34. (2011) Sandu V. „Moldova: the situation of children and elderly left behind by migrants”. In: Policy Review Paper. Maastricht University, December.

35. (2009) Savelieva G., Marcova I. „Efectele migraţiei cetăţenilor Republicii Moldova la muncă peste hotare asupra proceselor de reproducere a populaţiei”. In: Conferinţa ştiinţifică internaţională „Procesele sociodemografice în societatea contemporană: de la meditaţii la acţiuni”. Materialele conferinţei. Chişinău, 15-16 octombrie 2009. – Chişinău, ASM, pp.156-161.

36. (2006) Sigvardsdotter E. „Migraţia şi dezvoltarea Republicii Moldova – apariţia reţelelor sociale ale migranţilor (în baza cercetărilor sociologice)”. In: Populaţia Republicii Moldova în contextul migraţiilor internaţionale. Vol.II. – Iaşi: Pan-Europe, pр.153-164.

43


37. (2010) “Studiul privind impactul migraţiei şi al remitenţelor asupra situaţiei copiilor şi persoanelor în etate din gospodăriilor cu multe generaţii”. Report HelpAge International. – Chişinău.

38. (2008) “Tendinţe şi politici migraţioniste în regiunea Mării Negre: cazurile Republicii Moldova, României şi Ucrainei”. – Chişinău: IDIS “Viitorul”

39. (2004) “Transferuri de bani de la cetăţenii Republicii Moldova, aflaţi peste hotare la muncă”. – Chişinău: CBS AXA. A TNS CSOP Branch in Moldova.

40. (2006) Ţurcan V. “Administraţia publică locală din Republica Moldova referitor la procesele migraţionale ale populaţiei ţării (în baza cercetărilor sociologice calitative)”. In: Populaţia Republicii Moldova în contextul migraţiilor internaţionale. Vol.II. – Iaşi, Pan-Europe, рр.248-269.

41. (2000) Цуркан В., Руснак Г. “Мотивы трудовой миграции: этнический аспект”. In: Население Молдовы и трудовая миграция: состояние и современные формы./CAPTES. – Кишинэу, с.158-170.

42. (2011а) Vaculovschi D. “Impactul crizei economice mondiale asupra politicii de ocupare a forţei de muncă din Republica Moldova”. In: Economica. – Chişinău: ASEM, nr.2, pp.51-60.

43. (2011b) Vaculovschi D. “Prognoza pieţei muncii – instrument necesar în promovarea politicilor de ocupare a forţei de muncă”. In: Economie şi Sociologie. – Chişinău: Institutul de Economie Finanţe şi Statistică, nr.2, pp.203-209.

44. (2011c) Vaculovschi D. “Impactul migraţiei internaţionale de muncă asupra situaţiei persoanelor vîrstnice din Republica Moldova (rezultatele unui studiu calitativ)”. In: Economica. – Chişinău: ASEM, nr.3, pp.114-121.

45. (2010) Vaculovschi D., Hîrbu E., Precup G., Bulat V. “Studiul situaţional al forţei de muncă în mediul rural, inclusiv prin prisma de gen”. Studiu elaborat în cadrul proiectului comun „Consolidarea Sistemului Statistic Naţional” cu suportul UNIFEM şi PNUD-Moldova. Chişinău.

46. (2009) Vaculovschi D. “Piaţa muncii şi fenomenul migraţiei: evoluţii, perspective, recomandări”. În: Priorităţi de guvernare 2009.– Chişinău, ADEPT, pp.215-234.

47. (2005) Weeks J., Cornia G. et.al. “Republica Moldova: politici de creştere econo mi că, creare a locurilor de mu-n că şi reducere a sărăciei”. – Chişinău: UNDP, 2005.

48. (2009) “World Bank. Chişinău, Republic of Moldova”. Draft for review, Prywes, Cnobloch, & Baclajanschi, May 19.

49. (2000) Завтур К., Турко Т. “Трудовая миграция и конфликт”. În: Население Мол до вы и трудовая миграция: сос тояние и современные формы. – Ки шинэу: CAPTES, с.83-96.

50. (2006) Zimmermann C., Hossain M., Yun K., Roche B., Morison L., Watts C. “Stolen smiles: a summar report on the physical and psychological health consequences of women and adolescents trafficked in Europe”. – London, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

51. (2008) Zubco A. “Traficul de fiinţe umane în contextul factorilor de proliferare”. În: MOLDOSCOPIE (Probleme de analiză politică). nr.4 (XLIII), 2008. – Chişinău: CEP USM, pp.151-167.

44


ANNEX LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. SAMPLE’S STRUCTURE ..............................................................................................................................................................47

TABLE 2. Do you have in your household (house)? ..........................................................................................................................48



TABLE 5. Conditions and opportunities in the country. ..................................................................................................................51

TABLE 6. Conditions and opportunities in the country ..................................................................................................................52

TABLE 7. The biggest problem in Moldova today is: ........................................................................................................................53

TABLE 8. The biggest problem in Moldova today is: ........................................................................................................................54

TABLE 9. How did the standards of living change over the last two years? ............................................................................55



TABLE 12. What is the most important thing that Mildovan migrants can do in order to contribute to the economic development of the country? ................................................................................................................................................58

TABLE 13. What is the most important thing that Mildovan migrants can do in order to contribute to the economic development of the country? ................................................................................................................................................59

TABLE 14. Do you think that emigration has a negative impact (influence) over Moldova? ...............................................60

TABLE 15. In your opinion, what are the three most negative consequences of emigration? ............................................61

TABLE 16. In your opinion, what are the three most negative consequences of emigration? ............................................62

TABLE 17. In your opinion, what are the three biggest advantages of emigration? ...............................................................63

Table 18. Which of the following aspects deteriorated in your community over the last five years? .............................64




Table 22. Which of the following aspects improved in your community over the last five years? ..................................68




Table 26. In general, how did the social-economic conditions develop in your community over the

last five years? ..............................................................................................................................................................................72

Table 27. Please list according to priorities. For the solution of which of the following community

problems you would be ready to cooperate? ..................................................................................................................73





Table 30. How much do migrants in your community participate in the solution of the following:…. ........................76



45



Table 34. Did persons from this household donate money or contribute by work to the following types

of community projects over the last three years? ...........................................................................................................80









Table 39. What categories of population are more involved (by money donations, contributionwith work) in the community projects implemented in your community? .............................................................................................85

Table 40. If a community project for the reparation of the central road of your community is going to be

implemented next week, how much would you be ready to donate to support this project? .....................86

Table 41. Imagine that nobody from your community would have left abroad. Please tell us how would the

situation of your community have changed by the following categories.... .........................................................87


situation of your community have changed by the following categories.... .........................................................88


situation of your community have changed by the following categories... ..........................................................89


situation of your community have changed by the following categories... ..........................................................90

Table 45. How many members of your family are currently abroad or were abroad over the last two years? ............91

Table 46. Please indicate the last country where you or your family member/s have emigrated for work? ................92

Table 47. Please indicate the last country where you or your family member/s have emigrated for work? ................93

Table 48. Please tell us how many family members went abroad for work for the first time in 2010-2011? ...............94

Table 49. Please tell us how many family members were abroad for work in 2010-2011, but returned

home for good? ...........................................................................................................................................................................95

Table 50. What was/is your/your family members’ field of activity while abroad for work? ..............................................96

Table 51. What was/is your/your family members’ field of activity while abroad for work? ..............................................97

Table 52. Please tell us what was the approximative average monthly wage paid to a member of your

family while working abroad? ................................................................................................................................................98

Table 53. What are the intentions for the future of your family members who were/are currently abroad? ..............99

Table 54. SOCIAL-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRANTS. GENDER AND AGE ..................................................100

Table 55. SOCIAL-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRANTS. NATIONALITY ...........................................................101

Table 56. SOCIAL-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRANTS. EDUCATION AND CIVIL STATUS .........................102

Table 57. Which of the following situations most exactly describe the way you/members of your family migrate,

that is leave abroad and return home? ...............................................................................................................................103

Table 58. Money from abroad? .................................................................................................................................................................104

46


Table 59. When did the migrant started sending money home after leaving abroad? .......................................................105

Table 60. How often do migrants send money from abroad? .......................................................................................................106

Table 61. What is the average amount of a money transfer? .........................................................................................................107

Table 62. What is the amount brought personnaly when returning home? ...........................................................................108

Table 63. How many of your family members who are abroad currently send money to the family? ...........................109

Table 64. Table 64. Have any migrants from your family sent or donated money/assets to local oranizations

(church, sport club, community projects, etc.).................................................................................................................110

Table 65. For what projects did he/she donate this money? .........................................................................................................111

Table 66. For what of the following did you spend the largest part of this money over the last 12 months? ............112

Table 67. For what of the following did you spend the largest part of this money over the last 12 months? ............113

Table 68. How would you spend or have spent if you have / had 1,000 US dollars? ............................................................114

Table 69. How would you spend or have spent if you have / had 1,000 US dollars? ............................................................115

Table 70. How do you intend to use the money that will be earned in the following 12 months abroad? .................116

Table 71. Have you managed to accumulate a certain capital/amount of money when working abroad?.................117

Table 72. What is the amount of the accumulated capital? ...........................................................................................................118

Table 73. Have you ever had an own business or do you plan to initiate your own business in the near future? .....119

Table 74. In what sector of the economy is your current business or the one you intend to ............................................120

Table 75. What was the main income source you have used to initiate/develop your business? ...................................121

Table 76. If you had a business and do had to stop it, what were the reasons? .....................................................................122

Table 77. How do you appreciate the incomes of your family? ....................................................................................................123

Table 78. Migrant’s contribution to the family’s welfare? ...............................................................................................................124

Table 79. How do you appreciate Nourishment in your family now, compared to the situation before

the family member went to work abroad? ........................................................................................................................125

Table 80. How do you appreciate the Dwelling of your family now, compared to the situation before


Table 81. How do you appreciate the Clothing of your family now, compared to the situation before


Table 82. How do you appreciate Health in your family now, compared to the situation before


Table 83. How do you appreciate Education in your family now, compared to the situation before


Table 84. How do you appreciate Leisure in your family now, compared to the situation before


Table 85. How much do you spend for the following in an ordinary month? .........................................................................131

Table 86. How much do you spend for the following in an ordinary month?... ......................................................................132

Table 87. In an ordinary month, how much of the food products consumed in your household

are products made in your household for own consumption? .................................................................................133

Table 88. What is the main income source in your household .....................................................................................................134

47


Tabl

e 1.

SSa

mpl

e’s

stru

ctur

eN

umăr

%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

abr

oad:

Yes

314

76,0

%N

o99

24,0

%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

549

49,9

%N

o55

250

,1%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

348

31,4

%3

mem

bers

203

18,3

%4

mem

bers

282

25,5

%an

d m

ore

mem

bers

274

24,8

%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

dev

elop

men

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

370

33,4

%Av

erag

e36

833

,2%

Hig

h36

933

,3%

Are

a:U

rban

201

18,2

%Ru

ral

906

81,8

%

48


Tab

le 2

. Do

you

have

in y

our h

ouse

hold

(hou

se)?

Gen

eral

Runn

ing

wat

er

(aqu

educ

t)TV

set

Nat

ural

gas

Car

Fixe

d te

leph

one

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

55,

1%44

,9%

94,9

%5,

1%35

,5%

64,5

%27

,3%

72,7

%87

,4%

12,6

%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s59

,6%

40,4

%97

,1%

2,9%

38,5

%61

,5%

35,4

%64

,6%

92,7

%7,

3%

No

57,6

%42

,4%

94,9

%5,

1%36

,4%

63,6

%27

,3%

72,7

%87

,9%

12,1

%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

52,8

%47

,2%

96,2

%3,

8%30

,6%

69,4

%31

,0%

69,0

%91

,3%

8,7%

No

57,8

%42

,2%

93,7

%6,

3%40

,4%

59,6

%23

,7%

76,3

%83

,5%

16,5

%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

51,7

%48

,3%

91,1

%8,

9%36

,2%

63,8

%14

,1%

85,9

%83

,3%

16,7

%

3 m

embe

rs62

,6%

37,4

%96

,6%

3,4%

38,4

%61

,6%

34,0

%66

,0%

85,2

%14

,8%

4 m

embe

rs

55,3

%44

,7%

97,5

%2,

5%38

,3%

61,7

%37

,2%

62,8

%89

,7%

10,3

%5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs53

,6%

46,4

%95

,6%

4,4%

29,6

%70

,4%

28,8

%71

,2%

91,6

%8,

4%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

31,6

%68

,4%

87,3

%12

,7%

14,1

%85

,9%

2,7%

97,3

%69

,2%

30,8

%

Ave

rage

56,8

%43

,2%

98,1

%1,

9%35

,1%

64,9

%20

,9%

79,1

%94

,3%

5,7%

Hig

h77

,0%

23,0

%99

,2%

,8%

57,5

%42

,5%

58,3

%41

,7%

98,6

%1,

4%

Are

a:U

rban

83,1

%16

,9%

96,0

%4,

0%79

,6%

20,4

%28

,4%

71,6

%93

,5%

6,5%

Rura

l48

,9%

51,1

%94

,6%

5,4%

25,7

%74

,3%

27,0

%73

,0%

86,0

%14

,0%

49

Sociological Survey reportTa

ble

3. D

o yo

u ha

ve in

you

r hou

seho

ld (h

ouse

)?

Gen

eral

Mob

ile p

hone

(G

SM)

Was

hing

mac

hine

Type

reco

rder

|/ Vi

deor

ecor

der

Cabl

e TV

Sate

lite

TV a

nten

na

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

57,3

%42

,7%

59,8

%40

,2%

39,0

%61

,0%

24,8

%75

,2%

27,9

%72

,1%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s76

,4%

23,6

%76

,1%

23,9

%53

,5%

46,5

%26

,8%

73,2

%39

,8%

60,2

%

No

62,6

%37

,4%

64,6

%35

,4%

47,5

%52

,5%

27,3

%72

,7%

31,3

%68

,7%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

58,3

%41

,7%

65,0

%35

,0%

40,4

%59

,6%

22,6

%77

,4%

33,0

%67

,0%

No

56,7

%43

,3%

54,5

%45

,5%

38,0

%62

,0%

27,0

%73

,0%

22,8

%77

,2%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

34,8

%65

,2%

44,3

%55

,7%

22,7

%77

,3%

20,7

%79

,3%

17,0

%83

,0%

3 m

embe

rs64

,0%

36,0

%61

,6%

38,4

%42

,9%

57,1

%28

,6%

71,4

%23

,2%

76,8

%

4 m

embe

rs

73,8

%26

,2%

68,4

%31

,6%

50,7

%49

,3%

28,7

%71

,3%

37,9

%62

,1%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

63,9

%36

,1%

69,3

%30

,7%

44,9

%55

,1%

23,4

%76

,6%

35,0

%65

,0%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

18,4

%81

,6%

14,3

%85

,7%

7,8%

92,2

%4,

3%95

,7%

15,4

%84

,6%

Ave

rage

59,5

%40

,5%

73,4

%26

,6%

32,6

%67

,4%

19,6

%80

,4%

29,1

%70

,9%

Hig

h94

,0%

6,0%

91,9

%8,

1%76

,7%

23,3

%50

,7%

49,3

%39

,3%

60,7

%

Are

a:U

rban

67,7

%32

,3%

70,6

%29

,4%

48,3

%51

,7%

56,2

%43

,8%

15,4

%84

,6%

Rura

l55

,0%

45,0

%57

,4%

42,6

%37

,0%

63,0

%17

,9%

82,1

%30

,7%

69,3

%

50


Tabl

e 4.

Do

you

have

in y

our h

ouse

hold

(hou

se)?

Gen

eral

Refr

iger

ator

/ fre

ezer

Com

pute

rIn

tern

et c

onne

ctio

n

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

80,8

%19

,2%

26,6

%73

,4%

23,7

%76

,3%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

abr

oad:

Yes

89,2

%10

,8%

41,1

%58

,9%

36,9

%63

,1%

No

87,9

%12

,1%

36,4

%63

,6%

29,3

%70

,7%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

85,4

%14

,6%

27,1

%72

,9%

23,3

%76

,7%

No

76,1

%23

,9%

25,9

%74

,1%

23,9

%76

,1%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

74,1

%25

,9%

8,0%

92,0

%6,

3%93

,7%

3 m

embe

rs81

,8%

18,2

%34

,5%

65,5

%31

,5%

68,5

%

4 m

embe

rs

87,2

%12

,8%

38,7

%61

,3%

33,7

%66

,3%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

81,8

%18

,2%

31,8

%68

,2%

29,6

%70

,4%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

dev

elop

men

t of

hou

seho

lds:

Poor

53,0

%47

,0%

10

0,0%

10

0,0%

Ave

rage

90,8

%9,

2%4,

9%95

,1%

2,2%

97,8

%

Hig

h98

,6%

1,4%

74,8

%25

,2%

68,8

%31

,2%

Are

a:U

rban

86,6

%13

,4%

39,8

%60

,2%

37,3

%62

,7%

Rura

l79

,5%

20,5

%23

,6%

76,4

%20

,6%

79,4

%

51


ble

5. C

ondi

tion

s an

d op

port

unit

ies

in th

e co

untr

y

Gen

eral

In M

oldo

va th

ere

are

man

y w

ork/

empl

oym

ent

oppo

rtun

ities

:M

oldo

va is

a fa

vour

able

pla

ce to

cre

ate

a fa

mily

/liv

e qu

alit

y is

goo

d:

Fully

ag

ree

Rath

er

agre

eN

ot m

uch

agre

eTo

tally

di

sagr

eeD

K/N

AFu

lly

agre

eRa

ther

ag

ree

Not

muc

h ag

ree

Tota

lly

disa

gree

DK/

NA

2,1%

13,6

%41

,7%

41,1

%1,

4%3,

8%24

,8%

40,9

%28

,5%

2,0%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s2,

2%10

,8%

44,9

%41

,1%

1,0%

3,8%

24,5

%43

,0%

26,8

%1,

9%

No

3,0%

15,2

%43

,4%

36,4

%2,

0%6,

1%27

,3%

42,4

%22

,2%

2,0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

2,4%

11,8

%42

,8%

42,1

%,9

%5,

3%22

,2%

44,6

%26

,6%

1,3%

No

1,8%

15,4

%40

,4%

40,6

%1,

8%2,

2%27

,7%

37,0

%30

,6%

2,5%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

1,1%

11,5

%41

,4%

43,4

%2,

6%2,

9%22

,1%

39,7

%32

,8%

2,6%

3 m

embe

rs2,

0%13

,3%

42,9

%41

,4%

,5%

3,9%

22,2

%42

,4%

30,0

%1,

5%

4 m

embe

rs

2,8%

17,7

%40

,1%

39,0

%,4

%4,

6%28

,4%

41,5

%24

,1%

1,4%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

2,6%

12,4

%43

,1%

40,1

%1,

8%4,

0%26

,6%

40,9

%26

,3%

2,2%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

,5%

14,3

%40

,8%

41,6

%2,

7%3,

0%25

,9%

40,0

%27

,6%

3,5%

Ave

rage

3,0%

13,3

%43

,8%

38,6

%1,

4%3,

8%23

,4%

44,0

%27

,4%

1,4%

Hig

h2,

7%13

,3%

40,7

%43

,1%

,3%

4,6%

25,2

%38

,8%

30,4

%1,

1%

Are

a:U

rban

2,5%

10,9

%32

,8%

52,7

%1,

0%3,

0%18

,9%

34,3

%42

,3%

1,5%

Rura

l2,

0%14

,2%

43,7

%38

,5%

1,5%

4,0%

26,2

%42

,4%

25,4

%2,

1%

52


Tabl

e 6.

Con

diti

ons

and

oppo

rtun

itie

s in

the

coun

try

Gen

eral

In M

oldo

va th

ere

are

big

oppo

rtun

ities

for

inve

stm

ent:

Situ

atio

n in

Mol

dova

is d

evel

opin

g in

a g

ood

dire

ctio

n:

Fully

agr

eeRa

ther

ag

ree

Not

m

uch

agre

eTo

tally

di

sagr

eeD

K/N

AFu

lly a

gree

Rath

er

agre

eN

ot

muc

h ag

ree

Tota

lly

disa

gree

DK/

NA

5,5%

28,1

%34

,2%

25,7

%6,

4%1,

6%12

,1%

42,6

%39

,5%

4,2%

Mon

ey s

ent

from

abr

oad:

Yes

5,1%

26,1

%37

,3%

26,4

%5,

1%1,

6%14

,3%

43,0

%37

,6%

3,5%

No

5,1%

32,3

%39

,4%

21,2

%2,

0%

13,1

%52

,5%

26,3

%8,

1%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

6,4%

26,0

%36

,8%

24,4

%6,

4%2,

0%12

,9%

41,9

%41

,0%

2,2%

No

4,7%

30,1

%31

,5%

27,4

%6,

3%1,

3%11

,2%

43,1

%38

,4%

6,0%

Num

ber

of fa

mily

m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

5,7%

22,4

%34

,8%

28,7

%8,

3%1,

7%10

,1%

45,1

%39

,7%

3,4%

3 m

embe

rs5,

4%27

,6%

36,9

%26

,1%

3,9%

2,0%

8,9%

39,4

%46

,3%

3,4%

4 m

embe

rs

6,7%

33,0

%32

,6%

24,8

%2,

8%2,

1%15

,2%

41,5

%37

,2%

3,9%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

4,0%

30,7

%33

,2%

22,6

%9,

5%,7

%13

,9%

43,1

%36

,5%

5,8%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

2,4%

24,9

%35

,4%

27,3

%10

,0%

1,1%

11,6

%43

,0%

38,6

%5,

7%

Ave

rage

7,9%

27,2

%33

,2%

27,2

%4,

6%2,

7%9,

2%46

,5%

38,0

%3,

5%

Hig

h6,

2%32

,2%

34,1

%22

,8%

4,6%

1,1%

15,4

%38

,5%

41,7

%3,

3%

Are

a:U

rban

9,0%

23,9

%28

,4%

34,8

%4,

0%3,

0%9,

5%33

,8%

51,7

%2,

0%

Rura

l4,

7%29

,0%

35,5

%23

,7%

7,0%

1,3%

12,7

%44

,6%

36,8

%4,

6%

53


ble

7. T

he b

igge

st p

robl

em in

Mol

dova

toda

y is

:

Gen

eral

Hig

h pr

ices

/in

flatio

n

Low

w

ages

/pe

nsio

nsU

nem

ploy

men

tCor

rupt

ion

Inne

ficie

nt

gove

rnan

ceEm

igra

tion

Econ

omic

cr

isis

Dec

reas

e in

th

e am

ount

s of

mon

ey

sent

from

ab

road

by

mig

rant

s

Lack

of a

de

liver

y m

arke

t

18,9

%28

,9%

18,2

%9,

7%14

,5%

1,2%

5,3%

,2%

,1%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s18

,2%

27,4

%19

,1%

10,2

%14

,6%

1,6%

6,1%

No

16,2

%25

,3%

19,2

%12

,1%

21,2

%1,

0%2,

0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

18,2

%30

,1%

16,6

%10

,0%

15,1

%1,

3%5,

3%,4

%,2

%

No

19,6

%27

,7%

19,7

%9,

4%13

,9%

1,1%

5,3%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

19,5

%32

,8%

14,4

%6,

9%16

,1%

1,1%

4,6%

,3%

3 m

embe

rs21

,7%

29,1

%18

,7%

7,9%

13,8

%1,

0%4,

9%

4 m

embe

rs

17,7

%27

,3%

19,1

%13

,1%

14,5

%,7

%3,

9%,4

%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

17,2

%25

,5%

21,5

%10

,9%

12,8

%1,

8%8,

0%

,4%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

20,8

%29

,5%

19,2

%7,

8%12

,7%

6,

2%

Ave

rage

18,5

%28

,5%

20,9

%6,

5%14

,7%

1,9%

5,4%

,3%

Hig

h17

,3%

28,7

%14

,4%

14,6

%16

,0%

1,6%

4,3%

,3%

,3%

Are

a:U

rban

16,4

%32

,3%

8,0%

10,4

%15

,9%

2,0%

8,0%

Rura

l19

,4%

28,1

%20

,4%

9,5%

14,1

%1,

0%4,

7%,2

%,1

%

54


Tabl

e 8.

The

big

gest

pro

blem

in M

oldo

va to

day

is:

Gen

eral

Tran

snis

tria

n is

sue

The

mis

deed

we

face

Pove

rty

Elec

tion

of th

epr

esid

ent

Soci

al

supp

ort

pro -

vide

d no

t in

the

favo

ur o

f be

nefic

iari

es

Road

sPo

pula

tion’

s he

alth

All

DK/

NA

,1%

,1%

,5%

,6%

,1%

,1%

,1%

,8%

,7%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s

,6

%,3

%

1,0%

1,0%

No

2,

0%1,

0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

,2%

,9

%,7

%,2

%,2

%,2

%,2

%,4

%

No

,2

%,2

%,5

%

1,4%

,9%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

1,4%

,9%

,3%

,3%

,6

%,9

%

3 m

embe

rs

,5%

,5%

1,0%

1,0%

4 m

embe

rs

,4%

,4

%1,

1%

1,1%

,4%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

,4

%

,7%

,7%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

,3

%,5

%,8

%,3

%,3

%

,3%

1,4%

Ave

rage

,5%

,8%

,3%

1,1%

,5%

Hig

h,3

%

,5%

,3%

1,

1%,3

%

Are

a:U

rban

,5

%1,

5%1,

0%

4,0%

Rura

l,1

%

,3%

,6%

,1%

,1%

,1%

,1%

,9%

55


ble

9. H

ow d

id th

e st

anda

rds

of li

ving

cha

nge

over

the

last

two

year

s?

Gen

eral

In g

ener

alFo

odD

wel

ling

Now

is

bett

er

Is th

e sa

me

Now

is

wor

se

Now

is

bett

er

Is th

e sa

me

Now

is

wor

se

DK/

NA

Now

is

bett

er

Is th

e sa

me

Now

is

wor

se

DK/

NA

10,9

%36

,3%

52,8

%10

,7%

42,2

%47

,0%

,1%

9,8%

46,6

%43

,5%

,1%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s18

,5%

40,1

%41

,4%

16,6

%47

,5%

35,7

%,3

%15

,3%

52,5

%31

,8%

,3%

No

12,1

%36

,4%

51,5

%12

,1%

41,4

%46

,5%

10

,1%

47,5

%42

,4%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

12,8

%35

,0%

52,3

%12

,6%

44,8

%42

,4%

,2%

12,0

%46

,3%

41,5

%,2

%

No

8,9%

37,7

%53

,4%

8,7%

39,9

%51

,4%

7,

2%47

,3%

45,5

%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

6,0%

34,8

%59

,2%

6,6%

38,8

%54

,6%

4,

6%45

,7%

49,7

%

3 m

embe

rs12

,3%

33,0

%54

,7%

10,8

%40

,9%

48,3

%

8,4%

45,8

%45

,8%

4 m

embe

rs

14,9

%36

,2%

48,9

%14

,9%

40,8

%44

,3%

16

,0%

42,6

%41

,5%

5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs12

,0%

40,9

%47

,1%

11,7

%48

,9%

39,1

%,4

%10

,9%

52,6

%36

,1%

,4%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

4,1%

36,5

%59

,5%

5,9%

38,9

%55

,1%

3,

5%44

,6%

51,9

%

Ave

rage

9,0%

33,4

%57

,6%

9,0%

41,0

%50

,0%

8,

7%44

,8%

46,5

%

Hig

h19

,8%

39,0

%41

,2%

17,3

%46

,6%

35,8

%,3

%17

,1%

50,4

%32

,2%

,3%

Are

a:U

rban

11,4

%26

,9%

61,7

%9,

5%28

,4%

62,2

%

7,5%

38,8

%53

,7%

Rura

l10

,8%

38,4

%50

,8%

11,0

%45

,3%

43,6

%,1

%10

,3%

48,3

%41

,3%

,1%

56


Tabl

e 10

. How

did

the

stan

dard

s of

livi

ng c

hang

e ov

er th

e la

st tw

o ye

ars?

Gen

eral

Clot

hing

/Foo

twea

rH

ealth

Educ

atio

n

Now

is

bett

er

Is th

e sa

me

Now

is

wor

se

DK/ NA

Now

is

bett

er

Is th

e sa

me

Now

is

wor

se

DK/

NA

Now

is

bett

er

Is th

e sa

me

Now

is

wor

se

DK/

NA

9,8%

42,4

%47

,7%

,1%

7,0%

36,6

%56

,3%

,1%

9,5%

47,0

%43

,4%

,2%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s17

,5%

43,9

%38

,2%

,3%

12,4

%42

,7%

44,6

%,3

%15

,9%

50,6

%32

,8%

,6%

No

11,1

%44

,4%

44,4

%

7,1%

35,4

%57

,6%

12

,1%

49,5

%38

,4%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

11,7

%43

,0%

45,2

%,2

%7,

7%35

,5%

56,6

%,2

%10

,6%

46,4

%42

,6%

,4%

No

7,8%

42,0

%50

,2%

6,

2%37

,9%

56,0

%

8,2%

47,8

%44

,0%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

5,2%

39,9

%54

,9%

4,

9%31

,9%

63,2

%

4,3%

45,7

%50

,0%

3 m

embe

rs9,

4%41

,9%

48,8

%

5,9%

36,9

%57

,1%

7,

9%43

,8%

48,3

%

4 m

embe

rs

13,5

%40

,8%

45,7

%

9,6%

37,6

%52

,8%

14

,5%

44,7

%40

,8%

5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs12

,4%

47,4

%39

,8%

,4%

8,0%

41,2

%50

,4%

,4%

12,0

%53

,3%

33,9

%,7

%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

3,8%

40,5

%55

,7%

3,

2%32

,2%

64,6

%

3,5%

45,7

%50

,8%

Ave

rage

8,7%

40,8

%50

,5%

6,

3%32

,6%

61,1

%

9,0%

44,8

%45

,9%

,3%

Hig

h17

,1%

45,8

%36

,9%

,3%

11,7

%45

,0%

43,1

%,3

%16

,0%

50,4

%33

,3%

,3%

Are

a:U

rban

8,5%

29,9

%61

,7%

7,

0%29

,9%

63,2

%

7,5%

39,3

%53

,2%

Rura

l10

,2%

45,1

%44

,6%

,1%

7,1%

38,1

%54

,7%

,1%

9,9%

48,7

%41

,2%

,2%

57


ble

11. H

ow d

id th

e st

anda

rds

of li

ving

cha

nge

over

the

last

two

year

s?

Ente

rtai

nmen

t

Now

is b

ette

r Is

the

sam

eN

ow is

wor

se

DK/

NA

7,6%

43,9

%48

,3%

,2%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

abr

oad:

Yes

12,1

%47

,5%

39,8

%,6

%

No

11,1

%41

,4%

47,5

%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

7,5%

44,4

%47

,7%

,4%

No

7,4%

43,7

%48

,9%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

3,4%

43,4

%53

,2%

3 m

embe

rs7,

9%40

,9%

51,2

%

4 m

embe

rs

10,3

%40

,4%

49,3

%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

9,9%

50,4

%39

,1%

,7%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

dev

elop

men

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

2,4%

44,3

%53

,2%

Ave

rage

6,8%

41,8

%51

,1%

,3%

Hig

h13

,6%

45,5

%40

,7%

,3%

Are

a:U

rban

9,0%

31,3

%59

,7%

Rura

l7,

3%46

,7%

45,8

%,2

%

58


Tabl

e 12

. Wha

t is

the

mos

t im

port

ant t

hing

that

Mild

ovan

mig

rant

s ca

n do

in o

rder

to c

ontr

ibut

e to

the

econ

omic

de

velo

pmen

t of t

he c

ount

ry?

Gen

eral

Prom

ote

coun

try’

s im

age

abro

ad

Send

mon

ey

hom

e,

Star

t up

a bu

sine

ss

Send

mon

ey

hom

e,

Inve

st in

hi

s/he

r ow

n

exis

ting

busi

ness

Send

mon

ey

hom

e,

Don

ate

to

com

mun

ity

proj

ects

Send

mon

ey

hom

e, F

or

hous

ehol

d ne

eds/

build

, re

pair

own

dwel

ling

Buy

Mol

do-

van

expo

r-te

d pr

oduc

ts

whi

le a

broa

d

Set u

p cu

ltura

l co

nnec

tions

/re

latio

ns

with

peo

ple

from

oth

er

Repr

esen

t M

oldo

va’s

inte

rest

s ab

roa

Rem

ain

polit

ical

ly

activ

e (v

otin

g, e

tc.)

5,2%

20,9

%4,

1%2,

4%41

,6%

2,1%

3,6%

5,1%

1,3%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s5,

4%22

,0%

4,1%

2,9%

40,4

%2,

5%3,

5%6,

4%1,

6%

No

6,1%

23,2

%2,

0%1,

0%47

,5%

1,0%

3,0%

6,1%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

6,2%

20,6

%4,

2%3,

1%39

,9%

,9%

3,3%

7,8%

,9%

No

4,3%

21,2

%4,

0%1,

8%43

,5%

3,1%

4,0%

2,5%

1,6%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

7,2%

16,1

%4,

0%2,

9%43

,7%

1,7%

3,4%

2,9%

,6%

3 m

embe

rs4,

9%21

,2%

4,4%

2,0%

42,4

%3,

0%3,

9%5,

9%1,

5%

4 m

embe

rs

3,5%

24,1

%3,

5%2,

1%40

,1%

2,1%

5,3%

5,7%

1,4%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

4,7%

23,4

%4,

4%2,

6%40

,1%

1,8%

1,8%

6,9%

1,8%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

6,5%

15,7

%4,

6%2,

2%42

,4%

2,2%

4,3%

2,7%

,3%

Ave

rage

4,6%

23,1

%3,

8%2,

2%41

,3%

1,6%

3,3%

6,8%

1,6%

Hig

h4,

6%23

,8%

3,8%

3,0%

41,2

%2,

4%3,

3%6,

0%1,

9%

Are

a:U

rban

2,0%

16,4

%3,

0%1,

0%49

,3%

2,5%

2,5%

2,0%

3,0%

Rura

l6,

0%21

,9%

4,3%

2,8%

40,0

%2,

0%3,

9%5,

8%,9

%

59


ble

13. W

hat i

s th

e m

ost i

mpo

rtan

t thi

ng th

at M

ildov

an m

igra

nts

can

do in

ord

er to

con

trib

ute

to th

e ec

onom

ic

deve

lopm

ent o

f the

cou

ntry

?

Gen

eral

Hel

p th

e co

untr

y in

cris

is ti

mes

Retu

rn to

the

coun

try

Cann

ot d

o an

ythi

ngCa

n do

any

thin

gSt

ay a

broa

dD

K/N

A

4,6%

,5%

,3%

,2%

,3%

7,9%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s5,

4%

,3%

,3%

,3%

4,8%

No

1,0%

1,0%

8,

1%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

5,3%

,5%

,4%

,2%

,4%

6,4%

No

4,0%

,4%

,2%

,2%

,2%

9,1%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

4,6%

,6%

,3%

,3

%11

,8%

3 m

embe

rs3,

9%

,5

%,5

%5,

9%

4 m

embe

rs

5,3%

,7%

,4%

,4%

5,

3%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

4,4%

,4%

,4%

,4

%6,

9%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

5,1%

,3%

,3%

,3%

,3%

13,0

%

Ave

rage

4,1%

,5%

,3%

,3%

,3%

6,3%

Hig

h4,

6%,5

%,3

%

,3%

4,3%

Are

a:U

rban

5,5%

1,0%

,5%

1,0%

1,5%

9,0%

Rura

l4,

4%,3

%,2

%

7,

6%

60


Tabl

e 14

. Do

you

thin

k th

at e

mig

rati

on h

as a

neg

ativ

e im

pact

(infl

uenc

e) o

ver M

oldo

va?

Gen

eral

Fully

agr

eeRa

ther

agr

eeN

ot m

uch

agre

eTo

tally

dis

agre

eD

K/N

A

35,3

%26

,3%

18,1

%13

,7%

6,6%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s30

,9%

26,8

%21

,3%

16,9

%4,

1%

No

33,3

%32

,3%

18,2

%15

,2%

1,0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

38,6

%23

,5%

18,6

%13

,3%

6,0%

No

31,9

%29

,2%

17,6

%14

,3%

7,1%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

38,5

%23

,6%

17,5

%10

,9%

9,5%

3 m

embe

rs34

,0%

24,6

%17

,7%

14,8

%8,

9%

4 m

embe

rs

36,9

%28

,0%

17,0

%14

,9%

3,2%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

30,7

%29

,2%

20,1

%15

,3%

4,7%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

31,6

%24

,6%

20,5

%12

,2%

11,1

%

Ave

rage

35,6

%31

,3%

16,0

%12

,8%

4,3%

Hig

h38

,8%

23,0

%17

,6%

16,3

%4,

3%

Are

a:U

rban

45,8

%16

,4%

13,4

%15

,9%

8,5%

Rura

l33

,0%

28,5

%19

,1%

13,2

%6,

2%

61


Tabl

e 15

. In

your

opi

nion

, wha

t are

the

thre

e m

ost n

egat

ive

cons

eque

nces

of e

mig

rati

on?

Gen

eral

Brai

n dr

ain

(No

mor

e sp

ecia

lists

re

mai

ned)

No

mor

e yo

ung

peop

le

rem

aine

d in

M

oldo

va

Child

ren

left

with

out

pare

ntal

car

e/de

caye

d fa

mili

es

Fam

ily d

ecay

Incr

ease

in

crim

inal

ity/

crim

inal

ne

twor

ks/

traffi

c

Lack

of

inve

stm

ents

in

Mol

dova

Infla

tion

due

to

rem

intt

ance

s

The

yout

h be

com

e de

pend

ant

on th

e m

oney

re

ceiv

ed fr

om

abro

ad

31,5

%58

,8%

77,0

%73

,5%

12,9

%5,

0%1,

6%18

,3%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s31

,5%

60,8

%76

,2%

74,6

%11

,6%

4,4%

1,1%

19,9

%

No

40,0

%60

,0%

76,9

%69

,2%

10,8

%3,

1%1,

5%21

,5%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

27,0

%60

,1%

77,1

%75

,7%

13,8

%6,

2%1,

5%19

,6%

No

36,2

%57

,9%

76,6

%70

,9%

11,9

%3,

9%1,

8%16

,9%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

33,3

%57

,9%

77,3

%70

,8%

13,4

%5,

1%1,

9%18

,1%

3 m

embe

rs37

,0%

58,0

%68

,1%

73

,1%

10,1

%5,

0%1,

7%19

,3%

4 m

embe

rs

29,0

%62

,8%

79,2

%72

,1%

14,2

%4,

9%1,

6%20

,2%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

28,0

%56

,1%

80,5

%78

,7%

12,8

%4,

9%1,

2%15

,9%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

25,0

%61

,1%

75,5

%76

,4%

12,5

%6,

7%1,

0%13

,9%

Ave

rage

30,9

%56

,9%

77,2

%72

,8%

12,6

%5,

7%2,

0%19

,1%

Hig

h38

,2%

58,8

%78

,1%

71,5

%13

,6%

2,6%

1,8%

21,5

%

Are

a:U

rban

49,6

%55

,2%

80,0

%59

,2%

14,4

%1,

6%4,

8%17

,6%

Rura

l27

,5%

59,6

%76

,3%

76,7

%12

,6%

5,7%

,9%

18,5

%

62


Tabl

e 16

. In

your

opi

nion

, wha

t are

the

thre

e m

ost n

egat

ive

cons

eque

nces

of e

mig

rati

on?

Gen

eral

Pers

ons h

ave

an

unhe

alth

y lif

e st

yle

Plou

gh la

nd

rem

ains

un

atte

nded

Pare

nts r

emai

n w

ithou

t hel

p/su

ppor

tD

ecre

ase

in th

e bi

rth

rate

The

coun

try

disa

ppea

rsAl

lD

K/N

A

10,4

%,7

%,4

%,1

%,3

%,1

%,6

%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s13

,8%

No

10,8

%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

9,4%

,6

%,3

%

,3

%

No

11,6

%1,

5%,3

%

,6%

,3%

,9%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

9,3%

,9%

,9%

,5

%

,9%

3 m

embe

rs12

,6%

,8%

1,7%

4 m

embe

rs

8,2%

,5%

,5%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

12,8

%1,

2%

,6%

,6%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

12,5

%1,

0%1,

4%

1,0%

Ave

rage

10,6

%1,

2%

,4%

,8%

Hig

h8,

3%

,9%

,4%

Are

a:U

rban

6,4%

1,6%

1,6%

,8%

,8%

Rura

l11

,3%

,5%

,5%

,2%

,5%

63


ble

17. I

n yo

ur o

pini

on, w

hat a

re th

e th

ree

bigg

est a

dvan

tage

s of

em

igra

tion

?

Gen

eral

Gro

win

g co

untr

y’s

econ

omic

le

vel

Gro

win

g st

anda

rds

of li

ving

of

mig

rant

s’ fa

mili

es

Dev

elop

ing

infr

astr

uc-

ture

in th

e co

mm

unity

(r

epai

red

road

s,

scho

ols,

et

c.)

New

ent

er-

pris

es o

pe-

ning

in th

e co

untr

y/co

mm

unity

Gro

win

g po

ssib

ility

of

fam

ilies

to

hav

e m

ore

ac-

cess

to

heal

thca

re

serv

ices

Gro

win

g po

ssib

ility

of

fam

ilies

to

offe

r hi

gher

edu

-ca

tion

to

thei

r chi

l -dr

e

No

adva

ntag

esEx

perie

nce

exch

ange

Dem

ocra

ti-za

tion

DK/

NA

39,7

%77

,1%

24,3

%24

,7%

28,4

%39

,9%

,5%

,1%

,1%

12,9

%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s43

,6%

78,3

%27

,4%

25,8

%30

,3%

44,3

%

9,2%

No

44,4

%85

,9%

19,2

%22

,2%

21,2

%43

,4%

13

,1%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

38,1

%78

,5%

27,1

%28

,2%

26,0

%44

,4%

,9%

,2

%9,

1%

No

41,5

%75

,9%

21,6

%21

,4%

30,8

%35

,5%

,2

%

16,5

%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

39,4

%75

,0%

24,7

%23

,9%

27,9

%35

,6%

,6%

14,9

%

3 m

embe

rs42

,4%

73,9

%25

,1%

26,1

%28

,6%

41,4

%

13,8

%

4 m

embe

rs

38,7

%76

,6%

28,0

%25

,9%

23,4

%40

,4%

,7%

,4%

,4%

12,1

%5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs39

,1%

82,8

%19

,3%

23,4

%33

,9%

43,8

%,4

%

10

,6%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

39,7

%76

,8%

24,1

%23

,5%

25,7

%31

,6%

,5%

16,5

%

Ave

rage

38,9

%78

,0%

22,0

%24

,7%

29,6

%39

,1%

,8%

,3

%12

,0%

Hig

h40

,4%

76,7

%26

,8%

25,7

%29

,8%

49,1

%

,3%

10

,3%

Are

a:U

rban

26,9

%63

,7%

21,4

%21

,9%

35,3

%45

,8%

,5%

,5

%22

,4%

Rura

l42

,5%

80,1

%24

,9%

25,3

%26

,8%

38,6

%,4

%,1

%

10,8

%

64


Tabl

e 18

. Whi

ch o

f the

follo

win

g as

pect

s de

teri

orat

ed in

you

r com

mun

ity

over

the

last

five

yea

rs?

Gen

eral

Acce

ss to

ed

ucat

ion

Acce

ss to

he

alth

care

/nu

mbe

r of

doct

ors

Dw

ellin

gsRo

ads

Tran

spor

tW

ater

supp

lyPo

wer

su

pply

Gas

supp

lyEn

viro

nmen

t/Sa

nita

tion

9,6%

22,8

%15

,3%

42,0

%9,

9%11

,2%

4,2%

11,4

%9,

0%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s10

,8%

18,8

%16

,9%

42,4

%9,

2%10

,2%

2,9%

14,3

%9,

9%

No

18,2

%23

,2%

8,1%

35,4

%8,

1%13

,1%

4,0%

9,1%

11,1

%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

10,0

%24

,2%

14,4

%46

,1%

10,7

%10

,7%

5,1%

12,9

%7,

7%

No

9,2%

21,2

%16

,1%

38,0

%9,

2%11

,8%

3,4%

10,0

%10

,5%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

6,6%

26,1

%18

,7%

40,8

%10

,1%

12,6

%4,

0%8,

6%8,

3%

3 m

embe

rs9,

4%21

,2%

14,3

%41

,4%

9,9%

10,3

%5,

4%10

,8%

9,9%

4 m

embe

rs

10,6

%22

,7%

15,2

%42

,2%

10,3

%11

,0%

3,9%

12,8

%8,

2%5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs12

,4%

19,7

%11

,7%

43,8

%9,

5%10

,2%

4,0%

13,9

%10

,2%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

7,6%

24,6

%14

,9%

40,8

%8,

9%13

,8%

3,2%

10,8

%8,

6%

Ave

rage

11,4

%22

,0%

13,3

%39

,9%

9,5%

10,9

%4,

6%13

,6%

9,5%

Hig

h9,

8%21

,7%

17,6

%45

,3%

11,4

%8,

9%4,

9%9,

8%8,

9%

Are

a:U

rban

7,5%

19,4

%19

,4%

42,3

%7,

5%9,

5%5,

5%8,

5%9,

0%

Rura

l10

,0%

23,5

%14

,3%

41,9

%10

,5%

11,6

%4,

0%12

,0%

9,1%

65


ble

19. W

hich

of t

he fo

llow

ing

aspe

cts

dete

rior

ated

in y

our c

omm

unit

y ov

er th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

?

Gen

eral

Crim

inal

ityEm

ploy

men

t op

port

uniti

esW

ages

/pe

nsio

nsD

istr

ibut

ion

of p

rope

rty

Mar

kets

Situ

atio

n fo

r ch

ildre

nSo

cial

co

hesi

on

Conn

ectio

ns

betw

een

fam

ilies

in

the

com

mun

ity

Oth

ers

11,9

%30

,5%

32,7

%1,

4%2,

3%9,

2%2,

9%3,

4%0,

2%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s12

,7%

30,3

%35

,7%

1,9%

2,9%

9,2%

1,6%

3,2%

0,3%

No

8,1%

35,4

%32

,3%

1,0%

2,0%

7,1%

4,0%

2,0%

1,0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

11,8

%33

,5%

30,2

%1,

3%2,

4%7,

7%3,

1%4,

7%0,

4%

No

11,8

%27

,5%

35,0

%1,

4%2,

4%10

,9%

2,7%

2,2%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

10,6

%29

,3%

29,6

%2,

0%2,

3%9,

2%3,

2%2,

3%

3 m

embe

rs14

,3%

28,6

%33

,5%

3,0%

9,

9%2,

5%3,

9%0,

5%

4 m

embe

rs

14,2

%29

,4%

34,0

%0,

4%1,

4%8,

2%2,

1%2,

1%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

9,5%

34,7

%34

,7%

0,4%

5,1%

9,9%

3,6%

5,8%

0,4%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

11,1

%28

,9%

29,5

%1,

4%2,

2%11

,6%

2,7%

4,1%

Ave

rage

9,8%

32,3

%31

,3%

1,4%

2,2%

6,0%

2,7%

3,0%

Hig

h14

,9%

30,4

%37

,4%

1,4%

2,7%

10,0

%3,

3%3,

3%0,

5%

Are

a:U

rban

13,9

%25

,4%

36,3

%4,

0%2,

5%11

,9%

3,5%

1,0%

1,0%

Rura

l11

,5%

31,7

%31

,9%

0,8%

2,3%

8,6%

2,8%

4,0%

66


Tabl

e 20

. Whi

ch o

f the

follo

win

g as

pect

s de

teri

orat

ed in

you

r com

mun

ity

over

the

last

five

yea

rs?

Gen

eral

Incr

ease

in

pric

es

Pers

ons

do n

ot

wan

t to

wor

k

The

yout

hAc

cess

to

Inte

rnet

Cond

ition

s in

kind

erga

rten

May

oral

tyN

o at

tent

ion

paid

to th

e po

pula

tion

Stan

dard

s of

livi

ngRe

para

tion

of th

e ch

urch

0,8%

0,4%

0,1%

0,1%

0,2%

0,4%

0,3%

0,3%

0,1%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s1,

6%

0,3%

0,

3%

No

1,0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

0,5%

0,5%

0,

5%0,

4%0,

4%0,

2%

No

1,1%

0,2%

0,2%

0,2%

0,4%

0,2%

0,2%

0,2%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

0,6%

0,3%

0,

6%0,

3%0,

9%0,

3%

3 m

embe

rs1,

0%

4 m

embe

rs

0,7%

1,1%

0,

4%

0,4%

0,7%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

1,1%

0,

4%

0,7%

0,4%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

0,3%

0,

3%

0,

3%

Ave

rage

1,6%

0,5%

0,

3%0,

5%0,

3%0,

8%0,

8%0,

3%

Hig

h0,

5%0,

5%

0,5%

Are

a:U

rban

2,5%

0,5%

0,5%

Rura

l0,

4%0,

4%0,

1%0,

1%0,

2%0,

3%0,

2%0,

3%0,

1%

67


ble

21. W

hich

of t

he fo

llow

ing

aspe

cts

dete

rior

ated

in y

our c

omm

unit

y ov

er th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

?

Gen

eral

Stre

et

light

ing

Des

truc

tion

of th

e m

ill

Beca

use

of

mig

ratio

n,

child

ren

rem

ain

with

out p

aren

tsTh

e fa

rm

Ever

ythi

ngCo

rrup

tion

Colle

ctio

n of

w

alnu

ts w

as

proh

ibite

dJo

bsN

othi

ng

0,2%

0,1%

0,3%

0,3%

0,5%

0,1%

0,1%

0,5%

14,0

%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s

0,3%

0,

3%0,

3%

0,3%

14

,0%

No

1,0%

1,0%

17,2

%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

0,2%

0,

4%

0,4%

0,

2%

11,8

%

No

0,2%

0,2%

0,2%

0,5%

0,5%

0,2%

0,

9%15

,9%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

0,6%

0,

3%

0,9%

0,3%

0,

6%13

,5%

3 m

embe

rs

0,

5%

0,5%

16

,7%

4 m

embe

rs

0,4%

0,

4%

15,2

%5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs

0,4%

1,

1%

0,

4%1,

1%11

,3%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

0,3%

0,

3%0,

3%0,

5%0,

3%

0,5%

15,7

%

Ave

rage

0,3%

0,3%

0,3%

0,5%

0,5%

0,

3%0,

8%13

,9%

Hig

h

0,

3%

0,3%

12

,5%

Are

a:U

rban

0,5%

1,0%

14,4

%

Rura

l0,

1%0,

1%0,

3%0,

3%0,

6%0,

1%0,

1%0,

3%13

,9%

68


Tabl

e 22

. Whi

ch o

f the

follo

win

g as

pect

s im

prov

ed in

you

r com

mun

ity

over

the

last

five

yea

rs?

Gen

eral

Acce

ss to

ed

ucat

ion

Acce

s to

heal

thca

re/

num

ber o

fdo

ctor

sD

wel

lings

Road

sTr

ansp

ort

Wat

er

supp

lyPo

wer

su

pply

Gas

su

pply

Envi

ronm

ent/

sani

tatio

n

24,8

%11

,1%

10,0

%25

,4%

14,8

%22

,0%

7,0%

17,1

%4,

4%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s27

,1%

11,5

%14

,3%

25,8

%19

,7%

22,6

%8,

3%17

,2%

3,2%

No

37,4

%15

,2%

8,1%

30,3

%15

,2%

24,2

%4,

0%18

,2%

2,0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

24,8

%10

,0%

13,1

%24

,6%

18,2

%24

,6%

7,3%

18,2

%4,

2%

No

25,0

%12

,1%

6,9%

26,3

%11

,2%

19,6

%6,

9%15

,8%

4,7%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

18,1

%8,

6%7,

5%22

,7%

11,8

%17

,2%

7,8%

14,9

%4,

3%

3 m

embe

rs22

,2%

11,3

%10

,8%

27,1

%14

,8%

27,6

%4,

4%17

,7%

3,4%

4 m

embe

rs

27,0

%10

,3%

11,3

%25

,9%

16,7

%23

,8%

7,4%

18,1

%5,

7%5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs33

,2%

15,0

%11

,3%

27,0

%16

,8%

22,3

%7,

7%18

,2%

4,0%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

26,5

%13

,8%

7,3%

25,1

%11

,1%

18,6

%5,

4%12

,7%

3,8%

Ave

rage

26,6

%10

,6%

10,1

%24

,7%

16,3

%24

,2%

6,0%

17,7

%4,

1%

Hig

h21

,4%

8,9%

12,7

%26

,3%

17,1

%23

,3%

9,8%

20,9

%5,

4%

Are

a:U

rban

8,0%

6,5%

5,5%

17,4

%9,

0%15

,4%

9,5%

8,5%

11,9

%

Rura

l28

,6%

12,1

%11

,0%

27,2

%16

,1%

23,5

%6,

5%19

,0%

2,8%

69


ble

23. W

hich

of t

he fo

llow

ing

aspe

cts

impr

oved

in y

our c

omm

unit

y ov

er th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

?

Gen

eral

Crim

inal

ityEm

ploy

men

t op

port

uniti

esW

ages

/pe

nsio

nsD

istr

ibut

ion

of p

rope

rty

Mar

kets

Situ

atio

n fo

r ch

ildre

nSo

cial

cohe

sion

Conn

ectio

ns

betw

een

fam

ilies

in

the

com

mun

ity

Peop

lebe

cam

e m

ore

dilig

ent

2,3%

0,7%

1,2%

0,3%

13,6

%4,

8%1,

4%2,

6%0,

1%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s1,

9%0,

3%0,

3%0,

6%17

,8%

4,5%

1,6%

4,8%

0,3%

No

3,0%

1,0%

11,1

%7,

1%3,

0%1,

0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

2,7%

1,1%

1,6%

0,4%

13,1

%4,

9%1,

6%2,

6%0,

2%

No

2,0%

0,4%

0,7%

0,2%

13,9

%4,

7%1,

3%2,

7%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

3,2%

0,9%

2,3%

0,3%

10,9

%6,

0%1,

4%2,

3%

3 m

embe

rs3,

0%

0,5%

17

,7%

3,9%

1,5%

3,4%

4 m

embe

rs

1,1%

1,1%

1,4%

0,4%

12,1

%4,

6%1,

8%2,

1%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

2,2%

0,7%

0,

4%15

,3%

4,0%

1,1%

2,9%

0,4%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

3,5%

0,3%

1,1%

11

,4%

4,6%

0,8%

3,0%

Ave

rage

1,9%

0,5%

1,9%

0,5%

11,4

%4,

1%1,

1%2,

7%

Hig

h1,

6%1,

4%0,

5%0,

3%17

,9%

5,7%

2,4%

2,2%

0,3%

Are

a:U

rban

3,5%

1,0%

1,5%

24

,4%

10,0

%2,

0%3,

5%

Rura

l2,

1%0,

7%1,

1%0,

3%11

,1%

3,6%

1,3%

2,4%

0,1%

70


Tabl

e 24

. Whi

ch o

f the

follo

win

g as

pect

s im

prov

ed in

you

r com

mun

ity

over

the

last

five

yea

rs?

Gen

eral

Acce

ss to

In

tern

etCo

nditi

ons i

n ki

nder

gart

enPo

st se

rvic

esM

ayor

alty

Repa

ratio

n of

the

chur

ch

Cons

truc

tion

of

the

brid

ge o

ver

the

Raut

Riv

erSt

reet

light

ing

The

mill

Cons

truc

tion

of th

e st

adiu

m

0,1%

0,5%

0,1%

0,2%

0,9%

0,5%

0,6%

0,1%

0,2%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s

1,0%

1,0%

0,

3%

No

2,0%

1,

0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

0,2%

0,4%

0,2%

0,2%

0,9%

0,7%

0,4%

0,2%

No

0,

5%

0,2%

0,9%

0,2%

0,9%

0,

4%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

0,3%

0,3%

1,4%

0,6%

0,3%

0,

3%

3 m

embe

rs

0,5%

0,5%

1,

0%

4 m

embe

rs

1,

1%

0,4%

1,1%

0,7%

0,7%

0,4%

5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs

0,4%

0,4%

0,

4%0,

4%0,

7%

0,4%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

0,

3%0,

3%0,

3%1,

9%0,

5%0,

3%

0,3%

Ave

rage

0,

3%

0,

3%0,

5%1,

1%0,

3%0,

3%

Hig

h0,

3%0,

8%

0,3%

0,5%

0,3%

0,5%

Are

a:U

rban

0,5%

0,

5%

1,0%

0,

5%

Rura

l

0,6%

0,1%

0,2%

1,0%

0,6%

0,6%

0,1%

0,1%

71


ble

25. W

hich

of t

he fo

llow

ing

aspe

cts

impr

oved

in y

our c

omm

unit

y ov

er th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

?

Gen

eral

Cons

truc

tion

of b

usst

atio

ns

Inst

alla

tion

of te

leph

one

sets

/line

s

Colle

ctio

n of

w

alnu

ts w

as

proh

ibite

dIn

form

atio

nJo

bsTh

e Ba

nkN

othi

ng

0,5%

0,1%

0,1%

0,1%

2,0%

0,1%

32,6

%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s0,

3%

0,3%

1,

6%

29,0

%

No

1,0%

1,

0%

24,2

%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

0,2%

2,

2%

29,5

%

No

0,9%

0,2%

0,2%

0,2%

1,8%

0,2%

35,7

%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

0,3%

0,3%

1,4%

38

,8%

3 m

embe

rs1,

5%0,

5%

2,

0%0,

5%32

,0%

4 m

embe

rs

0,7%

2,

1%

30,5

%5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs

0,

4%

2,6%

27

,4%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

1,1%

2,

7%

35,7

%

Ave

rage

0,3%

0,

3%

1,9%

33

,2%

Hig

h0,

3%0,

3%

0,3%

1,4%

0,3%

29,0

%

Are

a:U

rban

0,5%

0,5%

1,0%

0,5%

43,8

%

Rura

l0,

6%0,

1%0,

1%

2,2%

30

,1%

72


Tabl

e 2

6. In

gen

eral

, how

did

the

soci

al-e

cono

mic

con

diti

ons

deve

lop

in y

our c

omm

unit

y ov

er th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

?

Gen

eral

Impr

oved

sign

ifica

ntly

Impr

oved

slig

htly

Rem

aine

d th

e sa

me

Det

erio

rate

d sl

ight

lyD

egra

ded

sign

ifica

ntly

DK/

NA

1,2%

24,7

%39

,0%

25,7

%8,

8%,6

%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s1,

9%26

,4%

44,3

%20

,1%

6,7%

,6%

No

2,0%

23,2

%39

,4%

22,2

%12

,1%

1,0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

1,3%

29,3

%33

,7%

27,3

%7,

3%1,

1%

No

,9%

20,1

%44

,6%

23,9

%10

,3%

,2%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

,9%

18,1

%38

,2%

31,0

%11

,5%

,3%

3 m

embe

rs1,

0%22

,7%

42,4

%25

,1%

8,4%

,5%

4 m

embe

rs

1,8%

28,4

%40

,8%

21,6

%6,

7%,7

%5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs1,

1%30

,7%

35,8

%23

,7%

7,7%

1,1%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

1,1%

18,4

%40

,5%

29,5

%9,

7%,8

%

Ave

rage

,8%

23,9

%38

,0%

27,4

%9,

0%,8

%

Hig

h1,

6%31

,7%

38,5

%20

,3%

7,6%

,3%

Are

a:U

rban

1,0%

18,9

%38

,3%

27,9

%13

,9%

Rura

l1,

2%25

,9%

39,2

%25

,3%

7,6%

,8%

73


ble

27. P

leas

e lis

t acc

ordi

ng to

pri

orit

ies.

For

the

solu

tion

of w

hich

of t

he fo

llow

ing

com

mun

ity

prob

lem

s yo

u w

ould

be

read

y to

coo

pera

te?

Gen

eral

Wat

er

supp

lySc

hool

s.

Educ

atio

n in

stitu

tions

Acc

ess

road

s to

the

com

mun

ity

Hos

pita

l. M

edic

al

inst

itutio

ns

Sani

tatio

n (g

arba

ge

colle

ctio

n)

Cons

truc

ti-on

repa

ra-

tion

of th

e ch

urch

Park

deve

lopm

ent/

sett

ing

up

Reco

nstr

uctio

n/re

para

tion

of

leis

ure

faci

litie

sG

as

supp

lyCr

eatio

n of

ne

w jo

bs

21,3

%28

,8%

46,5

%31

,3%

19,4

%22

,5%

12,8

%18

,2%

22,8

%1,

8%

Mon

ey s

ent

from

abr

oad:

Yes

23,2

%36

,3%

46,5

%27

,7%

20,1

%21

,3%

15,6

%22

,6%

24,5

%1,

3%

No

13,1

%32

,3%

40,4

%34

,3%

20,2

%20

,2%

12,1

%25

,3%

24,2

%4,

0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

24,0

%30

,6%

51,0

%30

,1%

19,5

%25

,3%

10,9

%18

,2%

25,5

%2,

0%

No

18,7

%27

,2%

42,0

%32

,2%

19,6

%19

,6%

14,9

%18

,3%

20,3

%1,

6%

Num

ber

of fa

mily

m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

22,4

%21

,0%

43,7

%31

,3%

14,7

%25

,3%

10,1

%14

,4%

20,7

%2,

3%

3 m

embe

rs18

,7%

32,5

%47

,3%

33,0

%23

,6%

22,7

%14

,3%

19,7

%20

,2%

4 m

embe

rs

23,0

%35

,5%

53,9

%31

,9%

21,6

%17

,0%

12,4

%16

,7%

24,8

%2,

5%5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs20

,1%

29,2

%42

,0%

29,6

%20

,1%

24,5

%15

,7%

23,7

%25

,2%

1,8%

Soci

al-

econ

omic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hou

seho

lds:

Poor

26,2

%20

,5%

41,4

%29

,2%

15,9

%23

,2%

7,8%

13,2

%28

,1%

2,2%

Ave

rage

22,3

%26

,4%

46,5

%31

,5%

20,4

%24

,7%

11,7

%16

,8%

23,4

%1,

1%

Hig

h15

,4%

39,6

%51

,8%

33,3

%22

,0%

19,5

%19

,0%

24,7

%16

,8%

2,2%

Are

a:U

rban

11,9

%36

,8%

40,8

%32

,8%

16,4

%19

,9%

21,9

%18

,4%

8,5%

0,5%

Rura

l23

,4%

27,0

%47

,8%

31,0

%20

,1%

23,1

%10

,8%

18,2

%25

,9%

2,1%

74


Tabl

e 28

. Ple

ase

list a

ccor

ding

to p

rior

itie

s. F

or th

e so

luti

on o

f whi

ch o

f the

follo

win

g co

mm

unit

y pr

oble

ms

you

wou

ld b

e re

ady

to c

oope

rate

?

Gen

eral

Non

eSe

curi

ty

syst

emPr

ice

regu

latio

nEc

onom

ic

cris

isRo

adlig

htin

gPr

ogra

mm

ing

cent

erCo

nstr

uctio

n of

pla

nts

Cine

ma

Cann

ot

offer

hel

pTh

e yo

uth

0,9%

0,3%

0,2%

0,1%

0,2%

0,1%

0,4%

0,1%

0,6%

0,2%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s0,

6%0,

3%0,

3%

0,

3%0,

3%

No

1,0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

0,9%

0,2%

0,2%

0,

2%0,

2%0,

2%

0,7%

0,2%

No

0,9%

0,4%

0,2%

0,2%

0,2%

0,

5%0,

2%0,

5%0,

2%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

0,9%

0,3%

0,3%

0,

3%

0,9%

1,

1%0,

3%

3 m

embe

rs2,

0%

0,5%

0,5%

4 m

embe

rs

0,

7%

0,4%

0,

4%0,

4%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

1,1%

0,

4%0,

4%0,

4%

0,7%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

0,8%

0,

3%0,

3%0,

3%

0,8%

0,3%

Ave

rage

0,5%

0,8%

0,3%

0,

3%

0,5%

0,3%

0,8%

Hig

h1,

4%

0,

3%0,

5%

0,3%

0,3%

Are

a:U

rban

2,5%

1,0%

0,5%

1,

0%0,

5%

Rura

l0,

6%0,

1%0,

2%0,

1%0,

2%0,

1%0,

3%0,

1%0,

6%0,

1%

75


ble

29. P

leas

e lis

t acc

ordi

ng to

pri

orit

ies.

For

the

solu

tion

of w

hich

of t

he fo

llow

ing

com

mun

ity

prob

lem

s yo

u w

ould

be

read

y to

coo

pera

te?

Gen

eral

Pow

er

supp

lySu

ppor

t pe

ople

in

need

All

are

impo

rtan

tO

pen

a ne

w

asyl

umIn

crea

se in

pe

nsio

nIn

tern

etTh

e m

illIn

fras

truc

ture

DK/

NA

0,1%

0,6%

0,2%

0,1%

0,1%

0,1%

0,1%

0,1%

14,1

%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s0,

3%

0,3%

0,3%

12,4

%

No

1,

0%1,

0%

1,

0%13

,1%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

0,2%

0,5%

0,

2%10

,2%

No

0,

7%0,

4%0,

2%0,

2%0,

2%0,

2%

17,8

%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

0,3%

0,9%

0,3%

18

,4%

3 m

embe

rs

1,5%

0,

5%

11

,8%

4 m

embe

rs

0,

4%12

,4%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

0,

4%0,

7%

0,

4%0,

4%

12,0

%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

0,3%

0,8%

0,3%

0,

3%

20,0

%

Ave

rage

0,

5%0,

3%

0,

3%

13

,6%

Hig

h

0,5%

0,3%

0,3%

0,

3%8,

7%

Are

a:U

rban

2,

0%1,

0%

0,5%

17

,4%

Rura

l0,

1%0,

3%

0,1%

0,

1%0,

1%0,

1%13

,4%

76


Tabl

e 30

. How

muc

h do

mig

rant

s in

you

r com

mun

ity

part

icip

ate

in th

e so

luti

on o

f the

follo

win

g:

Gen

eral

Scho

ol is

sues

Prob

lem

s re

late

d to

the

med

ical

uni

t

A lo

tLi

ttle

Not

at a

llTh

ere

are

no s

uch

prob

lem

sD

K/N

AA

lot

Litt

leN

ot a

t all

Ther

e ar

e no

suc

h pr

oble

ms

DK/

NA

4,1%

30,5

%40

,8%

1,8%

22,8

%2,

4%24

,4%

48,0

%1,

9%23

,3%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s6,

7%39

,8%

34,7

%1,

0%17

,8%

3,2%

32,5

%45

,2%

1,6%

17,5

%

No

6,1%

18,2

%48

,5%

3,0%

24,2

%3,

0%14

,1%

54,5

%2,

0%26

,3%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

5,3%

36,4

%37

,3%

2,6%

18,4

%3,

1%28

,4%

46,8

%2,

4%19

,3%

No

2,9%

24,6

%44

,6%

1,1%

26,8

%1,

8%20

,7%

49,1

%1,

4%27

,0%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

2,3%

28,7

%42

,2%

1,4%

25,3

%1,

1%23

,3%

47,1

%1,

7%26

,7%

3 m

embe

rs4,

9%31

,0%

38,9

%2,

5%22

,7%

3,9%

23,6

%46

,3%

2,0%

24,1

%

4 m

embe

rs

5,0%

30,9

%40

,8%

1,1%

22,3

%2,

8%25

,9%

48,2

%1,

4%21

,6%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

4,7%

32,1

%40

,5%

2,6%

20,1

%2,

6%24

,8%

50,0

%2,

6%20

,1%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

1,6%

22,7

%42

,7%

2,7%

30,3

%1,

9%17

,6%

47,0

%2,

2%31

,4%

Ave

rage

5,2%

29,6

%43

,5%

1,4%

20,4

%2,

4%25

,3%

50,5

%1,

4%20

,4%

Hig

h5,

4%39

,3%

36,3

%1,

4%17

,6%

3,0%

30,4

%46

,3%

2,2%

18,2

%

Are

a:U

rban

4,5%

29,9

%38

,3%

1,5%

25,9

%3,

5%24

,4%

43,8

%2,

0%26

,4%

Rura

l4,

0%30

,7%

41,4

%1,

9%22

,1%

2,2%

24,4

%48

,9%

1,9%

22,6

%

77


ble

31.

How

muc

h do

mig

rant

s in

you

r com

mun

ity

part

icip

ate

in th

e so

luti

on o

f the

follo

win

g:

Gen

eral

Loca

l con

flict

sPr

oble

ms

rela

ted

to th

e qu

alit

y of

road

s

A lo

tLi

ttle

Not

at a

llTh

ere

are

no s

uch

pro-

blem

sD

K/N

AA

lot

Litt

leN

ot a

t all

Ther

e ar

e no

suc

h pr

o-bl

ems

DK/

NA

2,3%

19,0

%50

,7%

3,7%

24,3

%3,

3%24

,7%

49,1

%,7

%22

,2%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s3,

8%21

,7%

51,9

%3,

8%18

,8%

4,5%

31,5

%48

,1%

15

,9%

No

3,0%

11,1

%54

,5%

4,0%

27,3

%4,

0%15

,2%

54,5

%1,

0%25

,3%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

3,5%

21,3

%49

,9%

5,5%

19,9

%5,

6%27

,7%

48,5

%,9

%17

,3%

No

1,3%

16,8

%51

,4%

2,0%

28,4

%1,

1%21

,7%

49,8

%,5

%26

,8%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

,9%

21,8

%47

,4%

2,6%

27,3

%1,

4%22

,7%

48,9

%1,

1%25

,9%

3 m

embe

rs3,

9%17

,7%

50,7

%4,

9%22

,7%

4,9%

23,6

%50

,7%

20

,7%

4 m

embe

rs

2,5%

18,1

%50

,4%

4,3%

24,8

%4,

3%25

,9%

46,8

%,7

%22

,3%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

2,9%

17,2

%55

,1%

3,6%

21,2

%3,

6%26

,6%

50,4

%,7

%18

,6%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

2,2%

15,1

%47

,8%

3,0%

31,9

%3,

0%19

,5%

47,3

%1,

1%29

,2%

Ave

rage

1,9%

19,0

%54

,1%

2,7%

22,3

%3,

8%24

,2%

50,8

%,8

%20

,4%

Hig

h3,

0%22

,8%

50,1

%5,

4%18

,7%

3,3%

30,4

%49

,1%

,3%

17,1

%

Are

a:U

rban

3,0%

21,9

%45

,3%

3,5%

26,4

%1,

5%22

,4%

51,2

%,5

%24

,4%

Rura

l2,

2%18

,3%

51,9

%3,

8%23

,8%

3,8%

25,2

%48

,6%

,8%

21,7

%

78


Tabl

e 32

. How

muc

h do

mig

rant

s in

you

r com

mun

ity

part

icip

ate

in th

e so

luti

on o

f the

follo

win

g:

Gen

eral

Prob

lem

s of

the

need

y pe

ople

Prob

lem

s re

late

d to

the

drin

king

wat

er s

uppl

y/ho

useh

old

was

te m

anag

emen

t

A lo

tLi

ttle

Not

at a

llTh

ere

are

no s

uch

prob

lem

sD

K/N

AA

lot

Litt

leN

ot a

t all

Ther

e ar

e no

suc

h pr

oble

ms

DK/

NA

3,0%

24,5

%49

,3%

,8%

22,4

%3,

7%23

,6%

47,7

%2,

0%23

,0%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s4,

8%30

,6%

47,8

%

16,9

%7,

0%27

,7%

46,2

%1,

9%17

,2%

No

4,0%

18,2

%50

,5%

1,0%

26,3

%4,

0%15

,2%

53,5

%3,

0%24

,2%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

4,6%

28,2

%49

,2%

,7%

17,3

%5,

5%27

,7%

46,8

%1,

8%18

,2%

No

1,4%

21,0

%49

,5%

,9%

27,2

%2,

0%19

,6%

48,7

%2,

2%27

,5%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

1,4%

25,0

%47

,4%

1,1%

25,0

%1,

7%23

,0%

46,6

%2,

0%26

,7%

3 m

embe

rs3,

9%24

,1%

47,3

%

24,6

%7,

4%22

,2%

45,8

%,5

%24

,1%

4 m

embe

rs

2,8%

25,9

%47

,9%

,7%

22,7

%3,

5%25

,5%

44,7

%3,

2%23

,0%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

4,4%

22,6

%54

,7%

1,1%

17,2

%3,

6%23

,4%

53,6

%1,

8%17

,5%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

1,1%

18,4

%49

,7%

1,4%

29,5

%2,

4%17

,6%

47,6

%1,

4%31

,1%

Ave

rage

4,1%

22,3

%53

,3%

,5%

19,8

%3,

8%22

,8%

51,4

%1,

6%20

,4%

Hig

h3,

8%32

,8%

45,0

%,5

%17

,9%

4,9%

30,4

%44

,2%

3,0%

17,6

%

Are

a:U

rban

3,0%

26,9

%43

,8%

,5%

25,9

%3,

5%23

,4%

44,8

%1,

5%26

,9%

Rura

l3,

0%24

,0%

50,6

%,9

%21

,6%

3,8%

23,6

%48

,3%

2,1%

22,2

%

79


ble

33.

How

muc

h do

mig

rant

s in

you

r com

mun

ity

part

icip

ate

in th

e so

luti

on o

f the

follo

win

g:

Gen

eral

Prob

lem

s re

late

d to

the

gas

supp

ly

A lo

tLi

ttle

Not

at a

llTh

ere

are

no s

uch

prob

lem

sD

K/N

A

4,2%

21,6

%46

,5%

4,6%

23,0

%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s7,

0%27

,1%

43,6

%6,

1%16

,2%

No

4,0%

14,1

%52

,5%

2,0%

27,3

%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

5,6%

25,5

%45

,9%

5,3%

17,7

%

No

2,9%

17,8

%47

,3%

4,0%

28

,1%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

2,0%

21,6

%46

,6%

3,7%

26,1

%

3 m

embe

rs7,

4%21

,2%

43,3

%4,

9%23

,2%

4 m

embe

rs

3,5%

23,8

%45

,0%

3,9%

23,8

%5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs5,

5%19

,7%

50,4

%6,

2%18

,2%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

4,3%

15,4

%45

,7%

3,2%

31,4

%

Ave

rage

3,5%

21,5

%49

,2%

6,0%

19,8

%

Hig

h4,

9%27

,9%

44,7

%4,

6%17

,9%

Are

a:U

rban

3,0%

21,4

%46

,3%

2,0%

27,4

%

Rura

l4,

5%21

,6%

46,6

%5,

2%22

,1%

80


Tabl

e 34

. Did

per

sons

from

this

hou

seho

ld d

onat

e m

oney

or c

ontr

ibut

e by

wor

k to

the

follo

win

g ty

pes

of

com

mun

ity

proj

ects

ove

r the

last

thre

e ye

ars?

Gen

eral

Kind

erga

rten

/pre

scho

ol in

stitu

tions

Scho

ol/u

nive

rsit

y

Don

ated

m

oney

Don

ated

m

oney

and

co

ntri

bute

d by

wor

k

Cont

ribu

ted

by w

ork

No

Ther

e ar

e no

suc

h pr

oble

ms

here

DK/

NA

Don

ated

m

oney

Don

ated

m

oney

and

co

ntri

bute

d by

wor

k

Cont

ribu

ted

by w

ork

No

Ther

e ar

e no

suc

h pr

oble

ms

here

DK/

NA

14,3

%9,

4%4,

0%68

,6%

3,4%

0,4%

18,2

%10

,8%

3,6%

62,8

%4,

2%0,

3%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s19

,7%

11,8

%3,

2%60

,8%

4,1%

0,3%

21,7

%15

,6%

2,5%

54,8

%5,

4%

No

14,1

%6,

1%3,

0%75

,8%

1,0%

19

,2%

11,1

%2,

0%64

,6%

3,0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

17,3

%12

,0%

5,5%

61,4

%3,

5%0,

4%22

,6%

14,6

%4,

9%53

,9%

3,8%

0,2%

No

11,4

%6,

9%2,

5%75

,5%

3,3%

0,4%

13,9

%7,

2%2,

4%71

,6%

4,5%

0,4%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

8,0%

4,6%

4,0%

79,6

%2,

9%0,

9%9,

2%5,

2%3,

7%77

,0%

4,0%

0,9%

3 m

embe

rs9,

4%10

,8%

4,9%

71,4

%3,

4%

14,8

%9,

9%4,

4%66

,5%

4,4%

4 m

embe

rs

19,5

%16

,0%

2,8%

56,7

%5,

0%

22,0

%16

,7%

2,8%

52,8

%5,

7%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

20,4

%7,

7%4,

4%64

,6%

2,6%

0,4%

28,5

%12

,8%

3,6%

52,2

%2,

9%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

10,0

%3,

5%2,

4%81

,9%

1,4%

0,8%

13,0

%4,

9%2,

7%77

,0%

1,9%

0,5%

Ave

rage

17,7

%8,

7%5,

4%63

,6%

4,3%

0,3%

18,2

%11

,1%

4,1%

60,6

%5,

7%0,

3%

Hig

h15

,2%

16,0

%4,

1%60

,2%

4,6%

23

,6%

16,5

%4,

1%50

,7%

5,1%

Are

a:U

rban

8,0%

10,4

%6,

0%66

,7%

9,0%

7,

0%11

,4%

6,5%

65,2

%10

,0%

Rura

l15

,7%

9,2%

3,5%

69,0

%2,

2%0,

4%20

,8%

10,7

%3,

0%62

,3%

3,0%

0,3%

81


ble

35. D

id p

erso

ns fr

om th

is h

ouse

hold

don

ate

mon

ey o

r con

trib

ute

by w

ork

to th

e fo

llow

ing

type

s of

co

mm

unit

y pr

ojec

ts o

ver t

he la

st th

ree

year

s?

Gen

eral

Orp

hana

ges

Hea

lthca

re c

ente

rs/h

ospi

tals

Don

ated

m

oney

Don

ated

m

oney

and

co

ntri

bute

d by

wor

k

Cont

ribu

ted

by w

ork

No

Ther

e ar

e no

suc

h pr

oble

ms

here

DK/

NA

Don

ated

m

oney

Don

ated

m

oney

and

co

ntri

bute

d by

wor

k

Cont

ribu

ted

by w

ork

No

Ther

e ar

e no

suc

h pr

oble

ms

here

DK/

NA

1,4%

0,5%

0,5%

60,3

%37

,0%

0,5%

5,3%

1,5%

1,2%

72,0

%19

,6%

0,4%

Mon

ey s

ent

from

abr

oad:

Yes

1,9%

1,0%

53

,2%

43,6

%0,

3%6,

4%1,

9%0,

6%66

,9%

24,2

%

No

4,0%

68,7

%27

,3%

1,

0%1,

0%3,

0%81

,8%

13,1

%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

1,8%

0,5%

0,5%

52,8

%43

,9%

0,4%

8,0%

1,6%

1,6%

65,4

%23

,1%

0,2%

No

0,9%

0,4%

0,4%

67,6

%30

,3%

0,5%

2,7%

1,4%

0,7%

78,4

%16

,1%

0,5%

Num

ber

of fa

mily

m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

1,1%

0,3%

0,9%

63,2

%33

,6%

0,9%

4,6%

0,6%

1,4%

73,9

%18

,7%

0,9%

3 m

embe

rs0,

5%1,

0%

64,0

%34

,5%

3,

9%1,

5%1,

0%70

,9%

22,7

%

4 m

embe

rs

2,1%

0,4%

55

,7%

41,5

%0,

4%6,

7%1,

8%0,

7%69

,9%

20,6

%0,

4%5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs1,

5%0,

4%0,

7%58

,4%

38,7

%0,

4%5,

8%2,

6%1,

5%72

,6%

17,5

%

Soci

al-

econ

omic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hou

seho

lds:

Poor

0,8%

0,3%

0,5%

68,6

%28

,9%

0,8%

2,4%

0,8%

1,1%

80,3

%14

,9%

0,5%

Ave

rage

0,8%

0,3%

0,5%

60,3

%37

,8%

0,3%

6,8%

1,1%

1,4%

70,1

%20

,4%

0,3%

Hig

h2,

4%0,

8%0,

3%51

,8%

44,4

%0,

3%6,

8%2,

7%1,

1%65

,6%

23,6

%0,

3%

Are

a:U

rban

2,5%

1,0%

1,0%

65,2

%30

,3%

2,

0%2,

0%1,

5%68

,2%

26,4

%

Rura

l1,

1%0,

3%0,

3%59

,2%

38,5

%0,

6%6,

1%1,

4%1,

1%72

,8%

18,1

%0,

4%

82


Tabl

e 36

. Did

per

sons

from

this

hou

seho

ld d

onat

e m

oney

or c

ontr

ibut

e by

wor

k to

the

follo

win

g ty

pes

of

com

mun

ity

proj

ects

ove

r the

last

thre

e ye

ars?

Gen

eral

Road

sW

ater

Don

ated

m

oney

Don

ated

m

oney

and

co

ntri

bute

d by

wor

k

Cont

ribut

ed

by w

ork

No

Ther

e ar

e no

suc

h pr

oble

ms

here

DK/

NA

Don

ated

m

oney

Don

ated

m

oney

and

co

ntri

bute

d by

wor

k

Cont

ribu

ted

by w

ork

No

Ther

e ar

e no

suc

h pr

oble

ms

here

DK/

NA

14,9

%6,

1%2,

1%72

,8%

3,5%

0,5%

19,6

%5,

5%1,

6%67

,1%

5,8%

0,4%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s18

,2%

10,2

%1,

9%65

,6%

3,5%

0,6%

22,0

%8,

9%1,

3%60

,2%

7,6%

No

12,1

%4,

0%2,

0%78

,8%

3,0%

14

,1%

4,0%

4,0%

72,7

%5,

1%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

19,3

%9,

5%2,

2%66

,3%

2,2%

0,5%

25,3

%8,

6%2,

4%58

,7%

4,9%

0,2%

No

10,5

%2,

9%2,

0%79

,3%

4,7%

0,5%

14,1

%2,

5%0,

9%75

,5%

6,3%

0,5%

Num

ber o

f fa

mily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

9,2%

4,3%

1,7%

79,9

%4,

0%0,

9%17

,0%

4,6%

1,7%

71,0

%4,

9%0,

9%

3 m

embe

rs19

,2%

6,9%

2,0%

69,0

%2,

5%0,

5%19

,7%

5,9%

2,5%

66,5

%4,

9%0,

5%

4 m

embe

rs

16,0

%6,

4%2,

5%69

,5%

5,3%

0,4%

21,3

%5,

0%1,

4%63

,8%

8,5%

5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs17

,9%

7,7%

2,2

%70

,1%

1,8%

0,4%

21,2

%6,

9%1,

1%66

,1%

4,7%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

11,1

%3,

5%1,

9%80

,5%

2,2%

0,8%

12,7

%2,

7%1,

1%78

,9%

4,1%

0,5%

Ave

rage

16,6

%6,

5%2,

4%70

,7%

3,3%

0,5%

21,2

%8,

4%1,

9%63

,0%

5,2%

0,3%

Hig

h17

,1%

8,4%

1,9%

67,2

%5,

1%0,

3%24

,9%

5,4%

1,9%

59,3

%8,

1%0,

3%

Are

a:U

rban

5,5%

2,0%

4,0%

76,6

%11

,9%

6,

5%2,

0%2,

0%76

,1%

12,9

%0,

5%

Rura

l17

,0%

7,1%

1,7%

72,0

%1,

7%0,

7%22

,5%

6,3%

1,5%

65,1

%4,

2%0,

3%

83


ble

37. D

id p

erso

ns fr

om th

is h

ouse

hold

don

ate

mon

ey o

r con

trib

ute

by w

ork

to th

e fo

llow

ing

type

s of

co

mm

unit

y pr

ojec

ts o

ver t

he la

st th

ree

year

s?

Gen

eral

Elec

tric

ity

Gas

Don

ated

m

oney

Don

ated

m

oney

and

co

ntri

bute

d by

wor

k

Cont

ribu

ted

by w

ork

No

Ther

e ar

e no

suc

h pr

oble

ms

here

DK/

NA

Don

ated

m

oney

Don

ated

m

oney

and

co

ntri

bute

d by

wor

k

Cont

ribu

ted

by w

ork

No

Ther

e ar

e no

suc

h pr

oble

ms

here

DK/

NA

3,6%

1,3%

0,7%

87,7

%6,

3%0,

4%14

,7%

3,0%

1,3%

73,0

%7,

8%0,

3%

Mon

ey s

ent

from

abr

oad:

Yes

5,4%

2,5%

0,6%

82,8

%8,

6%

16,9

%5,

7%1,

0%65

,9%

10,5

%

No

1,0%

1,

0%91

,9%

6,1%

13

,1%

4,0%

2,0%

74,7

%6,

1%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

5,1%

1,6%

1,1%

85,6

%6,

4%0,

2%18

,0%

4,0%

1,6%

68,3

%7,

8%0,

2%

No

2,2%

0,9%

0,4%

89,9

%6,

2%0,

5%11

,6%

2,0%

0,9%

77,5

%7,

6%0,

4%

Num

ber

of fa

mily

m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

2,3%

0,9%

0,9%

90,2

%4,

9%0,

9%12

,1%

1,1%

1,1%

79,6

%5,

2%0,

9%

3 m

embe

rs3,

9%2,

5%1,

5%85

,2%

6,9%

13

,8%

5,4%

0,5%

70,4

%9,

9%

4 m

embe

rs

3,9%

0,7%

0,4%

86,2

%8,

5%0,

4%16

,3%

3,9%

2,1%

68,1

%9,

6%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

4,7%

1,5%

0,4%

88,0

%5,

5%

17,2

%2,

6%1,

1%71

,5%

7,7%

Soci

al-

econ

omic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

2,2%

1,1%

0,8%

91,6

%3,

8%0,

5%11

,9%

1,1%

0,3%

80,5

%5,

7%0,

5%

Ave

rage

3,8%

1,1%

0,8%

88,9

%5,

2%0,

3%15

,2%

3,8%

2,2%

70,9

%7,

6%0,

3%

Hig

h4,

9%1,

6%0,

5%82

,7%

10,0

%0,

3%17

,1%

4,1%

1,4%

67,5

%10

,0%

Are

a:U

rban

1,0%

1,0%

1,0%

82,6

%14

,4%

4,

5%1,

0%2,

0%78

,6%

13,9

%

Rura

l4,

2%1,

3%0,

7%88

,9%

4,5%

0,4%

17,0

%3,

4%1,

1%71

,7%

6,4%

0,3%

84


Tabl

e 3

8. D

id p

erso

ns fr

om th

is h

ouse

hold

don

ate

mon

ey o

r con

trib

ute

by w

ork

to th

e fo

llow

ing

type

s of

co

mm

unit

y pr

ojec

ts o

ver t

he la

st th

ree

year

s?

Gen

eral

Sani

tatio

nO

ther

s

Don

ated

m

oney

Don

ated

m

oney

and

co

ntri

bute

d by

wor

k

Cont

ribu

ted

by w

ork

No

Ther

e ar

e no

suc

h pr

oble

ms

here

DK/

NA

Chur

chRe

para

-tio

n of

th

e w

ater

so

urce

Set-

up/

deve

-lo

pmen

t of

the

villa

ge

Hou

se

ofcu

lture

Cem

eter

y Re

para

ti-on

s af

ter

flood

s

Hel

ping

th

e ne

edy

pers

ons

3,7%

2,0%

12,1

%76

,4%

5,3%

0,5%

19,9

%,2

%,5

%,1

%,2

%,1

%,1

%

Mon

ey s

ent

from

abr

oad:

Yes

6,1%

2,9%

14,3

%68

,5%

8,3%

17

,8%

,3%

,3%

,3

%

,3%

No

2,0%

10

,1%

84,8

%3,

0%

27,3

%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

5,5%

2,6%

16,6

%69

,4%

5,8%

0,2%

20,9

%,4

%,4

%

,4%

No

2,0%

1,4%

7,8%

83,3

%4,

7%0,

7%18

,8%

,7

%,2

%

,2%

,2%

Num

ber

of fa

mily

m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

1,4%

1,1%

10,9

%82

,5%

2,9%

1,1%

20,4

%,3

%

,3

%

3 m

embe

rs3,

0%3,

9%18

,2%

69,5

%5,

4%

17,7

%

,5%

1,

0%

4 m

embe

rs

5,0%

0,7%

12,8

%73

,0%

8,2%

0,4%

19,5

%,4

%1,

1%

,4

%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

5,8%

2,9%

8,4%

77,4

%5,

5%

21,2

%

,7%

,4%

Soci

al-

econ

omic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

1,4%

1,4%

8,9%

84,3

%3,

2%0,

8%22

,2%

,3%

,3%

,3%

,3%

Ave

rage

3,5%

1,6%

12,8

%76

,4%

5,4%

0,3%

21,2

%,3

%

,3%

,3%

Hig

h6,

2%3,

0%14

,6%

68,6

%7,

3%0,

3%16

,3%

1,

4%

,3%

Are

a:U

rban

2,0%

1,5%

10,4

%76

,6%

9,5%

10

,0%

1,

0%,5

%

,5%

,5%

Rura

l4,

1%2,

1%12

,5%

76,4

%4,

4%0,

6%22

,1%

,2%

,4%

,2

%

85


ble

39. W

hat c

ateg

orie

s of

pop

ulat

ion

are

mor

e in

volv

ed (b

y m

oney

don

atio

ns, c

ontr

ibut

ion

wit

h w

ork)

in th

e co

mm

unit

y pr

ojec

ts im

plem

ente

d in

you

r com

mun

ity?

Gen

eral

All

resi

-de

nts

are

invo

lved

to

the

sam

e ex

tent

Fam

ili-

es w

ith

mig

rant

s ar

e m

ore

invo

lved

Fam

ilies

w

ithou

t m

igra

nts

are

mor

e in

volv

ed

Nob

ody

gets

in

volv

ed

Very

litt

le

peop

le g

et

invo

lved

Entr

epre

-ne

urs

Wag

e-ea

rner

sM

ayo-

ralt

yRe

spon

-si

ble

pers

ons

The

yout

hPe

rson

s w

ith

mon

ey

The

elde

rly

popu

la-

tion

DK/

NA

35,9

%12

,6%

20,0

%14

,4%

1,8%

,4%

,2%

,2%

,4%

,2%

,4%

,2%

13,6

%

Mon

ey s

ent

from

abr

oad:

Yes

36,0

%18

,2%

19,7

%14

,3%

1,6%

,3%

,3%

,3

%

9,2%

No

40,4

%17

,2%

17,2

%8,

1%1,

0%

1,0%

15

,2%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

40,4

%15

,5%

19,7

%11

,7%

2,7%

,7%

,4%

,2%

,2%

,4%

,7%

,4%

7,1%

No

31,5

%9,

8%20

,3%

17,2

%,9

%

,2

%,5

%

19,6

%

Num

ber

of fa

mily

m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

33,3

%10

,6%

18,1

%14

,4%

2,9%

,3%

,3%

,3%

,6%

,3

%

19,0

%

3 m

embe

rs36

,9%

11,8

%21

,7%

16,3

%1,

0%,5

%

,5%

,5

%10

,8%

4 m

embe

rs

36,2

%14

,5%

20,9

%16

,0%

1,4%

,4

%,4

%,4

%

9,9%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

38,0

%13

,9%

20,1

%11

,3%

1,5%

,7%

,4%

,4

%,4

%,7

%,4

%12

,4%

Soci

al-

econ

omic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hou

seho

lds:

Poor

33,5

%10

,8%

17,3

%15

,4%

2,7%

,3%

,3

%,3

%

,3%

19

,2%

Ave

rage

40,2

%11

,4%

18,5

%12

,8%

1,6%

,3%

,3%

,3%

,5%

,5

%,5

%13

,0%

Hig

h33

,9%

15,7

%24

,1%

14,9

%1,

1%,5

%,3

%

,3%

,5%

,3%

8,

4%

Are

a:U

rban

17,9

%10

,4%

29,4

%22

,4%

,5

%

,5%

1,0%

17

,9%

Rura

l39

,8%

13,1

%17

,9%

12,6

%2,

2%,3

%,2

%,1

%,2

%,2

%,4

%,2

%12

,6%

86


Tabl

e 40

. If a

com

mun

ity

proj

ect f

or th

e re

para

tion

of t

he c

entr

al ro

ad o

f you

r com

mun

ity

is g

oing

to b

e im

plem

ente

d ne

xt w

eek,

how

muc

h w

ould

you

be

read

y to

don

ate

to s

uppo

rt th

is p

roje

ct?

Gen

eral

0 le

iU

p to

100

lei

101-

200

lei

201-

300

lei

301-

500

lei

501-

1000

lei

1001

-20

00 le

i20

01-

3000

lei

3001

-50

00 le

i50

01-

1000

0 le

iM

ore

than

10

000

lei

DK/

NA

28,2

%29

,4%

13,0

%6,

9%7,

2%5,

5%1,

5%,5

%,3

%,2

%,3

%7,

1%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s18

,5%

25,5

%13

,1%

9,2%

8,9%

8,6%

2,5%

1,0%

,6%

,3%

,3%

11,5

%

No

22,2

%32

,3%

15,2

%7,

1%8,

1%6,

1%3,

0%

6,

1%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

25,7

%29

,1%

12,0

%8,

7%9,

7%6,

6%1,

3%,5

%

,2%

,5%

5,6%

No

30,4

%29

,7%

14,1

%5,

1%4,

9%4,

3%1,

8%,4

%,5

%,2

%

8,5%

Num

ber o

f fa

mily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

40,5

%29

,3%

10,6

%3,

7%5,

2%3,

2%,3

%

,3%

,3

%6,

6%

3 m

embe

rs29

,1%

26,1

%11

,8%

9,9%

8,9%

4,4%

2,0%

,5

%,5

%

6,9%

4 m

embe

rs

17,7

%29

,1%

17,4

%7,

8%8,

5%7,

4%1,

8%1,

1%,4

%,4

%,4

%8,

2%5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs22

,6%

32,1

%12

,4%

7,7%

7,3%

7,3%

2,6%

,7%

,4%

6,9%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

36,8

%35

,9%

10,0

%4,

1%2,

7%2,

2%,5

%

,5%

7,3%

Ave

rage

28,8

%28

,8%

16,0

%6,

8%6,

5%4,

6%1,

6%,5

%

6,3%

Hig

h19

,0%

23,3

%13

,0%

9,8%

12,5

%9,

8%2,

4%,8

%,3

%,5

%,8

%7,

9%

Are

a:U

rban

37,3

%29

,4%

9,0%

6,0%

4,5%

3,0%

1,0%

,5%

,5%

9,0%

Rura

l26

,2%

29,4

%13

,9%

7,1%

7,8%

6,1%

1,7%

,6%

,3%

,1%

,2%

6,7%

87


ble

41. I

mag

ine

that

nob

ody

from

you

r com

mun

ity

wou

ld h

ave

left

abr

oad.

Ple

ase

tell

us h

ow w

ould

the

situ

atio

n of

you

r com

mun

ity

have

cha

nged

by

the

follo

win

g ca

tego

ries

.

Gen

eral

In g

ener

alRe

para

tion

of ro

ads

in th

e co

mm

unit

yCo

nstr

uctio

n of

luxu

ry h

ouse

s/fla

ts

Not

hing

w

ould

ha

ve

chan

ged

Situ

atio

n in

th

e co

mm

u-ni

ty w

ould

ha

ve b

een

very

bad

Situ

atio

n in

th

e co

mm

u-ni

ty w

ould

ha

ve b

een

muc

h be

tter

DK/ NA

Not

hing

w

ould

ha

ve

chan

ged

Situ

atio

n in

th

e co

mm

u-ni

ty w

ould

ha

ve b

een

very

bad

Situ

atio

n in

th

e co

mm

u-ni

ty w

ould

ha

ve b

een

muc

h be

tter

DK/ NA

Not

hing

w

ould

ha

ve

chan

ged

Situ

atio

n in

th

e co

mm

u-ni

ty w

ould

ha

ve b

een

very

bad

Situ

atio

n in

th

e co

mm

u-ni

ty w

ould

ha

ve b

een

muc

h be

tter

DK/ NA

23,6

%63

,8%

12,1

%0,

5%39

,2%

51,0

%9,

1%0,

6%25

,5%

65,1

%8,

6%0,

8%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s21

,3%

71,0

%7,

3%0,

3%41

,4%

53,8

%4,

1%0,

6%24

,5%

70,4

%3,

8%1,

3%

No

25,3

%61

,6%

13,1

%

40,4

%50

,5%

9,1%

26

,3%

65,7

%8,

1%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

23,5

%64

,3%

11,7

%0,

5%39

,7%

50,3

%9,

3%0,

7%25

,9%

64,1

%9,

1%0,

9%

No

23,7

%63

,0%

12,7

%0,

5%38

,8%

51,6

%9,

1%0,

5%25

,2%

65,9

%8,

2%0,

7%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

20,7

%63

,2%

15,5

%0,

6%35

,1%

52,0

%12

,4%

0,6%

24,7

%62

,4%

12,4

%0,

6%

3 m

embe

rs23

,6%

64,0

%11

,8%

0,5%

41,4

%50

,2%

7,9%

0,5%

26,6

%66

,0%

6,9%

0,5%

4 m

embe

rs

24,1

%64

,9%

10,3

%0,

7%40

,8%

50,7

%7,

4%1,

1%27

,3%

63,5

%7,

4%1,

8%5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs26

,6%

63,1

%9,

9%0,

4%41

,2%

50,7

%7,

7%0,

4%23

,7%

69,7

%6,

2%0,

4%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

26,2

%60

,5%

12,7

%0,

5%34

,3%

54,6

%10

,5%

0,5%

26,5

%63

,0%

9,7%

0,8%

Ave

rage

23,9

%60

,9%

15,2

%

42,1

%45

,9%

11,7

%0,

3%25

,8%

62,2

%11

,4%

0,5%

Hig

h20

,6%

69,9

%8,

4%1,

1%41

,2%

52,6

%5,

1%1,

1%24

,1%

70,2

%4,

6%1,

1%

Are

a:U

rban

16,4

%66

,7%

16,4

%0,

5%40

,8%

49,8

%9,

0%0,

5%22

,9%

69,7

%7,

0%0,

5%

Rura

l25

,2%

63,1

%11

,1%

0,6%

38,9

%51

,3%

9,2%

0,7%

26,0

%64

,1%

8,9%

0,9%

88


Tabl

e 42

. Im

agin

e th

at n

obod

y fr

om y

our c

omm

unit

y w

ould

hav

e le

ft a

broa

d. P

leas

e te

ll us

how

wou

ld th

e si

tuat

ion

of y

our c

omm

unit

y ha

ve c

hang

ed b

y th

e fo

llow

ing

cate

gori

es.

Gen

eral

Wid

er a

cces

s to

hea

lthca

re s

ervi

ces

Reco

nstr

uctio

n an

d re

para

tion

of s

choo

ls

Nat

ural

gas

sup

ply

Not

hing

w

ould

ha

ve

chan

ged

Situ

atio

n in

th

e co

mm

u-ni

ty w

ould

ha

ve b

een

very

bad

Situ

atio

n in

th

e co

mm

u-ni

ty w

ould

ha

ve b

een

muc

h be

tter

DK/ NA

Not

hing

w

ould

ha

ve

chan

ged

Situ

atio

n in

th

e co

mm

u-ni

ty w

ould

ha

ve b

een

very

bad

Situ

atio

n in

th

e co

mm

u-ni

ty w

ould

ha

ve b

een

muc

h be

tter

DK/ NA

Not

hing

w

ould

ha

ve

chan

ged

Situ

atio

n in

th

e co

mm

u-ni

ty w

ould

ha

ve b

een

very

bad

Situ

atio

n in

th

e co

mm

u-ni

ty w

ould

ha

ve b

een

muc

h be

tter

DK/ NA

35,7

%53

,7%

9,9%

0,7%

36,0

%53

,7%

9,5%

0,8%

38,0

%52

,4%

8,7%

0,9%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s36

,6%

55,7

%6,

7%1,

0%36

,3%

56,4

%6,

1%1,

3%38

,5%

55,4

%4,

5%1,

6%

No

39,4

%52

,5%

8,1%

38

,4%

52,5

%9,

1%

38,4

%51

,5%

10,1

%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

37,5

%51

,5%

10,2

%0,

7%37

,5%

51,7

%9,

8%0,

9%39

,7%

50,3

%9,

1%0,

9%

No

33,7

%55

,8%

9,8%

0,7%

34,4

%55

,6%

9,2%

0,7%

36,4

%54

,3%

8,3%

0,9%

Num

ber o

f fa

mily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

31,6

%54

,9%

12,9

%0,

6%33

,9%

53,2

%12

,4%

0,6%

35,1

%52

,6%

11,8

%0,

6%

3 m

embe

rs36

,5%

53,7

%9,

4%0,

5%38

,4%

51,2

%9,

9%0,

5%40

,9%

51,2

%7,

4%0,

5%

4 m

embe

rs

37,6

%52

,1%

8,9%

1,4%

34,4

%55

,7%

8,2%

1,8%

39,7

%50

,7%

7,8%

1,8%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

38,3

%53

,6%

7,7%

0,4%

38,3

%54

,4%

6,9%

0,4%

38,0

%54

,7%

6,6%

0,7%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

32,4

%55

,9%

10,8

%0,

8%34

,6%

53,8

%10

,8%

0,8%

35,9

%53

,2%

10,0

%0,

8%

Ave

rage

37,0

%50

,3%

12,8

%

35,1

%53

,0%

11,7

%0,

3%39

,4%

49,5

%10

,9%

0,3%

Hig

h37

,7%

54,7

%6,

2%1,

4%38

,2%

54,5

%6,

0%1,

4%38

,8%

54,5

%5,

1%1,

6%

Are

a:U

rban

32,8

%54

,7%

11,9

%0,

5%31

,3%

56,7

%11

,4%

0,5%

38,8

%52

,2%

8,5%

0,5%

Rura

l36

,3%

53,4

%9,

5%0,

8%37

,0%

53,1

%9,

1%0,

9%37

,9%

52,4

%8,

7%1,

0%

89


ble

43. I

mag

ine

that

nob

ody

from

you

r com

mun

ity

wou

ld h

ave

left

abr

oad.

Ple

ase

tell

us h

ow w

ould

the

situ

atio

n of

you

r com

mun

ity

have

cha

nged

by

the

follo

win

g ca

tego

ries

.

Gen

eral

Wat

er s

uppl

y (a

qued

uct)

Impr

ovem

ent o

f san

itatio

n se

rvic

esRe

cons

truc

tion

and

repa

ratio

n of

leis

ure

venu

es

Not

hing

w

ould

ha

ve

chan

ged

Situ

atio

n in

th

e co

mm

u-ni

ty w

ould

ha

ve b

een

very

bad

Situ

atio

n in

th

e co

mm

u-ni

ty w

ould

ha

ve b

een

muc

h be

tter

DK/ NA

Not

hing

w

ould

ha

ve

chan

ged

Situ

atio

n in

th

e co

mm

u-ni

ty w

ould

ha

ve b

een

very

bad

Situ

atio

n in

th

e co

mm

u-ni

ty w

ould

ha

ve b

een

muc

h be

tter

DK/ NA

Not

hing

w

ould

ha

ve

chan

ged

Situ

atio

n in

th

e co

mm

u-ni

ty w

ould

ha

ve b

een

very

bad

Situ

atio

n in

th

e co

mm

u-ni

ty w

ould

ha

ve b

een

muc

h be

tter

DK/ NA

36,6

%53

,5%

9,0%

0,9%

38,4

%50

,8%

9,8%

1,0%

35,6

%52

,6%

10,9

%0,

9%

Mon

ey s

ent

from

abr

oad:

Yes

37,3

%55

,7%

5,4%

1,6%

40,4

%52

,9%

5,1%

1,6%

37,3

%55

,1%

6,1%

1,6%

No

40,4

%50

,5%

9,1%

41

,4%

49,5

%9,

1%

37,4

%50

,5%

12,1

%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

37,0

%52

,6%

9,5%

0,9%

40,1

%48

,5%

10,6

%0,

9%37

,7%

49,9

%11

,5%

0,9%

No

36,2

%54

,2%

8,7%

0,9%

36,6

%53

,1%

9,2%

1,1%

33,3

%55

,3%

10,5

%0,

9%

Num

ber o

f fa

mily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

33,6

%54

,0%

11,8

%0,

6%33

,9%

52,6

%12

,9%

0,6%

31,3

%54

,3%

13,8

%0,

6%

3 m

embe

rs38

,9%

52,7

%7,

9%0,

5%37

,9%

51,2

%9,

9%1,

0%35

,0%

53,2

%11

,3%

0,5%

4 m

embe

rs

38,3

%51

,1%

8,9%

1,8%

40,8

%48

,2%

9,2%

1,8%

37,6

%51

,8%

8,9%

1,8%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

36,9

%55

,8%

6,6%

0,7%

42,0

%50

,7%

6,6%

0,7%

39,4

%50

,7%

9,1%

0,7%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

34,6

%54

,1%

10,5

%0,

8%35

,1%

52,2

%11

,6%

1,1%

34,9

%53

,2%

11,1

%0,

8%

Ave

rage

37,0

%51

,6%

11,1

%0,

3%39

,9%

47,8

%12

,0%

0,3%

37,5

%48

,6%

13,6

%0,

3%

Hig

h38

,2%

54,7

%5,

4%1,

6%40

,1%

52,3

%6,

0%1,

6%34

,4%

55,8

%8,

1%1,

6%

Are

a:U

rban

39,3

%52

,2%

8,0%

0,5%

35,8

%53

,2%

10,4

%0,

5%26

,9%

57,2

%15

,4%

0,5%

Rura

l36

,0%

53,8

%9,

3%1,

0%39

,0%

50,2

%9,

7%1,

1%37

,5%

51,5

%9,

9%1,

0%

90


Tabl

e 44

. Im

agin

e th

at n

obod

y fr

om y

our c

omm

unit

y w

ould

hav

e le

ft a

broa

d. P

leas

e te

ll us

how

wou

ld th

e si

tuat

ion

of y

our c

omm

unit

y ha

ve c

hang

ed b

y th

e fo

llow

ing

cate

gori

es.

Gen

eral

Dev

elop

men

t of n

ew b

usin

esse

s

Not

hing

wou

ld h

ave

chan

ged

Situ

atio

n in

the

com

mun

ity

wou

ld h

ave

been

ver

y ba

d

Situ

atio

n in

the

com

mun

ity

wou

ld h

ave

been

muc

h be

tter

DK/

NA

28,5

%60

,0%

10,5

%1,

1%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

abr

oad:

Yes

29,0

%62

,7%

6,7%

1,6%

No

33,3

%56

,6%

10,1

%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

28,2

%58

,5%

12,0

%1,

3%

No

28,8

%61

,2%

9,1%

0,9%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

25,9

%59

,5%

14,1

%0,

6%

3 m

embe

rs26

,1%

63,5

%9,

4%1,

0%

4 m

embe

rs

33,0

%56

,4%

8,9%

1,8%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

28,8

%61

,7%

8,4%

1,1%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of h

ouse

hold

s:

Poor

28,6

%59

,7%

10,5

%1,

1%

Ave

rage

29,1

%57

,9%

12,8

%0,

3%

Hig

h27

,6%

62,3

%8,

1%1,

9%

Are

a:U

rban

19,9

%67

,2%

12,4

%0,

5%

Rura

l30

,4%

58,4

%10

,0%

1,2%

91


ble

45. H

ow m

any

mem

bers

of y

our f

amily

are

cur

rent

ly a

broa

d or

wer

e ab

road

ove

r the

last

two

year

s?

Gen

eral

Non

e1

mem

ber

2 m

embe

rs3

mem

bers

4 m

embe

rs

62,3

%26

,0%

9,8%

1,4%

,5%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

abr

oad:

Yes

68

,8%

25,5

%4,

1%1,

6%

No

69

,7%

28,3

%2,

0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

60,1

%25

,3%

11,8

%2,

2%,5

%

No

64,5

%27

,0%

7,8%

,4%

,4%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

87,6

%10

,3%

2,0%

3 m

embe

rs61

,6%

28,6

%9,

9%

4 m

embe

rs

50,4

%34

,8%

13,1

%1,

1%,7

%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

43,1

%35

,0%

16,4

%4,

4%1,

1%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

dev

elop

men

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

77,3

%18

,6%

3,5%

,3%

,3%

Ave

rage

62,2

%26

,9%

9,5%

1,4%

Hig

h47

,4%

32,5

%16

,5%

2,4%

1,1%

Are

a:U

rban

66,7

%21

,4%

10,9

%,5

%,5

%

Rura

l61

,4%

27,0

%9,

6%1,

5%,4

%

92


Tabl

e 46

. Ple

ase

indi

cate

the

last

cou

ntry

whe

re y

ou o

r you

r fam

ily m

embe

r/s

have

em

igra

ted

for w

ork?

Gen

eral

Russ

iaIt

aly

Port

ugal

Gre

ece

Rom

ania

Fran

ceTu

rkey

Ger

man

ySp

ain

Gre

at

Brita

inU

krai

neIr

elan

d

82,5

%26

,1%

3,4%

2,4%

1,7%

2,9%

1,2%

1,4%

2,6%

,5%

1,4%

,7%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s84

,1%

26,8

%2,

9%3,

2%1,

0%2,

5%1,

6%1,

6%2,

9%1,

0%1,

9%,6

%

No

75,8

%25

,3%

5,1%

4,

0%4,

0%

1,0%

2,0%

1,0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

85,8

%32

,9%

4,1%

,5%

1,4%

2,7%

,9%

2,3%

1,4%

,5%

,5%

1,4%

No

79,1

%18

,9%

1,5%

3,6%

2,0%

3,1%

1,5%

,5%

4,1%

1,0%

2,6%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

76,7

%18

,6%

7,0%

2,3%

3 m

embe

rs80

,8%

15,4

%3,

8%1,

3%2,

6%5,

1%1,

3%

3,8%

1,3%

1,3%

1,3%

4 m

embe

rs

77,9

%30

,7%

1,4%

2,1%

2,9%

1,4%

,7%

2,1%

3,6%

,7%

1,4%

5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs89

,1%

29,5

%3,

8%3,

2%,6

%3,

8%1,

9%1,

9%1,

9%,6

%1,

9%1,

3%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

83,3

%21

,4%

2,4%

3,6%

2,4%

Ave

rage

92,1

%17

,3%

4,3%

1,4%

1,4%

2,2%

1,4%

2,2%

2,2%

,7%

,7%

Hig

h75

,3%

34,5

%3,

1%2,

6%2,

6%4,

6%1,

5%1,

5%4,

1%1,

0%1,

5%1,

5%

Are

a:U

rban

82,1

%20

,9%

4,5%

3,0%

6,0%

6,0%

3,0%

3,0%

1,5%

1,5%

Rura

l82

,6%

27,1

%3,

1%2,

3%,9

%2,

3%1,

4%1,

7%2,

6%,3

%1,

4%,6

%

93


ble

47. P

leas

e in

dica

te th

e la

st c

ount

ry w

here

you

or y

our f

amily

mem

ber/

s ha

ve e

mig

rate

d fo

r wor

k?

Gen

eral

Czec

h Re

publ

icIs

rael

Pola

ndSy

ria

Cypr

usU

SABe

lgiu

mCa

nada

Esto

nia

Switz

erla

nd

3,4%

1,4%

1,0%

,2%

1,0%

1,2%

,2%

1,0%

,2%

,2%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

abr

oad:

Yes

3,2%

1,6%

,3

%,6

%,6

%,3

%1,

3%,3

%,3

%

No

4,0%

1,0%

4,0%

2,

0%3,

0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

5,9%

,9%

1,4%

,5

%1,

8%

No

,5%

2,0%

,5%

,5%

1,5%

,5%

,5%

2,0%

,5%

,5%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

2,3%

2,3%

4,

7%2,

3%

3 m

embe

rs1,

3%1,

3%

1,

3%2,

6%

1,3%

4 m

embe

rs

4,3%

,7%

1,4%

1,

4%2,

1%

5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs4,

5%2,

6%1,

3%,6

%,6

%,6

%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

dev

elop

men

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

6,0%

1,

2%

1,

2%

Ave

rage

2,2%

,7%

,7%

,7

%1,

4%,7

%

Hig

h3,

1%2,

6%1,

0%,5

%2,

1%2,

1%

1,0%

,5

%

Are

a:U

rban

6,

0%1,

5%1,

5%

Rura

l4,

0%1,

7%1,

1%,3

%1,

1%1,

4%,3

%

94


Tabl

e 48

. Ple

ase

tell

us h

ow m

any

fam

ily m

embe

rs w

ent a

broa

d fo

r wor

k fo

r the

firs

t tim

e in

201

0-20

11?

Gen

eral

Non

e1

mem

ber

2 m

embe

rs3

mem

bers

4 m

embe

rs

62,4

%30

,9%

6,0%

,5%

,2%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

abr

oad:

Yes

62,7

%30

,3%

6,1%

,6%

,3%

No

60,6

%33

,3%

6,1%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

59,4

%31

,1%

8,7%

,9%

No

65,8

%30

,6%

3,1%

,5

%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

65,1

%32

,6%

2,3%

3 m

embe

rs57

,7%

35,9

%6,

4%

4 m

embe

rs

66,4

%28

,6%

4,3%

,7

%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

60,3

%30

,1%

8,3%

1,3%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

dev

elop

men

t of

hou

seho

lds:

Poor

59,5

%34

,5%

4,8%

1,

2%

Ave

rage

61,2

%33

,8%

5,0%

Hig

h64

,4%

27,3

%7,

2%1,

0%

Are

a:U

rban

62,7

%31

,3%

6,0%

Rura

l62

,3%

30,9

%6,

0%,6

%,3

%

95


ble

49. P

leas

e te

ll us

how

man

y fa

mily

mem

bers

wer

e ab

road

for w

ork

in 2

010-

2011

, bu

t ret

urne

d ho

me

for g

ood?

Gen

eral

Non

e1

mem

ber

2 m

embe

rs

87,5

%11

,8%

,7%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

abr

oad:

Yes

87,6

%12

,1%

,3%

No

86,9

%11

,1%

2,0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

87,2

%11

,9%

,9%

No

87,8

%11

,7%

,5%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

93,0

%7,

0%

3 m

embe

rs85

,9%

12,8

%1,

3%

4 m

embe

rs

85,0

%13

,6%

1,4%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

89,1

%10

,9%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

79,8

%19

,0%

1,2%

Ave

rage

90,6

%8,

6%,7

%

Hig

h88

,7%

10,8

%,5

%

Are

a:U

rban

88,1

%10

,4%

1,5%

Rura

l87

,4%

12,0

%,6

%

96


Tabl

e 50

. Wha

t was

/is y

our/

your

fam

ily m

embe

rs’ fi

eld

of a

ctiv

ity

whi

le a

broa

d fo

r wor

k?

Gen

eral

Agr

icul

tura

l fa

rmEx

trac

tion

of m

iner

al

reso

urce

s

Indu

stry

,pr

oduc

tion

and

proc

essi

ng

Pow

er, g

as

and

wat

er

prod

uctio

n an

d di

stri

bu-

tion

Cons

truc

ti-on

s

Who

lesa

le,

reta

il; re

para

ti-on

of v

ehic

les

and

hous

ehol

d ap

plia

nces

Hot

els

and

rest

aura

nts

Tran

spor

t and

co

mm

unic

atio

nsFi

nanc

ial

activ

ities

7,5%

,5%

6,3%

1,4%

71,6

%8,

0%5,

8%5,

1%1,

4%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s8,

0%,6

%5,

8%1,

3%71

,8%

6,4%

6,1%

6,1%

1,9%

No

6,1%

8,

1%2,

0%68

,7%

13,1

%5,

1%2,

0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

7,8%

6,

9%1,

4%71

,1%

11,0

%7,

8%6,

4%1,

4%

No

7,2%

,5%

5,1%

1,5%

72,3

%4,

6%3,

6%3,

6%1,

5%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

7,0%

14

,0%

53

,5%

14,0

%2,

3%4,

7%

3 m

embe

rs5,

1%

2,6%

1,3%

83,3

%3,

8%1,

3%3,

8%1,

3%

4 m

embe

rs

10,1

%

6,5%

2,9%

67,6

%5,

0%5,

8%5,

0%1,

4%5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs6,

5%1,

3%5,

8%,6

%74

,2%

11,0

%9,

0%5,

8%1,

9%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

7,1%

1,2%

8,3%

2,4%

78,6

%7,

1%2,

4%

Ave

rage

3,6%

5,

8%,7

%75

,2%

6,6%

6,6%

3,6%

,7%

Hig

h10

,3%

,5%

5,7%

1,5%

66,0

%9,

3%6,

7%8,

2%2,

6%

Are

a:U

rban

7,5%

7,

5%1,

5%61

,2%

11,9

%1,

5%7,

5%3,

0%

Rura

l7,

5%,6

%6,

0%1,

4%73

,6%

7,2%

6,6%

4,6%

1,1%

97


ble

51. W

hat w

as/is

you

r/yo

ur fa

mily

mem

bers

’ fiel

d of

act

ivit

y w

hile

abr

oad

for w

ork?

Gen

eral

Real

est

ate

acti-

vitie

s, re

nt a

nd

serv

ices

Stat

e ad

min

is-

trat

ion,

soc

ial

insu

ranc

eEd

ucat

ion

Hea

lthca

re

and

soci

al

serv

ices

Oth

er c

omm

u-ni

ty, s

ocia

l and

pe

rson

al s

ervi

ces

Hou

seho

ld

adm

inis

trat

ion

serv

ices

Soci

al

wor

ker

DK/ NA

,2%

1,0%

,7%

1,9%

7,5%

12,8

%1,

4%2,

9%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s,3

%1,

0%,6

%2,

2%8,

3%13

,1%

1,9%

1,6%

No

1,

0%1,

0%1,

0%5,

1%12

,1%

7,

1%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

1,

4%,9

%1,

8%6,

9%13

,3%

2,8%

2,8%

No

,5%

,5%

,5%

2,1%

7,2%

12,3

%

3,1%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

9,3%

11,6

%

3 m

embe

rs1,

3%2,

6%

2,6%

6,4%

6,4%

3,

8%

4 m

embe

rs

1,

4%,7

%2,

9%7,

9%11

,5%

1,4%

3,6%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

1,3%

1,3%

7,1%

17,4

%2,

6%2,

6%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

3,6%

3,6%

3,6%

2,4%

Ave

rage

,7

%1,

5%4,

4%7,

3%12

,4%

1,5%

2,2%

Hig

h,5

%1,

5%,5

%1,

0%9,

3%17

,0%

,5%

3,6%

Are

a:U

rban

1,5%

3,0%

1,5%

3,0%

6,0%

16,4

%

6,0%

Rura

l

,6%

,6%

1,7%

7,8%

12,1

%1,

7%2,

3%

98


Tabl

e 52

. Ple

ase

tell

us w

hat w

as th

e ap

prox

imat

ive

aver

age

mon

thly

wag

e pa

id to

a

mem

ber o

f you

r fam

ily w

hile

wor

king

abr

oad?

Gen

eral

Mea

nM

edia

nM

axim

um

1748

800

3500

0

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

abr

oad:

Yes

1734

800

3500

0

No

1833

800

3000

0

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

1371

800

2700

0

No

2234

800

3500

0

Num

ber o

f fam

ily m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

2708

800

3000

0

3 m

embe

rs18

2985

035

000

4 m

embe

rs

2028

800

3000

0

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

1147

800

1000

0

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

dev

elop

men

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

1003

700

8000

Ave

rage

2022

800

3500

0

Hig

h18

5087

530

000

Are

a:U

rban

2901

875

3000

0

Rura

l15

2480

035

000

Valu

ta:

Euro

987

900

4000

US

Dol

lars

741

700

2800

Roub

les

1604

520

000

3500

0

Lei M

D62

5845

0030

000

99


Tabl

e 53

. Wha

t are

the

inte

ntio

ns fo

r the

futu

re o

f you

r fam

ily m

embe

rs w

ho w

ere/

are

curr

entl

y ab

road

?

Gen

eral

To d

efine

tivel

y st

ay in

Mol

dova

Not

sur

e, m

aybe

th

ey w

ill d

efi-

netiv

ely

stay

in

Mol

dova

To w

ork

abro

ad

for a

noth

er y

ear,

then

retu

rn to

M

oldo

va

To w

ork

abro

ad m

ore

than

five

yea

rs, t

hen

to

defin

etiv

ely

retu

rn to

M

oldo

va

To li

ve

abro

ad

To p

erm

a-ne

ntly

live

ab

road

with

fa

mily

To m

igra

te

perm

a-ne

ntly

DK/

NA

8,4%

10,1

%18

,2%

31,9

%11

,8%

5,8%

,2%

13,7

%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s7,

0%11

,1%

18,5

%35

,7%

11,8

%6,

1%,3

%9,

6%

No

13,1

%7,

1%16

,2%

21,2

%12

,1%

5,1%

25

,3%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

10,5

%9,

1%24

,2%

32,4

%12

,3%

3,2%

8,

2%

No

6,1%

11,2

%11

,2%

31,6

%11

,2%

8,2%

,5%

19,9

%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

11,6

%9,

3%9,

3%32

,6%

16,3

%4,

7%

16,3

%

3 m

embe

rs7,

7%12

,8%

19,2

%26

,9%

11,5

%9,

0%

12,8

%

4 m

embe

rs

9,3%

10,7

%17

,9%

36,4

%12

,9%

3,6%

,7%

8,6%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

7,1%

8,3%

20,5

%30

,1%

9,6%

6,4%

17

,9%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

11,9

%10

,7%

15,5

%27

,4%

3,6%

4,8%

26

,2%

Ave

rage

7,2%

10,8

%18

,0%

30,9

%12

,2%

5,0%

15

,8%

Hig

h7,

7%9,

3%19

,6%

34,5

%14

,9%

6,7%

,5%

6,7%

Are

a:U

rban

4,5%

7,5%

7,5%

43,3

%20

,9%

10,4

%

6,0%

Rura

l9,

1%10

,6%

20,3

%29

,7%

10,0

%4,

9%,3

%15

,1%

100


Tabl

e 54

. Soc

ial –

dem

ogra

phic

cha

ract

eris

tics

of m

igra

nts.

Gen

der a

nd a

ge

Gen

eral

Gen

der o

f per

sons

who

left

ab

road

Age

of p

erso

ns w

ho a

re a

broa

d

Mas

culin

eFe

min

ine

Up

to 2

0 ye

ars

21 –

30

year

s31

– 4

0 ye

ars

41 –

50

year

sO

ver 5

1 ye

ars

63,2

%36

,8%

3,7%

39,9

%29

,8%

19,4

%7,

2%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s63

,2%

36,8

%4,

8%38

,4%

28,5

%20

,2%

8,0%

No

62,6

%37

,4%

45

,0%

32,8

%17

,6%

4,6%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

63,7

%36

,3%

5,4%

41,6

%26

,8%

17,4

%8,

8%

No

62,2

%37

,8%

1,6%

37,8

%32

,9%

22,5

%5,

2%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

66,0

%34

,0%

2,0%

26,0

%32

,0%

18,0

%22

,0%

3 m

embe

rs72

,4%

27,6

%1,

0%53

,1%

22,4

%17

,3%

6,1%

4 m

embe

rs

60,8

%39

,2%

4,8%

34,9

%33

,3%

22,8

%4,

2%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

60,7

%39

,3%

4,3%

41,5

%29

,5%

17,9

%6,

8%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

65,7

%34

,3%

2,9%

48,0

%29

,4%

16,7

%2,

9%

Ave

rage

63,6

%36

,4%

3,8%

41,3

%28

,3%

19,0

%7,

6%

Hig

h62

,1%

37,9

%3,

9%36

,1%

30,9

%20

,7%

8,4%

Are

a:U

rban

63,8

%36

,2%

2,1%

36,2

%26

,6%

27,7

%7,

4%

Rura

l63

,1%

36,9

%4,

0%40

,7%

30,4

%17

,8%

7,1%

101


ble

55. S

ocia

l – d

emog

raph

ic c

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f mig

rant

s. N

atio

nalit

y

Gen

eral

Mol

dova

nRo

man

ian

Russ

ian

Ukr

aine

anG

agau

zian

Czec

h

95,4

%,9

%1,

6%1,

2%,4

%,5

%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

abr

oad:

Yes

94,9

%,7

%1,

6%1,

6%,5

%,7

%

No

96,9

%1,

5%1,

5%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

95,9

%,9

%,6

%,9

%,6

%,9

%

No

94,8

%,8

%2,

8%1,

6%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

94,0

%2,

0%

4,0%

3 m

embe

rs99

,0%

1,0%

4 m

embe

rs

95,2

%1,

6%1,

1%1,

1%1,

1%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

94,4

%,4

%3,

0%,9

%

1,3%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

dev

elop

men

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

90,2

%1,

0%1,

0%2,

9%2,

0%2,

9%

Ave

rage

97,8

%

1,6%

,5%

Hig

h95

,8%

1,4%

1,8%

1,1%

Are

a:U

rban

93,6

%2,

1%2,

1%2,

1%

Rura

l95

,8%

,6%

1,5%

1,0%

,4%

,6%

102


Tabl

e 56

. Soc

ial –

dem

ogra

phic

cha

ract

eris

tics

of m

igra

nts.

Edu

cati

on a

nd c

ivil

stat

us

Gen

eral

Wha

t is

the

educ

atio

n le

vel o

f the

mig

rate

d pe

rson

?W

hat i

s th

e ci

vil s

tatu

s of

the

mig

rate

d pe

rson

?

Prim

ary

educ

atio

n (4

yea

rs)/

no

educ

atio

n

Unc

ompl

e-te

d m

iddl

e ed

ucat

ion

(9 y

ears

)

Gen

eral

sc

hool

or

lyce

um (1

1 or

12

year

s)

Voca

tiona

l ed

ucat

ion

(voc

atio

nal

scho

o)

Unc

ompl

eted

hi

gher

(col

lege

)U

nive

rsit

yM

arri

edSi

ngle

Div

orce

dW

idow

er/

wid

ow

1,2%

19,6

%18

,6%

34,9

%13

,5%

12,3

%72

,7%

21,2

%4,

6%1,

6%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s1,

6%20

,5%

19,5

%35

,4%

13,1

%9,

9%74

,3%

19,3

%4,

8%1,

6%

No

16

,8%

14,5

%33

,6%

14,5

%20

,6%

67,9

%26

,7%

3,8%

1,5%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

1,3%

17,4

%22

,4%

29,0

%14

,2%

15,8

%69

,7%

25,9

%3,

2%1,

3%

No

1,2%

22,5

%13

,7%

42,6

%12

,0%

8,0%

76,3

%15

,3%

6,4%

2,0%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

14

,0%

24,0

%40

,0%

14,0

%8,

0%52

,0%

32,0

%10

,0%

6,0%

3 m

embe

rs1,

0%20

,4%

20,4

%34

,7%

9,2%

14,3

%66

,3%

27,6

%6,

1%

4 m

embe

rs

2,1%

16,9

%16

,4%

30,7

%19

,6%

14,3

%75

,1%

19,0

%3,

2%2,

6%5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs,9

%22

,6%

18,4

%37

,2%

10,3

%10

,7%

77,8

%17

,9%

3,8%

,4%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

2,0%

28,4

%25

,5%

32,4

%5,

9%5,

9%74

,5%

20,6

%3,

9%1,

0%

Ave

rage

1,1%

20,7

%22

,8%

34,2

%8,

7%12

,5%

71,7

%20

,1%

5,4%

2,7%

Hig

h1,

1%15

,8%

13,3

%36

,1%

19,3

%14

,4%

72,6

%22

,1%

4,2%

1,1%

Are

a:U

rban

1,1%

18,1

%13

,8%

31,9

%16

,0%

19,1

%69

,1%

23,4

%5,

3%2,

1%

Rura

l1,

3%19

,9%

19,5

%35

,4%

13,0

%10

,9%

73,4

%20

,8%

4,4%

1,5%

103


ble

57. W

hich

of t

he fo

llow

ing

situ

atio

ns m

ost e

xact

ly d

escr

ibe

the

way

you

/mem

bers

of y

our f

amily

mig

rate

, th

at is

leav

e ab

road

and

retu

rn h

ome?

Gen

eral

I/the

y st

ay p

erm

anen

tly

abro

ad a

nd re

turn

to th

e co

untr

y le

ss th

an o

nce

a ye

ar

I/the

y pe

rman

ently

sta

y ab

road

and

retu

rn h

ome

once

a y

ear

I/the

y le

ave

and

retu

rn

regu

larl

y, s

pend

ing

app.

th

e sa

me

peri

od o

f tim

e ab

road

and

hom

e

I/the

y sp

end

mos

t of t

he

time

hom

e an

d le

ave

ahro

ad o

nly

for c

erta

in

peri

ods

of th

e ye

ar

24,7

%15

,1%

51,3

%8,

9%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s23

,9%

15,3

%54

,5%

6,4%

No

28,3

%14

,1%

41,4

%16

,2%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

24,2

%18

,7%

51,1

%5,

9%

No

25,0

%10

,7%

52,0

%12

,2%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

25,6

%14

,0%

58,1

%2,

3%

3 m

embe

rs25

,6%

11,5

%53

,8%

9,0%

4 m

embe

rs

25,7

%15

,0%

52,1

%7,

1%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

23,1

%17

,3%

47,4

%12

,2%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

17,9

%11

,9%

52,4

%17

,9%

Ave

rage

20,9

%13

,7%

60,4

%5,

0%

Hig

h30

,4%

17,5

%44

,3%

7,7%

Are

a:U

rban

37,3

%6,

0%53

,7%

3,0%

Rura

l22

,3%

16,9

%50

,9%

10,0

%

104


Tabl

e 58

. M

oney

from

abr

oad?

Gen

eral

To w

hom

doe

s m

ost o

ften

th

e m

igra

nt s

end

the

mon

ey

from

abr

oad?

Wha

t is

shar

e of

rem

ittan

ces

in th

e to

tal i

ncom

e of

you

r fam

ily?

To fa

mily

m

embe

rsTo

rela

tives

Less

than

10 %

10%

-25%

25-5

0%50

-75%

75-9

0%90

-100

%

98,4

%1,

6%8,

6%14

,3%

16,6

%26

,1%

16,2

%18

,2%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s98

,4%

1,6%

8,6%

14,3

%16

,6%

26,1

%16

,2%

18,2

%

No

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

98,8

%1,

2%7,

5%15

,6%

16,8

%26

,6%

16,2

%17

,3%

No

98,6

%1,

4%9,

4%12

,9%

15,8

%25

,9%

16,5

%19

,4%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

96,6

%3,

4%13

,8%

10,3

%17

,2%

27,6

%3,

4%27

,6%

3 m

embe

rs98

,4%

1,6%

8,2%

13,1

%16

,4%

18,0

%24

,6%

19,7

%

4 m

embe

rs

99,1

%,9

%7,

2%17

,1%

12,6

%30

,6%

16,2

%16

,2%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

98,2

%1,

8%8,

8%13

,3%

20,4

%25

,7%

15,0

%16

,8%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

98,1

%1,

9%17

,0%

11,3

%24

,5%

18,9

%9,

4%18

,9%

Ave

rage

98,1

%1,

9%5,

7%18

,1%

11,4

%33

,3%

15,2

%16

,2%

Hig

h98

,7%

1,3%

7,7%

12,8

%17

,3%

23,7

%19

,2%

19,2

%

Are

a:U

rban

96,2

%3,

8%11

,5%

9,6%

13,5

%28

,8%

17,3

%19

,2%

Rura

l98

,9%

1,1%

8,0%

15,3

%17

,2%

25,6

%16

,0%

17,9

%

105


ble

59. W

hen

did

the

mig

rant

sta

rted

sen

ding

mon

ey h

ome

afte

r lea

ving

abr

oad?

Gen

eral

In th

e fir

st 3

m

onth

sA

fter

4 –

6

mon

ths

Aft

er 7

– 1

0 m

onth

sA

fter

11

– 12

m

onth

sA

fter

12

mon

ths

No

answ

er

70,7

%14

,3%

2,5%

2,2%

3,5%

6,7%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

abr

oad:

Yes

70,7

%14

,3%

2,5%

2,2%

3,5%

6,7%

No

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

69,9

%15

,6%

2,3%

2,3%

4,0%

5,8%

No

72,7

%12

,2%

2,9%

2,2%

2,9%

7,2%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

75,9

%10

,3%

3,4%

3,4%

3,4%

3,4%

3 m

embe

rs70

,5%

16,4

%6,

6%1,

6%3,

3%1,

6%

4 m

embe

rs

69,4

%12

,6%

2,7%

2,7%

2,7%

9,9%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

70,8

%15

,9%

1,

8%4,

4%7,

1%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of h

ouse

hold

s:

Poor

67,9

%18

,9%

3,8%

1,9%

1,9%

5,7%

Ave

rage

72,4

%10

,5%

2,9%

3,8%

4,8%

5,7%

Hig

h70

,5%

15,4

%1,

9%1,

3%3,

2%7,

7%

Are

a:U

rban

65,4

%13

,5%

7,7%

1,9%

3,8%

7,7%

Rura

l71

,8%

14,5

%1,

5%2,

3%3,

4%6,

5%

106


Tabl

e 60

. How

oft

en d

o m

igra

nts

send

mon

ey fr

om a

broa

d?

Gen

eral

Twic

e a

mon

thO

nce

in2

mon

ths

Onc

e in

3 m

onth

sO

nce

in h

alf a

ye

arO

nce

a ye

ar

They

do

not s

end

mon

ey b

ut b

ring

al

l the

ir m

oney

w

hen

retu

rnin

g ho

me

No

answ

er

43,0

%24

,8%

13,7

%5,

4%3,

8%,6

%8,

6%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

abr

oad:

Yes

43,0

%24

,8%

13,7

%5,

4%3,

8%,6

%8,

6%

No

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

38,7

%27

,7%

15,0

%5,

8%4,

6%,6

%7,

5%

No

48,9

%20

,9%

12,2

%5,

0%2,

9%,7

%9,

4%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

34,5

%20

,7%

24,1

%3,

4%3,

4%

13,8

%

3 m

embe

rs50

,8%

19,7

%14

,8%

6,6%

1,6%

1,6%

4,9%

4 m

embe

rs

43,2

%25

,2%

15,3

%3,

6%5,

4%,9

%6,

3%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

40,7

%28

,3%

8,8%

7,1%

3,5%

11

,5%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

32,1

%30

,2%

11,3

%5,

7%3,

8%

17,0

%

Ave

rage

41,0

%24

,8%

13,3

%9,

5%2,

9%1,

9%6,

7%

Hig

h48

,1%

23,1

%14

,7%

2,6%

4,5%

7,

1%

Are

a:U

rban

46,2

%23

,1%

15,4

%3,

8%3,

8%

7,7%

Rura

l42

,4%

25,2

%13

,4%

5,7%

3,8%

,8%

8,8%

107


ble

61. W

hat i

s th

e av

erag

e am

ount

of a

mon

ey tr

ansf

er?

Gen

eral

Mea

nM

edia

nM

axim

um

989

300

2000

0

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

abr

oad:

Yes

989

300

2000

0

No

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

870

300

1600

0

No

1151

300

2000

0

Num

ber o

f fam

ily m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

741

200

1200

0

3 m

embe

rs13

4045

016

000

4 m

embe

rs

779

400

2000

0

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

1050

300

2000

0

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of h

ouse

hold

s:

Poor

844

200

2000

0

Ave

rage

845

300

1000

0

Hig

h11

4040

020

000

Are

a:U

rban

716

350

1200

0

Rura

l10

4630

020

000

Valu

ta:

Euro

356

300

2000

US

Dol

lars

43

730

020

00

Roub

les

9017

8500

2000

0

Lei

3231

2000

1200

0

108


Tabl

e 62

. Wha

t is

the

amou

nt b

roug

ht p

erso

nally

whe

n re

turn

ing

hom

e?

Gen

eral

Mea

nM

edia

nM

axim

um

2224

1200

3500

0

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

abr

oad:

Yes

2348

1250

3500

0

No

1480

1000

4500

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

1889

1400

8000

No

2576

1000

3500

0

Num

ber o

f fam

ily m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

1738

2000

3000

3 m

embe

rs26

1215

0035

000

4 m

embe

rs

2111

1500

8000

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

2238

1000

3000

0

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

dev

elop

men

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

1652

1000

5000

Ave

rage

3007

1500

3500

0

Hig

h19

9010

0080

00

Are

a:U

rban

2068

2000

4000

Rura

l22

5710

0035

000

Valu

ta:

Euro

2143

2000

8000

US

Dol

lars

15

3810

0050

00

Roub

les

1500

050

0035

000

Lei

6813

4000

3000

0

109


ble

63. H

ow m

any

of y

our f

amily

mem

bers

who

are

abr

oad

curr

entl

y se

nd m

oney

to th

e fa

mily

?

Gen

eral

1 m

embe

r2

mem

bers

3 m

embe

rs4

mem

bers

78,2

%20

,4%

1,0%

,5%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

abr

oad:

Yes

78,3

%19

,7%

1,3%

,6%

No

76,8

%23

,2%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

75,8

%22

,4%

1,8%

No

81,6

%17

,3%

1,

0%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

86,0

%14

,0%

3 m

embe

rs80

,8%

19,2

%

4 m

embe

rs

81,4

%17

,1%

,7%

,7%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

71,8

%25

,6%

1,9%

,6%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

dev

elop

men

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

85,7

%13

,1%

1,

2%

Ave

rage

80,6

%19

,4%

Hig

h73

,2%

24,2

%2,

1%,5

%

Are

a:U

rban

71,6

%26

,9%

1,

5%

Rura

l79

,4%

19,1

%1,

1%,3

%

110


Tabl

e 64

. Hav

e an

y m

igra

nts

from

you

r fam

ily s

ent o

r don

ated

mon

ey/a

sset

s to

loca

l or

gani

sati

ons

(chu

rch,

spo

rt c

lub,

com

mun

ity

proj

ects

, etc

.)

Gen

eral

Yes

No

DK/

NA

34,5%

62,6%

2,9%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

abr

oad:

Yes

39,8

%58

,0%

2,2%

No

18,2

%78

,8%

3,0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

42,9

%53

,9%

3,2%

No

25,0

%72

,4%

2,6%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

30,2

%69

,8%

3 m

embe

rs39

,7%

56,4

%3,

8%

4 m

embe

rs

32,1

%66

,4%

1,4%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

35,3

%60

,3%

4,5%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

dev

elop

men

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

23,8

%72

,6%

3,6%

Ave

rage

37,4

%60

,4%

2,2%

Hig

h37

,1%

59,8

%3,

1%

Are

a:U

rban

20,9

%77

,6%

1,5%

Rura

l37

,1%

59,7

%3,

1%

111


ble

65. F

or w

hat p

roje

cts

did

he/s

he d

onat

e th

is m

oney

?

Gen

eral

Kind

erga

rten

/p

resc

hool

in

stitu

tions

Scho

ol/

univ

ersi

tyH

ealth

care

ce

nter

s/ho

spita

lRo

ads

Wat

erPo

wer

Gas

Sani

tatio

nCh

urch

Tele

phon

y

31,3

%29

,2%

,7%

31,9

%26

,4%

4,2%

22,2

%2,

8%45

,8%

,7%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s32

,0%

29,6

%

34,4

%27

,2%

4,8%

24,0

%3,

2%43

,2%

,8%

No

22,2

%22

,2%

5,6%

16,7

%22

,2%

11

,1%

66

,7%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

28,7

%26

,6%

1,1%

30,9

%26

,6%

6,4%

22,3

%2,

1%48

,9%

No

34,7

%34

,7%

34

,7%

26,5

%

22,4

%4,

1%38

,8%

2,0%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

15,4

%23

,1%

23

,1%

38,5

%7,

7%30

,8%

69

,2%

3 m

embe

rs25

,8%

16,1

%

35,5

%29

,0%

6,5%

22,6

%9,

7%41

,9%

3,2%

4 m

embe

rs

42,2

%42

,2%

2,2%

28,9

%26

,7%

2,2%

20,0

%2,

2%35

,6%

5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs29

,1%

27,3

%

34,5

%21

,8%

3,6%

21,8

%

50,9

%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

15,0

%10

,0%

15

,0%

10,0

%

15,0

%5,

0%60

,0%

Ave

rage

40,4

%34

,6%

34

,6%

34,6

%5,

8%30

,8%

40

,4%

1,9%

Hig

h29

,2%

30,6

%1,

4%34

,7%

25,0

%4,

2%18

,1%

4,2%

45,8

%

Are

a:U

rban

35,7

%42

,9%

28

,6%

14,3

%

7,

1%35

,7%

Rura

l30

,8%

27,7

%,8

%32

,3%

27,7

%4,

6%24

,6%

2,3%

46,9

%,8

%

112


Tabl

e 66

. For

wha

t of t

he fo

llow

ing

did

you

spen

d th

e la

rges

t par

t of t

his

mon

ey o

ver t

he la

st 1

2 m

onth

s?

Gen

eral

For d

aily

need

s co

sts

(foo

d, c

loth

ing,

ut

ilitie

s, e

tc.)

To b

uyho

useh

old

appl

ianc

es (T

V se

t, fr

idge

, PC

etc.

)

To b

uy a

vehi

cle

To b

uy/r

epai

r a

flat/

hous

eEd

ucat

ion

(con

trib

utio

ns

to th

e sc

hool

, to

pay

the

univ

ersi

ty c

ontr

act)

Med

ical

ca

reH

olid

ay

71,2

%38

,4%

8,9%

48,9

%18

,2%

17,5

%1,

9%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s76

,8%

43,0

%10

,8%

51,9

%21

,0%

19,4

%2,

2%

No

52,5

%23

,2%

3,0%

38,4

%10

,1%

11,1

%1,

0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

69,4

%36

,5%

11,0

%44

,7%

18,7

%19

,2%

2,3%

No

73,0

%39

,8%

6,6%

54,1

%17

,3%

15,8

%1,

5%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

67,4

%41

,9%

2,3%

41,9

%9,

3%14

,0%

2,3%

3 m

embe

rs67

,9%

32,1

%15

,4%

50,0

%24

,4%

17,9

%3,

8%

4 m

embe

rs

69,3

%37

,9%

11,4

%49

,3%

18,6

%17

,1%

,7%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

75,6

%41

,0%

5,1%

50,0

%17

,3%

18,6

%1,

9%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

71,4

%33

,3%

6,0%

46,4

%11

,9%

13,1

%1,

2%

Ave

rage

77,0

%36

,7%

5,8%

48,2

%16

,5%

21,6

%1,

4%

Hig

h67

,0%

41,8

%12

,4%

50,5

%22

,2%

16,5

%2,

6%

Are

a:U

rban

76,1

%37

,3%

14,9

%50

,7%

20,9

%17

,9%

1,5%

Rura

l70

,3%

38,6

%7,

7%48

,6%

17,7

%17

,4%

2,0%

113


ble

67. F

or w

hat o

f the

follo

win

g di

d yo

u sp

end

the

larg

est p

art o

f thi

s m

oney

ove

r the

last

12

mon

ths?

Gen

eral

To b

uy/

rent

lan

dTo

buy

dom

estic

ani

mal

s/pr

oduc

ts u

sed

in a

gric

ultu

-re

(see

ds, f

ertil

iser

s, e

tc.)

To in

vest

in o

ther

in

com

e ge

nera

ting

activ

ities

Savi

ngs

To p

ayoff

deb

tsTo

lend

mon

ey

to re

lativ

es/

frie

nds

DK/

NA

1,9%

8,4%

1,2%

6,0%

6,5%

,5%

12,5

%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s2,

2%9,

2%,6

%7,

6%7,

0%,6

%5,

4%

No

1,0%

5,1%

3,0%

1,0%

5,1%

35

,4%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

2,3%

11,9

%1,

8%5,

5%8,

2%,5

%10

,5%

No

1,5%

4,6%

,5%

6,6%

4,1%

,5%

14,8

%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

2,3%

11,6

%9,

3%

16,3

%

3 m

embe

rs5,

1%7,

7%1,

3%3,

8%9,

0%1,

3%9,

0%

4 m

embe

rs

,7%

8,6%

,7%

7,9%

4,3%

12

,9%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

1,9%

10,9

%1,

3%3,

8%6,

4%,6

%12

,8%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

3,6%

10,7

%1,

2%4,

8%10

,7%

15

,5%

Ave

rage

,7%

12,9

%1,

4%5,

8%5,

0%

10,8

%

Hig

h2,

1%4,

1%1,

0%6,

7%5,

7%1,

0%12

,4%

Are

a:U

rban

1,

5%1,

5%3,

0%1,

5%1,

5%11

,9%

Rura

l2,

3%9,

7%1,

1%6,

6%7,

4%,3

%12

,6%

114


Tabl

e 68

. How

wou

ld y

ou s

pend

or h

ave

spen

t if y

ou h

ave

/ had

1,0

00 U

S do

llars

?

Gen

eral

Pay

off d

ebts

(t

he m

oney

I bo

rrow

ed to

le

ave

abro

ad,

or fo

r oth

er

thin

gs)

Pow

er c

on-

sum

ptio

n (fo

od, c

othi

ng,

othe

r hou

se-

hold

exp

endi

-tu

res,

ser

vice

s)

Oth

er ty

pes

of

cons

umpt

ion

(goo

ds fo

r the

ho

useh

old,

like

a

was

hing

ma-

chin

e, fu

rnitu

-re

; buy

a n

ew

car;

wed

ding

/ fu

nera

ls; c

hris

-te

ning

; etc

.)

Soci

al-h

uman

in

vest

men

ts

(pay

men

ts fo

r m

edic

al a

ssis

-ta

nce,

edu

cati-

on o

f chi

ldre

n,

etc.

)

Real

est

ate

inve

stm

ents

(b

uy a

new

ho

use/

apar

t-m

ent b

uild

a

new

hou

se/

apar

tmen

t)

Don

atio

ns fo

r co

mm

unit

y pr

ojec

tsSa

ving

s, b

ank

depo

sits

“sal

t aw

ay m

o-ne

y” (m

oney

is

not d

epos

ited

in th

e ba

nk);

19,5

%70

,1%

39,8

%38

,1%

35,6

%4,

6%3,

4%9,

0%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s19

,4%

71,7

%44

,6%

36,0

%40

,8%

3,8%

5,4%

8,6%

No

19,2

%68

,7%

37,4

%41

,4%

40,4

%4,

0%2,

0%12

,1%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

22,0

%69

,4%

42,4

%37

,3%

34,2

%2,

6%3,

6%8,

6%

No

16,8

%70

,5%

37,0

%39

,1%

37,1

%6,

7%3,

1%9,

2%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

19,3

%71

,0%

33,6

%37

,9%

26,1

%6,

6%2,

3%12

,6%

3 m

embe

rs16

,3%

63,1

%37

,4%

33,5

%38

,9%

3,4%

4,9%

8,4%

4 m

embe

rs

20,9

%70

,2%

43,6

%43

,6%

36,2

%3,

5%3,

9%6,

4%5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs20

,8%

74,1

%45

,6%

36,1

%44

,5%

4,0%

3,3%

7,7%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

15,7

%73

,2%

36,8

%36

,5%

35,4

%5,

7%2,

2%11

,1%

Ave

rage

20,9

%70

,4%

41,6

%34

,5%

38,3

%3,

8%2,

4%7,

9%

Hig

h22

,0%

66,7

%41

,2%

43,4

%33

,1%

4,3%

5,7%

8,1%

Are

a:U

rban

20,9

%65

,7%

32,3

%44

,3%

25,9

%5,

5%4,

0%9,

0%

Rura

l19

,2%

71,1

%41

,5%

36,8

%37

,7%

4,4%

3,3%

9,1%

115


ble

69. H

ow w

ould

you

spe

nd o

r hav

e sp

ent i

f you

hav

e / h

ad 1

,000

US

dolla

rs?

Gen

eral

Mon

ey le

nded

to

rela

tives

or

othe

r per

sons

Oth

er fo

rms

of

savi

ngs

Buy

new

land

pl

ots

or s

tart

up

a b

usin

ess

(min

ibus

or

pavi

lion)

Purc

hase

ass

ets

nece

ssar

y fo

r th

e bu

sine

ss

(for e

xam

ple.

a

trac

tor)

Caw

s, p

igs,

sh

eep,

pou

ltry

Oth

er in

vest

-ne

nts

in b

usi-

ness

or p

easa

nt

farm

Hol

iday

DK/

NA

1,1%

,4%

1,6%

1,8%

5,6%

4,2%

,5%

6,1%

Mon

ey s

ent

from

abr

oad:

Yes

1,0%

,6%

1,0%

1,9%

4,5%

4,5%

,3%

5,1%

No

1,0%

3,

0%1,

0%8,

1%5,

1%1,

0%4,

0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

,7%

,2%

1,6%

2,6%

5,3%

5,1%

,5%

4,7%

No

1,4%

,5%

1,6%

1,1%

5,8%

3,3%

,4%

7,6%

Num

ber

of fa

mily

m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

1,4%

,3%

,6%

1,4%

6,0%

3,2%

,3%

8,0%

3 m

embe

rs1,

0%

4,4%

2,5%

3,4%

3,9%

1,0%

8,4%

4 m

embe

rs

1,1%

,4%

1,8%

1,8%

4,3%

7,1%

,4%

4,3%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

,7%

,7%

,7%

1,8%

8,0%

2,6%

,4%

4,0%

Soci

al-

econ

omic

de

velo

pmen

t of

ho

useh

olds

:

Poor

1,6%

,3%

,8%

,5%

6,5%

3,2%

,3%

7,8%

Ave

rage

1,1%

1,

4%1,

4%6,

0%3,

8%,3

%6,

0%

Hig

h,5

%,8

%2,

7%3,

5%4,

3%5,

4%,8

%4,

6%

Are

a:U

rban

1,5%

,5%

4,0%

2,0%

2,5%

3,0%

,5%

6,5%

Rura

l1,

0%,3

%1,

1%1,

8%6,

3%4,

4%,4

%6,

1%

116


Tabl

e 70

. How

do

you

inte

nd to

use

the

mon

ey th

at w

ill b

e ea

rned

in th

e fo

llow

ing

12 m

onth

s ab

road

?

Gen

eral

Repa

ymen

t of

deb

ts

Curr

ent c

onsu

mpt

i-on

(foo

d, c

loth

ing,

ut

ilitie

s, h

ouse

hold

ap

plia

nces

)

Spec

ial c

onsu

mp-

tion

(edu

catio

n,

heal

th, f

urni

ture

, lo

ans,

etc

.)

Inve

stm

ents

in th

e ho

use

(car

, hou

se/

apar

tmen

t, re

para

ti-on

of t

he h

ouse

/flat

, fo

r a w

eddi

ng/f

une-

ral,

bank

dep

osits

)

Inve

stm

ents

in

Busi

ness

(pur

chas

e of

land

, agr

icul

tura

l ou

tfit,

min

ibus

,. A

nim

als,

etc

.)

DK/

NA

6,0%

29,0

%9,

4%29

,3%

2,2%

24,2

%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s5,

4%31

,2%

10,5

%33

,1%

2,5%

17,2

%

No

8,1%

22,2

%6,

1%17

,2%

1,0%

45,5

%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

8,7%

30,6

%9,

1%26

,0%

2,3%

23,3

%

No

3,1%

27,6

%9,

7%32

,7%

2,0%

25,0

%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

9,3%

32,6

%9,

3%25

,6%

2,3%

20,9

%

3 m

embe

rs3,

8%29

,5%

12,8

%33

,3%

2,6%

17,9

%

4 m

embe

rs

8,6%

28,6

%7,

9%29

,3%

2,9%

22,9

%5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs3,

8%28

,2%

9,0%

28,2

%1,

3%29

,5%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

6,0%

26,2

%7,

1%28

,6%

32

,1%

Ave

rage

9,4%

30,9

%8,

6%24

,5%

2,9%

23,7

%

Hig

h3,

6%28

,9%

10,8

%33

,0%

2,6%

21,1

%

Are

a:U

rban

4,5%

23,9

%7,

5%35

,8%

6,0%

22,4

%

Rura

l6,

3%30

,0%

9,7%

28,0

%1,

4%24

,6%

117


Tabl

e 71

. Hav

e yo

u m

anag

ed to

acc

umul

ate

a ce

rtai

n ca

pita

l/am

ount

of m

oney

whe

n w

orki

ng a

broa

d?

Gen

eral

Yes

No

No

answ

er

11,3

%81

,1%

7,7%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

abr

oad:

Yes

12,7

%79

,0%

8,3%

No

7,1%

87,9

%5,

1%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

11,4

%79

,9%

8,7%

No

10,7

%83

,2%

6,1%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

11,6

%79

,1%

9,3%

3 m

embe

rs16

,7%

79,5

%3,

8%

4 m

embe

rs

11,4

%82

,1%

6,4%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

8,3%

81,4

%10

,3%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

dev

elop

men

t of

hou

seho

lds:

Poor

14,3

%78

,6%

7,1%

Ave

rage

5,8%

84,9

%9,

4%

Hig

h13

,9%

79,4

%6,

7%

Are

a:U

rban

9,0%

83,6

%7,

5%

Rura

l11

,7%

80,6

%7,

7%

118


Tabl

e 72

. Wha

t is

the

amou

nt o

f the

acc

umul

ated

cap

ital

?

Gen

eral

Mea

nM

edia

nM

axim

um

5253

3000

2000

0

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

abr

oad:

Yes

4363

3000

2000

0

No

1000

010

000

1000

0

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

6944

3000

2000

0

No

3589

3000

1000

0

Num

ber o

f fam

ily m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

1000

010

000

1000

0

3 m

embe

rs18

8325

0030

00

4 m

embe

rs

7333

4500

2000

0

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

5750

5000

1000

0

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

dev

elop

men

t of

hou

seho

lds:

Poor

2383

2500

5000

Ave

rage

6500

6500

1000

0

Hig

h65

9150

0020

000

Are

a:U

rban

7500

7500

1000

0

Rura

l49

8830

0020

000

Valu

ta:

Euro

6778

5000

2000

0

US

Dol

lars

46

7130

0010

000

Lei

2033

2000

4000

119


ble

73. H

ave

you

ever

had

an

own

busi

ness

or d

o yo

u pl

an to

init

iate

you

r ow

n bu

sine

ss in

the

near

futu

re?

Gen

eral

At p

rese

nt, I

do

have

my

own

busi

ness

I had

my

own

bu-

sine

ss in

the

past

, bu

t I to

not

pla

n to

la

unch

ano

ther

one

in

the

futu

re

I had

my

own

busi

-ne

ss in

the

past

and

in

tend

to la

unch

an

othe

r one

in th

e fu

ture

I hav

e ne

ver h

ad m

y ow

n bu

sine

ss, b

ut

inte

nd to

ope

n on

e in

the

near

futu

re

I nev

er h

ad m

y ow

n bu

sine

ss a

nd d

o no

t in

tend

to o

pen

one

in th

e ne

ar fu

ture

3,8%

,7%

,4%

11,8

%83

,3%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

abr

oad:

Yes

3,5%

1,0%

,6%

14,0

%80

,9%

No

5,1%

1,0%

1,0%

9,1%

83,8

%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

3,5%

,9%

,4%

13,3

%82

,0%

No

4,2%

,5%

,4%

10,3

%84

,6%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

1,7%

,3%

8,

3%89

,7%

3 m

embe

rs6,

9%,5

%

14,3

%78

,3%

4 m

embe

rs

4,6%

1,4%

,7%

16,0

%77

,3%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

3,3%

,7%

,7%

10,2

%85

,0%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

dev

elop

men

t of

hou

seho

lds:

Poor

,3

%

6,8%

93,0

%

Ave

rage

3,0%

,8%

,5%

11,4

%84

,2%

Hig

h8,

4%1,

1%,5

%17

,3%

72,6

%

Are

a:U

rban

7,5%

1,0%

1,0%

16,9

%73

,6%

Rura

l3,

0%,7

%,2

%10

,7%

85,4

%

120


Tabl

e 74

. In

wha

t sec

tor o

f the

eco

nom

y is

you

r cur

rent

bus

ines

s or

the

one

you

inte

nd to

sta

rt?

Gen

eral

Indu

stry

an

den

erge

tics

Tran

s-po

rt a

nd

com

mun

i-ca

tions

Cons

truc

-tio

ns a

nd

terr

itory

se

t-up

, ec

olog

y

Agr

icul

tu-

re, s

ilvic

ul-

ture

Com

mer

ce

– w

hole

sale

an

d re

tail

Food

ser

-vi

ce, h

otel

se

rvic

es

Fina

ncee

cr

edit.

En

sura

nce,

re

al e

stat

e tr

ansa

cti-

ons

Hea

lthca

re

and

soci

al

assi

stan

ceCu

lture

, ar

t, sp

ort

DK/

NA

1,7%

4,6%

6,9%

23,1

%42

,2%

12,1

%1,

7%1,

2%1,

7%4,

6%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

abr

oad:

Yes

1,8%

7,3%

10,9

%12

,7%

54,5

%3,

6%1,

8%

1,8%

5,5%

No

7,1%

57,1

%21

,4%

7,1%

7,

1%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

5,

4%6,

5%28

,3%

37,0

%14

,1%

2,2%

1,1%

5,

4%

No

3,8%

3,8%

7,5%

17,5

%47

,5%

10,0

%1,

3%1,

3%3,

8%3,

8%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

5,

7%8,

6%20

,0%

37,1

%20

,0%

2,

9%

5,7%

3 m

embe

rs4,

7%2,

3%9,

3%14

,0%

46,5

%11

,6%

4,7%

2,

3%4,

7%

4 m

embe

rs

1,7%

5,2%

1,7%

36,2

%37

,9%

13,8

%

3,

4%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

5,

4%10

,8%

16,2

%48

,6%

2,7%

2,7%

2,7%

10

,8%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

8,0%

32,0

%32

,0%

24,0

%

4,0%

Ave

rage

3,8%

5,7%

5,7%

17,0

%41

,5%

15,1

%1,

9%

3,8%

5,7%

Hig

h1,

1%5,

3%7,

4%24

,2%

45,3

%7,

4%2,

1%2,

1%1,

1%4,

2%

Are

a:U

rban

6,1%

2,0%

6,1%

14,3

%46

,9%

10,2

%4,

1%2,

0%4,

1%4,

1%

Rura

l

5,6%

7,3%

26,6

%40

,3%

12,9

%,8

%,8

%,8

%4,

8%

121


ble

75. W

hat w

as th

e m

ain

inco

me

sour

ce y

ou h

ave

used

to in

itia

te/d

evel

op y

our b

usin

ess?

Gen

eral

Ow

n in

co-

me/

savi

ngs

mad

e in

M

oldo

va

Ow

n in

co-

me/

savi

ngs

mad

e ab

road

Inco

me

from

th

e cu

rren

t bu

sine

ss

Loan

from

re

lativ

es/

acqu

aint

an-

ces/

clos

e re

lativ

es in

M

oldo

va

Loan

from

re

lativ

es/c

lo-

se a

cqua

in-

tanc

es fr

om

abro

ad

Don

atio

n - r

elat

ives

/cl

ose

acqu

-ai

ntan

ce in

M

oldo

va

Don

atio

n -

rela

tives

/clo

-se

acq

uain

-ta

nce

from

ab

road

Cred

it–

com

mer

cial

ba

nk

Cred

it –

MFI

or

ano

ther

or

gani

sati-

on w

ith th

e sa

me

goal

s

57,1

%26

,2%

14,3

%11

,9%

2,4%

4,8%

2,4%

40,5

%7,

1%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s36

,4%

54,5

%9,

1%27

,3%

9,

1%9,

1%18

,2%

No

40,0

%60

,0%

40,0

%

20

,0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

68,4

%26

,3%

15,8

%5,

3%5,

3%5,

3%

42,1

%

No

47,8

%26

,1%

13,0

%17

,4%

4,

3%4,

3%39

,1%

13,0

%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

66,7

%33

,3%

33,3

%

16

,7%

3 m

embe

rs50

,0%

28,6

%14

,3%

35,7

%

14,3

%7,

1%28

,6%

4 m

embe

rs

69,2

%15

,4%

15,4

%

7,7%

46,2

%7,

7%5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs44

,4%

33,3

%

66,7

%22

,2%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

Ave

rage

45,5

%27

,3%

9,1%

54,5

%18

,2%

Hig

h61

,3%

25,8

%16

,1%

16,1

%3,

2%6,

5%3,

2%35

,5%

3,2%

Are

a:U

rban

40,0

%26

,7%

13,3

%33

,3%

13

,3%

6,7%

33,3

%13

,3%

Rura

l66

,7%

25,9

%14

,8%

3,

7%

44

,4%

3,7%

122


Tabl

e 76

. If y

ou h

ad a

bus

ines

s an

d do

had

to s

top

it, w

hat w

ere

the

reas

ons?

Gen

eral

I had

no

profi

t, I w

as lo

sing

m

oney

I had

no

deliv

ery

mar

ket

Unl

oyal

com

petit

ion

I hav

e fo

und

a be

tter

job,

wag

e-ea

rner

, ab

road

The

age

I fel

l ill

DK/

NA

NA

%N

A%

NA

%N

A%

NA

%N

A%

NA

%

650

,0%

325

,0%

18,

3%1

8,3%

18,

3%2

16,7

%1

8,3%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s3

60,0

%

1

20,0

%

1

20,0

%

No

210

0,0%

150

,0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

457

,1%

228

,6%

114

,3%

114

,3%

114

,3%

No

240

,0%

120

,0%

120

,0%

240

,0%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

110

0,0%

110

0,0%

110

0,0%

3 m

embe

rs1

100,

0%

4 m

embe

rs

233

,3%

233

,3%

116

,7%

116

,7%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

250

,0%

125

,0%

250

,0%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

110

0,0%

Ave

rage

510

0,0%

120

,0%

120

,0%

120

,0%

Hig

h1

16,7

%2

33,3

%

1

16,7

%

1

16,7

%1

16,7

%

Are

a:U

rban

125

,0%

125

,0%

250

,0%

125

,0%

Rura

l5

62,5

%2

25,0

%1

12,5

%1

12,5

%1

12,5

%

123


ble

77. H

ow d

o yo

u ap

prec

iate

the

inco

mes

of y

our f

amily

?

Gen

eral

Not

eno

ugh

mo-

ney

even

for t

he

esse

ntia

l nee

ds

Suffi

cien

t onl

y fo

r the

ess

entia

l ne

eds

Suffi

cien

t for

a

dece

nt li

ving

, but

w

e ca

nnot

affo

rd

buyi

ng e

xpen

sive

st

aff

We

man

age

to b

uy

som

e ex

pens

ive

staff

, but

we

have

to

lim

it ou

rsel

ves

in o

ther

are

as

We

man

age

to

have

all

we

need

DK/

NA

39,0

%40

,5%

15,4

%3,

1%1,

3%,7

%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s17

,8%

46,5

%26

,4%

6,4%

2,5%

,3%

No

35,4

%48

,5%

12,1

%2,

0%2,

0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

36,2

%40

,4%

16,4

%4,

0%1,

6%1,

3%

No

41,8

%40

,8%

14,1

%2,

2%,9

%,2

%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

55,7

%33

,0%

8,6%

,9%

,9%

,9%

3 m

embe

rs33

,0%

40,9

%21

,2%

4,4%

,5%

4 m

embe

rs

27,3

%47

,9%

17,7

%3,

9%1,

8%1,

4%5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs34

,3%

42,0

%17

,5%

4,0%

1,8%

,4%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

60,3

%34

,1%

4,3%

,5%

,5%

,3%

Ave

rage

37,2

%43

,8%

15,5

%1,

6%

1,9%

Hig

h19

,5%

43,6

%26

,6%

7,0%

3,3%

Are

a:U

rban

42,3

%32

,8%

20,9

%3,

0%1,

0%

Rura

l38

,3%

42,2

%14

,2%

3,1%

1,3%

,9%

124


Tabl

e 78

. Mig

rant

’s co

ntri

buti

on to

the

fam

ily’s

wel

fare

?

Gen

eral

No

cont

ribu

tion

Very

sm

all (

up

to 1

5%)

Smal

l(1

5-35

%)

So s

o(3

5-65

%)

Big

(65-

85%

)Ve

ry b

ig(o

ver 8

5%)

DK/

NA

6,5%

14,4

%12

,2%

24,0

%17

,5%

19,9

%5,

5%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s1,

9%11

,1%

13,1

%26

,1%

20,1

%23

,9%

3,8%

No

21,2

%25

,3%

9,1%

18,2

%10

,1%

7,1%

9,1%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

5,9%

16,4

%11

,9%

25,6

%14

,6%

20,1

%5,

5%

No

7,1%

11,7

%12

,8%

21,9

%20

,9%

19,9

%5,

6%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

14,0

%7,

0%7,

0%16

,3%

16,3

%32

,6%

7,0%

3 m

embe

rs2,

6%10

,3%

15,4

%32

,1%

16,7

%23

,1%

4 m

embe

rs

6,4%

13,6

%11

,4%

22,1

%23

,6%

16,4

%6,

4%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

6,4%

19,2

%12

,8%

23,7

%12

,8%

17,9

%7,

1%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

10,7

%13

,1%

15,5

%26

,2%

13,1

%14

,3%

7,1%

Ave

rage

5,8%

17,3

%10

,8%

23,0

%17

,3%

22,3

%3,

6%

Hig

h5,

2%12

,9%

11,9

%23

,7%

19,6

%20

,6%

6,2%

Are

a:U

rban

9,0%

10,4

%7,

5%19

,4%

26,9

%20

,9%

6,0%

Rura

l6,

0%15

,1%

13,1

%24

,9%

15,7

%19

,7%

5,4%

125


ble

79. H

ow d

o yo

u ap

prec

iate

Nou

rish

men

t in

your

fam

ily n

ow, c

ompa

red

to th

e si

tuat

ion

befo

re th

e fa

mily

m

embe

r wen

t to

wor

k ab

road

?

Gen

eral

Befo

re th

e em

igra

tion

Curr

ently

Very

good

Goo

d (a

dequ

ate)

Diffi

cult

Very

diffi

cult

DK/

NA

Very

good

Goo

d (a

dequ

ate)

Diffi

cult

Very

diffi

cult

DK/

NA

0,5%

43,9

%49

,2%

4,1%

2,4%

5,5%

73,6

%17

,0%

0,7%

3,1%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s0,

6%45

,2%

47,5

%4,

5%2,

2%7,

0%78

,7%

11,1

%0,

3%2,

9%

No

40

,4%

53,5

%3,

0%3,

0%1,

0%58

,6%

34,3

%2,

0%4,

0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

0,5%

46,1

%47

,5%

3,2%

2,7%

6,8%

75,3

%12

,8%

0,9%

4,1%

No

0,5%

40,8

%51

,5%

5,1%

2,0%

4,1%

71,4

%21

,9%

0,5%

2,0%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

34

,9%

62,8

%

2,3%

4,7%

65,1

%25

,6%

4,

7%

3 m

embe

rs

43,6

%48

,7%

7,7%

3,

8%82

,1%

12,8

%1,

3%

4 m

embe

rs

0,7%

42,9

%49

,3%

4,3%

2,9%

4,3%

77,9

%13

,6%

4,

3%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

0,6%

47,4

%45

,5%

3,2%

3,2%

7,7%

67,9

%19

,9%

1,3%

3,2%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

33

,3%

59,5

%4,

8%2,

4%2,

4%59

,5%

33,3

%2,

4%2,

4%

Ave

rage

0,7%

42,4

%49

,6%

4,3%

2,9%

5,0%

72,7

%18

,7%

0,7%

2,9%

Hig

h0,

5%49

,5%

44,3

%3,

6%2,

1%7,

2%80

,4%

8,8%

3,

6%

Are

a:U

rban

35

,8%

56,7

%3,

0%4,

5%4,

5%85

,1%

6,0%

4,

5%

Rura

l0,

6%45

,4%

47,7

%4,

3%2,

0%5,

7%71

,4%

19,1

%0,

9%2,

9%

126


Tabl

e 80

. How

do

you

appr

ecia

te th

e D

wel

ling

of y

our f

amily

now

, com

pare

d to

the

situ

atio

n be

fore

the

fam

ily

mem

ber w

ent t

o w

ork

abro

ad?

Gen

eral

Befo

re th

e em

igra

tion

Curr

ently

Very

good

Goo

d (a

dequ

ate)

Diffi

cult

Very

diffi

cult

DK/

NA

Very

good

Goo

d (a

dequ

ate)

Diffi

cult

Very

diffi

cult

DK/

NA

0,2%

36,2

%56

,4%

4,6%

2,6%

4,8%

70,7

%21

,1%

0,5%

2,9%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s0,

3%37

,9%

54,8

%4,

8%2,

2%6,

1%76

,8%

15,0

%

2,2%

No

31

,3%

60,6

%4,

0%4,

0%1,

0%51

,5%

40,4

%2,

0%5,

1%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

34

,7%

57,5

%4,

6%3,

2%5,

0%74

,4%

16,4

%0,

5%3,

7%

No

0,5%

37,2

%55

,6%

4,6%

2,0%

4,6%

66,3

%26

,5%

0,5%

2,0%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

32

,6%

62,8

%2,

3%2,

3%2,

3%67

,4%

25,6

%

4,7%

3 m

embe

rs

35,9

%56

,4%

7,7%

3,

8%74

,4%

20,5

%1,

3%

4 m

embe

rs

0,7%

34,3

%57

,9%

4,3%

2,9%

5,7%

76,4

%15

,0%

2,

9%5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs

39,1

%53

,2%

3,8%

3,8%

5,1%

64,7

%25

,6%

0,6%

3,8%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

22

,6%

70,2

%4,

8%2,

4%1,

2%54

,8%

40,5

%1,

2%2,

4%

Ave

rage

0,7%

38,1

%53

,2%

5,0%

2,9%

3,6%

68,3

%24

,5%

0,7%

2,9%

Hig

h

40,7

%52

,6%

4,1%

2,6%

7,2%

79,4

%10

,3%

3,

1%

Are

a:U

rban

28

,4%

64,2

%3,

0%4,

5%6,

0%80

,6%

9,0%

4,

5%

Rura

l0,

3%37

,7%

54,9

%4,

9%2,

3%4,

6%68

,9%

23,4

%0,

6%2,

6%

127


ble

81. H

ow d

o yo

u ap

prec

iate

the

Clot

hing

of y

our f

amily

now

, com

pare

d to

the

situ

atio

n be

fore

the

fam

ily

mem

ber w

ent t

o w

ork

abro

ad?

Gen

eral

Befo

re th

e em

igra

tion

Curr

ently

Very

good

Goo

d (a

dequ

ate)

Diffi

cult

Very

diffi

cult

DK/

NA

Very

good

Goo

d (a

dequ

ate)

Diffi

cult

Very

diffi

cult

DK/

NA

0,5%

39,1

%55

,2%

2,9%

2,4%

5,0%

70,7

%20

,9%

0,7%

2,6%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s0,

6%39

,5%

54,8

%2,

9%2,

2%6,

4%74

,8%

16,6

%

2,2%

No

38

,4%

55,6

%3,

0%3,

0%1,

0%57

,6%

34,3

%3,

0%4,

0%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

0,5%

38,8

%55

,7%

2,3%

2,7%

5,5%

71,2

%19

,2%

0,9%

3,2%

No

0,5%

39,3

%54

,6%

3,6%

2,0%

4,6%

69,9

%23

,0%

0,5%

2,0%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

34

,9%

60,5

%2,

3%2,

3%4,

7%65

,1%

25,6

%

4,7%

3 m

embe

rs

39,7

%53

,8%

6,4%

5,

1%74

,4%

19,2

%1,

3%

4 m

embe

rs

1,4%

37,1

%57

,1%

1,4%

2,9%

3,6%

75,7

%17

,9%

2,

9%5

and

mor

e m

embe

rs

41,7

%52

,6%

2,6%

3,2%

6,4%

66,0

%23

,1%

1,3%

3,2%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

23

,8%

69,0

%4,

8%2,

4%2,

4%51

,2%

42,9

%1,

2%2,

4%

Ave

rage

0,7%

42,4

%51

,8%

2,9%

2,2%

5,8%

69,8

%21

,6%

0,7%

2,2%

Hig

h0,

5%43

,3%

51,5

%2,

1%2,

6%5,

7%79

,9%

10,8

%0,

5%3,

1%

Are

a:U

rban

34

,3%

58,2

%3,

0%4,

5%4,

5%82

,1%

9,0%

4,

5%

Rura

l0,

6%40

,0%

54,6

%2,

9%2,

0%5,

1%68

,6%

23,1

%0,

9%2,

3%

128


Tabl

e 82

. How

do

you

appr

ecia

te H

ealt

h in

you

r fam

ily n

ow, c

ompa

red

to th

e si

tuat

ion

befo

re th

e fa

mily

mem

ber

wen

t to

wor

k ab

road

?

Gen

eral

Befo

re th

e em

igra

tion

Curr

ently

Very

good

Goo

d (a

dequ

ate)

Diffi

cult

Very

diffi

cult

DK/

NA

Very

good

Goo

d (a

dequ

ate)

Diffi

cult

Very

diffi

cult

DK/

NA

0,7%

47,0

%46

,3%

3,4%

2,6%

1,2%

60,7

%32

,9%

2,4%

2,9%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s0,

6%49

,4%

44,6

%2,

9%2,

5%1,

3%65

,6%

28,3

%2,

5%2,

2%

No

1,0%

40,4

%50

,5%

5,1%

3,0%

1,0%

45,5

%46

,5%

2,0%

5,1%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

0,5%

45,2

%47

,5%

4,1%

2,7%

1,4%

58,9

%33

,8%

2,3%

3,7%

No

1,0%

48,5

%45

,4%

2,6%

2,6%

1,0%

62,2

%32

,1%

2,6%

2,0%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

2,3%

32,6

%58

,1%

2,3%

4,7%

4,7%

46,5

%41

,9%

2,3%

4,7%

3 m

embe

rs

48,7

%46

,2%

5,1%

61,5

%35

,9%

2,6%

4 m

embe

rs

1,4%

45,7

%48

,6%

1,4%

2,9%

1,4%

69,3

%25

,7%

0,7%

2,9%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

51

,3%

41,0

%4,

5%3,

2%0,

6%56

,4%

35,3

%3,

8%3,

8%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

32

,1%

59,5

%6,

0%2,

4%1,

2%39

,3%

54,8

%2,

4%2,

4%

Ave

rage

1,4%

46,0

%46

,0%

3,6%

2,9%

1,4%

61,9

%31

,7%

2,9%

2,2%

Hig

h0,

5%54

,1%

40,7

%2,

1%2,

6%1,

0%69

,1%

24,2

%2,

1%3,

6%

Are

a:U

rban

1,5%

41,8

%49

,3%

1,5%

6,0%

1,5%

67,2

%25

,4%

1,5%

4,5%

Rura

l0,

6%48

,0%

45,7

%3,

7%2,

0%1,

1%59

,4%

34,3

%2,

6%2,

6%

129


ble

83. H

ow d

o yo

u ap

prec

iate

Edu

cati

on in

you

r fam

ily n

ow, c

ompa

red

to th

e si

tuat

ion

befo

re th

e fa

mily

m

embe

r wen

t to

wor

k ab

road

?

Gen

eral

Befo

re th

e em

igra

tion

Curr

ently

Very

good

Goo

d (a

dequ

ate)

Diffi

cult

Very

diffi

cult

DK/

NA

Very

good

Goo

d (a

dequ

ate)

Diffi

cult

Very

diffi

cult

DK/

NA

0,2%

47,0

%34

,5%

2,6%

15,6

%0,

7%66

,9%

15,6

%1,

0%15

,8%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s0,

3%48

,7%

33,1

%1,

9%15

,9%

1,0%

72,3

%10

,2%

0,6%

15,9

%

No

42

,4%

38,4

%5,

1%14

,1%

50

,5%

32,3

%2,

0%15

,2%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

45

,2%

32,9

%2,

3%19

,6%

0,9%

63,9

%13

,7%

1,4%

20,1

%

No

0,5%

48,5

%36

,7%

3,1%

11,2

%0,

5%69

,9%

17,9

%0,

5%11

,2%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

44

,2%

37,2

%

18,6

%2,

3%55

,8%

20,9

%

20,9

%

3 m

embe

rs

47,4

%29

,5%

5,1%

17,9

%

71,8

%7,

7%2,

6%17

,9%

4 m

embe

rs

0,7%

45,7

%37

,9%

2,9%

12,9

%0,

7%72

,9%

12,9

%0,

7%12

,9%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

48

,7%

33,3

%1,

9%16

,0%

0,6%

62,2

%20

,5%

0,6%

16,0

%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

31

,0%

39,3

%4,

8%25

,0%

1,2%

40,5

%31

,0%

2,4%

25,0

%

Ave

rage

0,7%

45,3

%33

,8%

2,2%

18,0

%0,

7%66

,9%

13,7

%0,

7%18

,0%

Hig

h

55,2

%33

,0%

2,1%

9,8%

0,5%

78,4

%10

,3%

0,5%

10,3

%

Are

a:U

rban

47

,8%

40,3

%1,

5%10

,4%

85

,1%

4,5%

10

,4%

Rura

l0,

3%46

,9%

33,4

%2,

9%16

,6%

0,9%

63,4

%17

,7%

1,1%

16,9

%

130


Tabl

e 84

. How

do

you

appr

ecia

te L

eisu

re in

you

r fam

ily n

ow, c

ompa

red

to th

e si

tuat

ion

befo

re th

e fa

mily

mem

ber

wen

t to

wor

k ab

road

?

Gen

eral

Befo

re th

e em

igra

tion

Curr

ently

Very

good

Goo

d (a

dequ

ate)

Diffi

cult

Very

diffi

cult

DK/

NA

Very

good

Goo

d (a

dequ

ate)

Diffi

cult

Very

diffi

cult

DK/

NA

0,7%

42,2

%46

,5%

3,4%

7,2%

2,4%

59,5

%29

,0%

2,4%

6,7%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s1,

0%43

,6%

44,9

%2,

9%7,

6%2,

9%64

,0%

24,2

%2,

2%6,

7%

No

37

,4%

51,5

%5,

1%6,

1%1,

0%44

,4%

44,4

%3,

0%7,

1%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

0,5%

42,0

%44

,3%

3,7%

9,6%

3,2%

61,2

%25

,1%

1,8%

8,7%

No

0,5%

42,3

%49

,5%

3,1%

4,6%

1,5%

57,7

%33

,2%

3,1%

4,6%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

46

,5%

51,2

%

2,3%

2,3%

55,8

%37

,2%

4,

7%

3 m

embe

rs

47,4

%42

,3%

5,1%

5,1%

1,3%

67,9

%23

,1%

2,6%

5,1%

4 m

embe

rs

1,4%

37,9

%52

,1%

1,4%

7,1%

0,7%

63,6

%28

,6%

1,4%

5,7%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

0,6%

42,3

%42

,3%

5,1%

9,6%

4,5%

52,6

%30

,1%

3,8%

9,0%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

1,2%

25,0

%58

,3%

6,0%

9,5%

1,2%

38,1

%47

,6%

3,6%

9,5%

Ave

rage

1,4%

44,6

%42

,4%

3,6%

7,9%

2,2%

61,2

%26

,6%

2,9%

7,2%

Hig

h

47,9

%44

,3%

2,1%

5,7%

3,1%

67,5

%22

,7%

1,5%

5,2%

Are

a:U

rban

44

,8%

49,3

%1,

5%4,

5%1,

5%74

,6%

19,4

%

4,5%

Rura

l0,

9%41

,7%

46,0

%3,

7%7,

7%2,

6%56

,6%

30,9

%2,

9%7,

1%

131


ble

85. H

ow m

uch

do y

ou s

pend

for t

he fo

llow

ing

in a

n or

dina

ry m

onth

?

Gen

eral

Food

pro

duct

sD

wel

ling

(ren

t,m

aint

enan

ce)

Pow

erCl

othi

ng/F

ootw

ear

Hea

lthca

re

Mea

nM

edia

nM

ean

Med

ian

Mea

nM

edia

nM

ean

Med

ian

Mea

nM

edia

n

1280

1000

105

019

015

038

220

038

520

0

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s15

1510

0013

20

234

200

531

300

384

200

No

1405

1000

120

020

717

538

820

029

620

0

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

1270

1000

103

020

518

043

520

040

820

0

No

1290

1000

108

017

415

033

220

035

220

0

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

816

600

580

129

100

172

5037

720

0

3 m

embe

rs13

8710

0014

00

204

200

376

300

362

200

4 m

embe

rs

1469

1000

117

021

520

052

030

035

220

05

and

mor

e m

embe

rs15

8610

0012

90

230

200

510

300

443

200

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

941

800

540

120

100

236

5034

620

0

Ave

rage

1239

1000

890

178

150

367

200

383

200

Hig

h16

7215

0017

60

273

200

553

330

428

300

Are

a:U

rban

1742

1500

200

021

720

039

020

038

230

0

Rura

l11

9010

0086

018

415

038

020

038

520

0

132


Tabl

e 86

. How

muc

h do

you

spe

nd fo

r the

follo

win

g in

an

ordi

nary

mon

th?

Gen

eral

Educ

atio

nEn

tert

ainm

ent/

leis

ure

Savi

ngs

Repa

ymen

t of d

ebts

Tele

phon

e bi

ll

Mea

nM

edia

nM

ean

Med

ian

Mea

nM

edia

nM

ean

Med

ian

Mea

nM

edia

n

194

011

90

810

142

011

190

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s33

610

015

30

134

015

60

156

100

No

148

010

80

141

018

50

133

100

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

208

011

30

990

187

012

110

0

No

180

012

80

630

980

9970

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

280

410

980

390

6650

3 m

embe

rs18

10

193

079

087

012

510

0

4 m

embe

rs

292

8015

80

102

020

50

132

100

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

308

100

127

038

025

20

139

100

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

840

290

280

390

6650

Ave

rage

152

013

00

490

157

010

710

0

Hig

h34

910

020

650

171

023

80

163

100

Are

a:U

rban

163

020

30

131

013

10

125

70

Rura

l20

00

102

070

014

50

109

100

133


ble

87. I

n an

ord

inar

y m

onth

, how

muc

h of

the

food

pro

duct

s co

nsum

ed in

you

r hou

seho

ld a

re p

rodu

cts

mad

e in

you

r hou

seho

ld fo

r ow

n co

nsum

ptio

n?

Gen

eral

Mea

nM

edia

n

3935

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

abr

oad:

Yes

3730

No

4040

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

4750

No

3125

Num

ber o

f fam

ily m

embe

rs:

1-2

mem

bers

3940

3 m

embe

rs34

30

4 m

embe

rs

3935

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

4240

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

dev

elop

men

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

4340

Ave

rage

4140

Hig

h34

30

Are

a:U

rban

120

Rura

l45

50

134


Tabl

e 88

. Wha

t is

the

mai

n in

com

e so

urce

in y

our h

ouse

hold

Gen

eral

Sala

ry fr

om a

perm

anen

t job

Sala

ry fr

omoc

casi

onal

empl

oym

ent

Inco

me

from

in

depe

nden

tac

tivit

y in

agri

cultu

re

Inco

me

from

non-

agri

cultu

ral

inde

pend

ent

activ

ity

Pens

ion

Mon

ey fr

om

abro

ad

23,5

%12

,6%

14,5

%1,

6%29

,7%

18,2

%

Mon

ey s

ent f

rom

ab

road

:Ye

s12

,7%

6,7%

12,1

%1,

0%11

,1%

56,4

%

No

28,3

%13

,1%

8,1%

3,0%

27,3

%20

,2%

Land

in th

e ho

useh

old:

Yes

22,4

%10

,4%

22,6

%1,

5%27

,5%

15,7

%

No

24,6

%14

,7%

6,5%

1,8%

31,5

%20

,8%

Num

ber o

f fam

ily

mem

bers

:

1-2

mem

bers

13,2

%10

,1%

10,6

%,9

%58

,9%

6,3%

3 m

embe

rs33

,5%

13,8

%13

,3%

1,5%

18,2

%19

,7%

4 m

embe

rs

29,1

%13

,5%

18,8

%2,

5%11

,3%

24,8

%

5 an

d m

ore

mem

bers

23,4

%13

,9%

15,7

%1,

8%20

,1%

25,2

%

Soci

al-e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t of

hous

ehol

ds:

Poor

11,6

%15

,7%

13,8

%,3

%50

,0%

8,6%

Ave

rage

22,6

%12

,0%

18,2

%2,

2%27

,7%

17,4

%

Hig

h36

,3%

10,0

%11

,4%

2,4%

11,4

%28

,5%

Are

a:U

rban

36,8

%6,

0%2,

0%2,

0%30

,3%

22,9

%

Rura

l20

,5%

14,0

%17

,2%

1,5%

29,6

%17

,1%

sociological survey report

Business

development of moldova

republic of moldova

moldova overview

moldova contact

republica moldova

community development

impact of labour migration

influence of migration