the impact of the economic crisis on the labor …the impact of the economic crisis on the labor...

THE IMPACT OF THE ECONOMIC CRISIS

ON THE LABOR MIGRATION FROM ROMANIA

Authors:

Manuela Sofia Stănculescu

Victoria Stoiciu

Collaborators:

Iris Alexe

Luminiţa Motoc

Manuela Sofia Stănculescu is senior researcher at the Research Institute for the Quality of Life (ICCV) and at the Institute for World Economy (IEM), of the Romanian Academy, professor at the Faculty of Sociology and Social Assistance, University of Bucharest, and president of the Romanian Centre for Economic Modeling (CERME).

Victoria Stoiciu is project coordinator at the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung from Romania and coordinator of the on-line platform Critic-Atac. She published articles in Dilema

Veche and Romania Libera newspapers and at www.criticatac.ro.

© Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 2012

Neither the publication nor parts of it may be reproduced without permission of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung or the proper citation of the source.

Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Office Romania Str. Porumbaru Emanoil 21 RO-011421 Bucuresti Tel.: 0040 21 2 11 09 82/-83 Fax: 0040 21 2 10 71 91 E-Mail: [email protected] www.fes.ro

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ANOFM – National Agency for Employment

BNR – National Bank of Romania

CCSB – Sociological Research and Branding Company

CERME – Romanian Centre for Economic Modeling

CNA – The National Audiovisual Council

CNPS – National Center for Statistical Training (part of INS)

EEA – European Economic Area

EU – European Union

ICCV – Research Institute for the Quality of Life (Romanian Academy)

IDC – Community Development Index

ILO – International Labor Organization

INS – Romanian National Institute of Statistics

INE - Instituto Nacional de Estadística (Spain)

IOM – International Organization for Migration

ISCO – International Standard Classification of Occupations

IT – Information Technology

MADR – Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

MAI - Ministry of Administration and Interior

OECD – Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

USD – United States Dollar

INTRODUCTION

The global economic crisis has strongly affected the labor markets all European Union (EU) member states. For each of these countries, the repercussions of the economic transformations have visibly affected the migrant labor force. The sectors predominated by migrants, such as constructions and services, were the most affected by the crisis, which determined job loss and high unemployment rates among migrant workers.

In the context of this economic recession, which manifests both at origin and destination countries, the current dynamics of international mobility for labor migrants represents a complex and multi-dimensional phenomenon. Migration comprises a variety of social and economic issues that intensify and bears impact especially on labor migrants, as they represent one of the most vulnerable categories in this time of crisis. Moreover, for most destination countries, there is also the matter of the ‘undesirable migration’ trends which become prominent during economic crisis periods. These trends give way to hostility, xenophobia, racism and support to restrictive immigration policies, as well as protectionist measures at the national labor level. These circumstances can be encountered across all countries which are either recent or old-fashion migration hubs.

In the case of the Romanian labor migration, these transformations are detrimental as Romanians are among the most numerous groups of workers at the European level and the majority of member states hold or have reintroduced labor restrictions for migrants which originate from Romania. Furthermore, the economic and financial crisis had immediate consequences on Romania and its migrants, given the newly arisen facets of the Schengen integration process and the displacement from the territory of some member state of Romanian citizens (i.e. Roma ethnics).

This study aims to assess the impact that the economic crisis over the Romanian labor migration through analyzing the repercussions both on the overseas migrants and their families. The study presents the consequences of

the crisis on the returning migrants, estimates the amplitude of the phenomenon in the studied regions, and it pinpoints the micro/macro factors which determine the return of the Romanian migrants.

The first part of our study presents an overview of the current context given the crisis’ effects on migration flows and labor mobility within the EU, while taking into account the participation rates of Romanian migrants on the labor markets and remittances evolution. Following, we identify the coping mechanisms adopted by migrants and the measures implemented by member states in the context of the economic crisis. Additionally, we outline the situation of Romanian migrants at the two main destination countries (Spain and Italy), and the manner in which the crisis affected the origin country (Romania).

However, the core of the study is dedicated to the analysis of the impact of the economic crisis on the Romanian labor migration. The second part will present the results of our extensive social research (August-November 2010) based on both qualitative and quantitative data. Thus, the following chapters will bring in focus topics such as: economic crisis effects on migratory flows, namely the departures and returns of the Romanian migrants; the socio-demographic profile of the returning migrants and their motivations for return; factors that determine the propensity for return and the measure in which the development level of the origin community influences the return phenomenon; the extent to which professional skills and qualifications are important for the process of adaptation to the crisis or the returning decision; the impact of the crisis on money transfers operated by Romanians who work abroad and the structure of their origin households’ consumption expenditures; the positive and negative consequences of migration and the ways in which migration could be used as an instrument for poverty alleviation and development for Romania; the degree in which the Romanian economic crisis is an accelerator for migration that might determine a potential wave of departures for work abroad; the importance of factors such as social networks and professional mobility in the migrant’s adaptation process to the new conditions of destination countries labor markets as a result of the economic crisis.

Research on migration for work abroad from Romania presents a rich body of literature, bringing contributions which describe and analyze in-depth the phenomenon developments and trajectories post-1990. If in the early 2000s, migration research mainly focused on questions such as ‘who’, ‘where’, ‘how’ and ‘how many’, after 2007, interest shifted to study of the effects of migration. Thus, topics such as: the raise of labor migration after 2002 as the main type of emigration from Romania (Sandu, 2005, 2007), the evolution of remittances sent home by Romanians migrants (Dăianu, ed., 2002; Roman & Ileanu, 2011), the abroad temporary living 1990-2006 (Sandu, ed., 2006), the problem of children left behind by migrant parents (Toth et al., 2007), the effects of international migration on the labor market (Şerban & Toth, 2007), the integration of the Romanian workers on the labor market of destination countries previous to the global financial crisis, the case of Spain (Brădăţan and Sandu, 2012), the integration of Romanian migrants in the destination society – specifically, Italy and Spain (Metro Media, 2007; Sandu, ed., 2009), the migration abroad as way of thinking, action mode and identity assertion (or as "social worlds"), the effects on the origin household or the returned migrants, as well as over the migration policies (Sandu, 2010) have been thoroughly analyzed.

The research presented in this book brings into discussion a topic of high interest both for academics and policymakers, namely the impact of the global economic crisis on Romanian workers abroad, with a special focus on the migrants who returned to the origin country. Beyond ‘fresh’ data, based on a complex and innovative methodology, the study analyzes not only the perceptions and expectations of the Romanian migrants in the context of the recession, but also the main coping strategies, present and future plans.

PART I.

THE ECONOMIC CRISIS

AND LABOR MIGRATION

IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

THE IMPACT OF THE ECONOMIC CRISIS ON LABOR MIGRATION • 13

14 • GENERAL CONTEXT

CHAPTER 1.

GENERAL CONTEXT.

THE IMPACT OF THE ECONOMIC CRISIS

ON THE MIGRATION PHENOMENON

1.1. Effects of the crisis on migration flows, access and participation of migrants to the labor market

In the last decades, within the OECD states, various studies showed that the relation between labor migration and the economical context is neither linear nor mechanical, but it is complex and difficult to forecast.

In this respect, the OECD (2009) or the IOM reports (e.g. Koehler et al., 2010) prove that the previous economic recessions, from 1973-'74, 1981-'82 to the 1997 Asian crisis, did not prevent the growing trend of the migration for work, as people continued to search for jobs outside their home countries even during these periods. According to OECD (2009), it is unlikely that the motivation to migrate will disappear because of the economic crisis: the income gap between the developed and the emerging economies will be preserved regardless of the crisis, and once the growth resume, those who postponed their decision to work abroad will join the already existing migrant population.


... it is

improbable

that the

propensity for

migration to

decrease as

result of the

economic

crisis ...

Moreover, the IOM points that, overall, since the beginning of the crisis in 2007, the net migratory flows have remained positive at the EU level (Koehler et al., 2010).

For illustration, we discuss the Spain and Italy cases, countries with a large number of migrants and, at the same time, the main destination countries for the Romanian labor migrants. The OECD report (2009) shows that in the case of Spain, the migration flow remained unchanged from 2008 to 2009. However, the number of family reunification suffered a significant decrease in 2008 in comparison with 2007 – less then 100,000 cases as opposed to 128.200 in 2007. The same data indicate that for Italy the economic contraction decreased the job vacancies available for migrants as in 2008 approximately 10,000 employers (5.6%) withdrew the offers handed in December 2007.

In terms of labor market participation, young people, men and migrant populations were the most affected by the crisis. Even if the impact on different categories varies from one country to another, and among economic sectors, it is certain that the deterioration of the economic situation affected more the migrant workers than native workers. In addition, there is a clear difference between the workers originating from the EU space and those from non-EU countries. Whilst the unemployment rate for the EU migrants rose with an average of 2.8 % during 2008-2009, for the non-EU migrants it increased with 5%. A possible explanation is the higher propensity of the EU migrants to return to their origin countries once they experience job loss (Koehler et al., 2010).

The rise of unemployment among migrants is also the result of the concentration of migrant work in sectors that are closely related to economic cycles or are seasonal jobs. This is confirmed by the difference between the unemployment rates among migrant and native populations as calculated for several countries (OEDC, 2009). Furthermore, out of the migrant workers, the unskilled and illegal ones were the most affected by the crisis. Skilled migrant workers are protected from job loss as they have a qualification and, often, due to the investment that employers do by training and employing them (Papademitriou et al., 2010).


TABEL 1. Concentration of the migrant workers within the economic sectors that employ unskilled labor

Greece Spain Portugal Italy Austria France

32,0% 21,0% 15,9% 14,8% 10,0% 10,1%

Source: Date OECD, processed by ILO (Koehler et al., 2010).

Studies show that the unemployment rate among migrants could have been even bigger at the EU level, if the return migration of certain groups of migrants from the Central and Eastern Europe would have been smaller.

On one hand, it has been noticed that the EU migrants are inclined to return to their origin countries once they loose their jobs. These returns are predominantly temporary as the migrant strategy targets the return to the destination country in case some economic opportunities appear and the labor market recovers. On the other hand, non-EU migrants prefer to remain in the destination countries even if they loose their jobs.

This decision is determined by the difficulties linked to visa or work permits procurement, administrative barriers, costs and lack of alternatives regarding the re-entry in the destination country. Even more, adding to high travelling costs, the survival of the family left at home which depends on the money earned abroad and the total lack of perspectives in the origin country, where the crisis determined severe and diverse problems, make the non-EU migrants to leave the destination more difficult.

Apart from statistics that confirm the number of returned migrants in several states, there are no in-depth studies to describe or explain the phenomenon of


... EU migrants, when

they experience job

loss abroad, tend to

return to their origin

countries... non-EU

migrants prefer to

remain at the

destination, even if

they face

unemployment ...

return migration. There is no exact data regarding the duration of the return period, or whether the return is temporary or final, or the extent to which it is caused by the crisis or it represents an evolving natural cycle of migration, which is only exacerbated by the crisis. It is known that once migrants achieve, partially or fully, their financial aims, the propensity to return becomes higher. However, given the crisis, it is more likely that the return to be predominantly temporary. Moreover, we should take into account the hypothesis that it is easier to cope with the crisis at the destination than in the origin country.

The effects of the crisis are different for men and women both regarding migration and the labor market situation at the destination. The migration rate for women increased during the crisis, mainly as a result of the constant demand at destination for labor in sectors such as household work (e.g. cleaning, elderly and child care) compared to the increase in unemployment in the sectors in which labor is predominantly masculine (e.g. constructions) (OECD, 2009).

One manner to reduce the negative impact of the economic crisis is the occupational (professional) mobility of migrant workers. Thus, it is to be expected an increase of the inter-sectoral mobility from the domains most affected by the crisis to the less affected ones. For example, in Spain, the agricultural employment increased with 15% in 2009 compared to 2008 (Koehler et al., 2010).

Other coping mechanisms employed by migrants are independent activities and entrepreneurship. Consequently, the evolution of this indicator can offer precious insight regarding the effects of the crisis on labor activities predominant among migrants. The Eurostat statistics (for 2009) show that self-employment is higher among migrants than it is among the native population with similar qualification.1

However, the relation between the economic cycles and the self-employment rate is unstable: according to some studies, the correlation is negative, while others consider it positive. Constant and Zimmermann (2004), in their study

1 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home

IMPACTUL CRIZEI ECONOMICE ASUPRA MIGRAŢIEI • 19 18 • GENERAL CONTEXT

on Germany, consider that self-employment is one of the most important migrant strategies to prevent unemployment, thus confirming the hypothesis that self-employment is a powerful coping mechanism in times of crisis or changing labor markets. Moreover, Markus Gonzales Bleifuss (September 2010), the general manager of the Spanish Immigration Service, supports this hypothesis. In his opinion, the migrants develop independent activities as part of the adaptation process to the needs and requirements of the destination labor market. In this respect, in addition to the prevention and control the illegal labor, Spain aims to simplify the procedure of switching from employee to self-employed.

Nevertheless, the OECD (2009) finds that there is little evidence to support the idea that this type of behavior is successful in times of economic decline. In the same time, contrasting situations might be observed in various European countries. For instance, in Spain, the number of self-employed migrants decreased from June 2008 to February 2009 with 24,000 (approximately 10%), while in Italy, the number of self-employed EU migrants has slightly increased in 2008 compared to 2007 (with 15,079) (Koehler et al., 2010).


BOX 1. Romanian migrants caught in between two crises

Dâmboviţa is one of the counties with the highest migration rate to Spain, but destinations such as Italy or Germany are also popular. Curious to speak to someone who had lost their job abroad, I went for a ride through some communes in this county, in the hope of finding a returned migrant. The Lady Mayor and the Deputy Mayor of Nucet commune struggled for about a quarter of an hour until they could recommend to us a young man, Radu B., who previous to becoming unemployed, had worked on a Spanish construction site. Apparently, he was the only one of this kind that they knew. At the indicated address, we met by a woman dressed in paint-smeared overalls, with hands also covered in paint, namely Radu’s mother: he had already left for Spain just five days ago. His sister, who had remained in Spain, managed to find him a job at the slaughterhouse where she was working. Three months earlier, the young man had come prepared to stay in his village and start a new life. After some searching, he managed to find a job at a private security company in Bucharest, where he had been offered a salary of 900 lei [t.n.: about 200 euro], out of which only the one round trip to the capital would cost 20 lei per day [t.n.: about 4 euro]. At the end of the month, he noticed that half of his salary was being spent on commuting. Thus, he decided that however bad the crisis may be in Spain, he would still get by better there, even if just on the salary of slaughterhouse worker. Out of all five communes explored on our trip, this young man, at whom we arrived too late to interview, was, it seems, the only migrant who returned home due to the economic crisis. An even worse crisis drove him away from home and back to Spain.

In fact, the Romanian migrants find themselves in the position of choosing between two evils – and the crisis at home seems to be worse than the crisis abroad. It is true that, in the county of Dâmboviţa, the unemployment rate has increased by two percentage points, from 5% (in September 2009) to 7%, while in Spain unemployment is around 20%. Yet, a closer look at the figures shows that the situation is much more dramatic than it seems at first glance – in fact, the increase in the number of unemployed in the county from 10,562 (in September 2008) to 15,698 is due to the new


Box 1 (continuation)

wave of unemployment beneficiaries, namely people who have recently lost their jobs.

Their number has increased from 1,485 to 6,919, which represents an actual four-fold increase in the number of unemployed during the past year. This situation is not characteristic only to Dâmboviţa County, as this pattern can be observed throughout the whole country. At the same time, job offers have decreased drastically. If before the crisis, the County Agency for Employment (ANOFM), located in Târgovişte, had advertised a monthly average of 800 job vacancies, in 2009 the number of job vacancies decreased to 150. At the national level, the job vacancies advertised last year through ANOFM decreased by almost half compared to 2008.

In this context – although there is no statistical support data – the migrants’ decision to stay in the countries of destination does not astonish anybody any more, and contradicts the fear, intensely exploited by the mass media, that the hordes of migrants are ready to return home only to swell the ranks of the already numerous unemployed. On the contrary, those who return seem to be rather few, and their return is often just temporary. For instance, in the last months of 2009, the same County Agency for Employment registered approximately 100 applications for release of forms required for granting rights to unemployment benefits in Spain, in accordance with the 1408/71 Regulation regarding to the application of social security schemes to employed migrants and their families moving within the EU borders. This means that, if given the opportunity, Romanians would rather live in Spain on Spanish unemployment benefits than come back home. In addition, there were only three applications for unemployment benefit transfer from Spain to Romania – in accordance to 1408/71 Regulation, any EU citizen who is entitled to unemployment benefit in one of the member states can export social benefit when seeking work in another country, for a maximum period of three months. Most of those who opt for this solution usually end up by not finding the desired job, and then they direct their hopes, once again, to Western Europe.

(Excerpt ‘Romanian Migrants Caught in Between Two Crises’, signed by V. Stoiciu and published in Dilema Veche newspaper)


1.2. Evolution of remittances in times of economic crisis

According to World Bank (Ratha et al., 2009), remittances followed a declining curve starting with the second half of 2008, after a period of growth during 2007-2008. Thus, in 2009, remmitances reached 328 billion USD at the global level, which exceeded the World Bank forecast. Table 2 shows that remittances for 2009, after two years of economic crisis, still were higher than in 2006, previous to the economic turmoil.

TABEL 2. Evolution of remittances, 2006-2009, by region, in USD millions

Region/ Year 2006 2007 2008 2009

East Asia and the Pacific 57,598 71,309 86,115 84,785 Europe and Central Asia 37,341 50,777 57,801 49,279 Latin America and Caraibeans 59,199 63,239 64,717 58,481 Middle East and North Africa 26,112 31,364 34,696 32,212 South Asia 42,523 54,041 73,293 71,955 Sub-Saharian Africa 12,629 18,646 21,139 20,525

Source: World Bank, Remittances Data Watch, 2010.

On the other hand, the remittance remained relatively stable in the EU with significant variations from one country to another. Regarding Spain and Italy, the two top destinations preferred by the Romanian migrants, the IOM report (Koehler at al., 2010) registers between 2008 and 2009 a year-to-year decrease with 9% in Spain (for June-September) and with 7.4% in Italy (for January-March).

The statistics (Figure 1) of the Romanian National Bank (BNR) indicate a sudden decline of remittances sent by Romanian workers. The remittances volume started to decline in November 2008 and by January-May 2009 it reached 1,8 billion euro, with 30.4% less than in the same period of the previous year.


FIGURA 1. Remittances of the Romanian workers abroad by quarter

Source: BNR, presented in Capital newspaper (2011). Note: T – quarter.

Despite the optimistic forecasts which anticipated for 2010 an increase of remittances with 6%, and 7% in 2011 respectively, these continued to decrease. In 2010, Romanians migrants sent home two times less money than in 2008. In the first quarter of 2011 the amount sent home by those who work abroad was with 10% less than the same period of 2010, with 37% less than in 2009 and with approximately 50% less than the first quarter of 2007 and 2008.

In the first quarter of 2011, the amount of money sent home by the Romanians working abroad summed up to 758 million euro, which represents the smallest total registered in the last six years. In 2005, the amount of money transferred home was of 769 million euro, noting that at that time there were less Romanian migrants working abroad.

This decline in remittance transfers is due to the difficult situation on the labor market of destination countries, as in the case of Spain. 2

2 Pirloiu, M. ”Se adâncește criza banilor trimiși acasă de românii care lucrează afară”, Capital, 18 mai 2011.

1.3. Developments on the Romanian labor market. How migration becomes a way of life

In the last 20 years, the Romanian labor market was strongly influenced by the economic, political and social transformations. After eight years of solid economic growth and significant poverty reduction, the shock of the global economic and financial crisis has brought to surface the disparities and vulnerabilities of the Romanian economy, characterized by the lack of sturdy economic management policies and insufficient reforms (Montagnana, 2010).

Throughout the recession, Romania has suffered a massive decrease of the economic output. The crisis struck in the third quarter of 2008 and heightened in 2009. Although the economy showed signs of improvement in 2011, the economic output is still down given the major shrinkage of GDP in comparison with the previous year, of 7-9% (in 2009),3 which is significantly higher than the EU-27 average.

In comparison with the third quarter of 2008, the total employment rate has decreased with 3.5% (in 2010), one of the smallest values in the European context. Nevertheless, the situation looks much more severe, if we focus solely on employees which represent the majority of non-farming labor force. The number of employees declined by 14.4%, meaning almost 700 thousands persons, by the fourth quarter of 2010. Therefore, in Romania, the reduction of the non-farming employment (employees) is much more pronounced than the decline registered by the GDP. Moreover, the lessening of the non-farming employment is much larger than the EU-27 average (by -2.5% of all non-farming employment)4.

3 Other member states which present the same issue: Slovenia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Finland and Ireland. (European Commission, Employment in Europe 2010). 4 Out of all Member States, Spain registered the highest decline of the employment rate by 9.2% between the second quarter of the 2008 and the mid-2010 (European Commission, Employment in

Europe 2010).

With the fourth quarter of 2008, the number of employees continually decreased from the topmost value of 4,83 million in September 2008 to 4,1 million in December 2010. The employees number has considerably diminished in the private sector, with over half a million, especially in manufacturing, constructions, retail trade and transportation industries. In the public sector, the number of employees followed a different trend as it amplified until January 2009 and started lessening only in February 2009 (Voinea, 2010).

In 2009, the economic recession affected men more than women, in Romania like in other EU countries. The male unemployment rate peaked 8.3% in December 2009 in comparison with the 4.5% of December 2008, whereas female unemployment rate went from 4.4% to 7.1% in the same period. The rise of unemployment rates is a direct result of the high impact of the crisis on certain industries (such as constructions and manufacturing), in which the majority of employees are men (Montagnana, 2010).

The youth labor market (15-24 years) offers scarce job opportunities and presents disturbing signs in Romania, as well as in most European states: youth unemployment increased from 18.6% in 2008 to 22.9% in the third quarter of 2010 (ILO, 2011). 5

The job crisis has severly hit young (including faculty graduates) and people over 45 years, especially in rural areas and small cities, where the employment opportunities for these categories were already scarce. In most cases, their only options are in the informal sector. The Social Inclusion Barometer suggests that in 2010 youth and persons over 40 years of age encountered the greatest difficulties in assuring a job (Observatorul Social, Universitatea Bucharest, 2010).6 Difficulties to find a job differ for men and women. On one hand, young (under 25 years) and men over 40 years present an accentuated risk of not securing a job in comparison with men between 26-39 years of age. On the other, for women, the job refusals are motivated by

5 ILO Department of Statistics, Romania: country profile, February 2011. 6 Social Observatory, University of Bucharest, 2010, Social Inclusion Barometer, survey representative at the national level for employers and employees from Romania.

arguments such as age (over 40 years), motherhood (especially when the children are minors), commuting requirements or simply being a woman.

In this context, the idea of living and working abroad became attractive for more and more Romanians. The internal job market opportunities are insufficient in comparison with the demand and the salary packages are much lower than in previous years. Thus, for Romanians, migrating to countries with sufficient and satisfactory jobs that assure a decent life represents a viable solution.

In this way the economic crisis transforms emigration from Romania into a way of life. Not only people with relatives or connections abroad wish to emigrate, but also people with divers ethnic and professional backgrounds, of all ages and generations, because emigration is not solely determined by income expectations, but it reflects the lack of trust in the national institutional system and political leaders (e.g. Sandu, 2010).

In the context of the economic crisis, the main support for Romanians who work abroad and the main provider of labor market mediation services is the National Employment Agency (ANOFM) through EURES services, which represent one of the most common methods used by migrants who seek jobs abroad.

EURES is the European employment network that involve the national public employment services and other partners such as trade unions and employers’ organizations. The network is coordinated by the European Commission and has as purpose the facilitation of free labor mobility in the European Economic Area (EEA) and Switzerland. The EURES advisers represent the human component of the network and the EURES job site7 constitutes the

7 http://ec.europa.eu/eures/

... emigration is

not motivated

just by possible

earnings, but it is

also influenced by

mistrust in the

institutional

system and

political leaders...

technical component. Both components ensure transparency of information regarding job vacancies, as well as living and working conditions in the EEA states.

ANOFM, as an employment public service, is a member of the EURES network since 2007. The institution is responsible with the recruitment and work placement of Romanian citizens and it provides services of information, orientation and allocation for both potential employees and employers on the European labor market.

The number of job vacancies received and promoted by ANOFM through the EURES network have steadily increased over the years, indifferent to the economic and financial crisis. According to ANOFM data, in 2010, a number of 3,038 job vacancies were posted, which was higher than in 2009 and 2008.8

The ANOFM reports (2009, 2010) indicate that the demand for jobs in different EU states or EEA through EURES services continues to be high among the Romanian citizens. For example, in 2009, 10,008 persons contacted EURES advisers (face-to-face, by e-mail or phone), asking about job vacancies in different European states, in comparison with 9,825 persons in 2008. Consequently, the request for EURES services intensified in the setting of the economic recession. In 2010, the number of Romanians which called upon EURES services nearly doubled, reaching a total of 17,441 persons.

The Romanian workers’ favorite destinations, both in 2009 and in 2010, were: Spain, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Great Britain and Austria. The majority of job demands for European states concentrated on sectors such as: agriculture, constructions, manufacturing, hotel and food industries. Nonetheless, the requests of highly qualified Romanians for engineering, IT, medicine or teaching are not to be overlooked.9

The majority of Romanians who aspire to work abroad have mainly basic or secondary education or professional training (with a total of 44.6% in 2008, 50.1% in 2009 and 47.4% in 2010), followed by those with high-school or college education (with a total of 38.5% in 2009 and 39.2% in 2010) and lastly,

8 The number of job vacancies was 2,122 in 2009 and 1,566 in 2008 ,respectively. 9 ANOFM activity report, 2009 and 2010, available at www.anofm.ro

by those with university education (11.4% in 2009 and 13.4% in 2010). The ANOFM statistics reveal in 2009-2010 a growing tendency for migration abroad of the highly-qualified persons, as a result of the economic and financial crisis.

Prospective Romanian migrants, who make use of EURES employment services, mainly originate from the southern parts of the country (especially, the underdeveloped regions South-East and South-West). In 2009, the counties Braila (981 persons), Ialomita (897 persons) and Dolj (706 persons) registered the highest number of job requests, while Ilfov (62 persons), Neamt (53 persons) and Harghita (51 persons) registered the lowest number of job demands (ANOFM data).

Both in 2009 and 2010 job-matching activities were organized in different cities in Romania, such as: Slobozia, Slatina, Alba-Iulia, Oltenita, Bucharest, Ploiesti, Calarasi. Regardless of the recession, the Romanian labor migration tendencies remain steady, as confirmed by the number of beneficiaries who request the EURES mediation services. Job offers from European employers have mainly targeted agriculture, zoology, forestry, tourism, unqualified workers or craftsman and cleaning staff. Aside from the traditional labor migration hubs which request Romanian workers (i.e. Spain and Italy), the Nordic countries, such as Denmark, appear increasingly interested in the Romanian labor force, especially for seasonal work.

In accordance with the ANOFM (2009, 2010), the main obstacles for Romanian labor mobility in the European space are: (1) the lack of language proficiency solicited by the employer and (2) insufficient information regarding work and living conditions of destination country. Once again, it is emphasized the essential role of competencies and information circulation when it comes to finding a job abroad, particularly in the time of crisis. Thus, ANOFM (2010) showed that ‘in the case of Spain is registered a high migrant

... the majority of

Romanians willing

to work abroad

have only primary,

secondary or

professional

education and

originate mainly in

the southern regions

of Romania ...

employment rate because job offers in the agricultural sector require only working experience while language proficiency is not compulsory. By contrast, in the cases of Denmark and Italy, with slightly superior quality standards, the lack of knowledge of English or the local languages at a basic conversation level has negatively influenced the results of employment selections.’

1.4. Italy and Spain, main destinations for the Romanian labor migrants

FIGURA 2. Citizenship of the EU and non-EU migrants, residents of EU-27 (2010)

Source: Eurostat., Population and Social Condition. Statistics in focus, 2011.

Romania remains the main provider of migrant labor force in the European area. Eurostat (2011) provides that for 2010 the number of Romanian migrant residents on the EU territory was over 2 million persons. However, it is estimated that the real number of Romanians in the EU is much higher, as Romanians are the second most numerous migrant community, following native immigrants from Turkey (Figure 2).

Over 70% of the Romanians which work abroad have chosen as destination country either Spain or Italy. Therefore, the manner in which the economic recession affects the labor market in these countries bears impact in the analysis of the crisis on Romanian labor migration.

1.4.1. The case of Spain

In 2009, Romanian citizens represent the largest migrant group in Spain (758,823 persons or 13.4% out of all migrants), followed by Moroccans (11.1%) and Ecuadorians (7.2%). The increase of the number of Romanian citizens in Spain is spectacular, growing from 3.4% (2002) to 14.5% (2010). Since Romania joined the EU zone (2007), the number of Romanian migrants legal residents in Spain has practically doubled (Figure 3).10

FIGURE 3. The evolution of Romanian migrants legal residents in Spain

Source: Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE), Spania, http://www.ine.es.

The economic crisis did not affect the overall total of foreign residents in Spain. However, the number of resident permits registered a slightly lower growth rate, in comparison with 2008-2009. Thus, the resident permits rate during 2008-2009 was of only 7%, in contrast with the 13% of previous years (Koehler et al., 2010). Accordingly, the number of Romanians which reside in

10 According to some unofficial estimations, currently, the number of Romanian workers in Spain has quadrupled.

67.279 137.347 207.960 317.366 407.159 527.019 731.806 758.823

1.977.946

Total s tră ini ;

5.708.940

Total români ;

829.7150

1.000.000

2.000.000

3.000.000

4.000.000

5.000.000

6.000.000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Spain slowly increased over the years (2008-2009). Overall, during 2007-2010 the number of residents permits offered to Romanian citizens increased with approximately 300,000 (Figure 3).

The impact of the recession on the Spanish economy was among the hardest in Europe. The crisis affected particularly the migrant population. The job loss rate reached a million in 2009, and the unemployment rate for migrants rose to 21.26% in contrast with 12.52% for Spanish nationals (INE, 2010). In the middle of 2009, the unemployment rate of migrants peaked to 28% and respectively, to 16% for natives. Out of all immigrants, Romanians, Ecuadorians and Moroccans seemed to register the highest unemployment rates (López-Sala şi Ferrero-Turrión, 2009).

Throughout 2007-2008, the migrant unemployment rate recorded an impressive rise, doubling in value, for both Romanian and other immigrant groups. Subsequently, unemployment continued to increase, but at a slower pace.

TABEL 3. Number of unemployed persons among the main immigrant groups in Spain

Q4, 2007 Q4, 2008 Q4, 2009

Total 407.708 779.442 1.076.228

Romanians 60.826 114.683 137.756

Moroccans 82.262 151.027 209.351

Ecuadorians 42.713 101.714 148.903

Columbians 33.735 71.170 84.760

Source: Pajares (2010, p. 46) based on INE data. Q4- Fourth quarter.

The most spectacular unemployment growth was recorded in sectors specific to migrant work, such as constructions, agriculture and services.11

11 Between 2007 and 2009, the number of unemployed increased: in constructions – from 69,400 to 228,300 persons; in agriculture - from 34,200 to 57,000; and in services – from 156,500 to 361,300 persons (Pajares, 2009).

Regarding Romanian workers, the growing unemployment rate was accompanied by the decrease of employed persons only starting in 2009, when however it registered a pronounced decline in comparison to other immigrant groups.

TABLE 4. Fluctuations of the employed migrants by main immigrant groups in Spain

Q4, 2007 Q4, 2008 Variation

2008 Q4, 2009

Variation 2009

(A) (B) (B-A) (C) (C-B) C%B

Total 2.887.043 2.886.489 –554 2.547.249 –339.240 -11,8

Romanians 429.427 455.500 26.073 391.281 –64.219 –14,1

Moroccans 333.122 280.567 –52.555 232.116 –48.451 –17,3

Ecuadorians 443.805 418.657 –25.148 314.665 –103.992 –24,8

Columbians 235.530 232.415 –3.115 212.259 –20.156 –8,7

Source: Pajares (2010, p. 64) based on INE data. Q4- Fourth quarter.

As the economic recession deepen, labor migrants have developed adaptation strategies such as the inter-sectoral or territorial mobility. Regarding the inter-sectoral mobility, the numbers for 2008-2009 illustrate a strong growth in numbers of Romanian immigrants who are registered to the social security systems and work in agriculture – in 2008, the total number was 37,750, while in 2009 it reached 81,974. No other labor immigration group has registered such an impressive evolution.12

By contrast, the territorial mobility of Romanian migrants was much lower than for other migrant communities and even lower than in the years previous to the economic recession. If in 2007, Romanian migrants' mobility in Spain was 13.7%, in 2008 it shrunk to 6.7%. Alongside with Bulgarians

12 For example, the number of Moroccans working in agriculture went from 73,576 to 74,734 and the Ecuadorians from 25,360 to 25,427 (Pajaros, 2010).

(6.9%), these represented the bottommost rates of territorial mobility among the Spanish immigrant groups.13

One of the main causes for the low territorial mobility is the high prevalence of credits among the Romanian migrants for work. Approximately 90% of Romanians, who reside in Spain, have mortgages for houses and/or cars purchased at destination. For most of these, the crisis intervened after five-six years of loan payments. Generally, the mortgage paid by a Romanian for an apartment in Spain is around 700-1,500 Euro per month and, for a car, around 400-500 Euro per month. Thus, due to the loan payments, a significant umber of Romanians can no longer make ends meet, as their employers can no longer afford overtime hours, bonuses or even the payment of 13rd wage (Voiculescu, 2011).

Subsequent to the request made on 28 July 2011 by the Spanish authorities, on 11 August 2011, the European Commission authorized Spain to impose temporary restrictions on the labor market for Romanians pending 31 December 2012. These restrictions are applicable in all sectors and regions, but they do not affect the Romanian citizens already working in Spain. However, some sources suggest that these restrictions will affect a much larger number of Romanians than strictly the newcomers. For example, the Federation of the Associations of Romanians from Europe (FADERE, according to the Romanian acronym) states that all Romanians who are not enrolled with labor registers will be affected by the restrictions imposed by the Spanish government, summing up to over 50% of Romanians which resided in Spain by 22 July 2011.

"All the Romanians from Spain who had a job, lost it and failed to present

themselves at the Employment office in 15 days to declare that they are

seeking a job, as well as those who have not returned every three months to

renew their situation, lost the right to work in Spain. We emphasize that the

enrollment with labor registers is optional and not compulsory; however, you

automatically loose this right if you do not return every three months. This

13 The territorial mobility of other migrant communities was much higher. For example, the Peruvians registered 13%, the Colombians 14.2% and the Chinese 21.1%.

change bears on the implications of these restrictions, relating not only to

those that arrived after 22 July 2011, but also to many Romanians who are

currently not employed or who work in the informal sector and intend to find

a legal job, while not being registered as job-seekers with the local authorities.

This measure will also affect all the children of Romanian migrants in Spain,

who are students or pupils or who are about to graduate and seek

employment." (FADERE, 2011, press released ziare.com).14

14 www.ziare.com/diaspora/romani-spania/jumatate-din-romanii-cu-vechime-in-spania-afectati-de-restrictii-1114945

BOX 2. Identity crisis and the invisible Romanian migrant community

The first thing that the Romanians do abroad – at least in Spain and in Italy, where they represent the largest immigrant community – is to avoid one another. Not wanting to have anything to do with Romanians is the easiest way to conceal ones’ identity from others. As a result, in spite of their overwhelming number, there is no cohesive Romanian community. Other immigrant groups, such as the Latin Americans, have their own restaurants, where they meet to socialize on weekends, where they have fun together and where they meet new members. Romanians do not do this.

When I talked with the owner of a Romanian restaurant in Barcelona, located right across of the City Jail and called Dracula, he told us that 75% of his customers were Spanish. When they do come to the restaurant, the Romanians gulp down their tripe soup and stuffed cabbage rolls, then they leave, without looking around and without exchanging one word with their fellow countrymen. I remembered a scene from the movie Mar Nero, by Federico Bondi, in which large groups of Romanians living in Italy held picnics, listened to Romanian music and befriended one another. Well, with only few exceptions, this does not happen. If a Romanian goes for a picnic, he/she only does this together with family or friends. And if ever happens to meet new community members is only when a Romanian association is holding a ‘fiesta’ with free stuffed cabbage rolls or when a Romanian singer – especially manele music – is having a concert [t.n.: manele music is a mixture of oriental

(Turkish/Middle Eastern) and Balkan influences, one of the most popular

in Romania].

The consequence of this lack of cohesion is a political pseudo-absence, although theoretically, the Romanians would have a say in the local elections, as they have the right to vote. “The Romanians have no political structure, they live in a soap bubble or an island, isolated from Spain” noted Miguel Fonda, the FEDROM President.


I do not believe that ‘identity camouflage’, described earlier, is the sole cause for the invisibility of the Romanian community. However, as Miguel Pajares mentioned, anthropologist at the University of Barcelona and Romanian migration specialist, this is one of the main sources for this phenomenon. “Certainly, an important part is also played by the lack of social capital, probably inherited from the Communist period. In addition, the Romanians are Europeans, and the Europeans are individualists, where European societies are, by definition, atomized. Even so, the stereotypes about Romanians and their desire to dissociate oneself from these prejudices are certainly among the key factors”, replied Miguel. Then I asked whether other immigrant communities had the same reaction to this negative image, but he said that the image of Bolivians or Moroccans was not that undesirable. For example, a recent campaign of the Spanish Popular Party, led by former Prime Minister Aznar, was not aimed at the Moroccans or the Bolivians, but strictly at the Romanians. “No querremos rumanos” worded the slogans of election posters glued to all walls in the town of Badalona, situated in the vicinity of Barcelona. Similarly, the controversial song of El Chivi (singer) does not curse at South Americans, but at the Romanians, “that rising scourge... who works even on public vacations... sons of b*tches, let’s cut off their hands… pimps and restaurant employees, I sh*t on their relatives, on their dead and on their whole country”. On another occasion, this time in France, I personally experienced what Miguel Pajares theory implied regarding the negative image and the dissimulation of identity which underlies the fractures of Romanian community. I was sitting at a terrace in Strasbourg, together with a group of young people, most of them employees of public institutions. At some point, a beggar came up to us and held out his hand, holding a plastic cup, at the bottom of which a few coins were clanking and while sighting part sadly, part melodramatically said: “Papa, papa!” [t.n.: “Food, food!”]. I approached him in Romanian and he proved to be, indeed, from a Romanian from Timişoara city. Together with another friend, who worked as a social worker, we started, for both a professional bad habit, to ask all sorts of questions about his life, how much money he made, how social benefits worked. After about five minutes of conversation, the rest of the group reacted:


“Come on, really, must everybody see that we are Romanians! What do we have in common with ‘him’?!”

It was exactly the same mechanism of dissociation from fellow countrymen, which I encountered in my interactions with Romanians working in Spain or in Italy. According to some people, the Romanians are ‘figlio de putta’ – a 25-year old young man told me while at Tiburtina station, Rome: “They will take you down if you ask for their help”, they are “selfish, secretive or thieves”. The thievery argument is more or less an opinion of any Romanian migrant. Alike my colleagues with whom I traveled to Strasbourg tried to distance themselves from the image of the Romanian beggar, so did the Romanians in Italy, trying to self-differentiate themselves from the Romanian thieves and gypsies, who in their view were to blame for the bad image of all Romanians. However, as the discussion progresses and self-censorship weakens, the more I discovered that, in fact, few were those unfamiliar with the vices, whether it was about labor intermediation service fee or thievery. “I would steal too, but I’m afraid to do it”, said the young man who considered Romanians to be ‘figlio de putta’. Another interviewee, who owned a construction company in the Calabria region, very serenely mentioned: “Well, I worked for one year and I realized that work will not make me rich, so I started stealing”. “What did you steal?” I asked him. “What do you mean by that? All kinds of stuff! Trucks, excavators... whatever I could find. But then I realized that stealing does not make me rich either, you know how it is, easy come, easy go, so now I made a ditta (company)!”.

However, nobody can live in self-contempt forever. After they avoid each other, after they judge their own people while keeping a distance, the Romanians resort to a revalorization mechanism by making negative traits positive and demeaning ‘the others’. “A Spaniard asked me if we had televisions in Romania. I looked at him astonished and I answered: No, we do not have such a thing because we have M.Benzes with onboard LCD monitors... We no longer need TV sets because, for us, they were obsolete technology” – informed me the owner of a traditional Romanian store in Castelldefels.


The same people who complain that Romanians have gone mad and drive their Mercedes cars to the construction sites where they work, just a half hour later, they brag about the fact that in Spain you cannot see such cars like in Romania.

The same Romanians who moan over the poverty back home express contemptuous reactions when passing by a one-star hotel, named Hotel Colmar, explaining that the name is misleading and that this hotel should be called “Hotel de Coşmar” [t.n.: Nightmare Hotel]. Back home, in Romania no hotel is as ‘miserable’ as this.

The Spanish are ‘slow-witted’, ‘they are just lucky to be born rich’; Italian women are ‘putta’; westerners are a bit ‘dull’ because they always cross the street when the light is green, while we cross even when the light is red and we survive, thus being cleverer. These are just a few clichés, rather naive, but probably effective for the reestablishment Romanian national pride.

(Excerpt ‘Identity crisis and the invisible Romanian migrant community’, signed by V. Stoiciu and published in Dilema Veche newspaper)

1.4.2. The case of Italy

For the first time in the past twenty years, the number of Romanians residing in Italy has slightly decreased, going under 900,000 persons. The 2010 statistical data show that 887,763 Romanians officially reside in Italy, while the unofficial estimated number of Romanians is around a million persons. Nonetheless, Romanians are the most numerous foreign community located in Italy, followed by the Albanians and Moroccans which together sum up to about 450.000 persons (Pittau et al., 2010).

The immigration dynamics of Italy remained relative unaffected by the economic crisis. Regardless that the in the first nine months of 2009 the net rate decreased with 21%, in comparison with the same period of the previous year, the number of foreign residents in Italy increased during the recession (Koehler et al., 2010).

TABLE 5. The evolution of the foreign citizens in Italy (2007-2009)

2007 2008 2009

Romanians 625.278 796.477 887.763

Total citizens from other EU countries 934.435 1.131.767 1.241.348

Total foreign citizens 3.432.651 3.891.295 4.235.059

Source: National Institute of Statistics, Italy (Istat).

The Italian labor market registered profound transformations during the crisis. The gap between the unemployment rate of native workers and that of the migrant workers has amplified from the second half of 2008 to 2009. In the first half of 2009, the immigrant unemployment rate reached the historic threshold of 10%. As in the case of Spain, migrant women were less affected by unemployment than men, as women are concentrated in economic sectors which were less affected by economic fluctuations.

However, the immigrant unemployment rate of Italy remained the lowest amongst other European states. In this regard, it might be a result of the

relatively low concentration of migrants in activity sectors which employ unskilled labor work (Koehler et al., 2010).15

TABLE 6. The number of the established employed and of the newly employed Romanian migrants in Italy

2005 2006 2007 2008

Employed Romanians 245.559 263.210 556.554 674.026 Total foreigners 2.217.696 2.194.271 2.704.450 2.998.462 Newly Romanians 33.616 34.117 293.154 174.531 employed Total foreigners 200.454 235.096 599.566 444.941

Source: Pittau et al. (2010).

Although the unemployment rate increased, the number of Romanians employed in Italy almost doubled in 2007, registering a significant increase during the economic crisis, even overpassing the pre-recession rates (table 6). Half of them are employed in the tertiary sector (family assistance, hotels and restaurants), a third in constructions and a fifth in agriculture. As suggested by Koehler et al., the large number of employees in the tertiary sector, which was less affected by the crisis, might explain the low unemployment rates in Italy in comparison with other member states.

Another possible explanation of the low impact of the crisis would be the large number of established foreign companies by migrants, even during recession times. In comparison with the previous year, in 2009, increasing with 15%, the number of registered Romanian companies in Italy reached 32,452.16

15 As presented in Table 1, the proportion of immigrant workers in sectors which employ unskilled labor force varies between Greece (32%), Spain (21%) and Italy (under 15%). 16 Specifically, in 2003, 2,909 Romanian companies were registered in Italy. In 2007, when Romania became a member state of the EU, the number of companies reached 15,942; thus, five times bigger than in 2003 (Pittau et al., 2010).

BOX 3. Why being a seller in Cyprus is better than being a company owner in Romania

Mioara […] has been working in Cyprus for the past 8 years and, although now, because of the crisis, things are worse for her, not even for moment has she considered returning home, to Constanţa [t.n. large city with a population of a quarter million, located in the South-

East Romania]. Although, she came to Cyprus in order to finish building her house, now, all finished – a 250 square meter villa next to Kogălniceanu Airport - she wants to sell it and buy a flat in Cyprus. Mioara works at the same restaurant in Agya Napa, where she was first hired 8 years ago. However, at the beginning as she did not speak of word of English, she had to work in the kitchen and “wash toilets”, in her words, until the owner, Nicolas, started trusting her. Now, Mioara manages the whole restaurant: procuring supplies, placing orders and even doing the hiring. “When I go home to Constanţa, Nicolas calls me 3 times a day to ask me where to buy this or where to order that. As a matter of fact, he is like a brother to me, as a couple of years ago, he even borrowed me the 20,000 I needed to finish my house”. Mioara’s sister, Sorina, also lives in Cyprus, where she married a Cypriot, and she has a 3 year old daughter who “understands Romanian, but does not speak it”. It is obvious that, however bad the crisis may be, neither Sorina, nor Mioara will ever return to Romania. For them, Cyprus is their new homeland. “It is not true that the Cypriots are racists, here we did not have any of the problems the Romanians have in Italy. We, who are here, have kept busy working, who knows what would be from now on, as beggars or people who sing have already started to come here. I don’t know how long this crisis would last, but it brought new and different kinds of people over here”, tells Mioara.

The official number of Romanians in Cyprus has increased from 3,000 in 2006 to 30,000 in 2009, which represents approximately 4.4% of the country’s population. They represent the third largest community after the Greeks and the Russians.


In Cyprus, there are five Romanian schools: in Nicosia, Limassol, Paphos, Larnaca, and Deli. The last three opened in the fall of 2009.

The Romanian community in Cyprus enjoys the services of the representative of the Romanian Patriarchate, as father Petre Matei is the permanent priest of St. Paul Church (“Ayios Pavlos”) of Nicosia.

Since 2007, the monthly magazine RO_Mania, aimed at the members of the local Romanian community, can be found at any newspaper stand in Cyprus.

The average wage of a Romanian working in Cyprus is about 800 – 1,000 euro, however, a skilled worker may earn up to 2,200 euro.

In 2008, the Blue Air Company inaugurated the Bucharest-Larnaca and Bucharest-Paphos air routes. The overall number of passengers on these routes was about 100,000 in 2008. The great majority represented, most probably, immigrants and the immigrants’ families, as the number of Romanian tourists who visited Cyprus for that year was about 8-9,000 persons.

In November 2009, the Cypriot Minister of Labor, Sotiroulla Charalambous declared that Cypriot authorities liberated 110 Romanians from “modern slavery”. These 110 Romanians had been brought to Cyprus under the pretense of legal employment contracts, however, ending up in unsanitary camps where they were made to work for 20 euro a week.

(Excerpt ‘Why being a seller in Cyprus is better than being a company owner in Romania’, signed by V. Stoiciu and published in România Liberă newspaper)

PART II.

THE SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

CHAPTER 2.

DATA AND METHOD

The sociological research ‘The impact of the economic crisis on the Romanian migration for work’ was launched and financed by Friedrich Ebert Foundation Romania (FES). The research was conducted in 2010 and involved both quantitative and qualitative research techniques.

2.1. Data

2.1.1. Quantitative research

The survey was carried-out by the Company for Sociological Research and Branding (Compania de Cercetare Sociologică şi Branding – CCSB), in August 2010.

The research universe refers to adult population (18 years or more), non-institutionalized and residing in six counties of the country, namely: Braşov, Călăraşi, Dolj, Maramureş, Neamţ and Vaslui. The selection of the six counties was done based on the CCSB’s estimates of migrant return rates, but

also on certain practical and budgetary considerations. Thus, according to the CCSB estimations, the selection include counties both with high return rates of the migrants for work abroad (Braşov, Dolj, Neamţ and Maramureş) as well as with medium return rates (Călăraşi and Vaslui).17

The sample includes 2,970 cases, which were selected from 71 communes and 30 cities/towns. The sample is probabilistic, two-stage stratified based on two criteria - county and locality size (6 x 6 theoretical strata).18

Data were collected based on face-to-face interviews in a natural setting (i.e. the residence of the participant). Overall, the research comprised the following categories of population:

(A) Households without persons that migrated for work abroad in August 2010

(B1) Households with persons that migrated for work abroad in August 2010

(B2) Households with persons residing and working abroad that are on holiday in Romania in August 2010

(C) Households with persons who returned from abroad (not on holiday) in the last 12 months (September 2009 – August 2010) and have plans to stay more than 3 months in the country (irrespective of whether they still intend or not to emigrate in the future).

Accordingly, three questionnaires were developed: A (applied to A category), B (applied to B1 and B2 categories) and C (specific to C category). All three questionnaires include common sections regarding perceptions and opinions on the economic crisis and its effects, emigration for work and its effects, and the intention to migrate for work abroad. The questionnaires types B and C present a common section regarding information about persons gone to work

17 According to the initial estimates, 14% of the population aged 18 and over (approximately 2.5 million people) went abroad for work, out of which, around 20% have returned to Romania due to the economic crisis. The CCSB estimations rely on a series of periodical surveys (in total, over 4,000 cases), which allow also the identification of the structure of the population migranting for work abroad. 18 Theoretical strata used for locality size are: very large urban (over 250 thousand inhabitants), large urban (80-249 thousand inhabitants), medium urban (30-79 thousands), small urban (15-29 thousands), very small urban (less than 15 thousand inhabitants), and rural.

abroad (migrants still abroad, on holiday in Romania or returned). Additionally, questionnaire B includes a section on remittances, and questionnaire C includes an extensive section on the everyday life experience of the migrant for work abroad. The questionnaires (A, B and C) are presented in the Appendix chapter.

Addresses (households) were selected based on the random route method, which ensure that the sample is representative at household level for all six counties.

For A and B1 categories, in each household, the respondent was selected through the ‘last-birthday’ method. For B2 and C categories, the interview was taken with the migrant on holiday or returned in the country. Thus, respondents A and B1 form a representative sample for the population aged 18 years and over of the six counties, while respondents B2 and C form two non-representative lots. Moreover, respondents in B1 and B2 categories provided also data regarding the other migrants from the household, who make up a third non-representative lot.

Categories of population

A B1 B2 C

Questionnaire A B B C

Representativity:* A+B1: Population de 18+ years

C: Lot of returned

- at population level from the 6 selected counties migrants

- at migrants level B2: Lot of migrants in holiday

B1+B2: Lot of migrants abroad

- at household level A+B1+B2+C: Households from the 6 selected counties

Collected information about:

Respondent Respondent + Migrants from the

household found abroad

Respondent = Migrant in

holiday in the country

+ Migrants from the household found abroad

Respondent = Migrant

returned in the country during the

crisis

* Error of ± 1.8% (± 4.5% per county) at a 95% confidence level, according to CCSB. Note: Lot refers to a non-representative sample.

Based on the methodology described above, the quantitative research covers data on:19

• A+B1+B2+C: 2,974 households (representative sample); • A+B1: 2,733 persons – stable population (representative sample); • B2: Non-representative sample of 107 migrants found on holiday in the

country, in August 2010; • C: Non-representative sample of 134 migrants returned in the country

during the crisis from work abroad;

• B1+B2: All migrants for work abroad (N=908) from households B1+B2 together with migrants on holiday in the country (B2) form a sample of migrants at work abroad (N=1,015) which corresponds to a representative sample at household level.

TABLE 2. 1. Distribution of population and sample by county, gender and age categories (%)

BV CL DJ MM NT VS Total

M 18-29 years 2,5 1,1 2,7 2,1 2,0 1,7 12,2 M 30-44 years 2,5 1,4 3,1 2,3 2,3 1,9 13,5 M 45-59 years 2,4 1,2 2,8 1,9 1,9 1,5 11,7 M 60+ years 1,7 1,3 2,9 1,5 2,0 1,6 11,0 F 18-29 years 2,4 1,1 2,7 1,9 1,9 1,6 11,5 F 30-44 years 2,7 1,3 3,0 2,2 2,3 1,8 13,4 F 45-59 years 2,5 1,2 2,9 2,0 2,1 1,6 12,4 F 60+ years 2,3 1,7 3,8 1,9 2,6 2,0 14,3 GENERAL POPULATION

19,0 10,2 23,9 15,8 17,2 13,7 100

M 18-29 years 2,0 1,1 1,6 1,8 1,2 1,7 9,3 M 30-44 years 2,6 1,0 2,3 2,2 1,9 1,5 11,4 M 45-59 years 2,0 0,8 3,0 2,5 1,5 1,1 11,0 M 60+ years 3,0 1,6 4,5 1,7 2,6 1,9 15,2 F 18-29 years 2,3 1,0 2,1 1,4 2,1 1,1 10,0 F 30-44 years 2,1 1,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 1,9 12,2 F 45-59 years 2,8 1,1 3,0 2,2 2,3 1,9 13,3

19 The data mentioned in the text are weighted. The non-weighted data represent 2,970 households (A+B1+B2+C), 2,729 persons – stable population (A+B1), 105 migrants in holiday in the country (B2), 136 migrants returned from abroad (C) and 1,016 migrants at work abroad from households B1+B2.

F 60+ years 3,9 2,0 4,2 1,8 3,4 2,4 17,7 SAMPLE (A+B1)

20,7 9,9 22,9 15,9 17,2 13,4 100

Data: Survey FES-CCSB (August 2010). Weighted data A+B1 (N=2,733 persons). Notes: BV – Braşov; CL – Călăraşi; Dj – Dolj; MM – Maramureş; NT – Neamţ; VS – Vaslui.

However, it is essential to mention that the data regarding migrants do not include information about kinship relations. Therefore, data does not allow an analysis at the family level (couples with or without children), but just the analysis of the migrant population at the individual level.

The sample representative at population level (A+B1) was validated based on the stable population data from the six counties (in 2009) provided by the National Institute for Statistics (see tables 2.1 and 2.2).

As observed in the Table 2.1, the research sample (A+B1) presents a structure by gender and age categories very similar to the general population, with a slight overrepresentation of the population aged 60 years and over.

TABLE 2. 2. Distribution of population and sample by county and locality size (%)

Sampling strata BV CL DJ MM NT VS Total

Urban over 250 thou inh. 9,7 0,0 9,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 19,5 Urban 80 -249 thou inh. 0,0 0,0 0,0 4,3 3,4 0,0 7,7 Urban 30-79 thou inh. 1,1 2,2 0,0 1,3 2,1 4,3 11,0 Urban 15-29 thou inh. 2,5 0,9 1,8 1,3 0,6 0,9 8,0 Urban very small (under 15 thou) 1,3 0,7 0,8 2,3 0,5 0,5 6,2 Rural 4,5 6,5 11,4 6,6 10,6 8,1 47,6 GENERAL POPULATION

19,0 10,2 23,9 15,8 17,2 13,7 100

Urban over 250 thou inh. 10,2 0,0 10,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 20,2 Urban 80 -249 thou inh. 0,0 0,0 0,0 4,4 3,1 0,0 7,5 Urban 30-79 thou inh. 1,4 2,3 0,0 1,4 2,3 4,5 11,8 Urban 15-29 thou inh. 2,9 0,7 2,6 2,3 1,2 0,5 10,2 Urban very small (under 15 thou) 1,2 0,8 0,0 1,4 0,0 1,1 4,5 Rural 5,0 6,0 10,2 6,5 10,6 7,3 45,6 SAMPLE (A+B1)

20,7 9,9 22,9 15,9 17,2 13,4 100

Data: Survey FES-CCSB (August 2010). Weighted data A+B1 (N=2,733 persons). Notes: BV – Braşov; CL – Călăraşi; Dj – Dolj; MM – Maramureş; NT – Neamţ; VS – Vaslui.

For correcting the unequal probabilities of selection and for adjusting the uniform non-response rates, we use a weight which is built (iterative proportional) on two criteria: county and locality size.

Aside the sampling errors, other issues, such as question formulation, errors of the field operators, difficulties in data collection, psychological defense mechanisms of the respondents, may induce additional errors that cannot be counted in the statistical margin of error.

The analyses presented in this report are based on the weighted data. Consequently, the sum of the percentages can sometimes vary with +/- 1 percentage point to 100%.

2.1.2. Qualitative research

The research also included a qualitative component, consisting in in-depth interviews with the following respondent categories:

• Returned Romanian migrants • Relatives/ family members of Romanian migrants for work abroad • Romanians which are currently working abroad • Representatives of the Romanian local authorities from settlements

which are characterized by high concentration of emigrants • Local authority representatives from the top-destination cities of the

Romanian migrants (Rome-Italy and Madrid-Barcelona-Spain) • Representatives of the Romanian diaspora, members of Romanian

migrant organizations and associations in the cities were the interviews were taken.

Overall, 74 in-depth interviews were carried out in Romania and abroad. In Romania, interviews were performed both in communes and cities from the counties Călăraşi, Braşov and Piatra Neamţ. Abroad, the interviews were conducted in Italy (Rome) and in Spain (the Barcelona and Madrid regions).

The qualitative research was carried-out in August-November 2010.

The in-depth interviews followed the structure of the guideline presented in Appendix and have assessed the effects of the crisis on the migrant workers taking into account the differences experienced by those in Spain and Italy. Furthermore, the interviews aimed to understand the mechanisms that

migrants used to cope with the crisis, to stay active on the labor market and to earn enough money for themselves and their families back home. The questions also focused on: the intention to return in the country due to the recession; personal migration histories; connection with the country of destination; support networks; purpose and reasons for choosing to work abroad; remittances; perception of the participant on how various industries in the destination countries were affected by the crisis; and the gendered impact of the crisis.

2.2. Method

2.2.1. Quantitative research

The results presented in the next chapters are based on statistics and measures of association (crosstabs procedure with significant Pearson chi-square and adjusted standardized residuals equal or higher than 2 in absolute value), one-way variance analysis (One-Way Anova), and regression models.

As a general rule, the following multilevel set of independent variables (predictors) was systematically tested, out of which this volume presents only the results statically significant at p≤0.05.

Independent variables at the individual level: • gender • age • completed level of education • employment status as of August 2010 • ownership (state/privat) of the units in which work the employed

persons • ethnicity • religion • type of experience (knowledge) regarding migration for work abroad:

direct (worked or lived abroad), indirect (having a relative working abroad), and no experience

• personal monthly income.

Independent variables at the household level: • size (number of household members) and composition (number of

children aged 0-14 years within household) • monthly cash income per capita • subjective assessment of living conditions • material capital – index determined as factor score of three indicators:

number of mobile phones, automobiles and personal computers in the household.

Independent variables at the community level: • county (Braşov, Călăraşi, Dolj, Maramureş, Neamţ şi Vaslui) • residence (urban/ rural) • locality type: urban settlements according to size (very small, small,

medium, large, very large) and rural settlements (communes) • level of development of rural settlements (communes), according to the

Community Development Index (IDC)20 • rate of poverty, depth and severity of poverty at the commune level21 • data regarding social problems at the locality level (provided by

municipalities at 31.07.2009):22 (1) unemployment rate;23 (2) rate of migrants for work abroad; (3) proportion of households living in

20 Index elaborated by Sandu, Voineagu and Panduru in 2009. Data and methodology are available at: http://sites.google.com/site/dumitrusandu. IDC is calculated as factor score of the following four partial indexes: housing infrastructure (INS data, 2007-2008), public funds at the local budget reported at the commune stable population (MAI data, 2007), economic individual-family capital (measured as cars per 1,000 residents, MAI data, 2007) and human capital at community level estimated based on: infant mortality rate (INS, 2005-2008), average age of population 15+ years (INS, 2008) and life expectancy at birth (INS, 2006-2008). 21 Values published by MADR, www.madr.ro. These indexes are calculated by INS (based on 2004 data) and were taken into account when determining the score for projects submitted for funding under Measure 322-FEADR, as poverty rate is one of the eligibility criteria for this type of European funds. 22 Census of municipalities The Access of Local Authorities at the European Funds (Accesul

Autorităţilor Locale la Fondurile Europene), financed by Soros Foundation Romania, and carried out by CERME, CNPS and ICCV, in December 2009. The study Soros (2009) is available at: http://www.soros.ro/ro/publicatii.php?pag=5# 23 Municipalities estimated the unemployed rate per total locality population, at 31.07.2009, where “unemployed” referred to any person of active age who is not employed and is seeking for a job. Therefore, the data provided by the municipalities differ from the standard predictors – registered unemployed rate and ILO unemployed rate.

improvised, abandoned or unsanitary dwellings; (4) proportion of beneficiaries of social aid (Law on Guaranteed Minimum Income). In the same time we use an index24 of intensity of social problems in community.

• financial resources of municipality – revenues per capita, according to the budget execution for 2008, the Ministry of Public Finance.25 Alternatively, we also used the indicator – share of own revenues in total revenues at the local budget.

• the capacity of local authorities to attract funds for the local budget: (1) number of projects submitted for European funding 2007-2009; (2) number of projects approved for financing with European funds in 2007-2009.26

The respondent’s socio-demographic profile of the representative sample at population level can be found in the adjacent Table 2.3.

Among the respondents in households without migrants (A) are statistically over-represented: persons 30-44 years old, highly educated, well situated on the labor market, with relatively high income, residing in developed cities, especially from Braşov, Călaraşi and Dolj counties. In contrast, for respondents in households with members working abroad (B1) are statistically over-represented: persons 45-64 years old, with medium-low education, pupils/students and farmers, with relatively low incomes, which reside in small towns, especially from Neamţ and Maramureş counties.

24 The index of intensity of social problems in community is based on the municipalities’ estimations of: unemployment rate, proportion of beneficiaries of social aid and proportion of households living in improvised, abandoned or unsanitary dwellings (Stănculescu, 2010, on Soros data regarding 2009). 25 Financial resources of municipality are measured as own revenues per capita (including quotas deducted from the income tax) because this indicators reflects the level of local economic development. A settlement with low revenues is a locality with an underdeveloped economy, with no companies other than bars and small shops. In contrast, a settlement with a developed and diversified economy has relatively high revenues per inhabitant. 26 Data available in the Soros (2009) research on The Access of Local Authorities at the European

Funds at http://www.soros.ro/ro/publicatii.php?pag=5#

TABEL 2. 3. The socio-demographic profile of respondents from the sample representative at the population level, 2010 (%)

Persons from

households without migrants

(A)

Persons from

households with

migrants (B1)

Total sample (A+B1)

TOTAL – N 2,062 671 2,733

TOTAL - % 75,4% 24,6% 100%

Gender - women 73,9% 26,1% 100% - men 76,8% 23,2% 100%

Age - 18-29 years 72,6% 27,4% 100% - 30-44 years 81,1% 18,9% 100% - 45-64 years 72,6% 27,4% 100% - 65 years and over 76,1% 23,9% 100%

Ethnicity - Romanians 75,6% 24,4% 100% - Hungarians 77,6% 22,4% 100% - Roma 71,4% 28,6% 100%

Education - gymnasium at most 73,2% 26,8% 100% level - vocational 71,3% 28,7% 100% - highschool 76,0% 24,0% 100% - college 76,7% 23,3% 100% - University 84,0% 16,0% 100%

Occupation - pensioners 74,7% 25,3% 100% - housepersons 72,2% 27,8% 100% - unemployed 77,0% 23,0% 100% - pupil/students 67,9% 32,1% 100% - farmers 68,3% 31,7% 100% - workers “blue collars” 76,5% 23,5% 100% - „grey collars” 77,7% 22,3% 100% - „white collars” 84,0% 16,0% 100% - managers, employers 86,5% 13,5% 100%

Cash - Q1 (average 150 lei/month/ person) 73,3% 26,7% 100% income - Q2 (average 300 lei/month/ person) 70,1% 29,9% 100% monthly - Q3 (average 500 lei/month/ person) 78,8% 21,2% 100% per capita - Q4 (average 700 lei/month/ person) 73,0% 27,0% 100% (Quintile) - Q5 (average 1,300 lei/month/ person) 78,9% 21,1% 100% Non-response 76,1% 23,9% 100%

TABEL 2.3. (continuation)

Persons from


(A)

Persons from

households with

migrants (B1)

Total sample (A+B1)

TOTAL – N 2.062 671 2.733

TOTAL - % 75,4% 24,6% 100%

Personal - Q1 (no cash incomes) 71,6% 28,4% 100% income - Q2 (average 300 lei/month) 75,2% 24,8% 100% monthly - Q3 (average 600 lei/month) 74,7% 25,3% 100% (Quintile) - Q4 (average 800 lei/month) 75,3% 24,7% 100% - Q5 (average 1,500 lei/month) 79,0% 21,0% 100% Non-response 76,9% 23,1% 100%

Residence - urban 76,8% 23,2% 100% - rural 73,8% 26,2% 100%

Locality - poor commune 75,3% 24,7% 100% type - medium developed commune 72,3% 27,7% 100% - developed commune 72,8% 27,2% 100% - towns under 20 thou inhabitants 69,7% 30,3% 100% - cities with 20 thou inh. or more 78,3% 21,7% 100%

County - Braşov 81,8% 18,2% 100% - Călăraşi 84,0% 16,0% 100% - Dolj 79,8% 20,2% 100% - Maramureş 67,2% 32,8% 100% - Neamţ 64,8% 35,2% 100% - Vaslui 75,1% 24,9% 100%

Data: Opinion Poll FES-CCSB (august 2010).

2.2.2. Qualitative research

The qualitative data analysis completes and provides a better understanding of the relevant aspects of the quantitative component. Concurrently, it provides comprehensive descriptions and novel perspectives that address the impact of the economic crisis over the Romanian labor migration.

The interview analysis took into consideration the potential trends of the Romanian labor migration and/or of Romanian labor mobility within the EU-27 context given the prolonged economic and financial recession; naturally, assuming the common limitations of such a study. Some of our results have already been confirmed by the recent developments of migration as reflected in the ANOFM statistical data. However, there are some effects of the crisis on the Romanian migration that could not be anticipated – for instance, the reinforcement of restrictions for the Romanian emigrants on the Spanish labor market.

The analysis covered all 74 conducted interviews.

Categories of interviewees Romania Italy Spain

- Migrants returned during the crisis 10 - -

- Relatives/ family members of Romanian migrants for work abroad

11 - -

- Romanians which are currently working abroad

7 13 19

- Representatives of the Romanian local authorities from settlements which are characterized by high concentration of emigrants

6 - -

- Local authority representatives from the top-destination cities of the Romanian migrants (in Italy and Spain)

- - 2

- Representatives of the Romanian diaspora, members of Romanian migrant organizations and associations in the cities were the interviews were taken

- 2 4

CHAPTER 3.

THE ECONOMIC CRISIS AND MIGRATION

3.1. The perceptions of the economic crisis and its effects

The topic of economic crisis and its effects described in this section was covered through the common questions addressed to all types of respondents. There is a generalized consensus at the level of the population for the six studied counties that the current economic recession has affected ‘profoundly’ (71%) or ‘somewhat greatly’ (24%) Romania.

FIGURE 2. 1. The crisis affected ‘(very/rather) much’ country and population (%)

Data: Opinion Poll FES-CCSB (august 2010).

84 84 84 85 7895 9295 94950

25

50

75

100

(A) Persoane di n

gospodă ri i FĂRĂ

migranți

(B1) Persoa ne din

gospodă ri i cu

migra nți

ESANTION

REPREZENTATIV

(A+B1)

(C) Persoane

REVENITE de l a

muncă di n

străinătate

(B2) Mi gra nți la

muncă IN VACANTA în

țară

România este afecta tă de cri za economică ”destul de mult” ș i ”foa rte mult”

Pe dvs . ș i fa mi l ia dvs . cri za economi că v-a afectat ”destul de mul t” ș i ”foarte mult”

Likewise, the majority of the respondents consider that, both as individuals and as family, they were affected “profoundly” (54%) or “somewhat greatly” (30%) by the crisis. Women, persons of 45-59 years, Roma, persons with no formal education or with maximum 10 grades, housewives, unemployed, persons from households with very low income,27 which do not own a car, a mobile phone or a computer, are significantly more likely to declare themselves as being more affected by the economic crisis. In other words, the “deprived” people (marginalized on the labor market, with low human/material capital and low income) perceived themselves as most affected by the crisis.

At the community level, the inhabitants of small towns (less than 30 thousand inhabitants) and from poor communes,28 with very low revenues at the local budget,29 and that cannot obtain European funds,30 in particular from Călăraşi, Vaslui and Dolj counties, confirmed to be significantly more affected by crisis.

The interviews with local authorities have confirmed this dominant perception

– the effects of the crisis are ruthless, propagate in waves and tend to be long-

term especially in (small) towns and communes which concentrate emigrants:

“Since the crisis hit, the commune no longer blossoms. Married young couples

go abroad for about three months; some of them come back. Anyways, they are

no longer satisfied as the money is not what as it used to be, there (in the

destination country) as well as here (in Romania). With the money they earn,

they try to build a tiny house with couple of rooms. The crisis even affected the

municipality employees as we had to let go of 18 employees. You can imagine

how difficult that was… We are faced with very serious problems at the local

27 The 20% households with the lowest monthly income per capita out of total households in the six counties. 28 The communes of the six selected counties with relatively low IDC scores (Sandu et al., 2009) and relatively high poverty rates (MADR data for 2004) compared with the other communes in the country. 29 Revenues per capita and the proportion of own revenues in total revenues at the local budget were, in 2008, relatively low compared to the other towns/communes in the country (Soros, 2009). 30 A small number of projects submitted for funding, as well as a low number of projects approved for European funding in 2007-2009 (Soros, 2009).

council level… no more money.” (Local authority representative, Romania)

The dominant opinion regarding the adverse effects of the recession is also shared by migrants who work abroad and those who returned or are on vacation in Romania (figure 2.2).

Resident population and migrants (returned or on vacation) agree that both the

family income and savings have reduced as a result of the crisis. Consequently, around two thirds of households could no longer afford in August 2010 what they did before the crisis, and 39% of the households faced difficulties in the payment of bank installments.

Furthermore, 71% of the migrants who were on vacation (B2) in August 2010 declared that family income reduced due to the crisis. This percentage represents the majority, but it is significantly lower than 79-83% of other population categories. Similarly, 65% of the migrants on vacation (B2) reported reductions in family savings as compared to 75% of total households and, in particular, to 86% of the returned migrants (C).

FIGURE 2. 2. Effects of the crisis on incomes (%)

Date: Opinion poll FES-CCSB (august 2010).

The effects of the crisis on the workplace do not differ significantly between the

studied population categories. While 28% of the population (A+B1) have somebody in their family who lost employment, the percentage increases to

40

67

77

79

35

65

74

81

36

62

65

71

39

71

86

83

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Este ma i greu să plătiți ra tele la bancă

Lucruri pe ca re vi le permiteați îna inte nu vi le ma i

permiteți în prezent

S-a u diminuat economi i le fami l ie i

S-a u redus venituri le fa mil iei

(C)

(B2)

(B1)

(A)

33% for migrants on vacation in the country and, respectively, to 40% for the persons returned from work abroad. However, this is an apparent difference. If we relate only to the economically-active persons (employed or unemployed), then the share of those having somebody in their family who lost a job as a result of the crisis ranges between 29% and 39% with no significant differences between population categories.

Likewise, the percentage of active persons working overtime out of fear of loosing their job ranges between 34% and 41%, yet, with no significant differences between persons in households without migrants, households with migrants, returned migrants and those on vacation in the country.

TABEL 2. 4. Changes of living conditions in the last 6 months (February - August 2010) (%)

Condiţiile de trai ... (A) (B1) (C) (B2) (A+B1)

Au devenit foarte rele (nu acoperă strictul necesar) 18 18 9 15 18

S-au inrăutăţit (doar pentru strictul necesar) 49 46 36 36 48

Au devenit satisfăcătoare (un trai decent) 26 30 38 25 27

Au devenit bune (ne permite şi bunuri scumpe) 5 3 10 14 4

Au devenit foarte bune (ne permitem orice dorim) 0 1 4 6 1

Non-răspuns 2 1 4 5 2

Total 100 100 100 100 100


Income drop, diminishing savings and job loss have caused worsening of the living

conditions (Table 2.4). Thus, approximately 66% of all households declared that, in the last six months, their living conditions became very bad (insufficient even for the bare necessities) or bad (sufficient only for the bare necessities). Although in lower proportions, households with returned migrants and households with migrants on vacation registered a decline in living conditions in proportions of 45% and respectively, 51%.

Concomitantly, the household consumption was affected as more than half of the households spent more on food (54% of households), health (56%) and for dwelling maintenance and utilities, in August 2010 in comparison with August 2009.

Education expenditures are characteristic to households with children. Out of all households with children, approximately a quarter cut down on education expenses in 2010, a quarter spent the same and 40% declared that they invested more in the child’s education (the households with migrants on vacation, B2, were overrepresented in this category).31

Vacation expenses were reduced in the summer of 2010, for more than 40% of the households and remained the same for 16% of households, while one third of total households choose not to answer to this question. Only the households with returned migrants or with migrants on vacation reported larger percentage increases in the vacation expenses: 18% and respectively, 23% of households.

The expectations for 2011 appear to be rather pessimistic. More than three quarters of the surveyed population (irrespective of category) think that ‘in the following year, the Romanian economic situation will depreciate’ (either ‘significantly’ or ‘little’) and only 8-12% expect it to ‘remain the same’ or to ‘improve’.

3.2. The evolution and effects of the migration for work abroad

Aside from the adverse effects on income, savings, consumption and workplace, the economic crisis steered the ‘family members abroad to return at home” and forced shrinkages of the remittances sent by those working

31 10% did not answer the question.

... in conclusion, in terms of perceptions, the economic crisis led to

poorer incomes, lesser savings, job loss, consumption distortion

and depreciation of the general living conditions. Additionally, at

population level, the Romanian economic situation will continue

its fall in 2011 ...

abroad. The incidence of these two phenomena for each category, in terms of migration, can be found bellow.

FIGURE 2. 3. Impacts of the crisis (%)


The majority of population believes that, in contrast with 2009, in 2010 the labor

migration has increased. Only the returned migrants consider, in a significantly higher proportion (26%), that migration presents a decreasing trend due to the economic crisis (compared to the 15% at the representative sample level).

Persons who consider that labor migration increased in 2010, irrespective of their population category, presume that this phenomenon is caused by the declining situation in Romania during recession and by the unsatisfactorily life chances within the country. Specifically, almost all these persons share the opinion that people are forced to leave for work abroad because they lost their jobs and/or their incomes have dramatically shrunk. Thus, the real chances are available only abroad, as Romania is a country: ‘poor’, ‘miserable’, ‘corrupt’, ‘badly managed’ and ‘lacking real opportunities’.

In contrast, the persons who think that labor migration diminished refer also to job loss and salary cutbacks, however, not in Romania, but in the destination countries. Only very few (less than 15%) of these consider that migration reduced for other reasons, such as: finding a job in Romania, homesickness or health matters. Returned migrants focus on a different

8 610

30

812

49 3221 430

10

20

30

40

50

60

Membri i fa mi l iei plecați pes te

hotare au fost nevoiți să se întoarcă

acas ă

Ba ni i trimiș i de membri i fami l iei

care lucrea ză pes te hotare s -a u

diminuat

(A) (B1) (A+B1) (C) (B2)

narrative, often mentioning that they have ‘reached their goals’32 as the main reason for the reduction of the labor migration.

The interviews with local leaders highlight the same issues identified by our

quantitative research. Thus, the situation experienced on local and/or regional

level has, in large terms, the same characteristics as found at the general and

national levels. However, in the context of the prolonged economic crisis and

the impact of the crisis-migration tandem on the community, both the local

departures for work abroad and return migration, as well as remittances send

back home to Romania are factors which strongly affect the local communities.

Furthermore, they become essential to the development or survival of the

community. Weighing the migration trends in his commune, one of the local

leaders declared: “For two years now, when the crisis struck, more and more

people keep leaving…, in comparison with three-four years ago. Certainly, lots

and lots of them, as the number of departures increase”. When asked ‘Why do

people leave? Did they lose their jobs or have their incomes decreased?’ the

interviewee told that “They didn’t lose any job, as they had no job in the first

place. Our commune does not count more than 150 employees. So they leave,

for another life, another world, yes… they have opportunities there”. What

about here? How do people make ends meet? “Mainly out of what they

produce in their household (garden/land), pensions of the elders and child

allowances. These are about all.” (Local authority representative, Romania)

With regard to the perceived effects of labor migration abroad, the opinions vary. While persons in households without migrant members tend to emphasize the negative effects, the opinions of people who have a migrant member in the household and of those who returned are balanced between negative and positive effects, whereas migrants on vacation in Romania tend to focus on the positive effects. The discrepancies between persons in households without migrants (A) and migrants on vacation (B2) are statistically significant only with regard to three migration effects (explicitly indicated in the questionnaire). Firstly, ‘migration contributes to the country development’ believe 62% of the migrants on vacation and just 50% of the

32 They earned all the necessary money; they build/bought/renovated their dwelling etc.

persons in households without migrants.33 Secondly, ‘migration is the only solution to make <<decent money>>’ corresponds to 78% of the migrants on vacation and 68% of the persons in households without migrants.34 Thirdly, ‘migration tears families apart’ agree 84% of the persons in households without migrants and 73% of the migrants on vacation.35

CHAPTER 4.

GOING TO AND COMING FROM WORK

33 Missing values : 6% of B2 and 10% of A category. Also, agree (partially or totally) with the statement, 56% (with 8% missing values) of persons in households with migrants (B1) and 62% (with 2% missing values) of the returned migrants (C). The differences up to 100% for each category represent persons who are (partially or totally) against the statement. 34 Missing values: 10% of B2 and 11% of A; Also agree (partially or totally) with the statement, 71% of the categories B1 and C (with 9% for B1 and 5% for C missing values). The differences up to 100% for each category represent persons who are (partially or totally) against the statement. 35 Missing values: 6% of B2 and 8% of A; Also, agree (partially or totally) with the statement, 84% (with 5% missing values) of B1, as well as 80% (with 3% missing values) of category C (migrants returned to Romania). Differences up to 100% in each category represent persons who are (partially or completely) against the statement.

… although there are significant differences in attitudes towards

migration, all population categories share the dominant opinion:

migration somewhat ‘contributes to development of Romania’ and

‘helps those who emigrate to see how people live elsewhere’.

Nevertheless, at the same time, ‘migration tears families apart’,

‘makes people care only about money’ and deepens the social

inequalities between the rich and the poor. At the individual level,

migration is perceived as ‘the only way to earn decent money’ …

ABROAD

4.1. Rate of departures abroad and rate of returns in the country

Given the research design, the rate of returns from work abroad can be determined only at household level and not at population level. Thus, the survey had a representative household sample (A+B1+B2+C) (see section 2.1.1.).

The rate of labor migration returns is defined as the share of households with returned migrants (C) per total households (A+B1+B2+C).

The rate of labor migration departures is calculated as the proportion of households with migrants (B1+B2) per total households. However, this rate is slightly underestimated, given that, in accordance with the research methodology, in the households with returned migrants, data pertaining to the potential migrants who are still abroad were not collected. Therefore, the available data does not allow the evaluation of the rate of departures for households with returned migrants.

For the six selected counties, more than 26% of total households have at least one person working abroad and 4.5% of all households have at least one migrant who returned due to recession, in the period of September 2009 – August 2010.

Rates of departures abroad significantly higher are registered for Maramureş and Neamţ (over 35% of households in the county), in particular in the rural areas, in communes with medium or above development level, but also in small towns, with less than 30 thousand inhabitants (approximately 30% of households).

Significantly higher rates of returns from work abroad were recorded in the counties from Moldova region (Neamţ and Vaslui). The rates in these

counties, scoring about 7%, are three times higher in comparison with 1.7% for households from the county of Braşov.

TABLE 2. 5. Rate of departures for work abroad and rate of returns in the country (% households)

Household type

(A) (B1) (B2) (C) Total

Rate of departures

Rate of returns

Total - N 2.062 671 107 134 2.974 (=B1+B2) (=C)

- % 69,3 22,6 3,6 4,5 100 26,2 4,5

County Braşov 79,7 17,7 0,9 1,7 100 18,6 1,7 Călăraşi 77,7 14,8 3,1 4,5 100 17,9 4,5 Dolj 72,4 18,3 4,4 4,9 100 22,6 4,9 Maramureş 61,5 30,0 5,6 2,9 100 35,6 2,9 Neamţ 57,8 31,4 3,8 7,0 100 35,2 7,0 Vaslui 67,4 22,3 3,7 6,6 100 26,0 6,6

Residence Urban 71,4 21,6 2,8 4,3 100 24,4 4,3 Rural 67,0 23,8 4,4 4,8 100 28,2 4,8

Locality type Poor commune 68,0 22,3 4,3 5,4 100 26,7 5,4 Medium developed commune 65,8 25,2 4,4 4,7 100 29,6 4,7 Developed commune 67,0 25,0 4,7 3,3 100 29,7 3,3 Town under 30 thou inh. 65,5 27,0 3,3 4,2 100 30,3 4,2 Town 30-99 thou inh. 73,3 21,0 1,4 4,4 100 22,3 4,4 City 100-199 thou inh. 66,1 21,2 6,4 6,4 100 27,5 6,4 City 200 thou inh. or more 77,0 17,9 2,0 3,2 100 19,9 3,2


The rate of returns from work abroad does not vary considerably in terms of community development level, local poverty or intensity of social problems within the origin community.36

Nonetheless, the rate of returns from work abroad is higher as the rate37 of departures abroad is higher and the local economy is less developed, i.e. revenues per capita as well as own revenues as percentage of total local revenues are smaller.38

Our study commenced with the hypothesis that return migration (temporary or permanent) would be higher in origin settlements/regions which provide more opportunities for employment or entrepreneurship. In other words, we expected as the return rates to be significantly higher in cities/communes with high economic potential or those which are located in the vicinity of an economically developed center/node. Given our results, the analysis refutes this hypothesis.39 The economic opportunities of the origin settlement plays a

36 Community development level measured with IDC (Sandu et al., 2009). MADR poverty estimates at local level (data from 2004). The index of intensity of social problems at community level (Stănculescu, 2010; on Soros data for 2009). For more details see footnotes in section 2.2.1. 37 We refer both to the rate of departures for work abroad as results from the FES and CCBS research (August 2010) – calculated at the household level - as well as to the rates estimated by the local authorities (Soros, 2009) – calculated as proportion of the stable population. 38 For more details see footnotes in section 2.2.1. 39 Complementary, we conducted an aggregated analysis at the level of the 101 localities (rural and urban) included in the sample. The rate of departures was calculated as: (B1+B2+C)*100/total, while the return migration rate was determined as: C*100/total. The results are similar to the ones presented in the text (and determined at the household level).

... in other words, the rate of returns from work abroad is more or

less the same for communes and towns, developed or

underdeveloped communities, with sever or marginal social

problems. A significantly larger proportion of households with

returned migrants are located in settlements (towns and

communes) where emigration was massive and where the economy

fails to provide any real opportunities for the locals ...

critical part, but in the opposite manner that expected. If only just in the case of the selected counties, both departures and returns are higher for settlements with underdeveloped economies. The more developed and diversified the local economy, the lower the return migration.

4.2. The typology of migrants

The FES-CCBS research targeted persons which, in August 2010, were ‘in the country, on vacation, visiting relatives’ (B2) and ‘recently returned, namely, in the last 12 months’ (C). For these two types of persons, as well as for all migrants working abroad in August 2010 (from the households selected in the sample), a Migrant Record was completed. For persons who lived or worked abroad, but returned before August 2009, the Migrant Record was not required. 40

Number of cases

Types of migrants

134 (Non-representative) lot of returned migrants:

134 (C) - Persons who returned from abroad (not on holiday) in the last 12 months (September 2009 – August 2010) and have plans to stay more than 3 months in the country (irrespective of whether they still intend or not to emigrate in the future).

1.015 Sample of migrants still working abroad, of which:

107 (B2) - on vacation in Romania, in August 2010

908 (B1+B2) - found abroad, in August 2010

1.149 Total

40 In some cases of returned migrants, the Migrant Record was completed but not systematically, but rather as fieldwork errors. Consequently, these cases are not included in this analysis.

Out of the 908 migrant households included in the sample, the majority filled-in a single Migrant Record. However, 18% of the households with migrants filled-in between two and five such records. Thus, in total, the analysis covered 1,149 migrant records, corresponding to:

Migrants returned or on vacation answered personally to the Migrant Record. For the migrants abroad, the answers were provided by the relatives residing in Romania. The following figure shows the kinship relations between respondents and migrants.41

FIGURA 2. 4. The kinship relations between respondents and migrants still working abroad (% migrants working abroad)

Data: Survey FES-CCSB (August 2010). Weighted data. N=908 migrants working abroad (B1+B2).

For 8% of the migrants working abroad, the answers were provided by nephews (uncle/aunt), cousins, brothers (sisters)-in-law and other persons with secondary or distant kinship relations. This high proportion casts doubt on whether or not the migrants are real members of the household. We expect at least some of these migrants to be part of the respondent family, but not part of his/her household, which means that the departure rate (share of households with migrants), is slightly overestimated in the FES-CCBS survey

41 Data include the kinship relation between respondents and migrants within the household. However, there are no information about the kinship relations between migrants. For this reason, data do not allow an analysis of the family migration (couple with or without children), but only a study of the migrants taken individually.

822334446692125

2

0 5 10 15 20 25

Rude de gradul doi sau mai mareGinere

NorăSoț

SoțieNepoată

NepotTată

MamăSoră

FrateFiu

Fi i că

Non-răspuns

data. Therefore, the departure rate discussed in section 4.1 needs to be treated with caution, as it is instilled by both under and overestimations.

The three types of migrants (C - returned migrants, B2 – migrants on vacation in Romania, B1+B2 – migrants found abroad) do not differ according to gender or age. Nonetheless, the migrants differ considerably from the resident population of the origin counties: equal in terms of gender, but noticeably younger than the general population.

FIGURA 2. 5. Distribution by age categories – comparison between migrants and resident population at the origin (%)

Data: Survey FES-CCSB (August 2010). Weighted data

35 45 17 0 219 24 34 23 0

18-29 a ni 30-44 a ni 45-64 a ni 65 a ni şi peste Non-răs puns

Mi granți la muncă în s tră inăta te (inclus i v reveniți )

Populația din județele de origine

4.3. The departures history and favourite destinations

The migrants left Romania at different ages, varying between 3 and 62 years, at the first departure. Nevertheless, all migrants left for the first time to work abroad at the average age of 29 years.

The significant difference is not the departure age, but the timing of their first departure for work abroad. The persons who returned due to the crisis left later than the other migrants, so they have had less time to gain experience, to make useful connections and to develop abilities to cope with the crisis of the destination countries’ labor market.

FIGURE 2. 6. Distribution of types of migrants by the year when they left for work abroad for the first time (%)


The curve presented in Figure 2.6 indicates a dramatic shrinkage in labor departures for all selected counties, in 2010. However, the data covers only eight months of 2010 and, especially, refers just to the ‘first time’ departures. Thus, it does not reflect the typical situations of temporary circulatory migration, namely, the alternating periods spent abroad with periods spent in the home country. The data seems to come in contradiction with the

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Non-răsp

uns

1982-

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Migranți i rămaș i în s tră inătate (inclus iv cei în concediu)

Persoane revenite

prevailing opinion of the population, according to which labor migration abroad increased (Section 3.2). However, even if the number of ‘first time’ departures decreased, it is also the matter of persons who went abroad after 2000 and returned to the country before the crisis to have gone back abroad in 2009-2010. Our research data did not allow the investigation of this hypothesis.

The distribution according to destination country (or the country from which they returned) is similar for all three types of migrants and reaffirms the results of existent studies (e.g. Sandu, ed., 2006). Italy is by far the most preferred country and the destination from which most migrants return. Spain ranks second in the preferences top and, concomitantly, Spain in statistically overrepresented in terms of returned migrants. Canada is overrepresented by migrants who never return (be it either vacation or long-term), while France and Greece is overrepresented by migrants who are on vacation in Romania.

FIGURE 2. 7. Distribution of types of migrants by the destination country / country

where from migrants have returned (%)


... majority of returned migrants come from Italy, nevetheless, the

propensity to return is significantly higher for those in Spain ...

4

5

17

52

0 20 40 60

Marea Britanie

Franța

Spania

Italia

Migranți la muncă în

4

4

25

54

0 20 40 60Persoane revenite

5

12

20

45

0 20 40 60Migranți în concediu în țară

Regarding the destination regions where the studied migrants work, non-responses account for approximately one third, and around 35% are different regions/settlements, spread all over the world. Most frequently mentioned regions are Rome, Madrid, Milan, Paris and London. In Rome region reside 11% of the migrants working abroad, and also the return propensity to Romania in 2010 is disproportional higher for this area (21% of the returned persons). In Madrid and Milan circa 4% migrants abroad reside, while another 3% is located in Paris and London areas. The highest probability for coming on vacation in Romania, in the summer of 2010, was represented by migrants in Paris and Madrid, as each quantifies 9% out of all migrants on vacation.

Regardless of whether they remained abroad or returned in the country, 63% of the migrants left Romania for work abroad one time and 37% left two or more times, which means that the circulatory migration is important but not dominant. Almost 90% of all migrants have worked in only one country and about 10% worked in two or more countries.

Irrespective of whether they left Romania only once or several times for work abroad, the majority of migrants (50%) headed mainly towards Italy or Spain (approximately 20% of the migrants), while the rest 'tried their luck’ in tens of other countries. If we are to take into account all the countries they worked in, the classification would remain identical: Italy (over 50%) and Spain (circa 20%), followed at great distance by France, Germany and Great Britain (with 5-8% each).

... consequently, the data does not support the hypothesis according

to which the returned migrants have lower (geographic) mobility in

comparison with migrants who are working abroad. Returned

migrants have attempted as many times and at the same

destinations as the migrants already settled abroad. They just joined

to the ‘migration game’ later...

BOX 4. Geographic mobility is for the Romanian migrants a success coping strategy

The interviews taken with Romanian migrants working in Italy (Rome) and Spain (Barcelona, Madrid) revealed the increased mobility of Romanian workforce in the EU-27 zone. This strategy was generally applied, even before the crisis, in order to maximize earnings and to reduce the risks common to migration. However, since recession struck, geographic mobility seems to have been a successful solution to the lack of employment opportunities at destination countries.

The qualitative research portrays that Romanian migrants prefer to stick to their occupational sectors and change the destination country, where they would employ the same labor or similar. Nevertheless, in most cases, the new destinations present large Romanian communities, which facilitate labor migration based on social networks, such as acquaintances, relatives and friends.

The interviewed Romanian migrants declared that the move from Spain or Italy to another country (Nordic countries, France, Belgium, Germany and specifically, United Kingdom), as there they would find employment, represented the most efficient manner to take action in times of crisis, out of the other few alternatives.

On top of the dramatic decrease in the number of jobs and the deterioration of work conditions, along with salary cuts, Romanian migrants who worked in Spain and Italy mentioned that: (a) the recession primarily affected the sectors in which migrants predominated and (b) the increase in competition over existent jobs, with both native population and all other migrant groups. In this context, occupational mobility or change of the activity sector becomes a challenging option, with higher costs than that of changing country within the EU.

„ Currently, I work in agriculture, near Napoli, for two years now. Before

I worked in a restaurant in Germany, but I left there in 2007. In Germany,

they had personal cutbacks due to the crisis. So, I came to Italy in 2008,

where I knew one of my neighbors was. But there isn’t much work in Italy

either. Now I’m leaving for Belgium, to see how things are going there.

What can I do, I need to provide for my children.” (Woman, 44 years old, Italy migrant)

4.4. Why do the migrants go abroad?

For money, this is why people leave for work abroad, because ’here you cannot

earn decent money’ and ‘you cannot make a future”. For money, irrespective of age, gender, education, occupation, settled abroad or returned migrants, and even household or personal income. Thus, the dominant reason for which migrants choose to leave Romania is money.

FIGURE 2. 8. What determined you to leave for work abroad? (%)


Many interviewed Romanian migrants considered that migration is and will

be the only solution to tackling and overcoming ones’ situation. More or less

the only alternative to a futureless problematic Romania:

"What can I do in Romania, starve to death? What future do the young have

there? What does this country offer? You work for others, if you cannot work

in your country… So, go abroad, work for others as our own kind do not want

us, that’s that! Here nobody cares about us, but at least you earn money and

send some to those back home." (Man, 35 years old, Spain migrant, originally from Braşov)

2

3

4

9

16

60

6

2

10

5

9

61

Sărăcie/ foame acasă

Fami l ia (divorț, căsătorie, părinți , copi l )

Si tuația din țară : sărăcie, mizerie, corupție, l ipsa de respect

O viață mai bună, un tra i decent, un vi i tor

Lipsa unui loc de muncă

Pentru bani , veni t, sa lariu mai mare

Persoane revenite

Migranți i rămaș i în s tră inătate

BOX 5. Migration as life story

I met Cristian and Valeria on a warm afternoon, in the Turkish part of Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus, the country where the Romanians seem to have become the third largest minority. ‘We eat Turkish because it’s cheaper’, says Cristian smiling. They are engaged to be married, and 5 years ago both of them left for work in Spain, where Cristian had a job in constructions, and Valeria at a club. They were earning a lot of money and they claimed that at first Spaniards used to love Romanians, but later ‘things deteriorated’ mentions Cristian. ‘I understand the Spanish, well, if 10% of the immigrants work and the rest of 90% steal, beg, kill, how can they view you with in friendly manner anymore?!’ In 2008, the crisis ruthlessly struck Spain, and constructions sectors were the most affected. Cristian lost his job, and Valeria was earning less, thus, they had to leave Spain. They thought about coming back to Romania, but things there weren’t any better.

So they left for Ireland, where they had some acquaintances and were they quickly found jobs, Cristian in constructions and Valeria in a bar. Yet, after one year, they could not bear it any longer. ‘We felt chills down to the bone, we couldn’t take it anymore!’ They returned to Bucharest, where, with the money earned abroad, they opened a small shop that sold metal doors. ‘We had all types of door models available, very beautiful, but the shop didn’t do well.’ It was 2009, when the crisis hit Romania. They closed the shop and they left again, this time for Scotland. They worked there for about one year, but the story with the Irish cold weather repeated itself, so they headed for Cyprus, where they had some friends. Within one week, Valeria found work as a barmaid in a nightclub, while Cristian also got a job, ‘under the table’, as a shop assistant. Valeria now earns 35 euros a day, plus tips, which doubles her monthly income. They are proud as they recently rented a two-room flat in a good neighborhood, next to the ‘French Embassy’, and it only costs them 450 euros a month.

(Excerpt ‘Why being a seller in Cyprus is better than being a company owner in Romania’, signed by V. Stoiciu and published in România Liberă newspaper)

4.5. Romanian migrants and the labor market

Migrants working abroad are considerably younger than the general population in all six counties, as it can be observed in Figure 2.5. This aspect is also reflected by the occupational structure (Table 2.6).

The decision to go and work abroad is not made by retired persons, but by pupils and students who have not entry experience on the Romanian labor market, employed persons (especially, those between 35-44 years) affected by the economic restructuring and unemployed with marginal positions on the domestic labor market. Thus, Table 2.6 shows that before ‘the first time’ departure to work abroad, pupils and students accounted for 17-18% of the migrants, as opposed to only 6% of general population. Skilled workers (most probably affected by the Romanian economy restructuration) accounted for 16-21% of the migrants, as opposed to only 9% of general population. Unemployed represented 10-14% of the migrants, as opposed to 6% of general population.

There are few significant differences between the migrants settled abroad and those returned in Romania during the economic crisis. The migrants settled

abroad have been better qualified from their first departure. In other words, they were

better prepared to adapt to the requirements of the labor market at destination

country. At the moment of the first departure, 40% of the migrants residing abroad were qualified,42 active in services (13%), skilled workers (21%) or machinery, equipment or installation operators (6%). In contrast, just 25% of returned migrants were classified in these occupational categories. However, almost 11% of them (compared to the 6% of settled migrants and, respectively, 2% of the general population), although they managed to enter the labor market, were working as unskilled workers.

42 The most qualified occupational groups are equally represented (13-16%) in both migrant categories – those who remained abroad and those who returned.

TABLE 2. 6. The occupational status of Romanian migrants, previous to ‘the first time’ departure, abroad in August 2010 or before returning to Romania (%)

In Romania,

previous to the first departure Abroad, in August 2010 or before

returning to Romania

Migrants settled

abroad Returned migrants

General population from the six

counties Migrants settled

abroad Returned migrants

Active population from the six

counties

(1a) (1b) (1) (2a) (2b) (2)

Total, of which: 100 100 100 100 100 100

Employed Manageri, patroni, inalţi funcţionari 1,3 * 2,7 1,5 * 6,5 persons Specialişti, ocupaţii intelectuale 4,6 3,5 6,3 5,0 * 15,3 Tehnicieni, maiştri 3,4 4,2 2,2 4,1 4,3 5,3 Funcţionari 3,2 6,4 2,5 1,6 * 5,9 Lucrători, operatori în servicii 13,4 7,4 5,5 19,3 18,6 13,2 Agricultori 3,0 * 2,2 7,1 13,3 5,3 Muncitori meseriaşi 20,8 16,4 8,7 29,9 27,0 21,1 Operatori pe maşini si instalaţii 5,9 * 2,3 5,2 ** 5,4 Muncitori necalificaţi 5,8 10,7 2,4 22,1 21,4 5,8 Cadre militare * * 0,6 0,0 0,0 1,5

Unemployed Șomeri înregistraţi sau neînregistraţi 10,3 14,1 6,1 3,8 5,9 14,6 Inactives Elevi/ studenţi 17,3 18,2 6,2 0,0 * Persoane casnice 10,4 14,4 12,8 * 0,0 Pensionari * * 39,2 * 0,0


The migrants residing abroad managed, in a significantly higher proportion than

returned migrants, to enter the Romanian labor market previous to their first

departure. Almost half (48%) of the returned persons (in comparison with 38% of settled migrants) left Romania without attempting or succeeding to enter the domestic labor market. The majority found work abroad, but, given the lack of experience and fewer skills, in the context of the dwindling labor market, entered on rather vulnerable positions.

The interviews reveal that migrants having a specialization or a qualification

and work experience find jobs easier and face less employment difficulties on

the destination country labor market:

„Spaniards are very respectful, but play us when it comes to money. They

have been paying less since the crisis hit. I’d like to change by job, but I don’t

have the experience and this is what they are looking for.” (Man, 21 years old, Spain migrant)

„ You have to know multiple skills to make the best of the situation. You must

re-qualify.” (Woman, 47 years old, Spain migrant)

Abroad, the resident migrants as well as the returned migrants have had very similar

occupations. The majority (almost three quarters) work in services, as skilled or unskilled workers. The only substantial difference is the over-representation of farmers among the migrants returned to Romania. In other words, “căpşunarii” (referring to Romanian agriculture workers) have a higher

propensity to returning than other occupational categories. The higher the propensity to returning as working at a Western farm represents the first job and as the person has no other skills necessary to finding, in a timely manner, another job. On the other hand, some of the migrant agricultural workers left Romania under temporary legal employment agreements. In their case, the prevailing migration strategy regards seasonal work, which makes their return to the country more explicit: they come back to live out of the money earned during working months and await the new agricultural seasons to leave for work again abroad.

BOX 6. The circulatory seasonal migration of agricultural workers

The data shows that migrants, who work in agriculture, usually opt for seasonal migration. For the majority, the contracts are predetermined, and once it expire the migrant returns to Romania. However, most of the times, the return is temporary, lasting until the new contract is secured.

In most cases, the intention to emigrate again is clearly stated, but the concrete plans for this are less articulated, as the possibility to return is somewhat uncertain.

„ I came back in July, when my contract ended. I will leave as soon as I

find a new contract, but who knows...”

(Man, 46 years old, Spain migrant)

„I feel stressed when I am in Romania, I always think about tomorrow,

what will come, with what money I will live… When I am there (in Spain)

is good, I have a job, I know money is coming. The work is hard, but after

work hours nobody bothers me.”

(Woman, 33 years old, Spain migrant)

There are also cases when the so-called seasonal work becomes semi-permanent and contracts are predictable.

„I work nine months, and the remaining 3 off-season months, I live on

unemployment. The unemployment benefit is 970 EUR, sufficient to life

from it.”


FIGURE 2. 9. Employed population (15 years or over) by occupational groups (%)

Source: Anuarul Statistic, for 1977 and 1992; Forţa de muncă în România. Ocupare şi şomaj, for 2000 şi 2007 (INS); Eurostat, for UE-27; Survey FES-CCSB (august 2010).

The structure by occupational groups of the employed Romanian migrants shows that they form a distinct segment within the labor markets of Western countries. This structure is similar to that of the domestic labor market and considerably different than that of the EU-27 one (Figure 2.9). Although in the Western economies, the non-manual highly qualified occupations predominate,43 Romanian migrants concentrate on medium and low skilled occupations, and in a large proportion, on unskilled occupations, meaning inferior and vulnerable jobs, rather similar to the pattern of the Romanian labor market.

43 Managers and senior public servants, academic and scientific specialists, technicians, foremen and similar.

... migration for work abroad from Romania is predominantly a

”migration of (working) hands” and only at a small extent ”brain

drain”...

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1977 1992 2000 2007 2007 2010

Romania UE-27 Migranții

din 6 județe

Înalt calificate, non-manuale

Mediu şi slab calificate, non-manuale

Calificate, manuale

Necalificate

Taking into account the starting point (the initial occupation in Romania, previous to the first departure) and the end point (most recent occupation abroad, in August 2010 or previous to the return), the occupational mobility of migrants can be outlined roughly.

FIGURE 2. 10. The occupational mobility of migrants residing abroad


More than a third (36%) of the migrants residing abroad are newly entered labor market. They had not attempted or succeeded in find a job in Romania, and after graduation and/or a possible period of unemployment or domestic activity (staying home), they decided to leave abroad in order to find their first job.

• Approximately 14% of the migrants residing abroad present an ascending occupational mobility, meaning that they found better employment or occupation abroad than in Romania; either because the attended, in the meanwhile, school/training courses, or because of the knowledge and abilities resources properly maximized in the developed economies setting. For instance, young individuals who worked in Romania as unskilled workers, found work as driver abroad or

Mobilitate

descendentă

; 23%

Şomaj sau

între slujbe;

5%

Mobilitate

orizontală;

22% Mobilitate

ascendentă;

14%

Nou-intrați

pe piața

muncii; 36%

restructured workers who ended up working in hotels or restaurants or as clerks.

• 22% present horizontal occupational mobility and found jobs similar to the one they had in back home. Typically, these migrants are either skilled construction workers or work in services (e.g. waiter, bartender, or cosmetician).

• 23% present descending occupational mobility. These are the cases of either from farmer/skilled worker (in Romania) to day laborer or ‘wherever possible’ (unskilled worker, abroad), or from nurse, shop assistant, accountant, pedagogue, clerk, secretary, salesperson (in Romania) to housekeeper or caretaker (abroad).

• About 5% of the migrants settled abroad, in August 2010, were

unemployed or between jobs.44 Over half of them used to be unskilled

construction workers previous to unemployment. The others were skilled workers, salespersons or in household services.

In contrast, returning migrants have a higher proportion of new entries on the labor market (43%), naturally given that most of them have not managed/attempted to enter the Romanian labor market previous to the first departure abroad. Additionally, this category possesses a significantly smaller proportion of persons with horizontal mobility (just 14%), taking into account the underrepresentation of service workers and skilled workers.

Romanians working abroad tend to characterize their trajectory as ‘increased

mobility’ in comparison with all the other migrant groups, as Romanians are

‘resourceful’ and ‘adaptable’:

“The Romanian learns and can do almost anything. If he doesn’t know, he

learns, adapts, and takes care of it, if you know what I mean… he learns the

language and the customs. The Romanians knows if necessary Italian, and

Spanish, and French, and English, and if very ambitious he knows them all

(laughter)… he must find a way, he must work and make a living among

foreigners. And if tomorrow things are good in Germany, he goes and works

there. Today he is in Italy, but tomorrow you may find him in Spain or

44 The proportion of unemployed who collected benefits cannot be estimated due to the small number of valid answers.

France, or I don’t know where, as long as there is money to earn and bread to

be eaten.” (Man, 30 years old, Italy migrant, originally from Tulcea)

Only about 5% of all migrants own a business or are self-employed,45 irrespective if referring to the migrants settled abroad or those returned in the country. The others are employees. Likewise, only 6-7% migrants are trade union members in the destination country.

Both migrants residing abroad and returned migrants (78% of them) maintained ‘the same occupation’ during their stay abroad. The other 22% migrants had two or more occupations. Especially, specialists proved very mobile. More than 55% of them had various occupations (non-manual specialized) throughout the time spent abroad. Nevertheless, most of those who had more occupations were not specialists, but skilled workers (30%), service workers (25%), unskilled workers (19%) or farmers (14%). In particular, farmers and skilled workers, although obtaining several types of jobs, maintained the same occupation sector, implying horizontal mobility. For instance, a carpenter worked as a constructor, and as a tile or bricklayer. In contrast, in the case of service and unskilled workers who had several jobs, the most frequent situation is alternating jobs of waiter/bartender/chef and housekeeper/caretaker with periods of ‘stay at home/laid back’.

FIGURA 2. 11. Number of employment years in Romania and abroad by type of migrants (%)


45 This percentage covers from business owner to freelance specialist, as well as day laborers or persons dealing on their own with ‘the collection of scrap iron’.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0

ani

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 +

ani

Migranții rămași în străinătate(inclusiv cei în concediu)

Persoane revenite

Ani de muncă în România

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

ani

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 +

ani

Ani de muncă în străinătate

For migrants who managed to enter labor market, previous the first departure, both the migrants settled abroad and the returned migrants have accumulated the same work seniority in Romania: on average, 9-10 years worked, out of which 8.5 years with work contract.

Unlike the migrants remained abroad, the returned persons left Romania later and registered (at the time of first departure) a higher proportion of individuals who could not succeed/attempt to enter the Romanian labor market. Therefore, they managed to acquire less work years abroad. On average, settled migrants have 5.6 years of work abroad, while the returned migrants have with about one year less (4.7 years of work).

If in terms of the occupational structure, the Romanian migrants replicate the distorted pattern of the Romanian labor market, in the western economies, then in terms of activity sectors they follow neither the destination economy nor the national economy structures.

FIGURE 2. 12. The economic sector in which the migrants work/ worked, in Romania before the first departure and abroad in August 2010 (%) 46


46 The returned migrants who were employed previous to coming back to Romania are similarly distributed in terms of sectors. The sole significant statistical difference is rendered by the overrepresentation of agriculture workers: 15% of those who returned as opposed to 8% of migrants still residing abroad. This aspect reinforces our finding that out of all migrants, the highest probability of returning belongs to agricultural workers.

17

0

0

4

6

13

9

13

39

12

7

19

11

8

4

5

25

10

Altele (servicii medicale, educație, IT, sport, bancar etc.)

Servicii de îngrijire persoane

Servicii de curățenie

Servicii hoteluri, restaurante, catering

Agricultură

Comerț

Transporturi

Construcții

Industrie

În străinătate, în august 2010

În România, înainte de prima plecare

Previous to the first departure, in Romania, the migrants were employed in industry, services (healthcare, education, public administration, IT), construction or trades. The industry got restructured, enterprises closed down and successive reforms led to a sever scarcity of jobs. Despite the post-2000 continuous economic growth, the salaries and revenues have declined, becoming insufficient for to making a ‘decent and honest living’. Thus, they decided to go abroad. There they could find work, but in noncompetitive sectors, such as constructions, services requiring minimum or no skills required for household, hotels or catering.

Not only that the majority of Romanian migrants enters the labor markets of the developed countries on rather uncompetitive and undesirable positions and/or sectors, they also operate to a large extent in the ‘grey’ sector, in the informal economy. Only about 58% of migrants (irrespective of whether abroad or returned) worked ‘legally, only with papers’. As explained in most studies on informal economy,47 the general rule is the underestimation of participation to the informal economy (be it ‘grey’ or ‘black’) and overestimation the activities in the formal economy. Therefore, most likely, the percentage of 58% might be an overstatement,48 while the total share of 37% for those migrants who declared ‘only working illegally, without papers’ (13%), ‘mostly working illegally, without papers, with periods of working legally, with papers’ (7%), ‘mostly working legally, with periods of working illegally” (17%) is understated.

47 For example, in the case of Romania, Neef and Stănculescu (coord., 2002), Neef and Adair (coord., 2004), Stănculescu, Marin and Hommes (2009). 48 5% of the respondents choose not to answer the question.

... the majority of Romanian migrants abroad (at least those

originating from the six counties) build, load and unload, clean,

take care of children and persons with special needs, pick

vegetables and fruits, guard, work on construction sites, cook, lay

and clean tables ...

4.6. Gender and age differences

As previously mentioned, there are no significant differences between migrants residing abroad and the returned migrants, in terms of gender, age or gender-age.

TABLE 2. 7. The profiles of the types of migrants by gender-age categories (%)

Migrants residing abroad Returned migrants Men Women Total Men Women Total

18-29 years 18,7 17,1 35,8 21,1 15,0 36,1 30-44 years 23,0 23,4 46,4 23,3 21,8 45,1 45-64 years 8,1 9,4 17,6 9,8 8,3 18,0 65 years or over 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,8 0,8 Total 49,9 50,1 100 54,1 45,9 100


However, migrants women and men, young and adults, face very different work experiences abroad.

Most migrants leave for the first time to work abroad, at ages between 21 and 27 years (Figure 2.13). Then, the tendency for migration decreases, to slightly increase for the 35-37 age group. Over 44 years of age, fewer people decide to migrate, with the predominance of women over men. Thus, the average age for the ‘first time’ departure for women is with circa two years higher than of men, respectively, 30 years to 28 years.

Previous to the ‘first time’ departure, 15% of women used to be house persons (in comparison with less than 6% for men), implying that these persons did not even attempt to enter the Romanian labor market. Women, who did try, succeeded in finding a job in the country in a similar proportion as men (59% for women and 64% for men). The women were skilled workers

in industry, trade or other types of services, most often in healthcare and education.

FIGURE 2. 13. The age of the ‘first time’ departure for women and men (%)


On one hand, migrant women manage to find work abroad, but most of them have needed to change the profession and/or activity sector. Furthermore, in significantly higher proportions than men, they succeed in finding jobs as technicians/foremen or clerks, workers in trades, hotels or restaurants, but, primarily, as unskilled staff in cleaning and caretaking services (Table 2.8). Consequently, downward occupational mobility is specific to women migrants.

On the other hand, men, previous to the ‘first time’ departure, were in significantly higher proportions than women, unemployed that failed to find a job, skilled or unskilled workers particularly in constructions, transport or farmers. Once abroad, most found the same type of occupations, especially skilled workers in the same activity sectors. Accordingly, upwards (from unskilled to skilled workers) and horizontal occupational mobility is specific to men migrants.

In equal measure, both women and men work in informal economy or alternate periods of legal and illegal work.

As for employment seniority, women have acquired an equivalent average number of employment years in Romania (9-10 years, for the persons

Bărbați ; 36

Bărbați ; 27Bărbați ; 20

Femei ; 37

Femei ; 21

Femei ; 44

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58

Bărbați

Femei

employed previous to the first departure), but less employment years abroad (on average, 5 years for women as compared to approximately 6 years for men) compared with men.

TABLE 2. 8. The occupational status of migrants residing abroad, in Romania previous to the first departure and at destination in August 2010, by gender (%)

În Romania, before the first

departure Abroad,

in August 2010

Men Wome Total Men Women Total

(1a) (1b) (1) (2a) (2b) (2)

Total - N 420 424 844 479 485 964 - %, from which: 100 100 100 100 100 100

Occupied persons Managers, employers, high officials * 1,9 1,3 2,1 * 1,5 Speciialists 5,2 3,8 4,6 5,2 4,7 5,0 Tehnicians, masters 2,9 4,0 3,4 2,3 5,8 4,1 Functionaries * 5,9 3,2 * 2,5 1,6 Workers 7,6 19,1 13,4 9,0 29,7 19,3 Agricultors 4,5 1,4 3,0 8,8 5,4 7,1 Skilled workers 21,4 20,3 20,8 50,9 9,1 29,9 Machines and instalations workers 11,0 * 5,9 9,0 1,4 5,2 Unskilled workers 9,8 1,9 5,8 8,4 35,7 22,1 Military * * 0,0

Unemployed 12,4 8,3 10,3 3,3 4,3 3,8

Inactiv Pupils/students 17,9 16,7 17,3 0,0 Houshold workers 5,7 15,1 10,4 * * Retired persons * * * * *


The main differences between the age categories are rendered by young migrants (18-29 years). The majority of young migrants, previous to the ‘first time’ departure, were pupils/students, unemployed or house persons. Abroad, most of them (women and men) found work in trades, hotels and restaurants, in which the age is a comparative advantage. However, less than 6% (as to 12% of all migrants) managed to find highly qualified positions (management, specialists, technicians or clerks).

BOX 7. Family/couple migration

Previously, we have mentioned that the survey data are inappropriate for the analysis of family migration. However, the interviews bring to light some information regarding common survival strategies among migrant couples.

Similar to the quantitative data, the interviews show that men were more affected by the crisis than women, especially due to the concentration in the activity sectors which were severely exposed to the recession, such as constructions. Thus, in the case of families and couples, the fact that women were able to stay employment and were less affected by the economic situation, influenced the return decision: the woman would be the sole provider of the family. Frequently, this correlated with the closure of (consumption of) savings or the substantial decrease of money send to relatives back home. Nonetheless, according to the interviewees, the overall salary of wife/partner is usually significantly higher than the sum of two potential incomes in Romania. In addition, quite often, the revenues of the wife/partner are supplement by the occasional earnings of the man, obtained through temporary or part-time jobs, usually on the informal labor market.

„ Constructions reached rock-bottom, and so did the men. Now the wives

are the bread earners.”


„ In southern Castellon, there are lots of Romanian men, most of them

married and unemployed – if they don't work illegally, they live on the

wife’s earnings.”


„Well, our wives are the ones who work, while we men stay in the park the

whole day, hoping that maybe, just maybe, some employer will drop by and

offer jobs. It is great that my wife did not lose her job, as her income is just

enough for now.”


4.7. The effects of the economic crisis on Romanian migrants residing abroad

The returned migrants, the migrants on vacation and the members of households with migrants living abroad all agreed when it comes to the effects of the crisis. Regardless of gender, age, occupation or destination country: ‘many migrants lost their jobs’, ‘the living costs increased’ and ‘migrant’s wage has shrunk’. Only relatively small percentages of the interviewed persons consider that ‘the natives’ attitudes became more reserved/ negative’ or that ‘the host country authorities are stricter’ in relation to immigrants.

FIGURE 2. 14. The perceived effects of the crisis on migrants (%)


When faced with questions regarding personal experiences, 63% of the migrants who returned in the last year claimed that, for the last six months spent abroad, their income remained unchanged. Only 17% reported an income drop and 20% of them stated that, despite of the crisis, their income was increasing. There is no significant difference among women and men or young and adults. Skilled workers (regardless of activity sector) tend (30%) to

67

64

56

30

24

77

55

48

32

22

Mulți migranți au început să-și piardă locurile de

muncă

A crescut costul vieții

Au început să li se reducă salariile migranților

Atitudinea localnicilor a devenit mai rezervată/

negativă

Autoritățile din țara-gazdă au devenit mai stricte

Persoane revenite

Migranții rămași în străinătate

say that their income reduced, while (38%) of the farmers affirmed that ‘they earned more than usual’. Also, the destination country makes a difference. More than 73% of the migrants in Italy said that they ‘earned the same’; while, for those in Spain the percentage dropped to 43% (the others experienced either income increase or decline).

BOX 8. The deterioration of the labor market

In accordance with the survey data, most interviewees reported the decline of the economic situation as result of the recession, such as: job loss, fewer working hours, smaller wages and difficulties in obtaining a job. However, these did not necessarily determine their return to Romania.

„Four years ago I had a job that no Italian had, but things got worse.

Before, I used to make 55-57 EUR per day, last year only 49 and now 47,

and there are not enough days in the year to make good money. Moroccans

work cheaper – 25 EUR per day and mess with our rates.”

(Man, 25 years old, Italy migrant)

„Before I used to work as housekeeper, for 7 hours a day and make 1,000

EUR. Now I only work 4 hours and make 500 EUR. In the distant future,

when I will no longer be able to work, I’ll go back to Romania. For the time

being I struggle here.”

(Woman, 49 years old, Italy migrant)


„The most affected were those who have credits or bought houses with bank

loans. That’s the true Romanian; he takes loans to buy a Mercedes, because

he cannot go at the construction site with the Renault. Some Romanians

though, choose to stay here and make something for themselves. But day-

labor earnings dropped even on the black market. The labor supply is

enormous. We compete with the South Americans, as they work for less.”


Some migrants talk about a corrosion of attitudes against immigrants, of employers and/or of the native populations, that came about once the crisis struck.

„They (Spaniards, a/n) look at us with envy because we work and they are

unemployed and stay at home. But we work for few money and they don’t

pay us ‘seguro’ (social contributions) or don’t employ us legally. Since the

crisis came about, they want us all migrants to go back their countries, but

when they needed us in constructions, we come to build and help. They

should not blame the crisis on foreigners.”


„They are harsher with us, especially in the worker-employer relation. In

Italy, business owners take advantage of the crisis to pay less or delay

payment. However, the EUR affected us more than the crisis did.”


„(Begging, a/n) it’s worse since the crisis hit, everywhere police and

distrustful people everywhere.”


„The problem is the 4 million ‘paraţi’ (unemployed, a/n). Spaniards blame

us, they say – You came here to steal our jobs! […] Now, with the crisis,

the Spaniards are even more distant with us. They are hypocrites. They say

they have laws for immigrants, for ‘multiculturalidad’. All it’s just a

façade. In reality, they fear we snatch their jobs. The 426 EUR benefit

drives them insane. They think that if we didn’t take it anymore, they

would get 600. But I tell them straight up: We are the same, we breathe the

same air, pay the same taxes.”


4.8. The support networks

Before we proceed, once again we emphasize that the data pertaining migrants does not report the kinship relations among them. Therefore, we cannot identify the couples and we cannot analyze the family/couple migration. However, data shows that, previous to the ‘first time’ departure, most migrants both residing abroad and returned were married (circa 66%), while the others were single.

TABLE 2. 9. The marital status of migrants previous to the ‘first time’ departure (%)

Marital status Total

Single Married Divorced Had minor

children % N

Migrants residing abroad

30,6 69,1 * 32,7 100 977

Returned migrants 37,1 62,1 * 34,6 100 133


Approximately half of the married persons (both women and men) had children to support. In the studied six counties, 27% of the children live in households with at least one migrant working abroad,49 and 5% of the children belong to households with returned migrants.

The migrants who have children back home are not more likely to return in Romania. There are migrants who declared ‘the children’ as the main reason for return, but only few. In addition, having children back home does not increase significantly the probability of return, neither for women nor for men. Table 2.9 shows that the unmarried young persons, 18-29 years, who did not find a partner abroad, and persons 45-64 years with no children (or childcare

49 We cannot estimate how many of children have one or both parents gone to work abroad, as the kinship relations between children and migrants were not recorded.

responsibilities) have higher propensity to returning compared to the migrants with children left back home.

FIGURE 2. 15. Types of migrants by age categories and marital status (%)


The dominant belief shared by population and migrants, according to which ‘migration tears family apart’, is supported by the empiric data. Firstly, it regards children left home with single parents or in the care of relatives. Secondly, the married migrants, either women or men, display a similar marital behavior as the unmarried migrants: 27% of the persons who were married, previous to the first departure, have remarried (officially or partnership) abroad. The incidence of this behavior among persons of 45-64 years is significantly lower.

TABLE 2. 10. Marital behavior of migrants residing abroad by the marital status previous to the ‘first time’ departure abroad (%)

Yes, has (re)married

with a: No, has not (re)married, but

lives with a: Total

Romanian Foreigner Romanian Foreigner No % N

Unmarried 19 4 7 3 66 100 271

Married 2 4 3 19 73 100 603


63 14 4 8237 85 96 18 83 1008 44 56 53 291517

18-29 ani 30-44 ani 45-64 ani 18-29 ani 30-44 ani 45-64 ani

Migranții rămași în străinătate Persoane revenite

Necăsătoriți Căsătoriți Aveau copii în îngrijire

The support offered by relatives or acquaintances plays an important role in the decision to leave or stay

abroad. For both migrant women and men, young and adult, siblings offer an important support for remaining abroad. In a significantly higher proportion, the migrants residing abroad have at least one sibling also living abroad. In contrast, the returned migrants, have in a significantly higher proportion no siblings for support abroad.

FIGURE 2. 16. The distribution of migrants by siblings living abroad (%)


The majority of migrants, when they first went abroad, were awaited at destination

by colleagues, friends or relatives (Table 2.11). Most frequently were greeted by siblings or spouses, and seldom by parents. Men, in significantly higher proportion than women, dare to leave for work abroad without any prior arrangements; more than half of the men migrants leave without having anyone waiting for them.

More than a third of migrants, once settled abroad, invited others to join. On

average, every migrant ‘drags’ other three persons abroad. However, migrant women make all necessary arrangements for a smaller numbers of persons than migrant men (generally, 2.4 to 3.4 persons for migrant men).

22

24

28

15

12

14

15

31

30

9

Toți frați i /surori le sunt plecați în s tră inătate

Uni i sunt pleca ți în s tră inătate, uni i sunt ră maș i în România

Toți frați i /surori le sunt rămaș i în Româ nia

Nu are frați / surori , e s ingur(ă) la pă rinți

Non-răspuns

Persoane reveni te

Migranți i rămaș i în s tră inătate

TABLE 2. 11. Support networks by type of migrants (%)

Migrants on vacation in Romania

Returned migrants

When left abroad, someone was waiting him/her in the destination country

- Nobody was waiting 40 49 - yes, someone from the family 23 31 - yes, someone from outside the family 37 20

After he/she left, has helped others to migrate abroad 37 24

... at the workplace: - was alone, did not know anyone 32 40 - was with someone from the family 10 18 - was with someone whom he /she knew from outside the family

58 42

... made some friends with whom he/she was in contact outside the workplace

- non-Romanians (from the destination country) 98 82 - Romanians leaving there 87 81 ... has spent more time (at the workplace and outside) - nore with Romanians, neither with non-Romanians 8 13 - only with Romanians 13 15 - only with non-Romanians 16 13 - both with Romanians and non-Romanians 63 59 ... when having a personal problema, asked for help from: - the Romanians leaving there 22 23 - the non+romanian leaving there 29 22 - both Romanians and non-Romanians 35 20 - asked for help to those that have remained in Romania at home

* 9

- Nobody 9 26

Most of the friends are: - În Romania 59 73 - Abroad 22 12 - In Romania and abroad 19 13 - Neither in romania, nore abroad *

Total % 100 100 N 63 132


Abroad, at the workplace, most migrants (over 60%) have somebody they know from

back home. The majority work together with friends or colleagues from Romania. Men, especially because they (statistically) aggregate in the construction sector, are better integrated in work collectives, while women, in a significantly higher proportion, work alone (in particular those employed in housework related services). An small share of migrants works along with family members, usually siblings, spouses or fathers (particularly, construction workers).

Nearly all migrants managed to make new friends/acquaintances, both natives and

Romanians residing at the destination, with whom they interact also for leisure. Therefore, the majority spend time, both in and outside the workplace ‘with Romanians and natives’. The foreigners with whom migrants spend most time are, mainly, coworkers and/or neighbors, while the Romanians are predominantly newly made friends, rather than coworkers.

FIGURE 2. 17. The distribution of natives and Romanians with whom migrants interact also for leisure (%)


2

78

33

46

14

18

66

15

29

11

Nu și-a făcut prieteni străini

Colegi de muncă

Șefi/ Patroni/ Directori

Vecini

AlteleSTRĂINII

13

13

16

28

17

11

19

3

5

23

13

10

5859

Nu și-a făcut prieteni români

Rude

Prieteni făcuți în țară

Prieteni făcuți în străinătate

Colegi de muncă

Vecini

Altele

Persoane revenite

Migranții în concediu în țară

ROMÂNII

When the migrants face any type of problem (health, money or other), very few migrants ‘manage everything by themselves’ or ask for help from back home. Generally, they seek support at destination, from natives and/or Romanian friends.

The size of the social network (friends, acquaintances helpful in case of need) depends

on the time of departure. The more recent the departure of the migrant, the smaller his/her social network abroad. Most migrants consider that they have ‘more friends and acquaintances’ in Romania. Nevertheless, most of those who believe this, left after 2005. The migrants who left in 2005 or earlier declare that they have either more friends abroad or ‘as many friends abroad as in Romania’.

Migrants with less extended and/or supportive social networks present a

disproportionately higher probability of returning to Romania. The analysis confirms this initial hypothesis. Compared with migrants residing abroad: (1) returned migrants receive, in a significantly lower proportion, support from siblings abroad, either because they do not have any or because all live in Romania; (2) significantly fewer returned migrants had somebody, aside from relatives, to welcome them at destination; (3) significantly less found work alongside friends or colleagues from back home; (4) they made considerably fewer friends/acquaintances among foreigners; (5) when they had problems, the majority ‘managed alone’; (6) and, due to the recent departure time, have most friends and useful connections back home and not abroad.

BOX 9. Social networks in the host society

The majority of interviewees declared having relatives or friends in the destination country, or that they ‘dragged’ there acquaintances or relatives. The main support network is the family, Romanians rarely declaring to have close relationships or friendships with other nationals, except for relatives.

„For one year, I was unemployed. At that time I was staying in Romania,

and was collecting 800 EUR instead of 1,500 EUR, salary. That year, I

worked in Romanian factory to earn some extra money, earning 600 LEI.

My wife earned the same, also in the factory. But a young person needs

more. Here I found work in agriculture, in Calabria. However, the salaries

are small, 30 EUR per day, while as a welder, previous the crisis, was

getting about 60 EUR per hour. Now, I’m leaving for France, as my

mother-in-law is there and she already found me a job as plumber. My wife

remains in Calabria, taking care of old lady for 700 EUR per month, 20

EUR per day on a Sunday. If I wasn’t skilled, I would be stuck in one

place. But I am mobile…”


... to sum it up, the success strategy requires two essential

features: (a) siblings that either help the migrant to accommodate

to the new world, teaching them the ropes, or put pressure on the

migrant to mobilize and prepare arrangements for them, and (b)

investment in ‘weak ties’, to have as many acquaintances as

possible, preferably with local natives, with whom to spend time,

support and from which one can learn essential adaptations

strategies.

These elements constitute the foundation of the social behavior of

migrants who succeeded to remain abroad. Returned migrants are

significantly weaker on both (a) and (b) resources ...


„There are no jobs anymore. Now you have to be skilled. This stupid

Berlusconi does nothing, creates no jobs… Now lemons come from Spain,

tomatoes also, nothing is made in Italy anymore. It’s their trick. I would

like to go to Spain, but you need to have someone there, to help you. I know

someone in Spain, but he would clear my pockets. They say things are

going well in Spain, they don’t request so many work licenses. Here we are

constantly checked and controlled by the police, there is easier. If I had a

good connection there, I’d go, but I don’t want to go there to be homeless.

Neither would I force my wife in prostitution, like others do.”


„My brother lost his job and for a couple of months he lived on my income.

As he couldn’t find any work here, he left for Italy, to pick mandarins.

There he makes 25 EUR per day which is enough to covers the living

expenses. One way or another, we manage somehow.”


„I have here, in Spain, two sisters. My older sister was the first to come;

she came through the embassy. I would have never emigrated if not for the

family.”


„My older brother was here. If he wouldn’t have been here, I don’t know

how could I have ever come.”


A popular strategy is when one member of the couple – the husband or the wife - goes first, and shortly after securing a job, the other partner joins.

„My husband was the first to leave in 1998, and then I followed. We were

meeting other Romanians at church, where we discussed and consulted

each other.”


Often, the interviewees referred to negative or disappointing experiences when talking about the Romanians they helped to emigrate and with the overall Romanian community.


„We welcomed to our home, both me and my husband, around 150

persons. We helped them all, fed them, but in was all for nothing.

Romanians do not know how to be grateful.”


„I helped a very good friend, a Romanian, but he made a fool of me. He took

the money and went home. I feel sorry that people speak badly about

Romanians, because I am Romanian too. ‘Pero’ Romanians are ‘figlio de

putana’, they help each other, but they are envious of one another. ”


„I'm kind of embarrassed to make a phone call to Romania: all want to

come here, need help, or ask for money.”


Frequently, Romanian migrants are aware of the locals’ negative attitude, but try not to bother with it. Actually, the qualitative analysis shows that Romanians have very few or none at all interest to mingle with the natives, with very few exceptions such as those who intend never to return to Romania and who plan their future exclusively in the destination country context. Otherwise, Romanians waver between a slightly contemptuous and courteous attitude when it comes to locals, but do not report strong bonds or desire to have such relations.

„I am not interested to know how others see me. Spanish friends? No, I

don’t have any. Most of my friends are Romanian, and relatives. I have

both relatives and friends, but everything has its price.”


„I don’t have much friends and relatives, but mostly coworkers. I don’t

have many Spanish friends. Spaniards are rather distant people.”



„Italians are difficult people, they want everything their way. I have Italian

friends who helped me purchase farming machines. They also helped me

make a loan and taught me how to manage money. I have fewer Romanian

friends, as I trust Italians more. Romanians are envious. I have one cousin

and about 10 other friends, but we aren’t really close. Every now and then,

we hang out for a beer or two.”


„ Italians are way too polite with Romanians, considering the way we treat

them. I have always got along better with Italians than with Romanians.”


4.9. The housing conditions of migrants abroad

The majority of migrants who work abroad live in rented dwellings. However, while 18% of abroad migrants managed to purchase a house, 20% of the returned migrants preferred temporary housing arrangements (accommodation offered by employers, relatives, social housing or homeless).

TABLE 2. 12. The types of migrants by housing arrangements abroad (%)

Ownership of dwelling abroad

Migrants residing abroad

Returned migrants

Own dwelling, paid in full 13 9 Own dwelling, still paying loan installments 5 * Rented dwelling 72 70 Other (at employer, relatives, social housing, homeless etc.) 10 20 Total - % 100 100 - N 953 131


As a general rule, men prefer to rent, while women, particularly those employed in personal-care services, agree with temporary (and cheaper) arrangements.

Young persons (18-29 years) are tenants (more than 80%), 35-44 years persons (especially those who migrated with their families) are house owners, while the persons of 45-64 years (predominantly women) have the highest proportion of living at the workplace/employer provided housing.

The migrants residing abroad share housing with a family member in a significantly

higher proportion than the returned migrants. Although both abroad and returned migrants account for similar marriage ratios, significantly more migrants remained abroad have their spouse and children living with them. Otherwise, they have siblings with whom they share housing. In contrast, a

considerably lower proportion of returned migrants live together with their spouses,

children or siblings.

FIGURE 2. 18. With whom migrants dwell abroad (%)


A Romanian migrant working abroad, who does not live alone, shares housing with

three other persons, on average. Nevertheless, there are significant differences according to the age of migrants. The young persons live, typically, with three other persons; approximately three quarters live with 2-4 persons. In contrast, more than 40% of 45-64 years persons share housing with just one other person and 22% live with two other persons (on average, 2.25 persons). Person between 35-44 years (which include most couples residing abroad) share housing with many persons (on average, 3.4 persons); over 60% live with 3-11 persons.

23

9

17

25

11

21

5

5

32

5

31

17

3

8

6

6

Locuieşte singur(ă)

La angajator

Colegi/ prieteni

Soț/soție

Copii

Frați/surori

Părinți/socri

Mătuşă/unchi/veri

Persoane revenite

Migranții în concediu în țară

4.10. The abroad experience of Romanian migrants

Over 90% of the returned migrants claim to have integrated ‘pretty well’ (36%) or ‘very well’ at the destination country. The answers do not differ by gender, age, occupation, activity sector, destination country or year of departure. Therefore, Romanian migrants, even those who returned, feel integrated in the Western societies where they find work. Persons who declared that they did not integrate are, mostly, those who did not make foreign friends (at destination) or those who spent time only with Romanians.

The attitudes and personality of the migrant (e.g. honesty, politeness or sociability) seem to be the main determinant of integration. Additionally, social networks and the foreign language proficiency are also useful integration tools.

FIGURE 2. 19. Factors of integration of migrants in the host society (%)


Nearly all returned migrants consider working abroad a positive experience: 34% had “a rather positive, with good and bad, but mainly good”, while 62% had “definitely a positive life experience, I had only to gain, both financially and personally”.

16

8

10

11

12

43

Altele (familia e acolo, are acte, cultura, munca îi

plăcea)

Recunoaştere/ succes/ satisfacție

Atmosfera/ viață bună, mi-a plăcut

Ştie limba

Avea prieteni

Personalitate şi comportament (cinstit, sociabil etc.)

Most of the returned migrants mention various things they enjoyed or liked abroad. At the question regarding things they disliked, the answer is “nothing, everything was great”. They enjoyed the “peaceful life”, the “normal life”, the fairness and the respect for human life and work, the sociability and politeness of people, “peoples’ smiles”, the order and civility, the cleanness, the modern way of life “different from the disaster in Romania”. The negative aspects most frequently mentioned were “the hate towards Romanians”, but also “Romanian baggers”, “Romanian thieves”, “Romanian gypsies”, as well as the distance from home and family.

FIGURE 2. 20. The aspects Romanian migrants liked/disliked abroad (%)


8

5

6

7

12

17

22

24

Altele (clima, mâncarea, munca etc.)

Veniturile

Locurile, peisajele, monumentele, oraşele

Ordine, disciplină, organizare

Totul

Curățenie, civilizație

Oamenii, corectitudine, respect

Viața, stilul, modul, condițiile de viață

CE A PLĂCUT

18

5

7

8

8

9

45

Altele (clima, mâncarea, limba, droguri,

mizerie, zăpăceală, viața prea scumpă)

Munca prea multă, grea, umilitoare

Oameni reci, distanți, profitori

Dor de casă, distanța de familie, singurătate

Românii răi, hoți, cerşeau, țiganii

Discriminare, rasism

Nimic, totul a fost plăcut

CE NU A PLĂCUT

BOX 10. The migration experience in times of economic crisis and the perception of the destination country

The Romanian workers in Italy and Spain declare that although financial reasons determined their migration, generally, at individual level, migration had a lot of positive effects, such as: a richer lifestyle and better quality of life, services and quality interactions with public institutions, access to education, learning new values social and cultural practices which promote open-mindedness, opportunity equality and better understanding of gender differences/relations.

"Here, they treat you with respect, it doesn’t matter whether you are

Romanian or immigrant or whatever. They call you sir and that’s exactly

what you are to them."


"Here it’s not Romania, the law is the law. They do not touch the woman,

they have a saying here, don’t even dare touch the woman even if just with

a rose, because the police will be after you."


Generally, the perceptions of the destination country are virtually unanimous positive. The negative aspect most frequently mentioned is attitude of locals, which for most interviewees is justifiable. The majority of positive aspects regarded the functionality/access to public administration, healthcare and education systems of the host country. Likewise, a widely spread opinion is the attitude of the foreign employer and work related habits. Usually, the foreign employers are perceived superior to Romanian employers.

„Here, the employer is respectful. He is concerned with your health. If I am

sick, he doesn’t allow me to work. In Romania, it is not like this. You have

a fever, you feel sick, who cares! 10% penalty if you are sick. They make

you do overtime. In Italy, work hours are work hours.”



„Italians are just like us, they like to gossip a lot. They greet you then

gossip about you. But Italians are discretely better educated than us. They

are also more ‘German’, having a better sense of accountability than us.

When you are their employee, you are respected. They use salary grids,

determined salary rates, not like in Romania. They don’t complain about

salaries. They don’t steal; everything trust based. But what’s the point of

Italy being a normal country, it’s still not home. All Romanians would like

to come back.”


„There, in Italy, they know what it means to work, while here people have

no clue of what that means. People just drink coffee and chat all day.

Everywhere you go in Italy they are civilized – in stores, in supermarkets,

in bars, the services, healthcare, all work. In Romania the state doesn’t help

the people, extreme bureaucracy, queues everywhere, and rude people.

Good thing that the Government made salary cut-backs. Even better, they

should have sacked them all, a bunch of incompetents.”


„ The healthcare system is fantastic here. In Romania I would have sold my

house to get the treatment for my health problems. “Securidad” works like

a clock. Not to mention, I was treated fairly, ‘egual la egual’. I didn’t need

give more than the occasional box of chocolates. When I offered the

chocolates, I remember the surprise on the doctor’s face. She told me:

‘Madam, my salary is paid by the Spanish state’. As I expressed my

gratitude for her honesty and professional behavior although I am just an

‘extranjera’, she said: ‘You are not an extranjera, you are a patient’!”


The positive features of the destination country are often highlighted in comparison with the home country – Romania, for which the majority of interviewees manifested skeptical attitudes and pronounced criticism.

„Even if you play by the rules, in Romania they make so many inspections

until they ruin you. In Spain, I play by the rules and I certain things are

OK, they don’t come if unnecessary. They don’t do it for bribes. If they see

everything is in order, they just let you be or even help you.”



„I am currently building a B&B. I want to obtain some SAPARD funding,

but I cannot, because I don’t have any connections there. The state doesn’t

offer any financial support. I heard about ‘Casa Verde’ program, subsidies

grants, but I have no clue how to apply as nobody gives out information. If

the state would help me with at least one of these, then I wouldn’t go to

Italy anymore. Why doesn’t the Romanian Embassy in Italy work as the

Italian authorities do? As for the crisis – my salary didn’t decrease, but no

raises are expected either. But everything is transparent, all is out in the

open, the employer tells you from the get-go what to be done, then you

decide.”


„At the Embassy they are so unprofessional, telling us stuff like ‘where the

hell are you rushing?!’ Mrs. Ambassador is here just for the image, for the

photo-shoots, and nothing else. She isn’t there to help us when we have

problems. Once, while at a concert, she told us in a sarcastic tone: ‘you

should have left your kids at the wardrobe, because they make so much

noise’. How can she say such harsh words?”


The migration experience ominously impacts the expectations of migrants and their approach to various societal elements. However, several interviewees express some difficulties in readapting to Romania once returned, and declare that the migration experience completely changed their perspective on the world.

„My perspective on life is different than it used to be. Now, I have a

different life style. I no longer keep livestock. I go regularly to the doctor. I

don’t make home provisions as before. People in my village don’t

understand me, so I distance myself. When it used to be difficult to go

abroad, just the capable people could do it. Anyone with 80 EUR can leave.

Now, they eat at Caritas and sleep in the bushes, even so, there is nothing

for them if they return”


However, the main reason for choosing to work abroad is financial incentives. Wages and employment opportunities are the most appreciated features of the destination country.


„Spain offers a decent life, a decent wage, plus development opportunities.

I already paid the price of being an emigrant; I will never ever work as

receptionist. I keep in contact with Romania, with my family, but I am

more attached to the Spanish standards. Although I am Romanian, living

in Romania isn’t mandatory. I like it here. Life is hard wherever you go,

what is important is the social environment, and to have the lifestyle and

income one desires.”


„Spain doesn’t make you rich, but it at least you live decently. Until 2007

used to earned lots of money, made savings – had two jobs, one legal and

one illegal. Now, enough, I can’t do it anymore. After so many years of

working and living in Spain, I can’t and won’t do it. […] I am not going

back to Romania, is nothing there for me. Each time I go to visit, I return

to Spain all depressed. Here I can live with 100 EUR per week. In

Romania, it is simply impossible to make such money. I will stay here until

retirement, and then return home with a good pension.”


Likewise, lots of migrants mention the cheap life of the destination country and the affordable prices as compared to those in Romania.

„Abroad, life goes smooth. Prices are the same either here or there, but life

is definitely cheaper in Spain. In Romania, I spend in 3 months as 7

months there.”


This is surprising, given that, according to the official statistics, the food prices in Romania stands at 70% of the European average. A possible explanation, not tested in our analysis, might be the differences between the expenditure structure in Romania and the one abroad. Studies show that migrants prefer to restrict their expenses while abroad; no apparel purchases, no restaurant outings, as their main goal is making savings. In contrast, when they return in Romania, they tend to spend more and in a various fashion, on things they would not purchase abroad (i.e. furniture, leisure activities with friends or family) which lead to high expenditures. Thus, migrants perceive higher costs in Romania, disregarding the different expenditure structure.


Another important adaptation element abroad is provided by the relation with co-nationals and Romanian communities of the destination country. The majority of interviewees, either in Spain or in Italy, have a rather negative opinion about Romanian migrants, and, generally, they try to distance themselves from others.

„Here, Romanians despise one another, they mess with each other. When I

go to Coslada, I feel like they are eating me alive… if they get together, they

end up fighting.”


„In the first two years of living Spain, Romanians act wicked. They

complain about Romania, but only as defensive mechanism. Another

reaction would be to say everything here is extraordinary, while isolating

themselves from other Romanians. Romanians do not wish to integrate and

form a community of their own. Our migration experiences are strictly

individual. Romanians get in touch with associations only for practical

reasons – learning Spanish, children education, after which they leave and

no longer wish to know any Romanians. After two years of living abroad,

they start criticizing the Spaniards and appreciating the Romanians.

Romanians are smart, Spaniards are stupid. All because, they couldn’t

manage to acquire the desired social position so they blame it on the

Spanish!”


„In Brunete (vicinity of Madrid, a/n) there are about 300 families, all from

Maramureş. There is competition between the Romanians from Bârseni:

whose house is bigger, whose car the most expensive, whose kid studies at

Satu Mare high school. Although they are here, abroad, they tend to forget

that they share the same blood, and that they are relatives.”


„We arrive here, you are like a kid, but then you struggle and grow up.

You think about what you will eat today and tomorrow. If you are not

strong, you will fail. Here, there is no one to comfort you. Talk to whom?

They will laugh at you and say: look at the poor bastard!”



Moreover, the Romanian migrant confessions regarding interactions with the broadly defined ‘Romanian community’ are rather fascinating. The interactions between members of the Romanian community are very sporadic, most of being reserved for family members and somewhat intentionally avoiding other Romanians. Gatherings are rare and are usually organized to celebrate religious events. Outside this formal setting, weak in terms of the interaction intensity, there is no Romanian migrant community life.

„There is no such thing as a Romanian community. Romanian leaders?

What leaders? They don’t represent anything; three persons can set-up an

association and there you go! Six such associations make up an

organization. Each takes their wives and mother-in-laws and makes an

association. That’s the Romanian, always wanting to be the boss.”


„Romanians do not come to gatherings. Their only concern is how to be

invisible.”


„Romanians live in their own world. The Romanian lives in isolation from

Spain, like in a soap bubble. There is no union, political or integrative

structure to concern them.”

(Man, 60 years old, Head of a federation of Romanians’ association in Spain)

„We should be united, because we have the right to vote. Then, we could

elect our own ‘Romanian’ counselor. So it will be easier, as we will have

someone to turn to. But our community is not even close to being united.”


„Spaniards never invite you to their homes. They live in public places –

coffee houses, bars… this is problematic for Romanians.”


BOX 11. A different kind of migration experience

An old Roma woman approaches us at Madrid central station. She lights a cigarette, then quickly pulls out a bunch of bracelets and chains out of her coat.

- I stole all of them. They are very cheap, come on buy them before the

policeman notices me...

Then, I asked her why isn’t she afraid to steal, and she tells me that for a 7,000 EUR fee, her lawyer will get her out of trouble.

- Where do you get the 7,000 EUR?

- Well, from stealing, how else! Because we Roma don’t work, nobody

would give us jobs.

We buy two bracelets for 20 euros each. However, with the certainty that the so-called gold is nothing but tin... But then again, what wouldn’t one do to keep the conversation going! Nevertheless, after 5 minutes of enjoyed her of salesmanship skill, this time for a chain referred as “you attract the gold, lady”, she gives up and leaves. As we turn around, we come across another, yet younger, Roma woman. She, also, waves the clanking gold in front of our eyes, but we let her know of our recent purchase.

- Oh, that was my mother!

Still, she doesn’t give up and insists on selling us a chain, once again, but with no success. We keep showing her the recently purchased bracelets. Then she offers to read my palm for 2 euros. I accept. We find a cozy bench in the sun, and we sat down next to a Spanish lady who while smoking her cigarette, kept glancing at us. I make the cross sign over her palm, I repeat after her some kind of incantation... then she tells me about my future. Each time before mentioning something, she would ask whether I feel offended or uncomfortable, then she would proceed with the fortunetelling. When she noticed I my smiling, she would ask whether it was true, question to which I would always answer affirmatively. For instance, I find out that someone has cast some kind of spell on me, which made my furniture creak –the floors and the wardrobes- and which is the cause for headaches and dizziness…


Or, that my husband doesn’t love me, that one of my girlfriends wishes me evil. I keep smiling. At the end of the fortunetelling session, she pulls a thread from my scarf, tugged neatly around my neck, asks me to tie three knots and wrap the thread, together with a 2-euro coin. Then she places the coin in napkin and rubs against her belly. After, I am given the following instructions – that once home, I should put salt, sugar, pink incense and fish fin on top of the knotted thread, and then place it next to an icon. After receiving the promised 2 euros, she lets me know she is 26 years old, married and has 4 children, all living in Romania. She has left them with a woman, “I have a babysitter, a Romanian woman – I pay her 300 euros a month”. Then she talks about her huge, 250 square meters, house in Romania... and it would have been done even sooner, if her husband wouldn’t have lost all the money playing the roulette. She left Romania since 1999, going to Belgium, Great Britain and France. She unpins her bun and lets her hair down. The Spanish lady, next to us, tells her that she has beautiful hair... The Romanian Roma woman smiles and replies that all Romanian women are beautiful, and that Spanish women have big hips. The Spanish lady springs to her feet – “I don’t have a big hips!” – “No, no, of course, I was referring to young girls...” says the Romanian, like a Spanish chatterbox, while trying to redeem her gaffe. She knows also French and English... at which point the Spanish lady next to us, shakes her head in an intellectual manner and says that’s a Romanian for you, he learns everything. She herself has a Romanian woman cleaning her house – a very earnest and hard-working woman.

Seeing that the Spanish woman strikes up a conversation, the Roma woman takes out the ‘gold’ chains and bracelets merchandise, and once again becomes a salesperson. The Spanish lady refuses and advises her to go to Puerta del Sol, because there are lots of people and tourists there, and sales go well. “Things are no longer going well since the crisis”, sights the Roma woman. She offers to read the Spanish lady’s palm, but the lady replies that she is afraid to find out what is in store for her, afraid to know what the future brings. Soon after, we sit up and say goodbye to the Spanish woman. “I see you like Roma!” says, while smiling the convivial Roma woman. We part ways smiling.

4.11. Returning in the country

By definition, the returned migrants are persons who worked abroad, who returned in the last 12 months (September 2009-August 2010) and who plan to stay three or more months in the country.

4.11.1. Determinants of return migration

The previous chapters outlined the differences between returned migrants and those remained abroad. However, the analysis was bivariate, excluding the interactions of potential determinants of return migration. In order to identify the significant factors of return migration to Romania, this section presents three models of binary logistic regression, taking into account: (1) individual factors (gender and age); (2) factors regarding the situation previous to the ‘first time’ departure (education level, marital status and whether the migrant left behind children or not); (3) the year of departure; (4) factors which describe the abroad experience (the number of countries where the migrant worked, the present destination country or from which the migrant returned, activity sector, social network and integration degree at destination) and (5) aspects regarding the origin settlement (residence type, county, community development level of rural areas, and the children in care50 present in the household). All three tested models have explicative power.

The first explanatory model shows that, ceteris paribus, the return migration is an

effect of: age, education, geographic mobility, destination country, occupation and

social network abroad.

50 However, we emphasize that the kinship relation between the migrant and the child (0-18 years) in care present in the household was not recorded. Thus, the children present in the household might be siblings, nephews, grandchildren or other types of kin, and not necessarily the migrant’s children.

TABLE 2. 13. Eplanatory models of return migration to Romania

Models of binary logistic regression. Dependent variable (1=returned migrant)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Predictors Sig. Exp(B) Sig. Exp(B) Sig. Exp(B)

Gender (1=male) 0,945 0,985 0,537 0,817 0,117 0,529

18-29 years 0,000 7,310 0,000 36,994 0,999 0,000

30-44 years 0,000 10,373 0,000 39,788 0,999 0,000

45-59 years 0,053 2,656 0,015 10,047 0,999 0,000

Before leaving Romania Primary education (maximum 8 classes)

0,014 0,313 0,438 0,495 0,693 0,702

Secondary education (9-12 classes) 0,598 0,830 0,939 0,938 0,542 0,665

Left children in Romania 0,336 1,324 0,207 1,710 0,352 0,522

Was married 0,090 0,625 0,267 0,624 0,484 1,665

Year of departure 2005-2006 0,732 1,103 0,198 0,578 0,854 1,089

2007-2008 0,061 1,704 0,733 1,152 0,120 2,173

2009-2010 0,438 1,317 0,562 0,740 0,276 2,232

Abroad Territorial mobility (1=more countries ) 0,033 2,053 0,017 2,931 0,221 1,955

Destination country: Italy 0,045 1,763 0,185 1,809 0,034 2,866

Destination country: Spain 0,031 2,064 0,150 2,164 0,053 3,091

Worked in agricultures 0,021 2,315 0,015 2,893 0,772 1,210

Relatives abroad 0,004 0,502 0,029 0,478 0,025 0,399

Integration in the destination country 0,010 0,504

Return to Romania Children (1=children in Romania) 0,108 0,667 0,009 0,389 0,946 0,970

Residence (1=urban) 0,277 1,295 0,659 1,199

County of origin: Călăraşi 0,346 1,642 0,361 0,415 County of origin : Dolj 0,157 1,849 0,612 0,648 County of origin: Maramureş 0,563 0,754 0,020 0,115 County of orogin Neamţ 0,076 2,122 0,652 0,698 County of origin: Vaslui 0,107 2,078 0,615 0,634 Averange developed communities 0,276 1,564 Developed communities 0,906 0,929

Constant 2E-08 2E-02 0,005 0,019 0,999 N 978 531 174 Nagelkerke R Square 0,232 0,293 0,271 Hosmer and Lemeshow Test (Sig.) 0,207 0,374 0,436


In a previous chapter, we have mentioned that, in terms of age, there are no significant differences between abroad and returned migrants. Nonetheless, table 2.13 shows that the odds to return in the country, as opposed to those of remaining abroad, are 7 times higher for young persons (18-29 years) as compared with the odds for elderly (60 years or overIn the same time, the odds to return in the country are, ceteris paribus, 10.37 times higher for the 30-44 age category. In other words, the multivariate analysis invalidates the hypothesis that the higher the migrant's age, the higher his/her propensity to return to Romania.

The lower education levels (maximum 8 grades) are correlated with low odds of return. As confirmed by the interviews, the persons with primary school prefer to be ‘homeless’ in Italy or Spain rather than ‘starve to death back home’, as their chances of finding work in Romania are close to zero.

We have already noticed that the returned migrants significantly differ from migrants who remained abroad, with respect to the moment of the first departure. The returned migrants left Romanian later, hence have benefited of less time to integrate at the destination country. However, the multivariate analysis shows that the year of departure is not a significant factor, although migrants who left after 2005 are more predisposed to returning than those who left earlier.

In the same time, model 1 (table 2.13) confirms that geographic mobility is a significant determinant for the return migration, but in an opposite manner than expected. Persons who seeked work/ worked in several countries have higher odds to return (even if only temporary) than those who have been in a sole destination country. This result relates to the model of circulatory migration, which alternates periods of working abroad with periods of return to Romania.

In the same terms of circulatory migration, agricultural employment in the destination country significantly increases the odds of return of the migrant. Actually, persons who work abroad as farmers are 2.3 times more likely to return to Romania compared with those who are employed in industry, services or are, even, economically inactive.

The destination country, also, makes a difference.

Ceteris paribus, the migrants to Italy or Spain have significantly higher chances to return, compared with migrants from other destination countries.

Regardless of the individual characteristics of the migrant, the destination country and all other accounted factors, to have siblings abroad significantly lower the chances for return. In other words, the presence of family networks abroad provides efficient support for integration in the host society.

Furthermore, model 3 (table 2.13) brings further evidence concerning the importance of support networks for the decision to return. Thus, we built an abroad integration index (summative) based the following variables:51 (a) the migrant has foreign acquaintances at destination, with whom spends time (work and leisure) and relates, (b) when faced with personal problems, the migrant could find support (foreign or Romanian), (c) the migrant has most friends and acquaintances in the destination country (foreign or Romanian), (d) considers that going abroad is a (fairly) positive experience. Table 2.13 shows that integration in the host country is negatively correlated with return migration. The more integrated the migrant in the host society, the lower the odds of returning to Romania .52

Area (urban/rural) or county of origin, the presence of children in the household, and the fact of being married before first departure have no significant effect on return migration. Having children left back home positively affects the probability of return, but the effect is insignificant when the other factors are kept under control.

Regarding the return migration in rural areas, we adjusted the explanatory model by including the community development level for testing its effects on the decision to return. Consequently, model 2 (table 2.13) shows that return migration in rural areas is an effect of: age (18-44 years), employment in agriculture, geographical mobility (working in various EU countries) and the absence of abroad kin networks. The education level and destination country factors are no longer relevant. Nevertheless, two other factors

51 At these questions just the returned migrants and those on vacation in Romania answered. For this reason, the analysis is limited to B2 and C migrant categories (see Table 2.13). 52 These results are consistent with other migration studies. For example, Holst and Schrooten (2006) show that the tendency of transfer of remittances is proportionally inverse with the integration level in the host society.

become significant: the presence of children in the household back home and the origin county. Ceteris paribus, the return propensity of migrants with children in the household, and of those originating from Maramureş County, as opposed to remaining abroad, is significantly lower. In addition, the model re-confirms that return migration is lower for those originating from developed rural communities compared with that from poor communes. However, the community development level does not bear significance in decision for returning to Romania.

4.11.2. Why do migrants return to Romania

The main reason for returning to Romania is ‘being homesick’. The secondary reason is ‘achieving the goals for which I went abroad’. Job loss or wage cuts were mentioned by considerably fewer return migrants. Regardless of the destination country:

• ‘I miss my family / my home/ my kids’ is mainly mentioned by women, especially those who work as housekeepers, babysitters or other personal care services.

• The persons who went to work abroad having a definite goal (i.e., to build, renovate or purchase a house, to financial support the child’s education), return to Romania once ‘things are settled’. Less than one in every six persons in such situation prolongs the period of living abroad, while the others return.53

• Young people (18-29 years) are those who return to continue education: one of five young migrants return (at least temporary) for this purpose.

53 The majority of these migrants worked abroad in agriculture or constructions.

... migrants go to work abroad for money (Section 3.4) and do

not necessarily return because of income decline (Section 4.7).

They return to Romania because they miss their families

and/or because they achieved their objectives...

FIGURE 2. 21. The reasons for returning from work abroad (%)


BOX 12. Coming back to Romania

In the majority of cases, the return of migrant is based on individual factors such as health status, period of migration (long-term, partially achieving goals, or short term stay, and difficulties to adapt/integrate at destination), personal or domestic problems, homesickness (both people and country) and alike others. Taking into account, that both at local and national level there are no measures which target and facilitate the return of migrants, and, by that matter, no Romanian strategy or policy for labor migration/ mobility, relevant for the EU-27 space, which to maximize benefits and the development effects of migration regarding the origin settlements, we consider that individual factors will continue to dominate the return decisions of Romanian migrants, even more so given the prolonged economic crisis in Romania.

The qualitative research highlighted a more complex ensemble of return motivations, which eludes the ‘first glance’ opinions put forward by the quantitative results. Being homesick is very often invoked by the returned migrants and is usually the first argument for returning.

5

5

8

10

11

18

40

73

Alt motiv

Au apărut oportunități de muncă mai convenabile în țară

S-a înrăutățit atitudinea locuitorilor țării-gazdă față de migranți

Continuarea studiilor

S-a redus salariul peste hotare

A pierdut locul de muncă peste hotare

A realizat planurile pe care le avea când a plecat peste hotare

Motive familiale (dorul de familie/acasă/ copil)


However, as the interview progresses and the social distance interviewer-interviewee fades, other reasons for return surface, which are not of emotional nature.

Certainly, the reasons are not solely financial, migrants also return for personal reasons: to solve problems back home, to care for elderly parents and underage children, to help family members with business matters, whenever necessary. Nonetheless, all these personal reasons represent practical and not emotional issues. Evidently, the qualitative research results cannot be generalized or representative. However, at least in the cases we analyzed, the emotional aspects (homesickness) where mere façades discourse, more or less desirable societal motivations.

In addition, the qualitative research reveals that the migrant return is virtually always accompanied by a ‘survival plan’ in Romania, involving savings, business or suitable employment opportunities.

This idea is concordant with the, above mentioned, results of the quantitative research which state that migrants return once the financial targets are reached. Also, the interviews suggest that for a specific migrant category – those who partially achieved their goals, such as building a house and making some savings, the stay abroad is profitable only if the job of the migrant permits additional savings, and not just coverage of living costs.

Once this requirement is no longer fulfilled, and all other migration objectives are partially achieved, most likely the migrant decides to return. Therefore, the economic recession is a catalyzer for return, but not the sole determinant of return migration.

„I became unemployed after working at a wash machine factory. Being

unemployment didn’t suit me, as I came here to make money. I managed to

earn some, by mowing lawns for 20 EUR an evening. But it wasn’t worth

staying in Italy for this. So, I took my savings, made a bank loan in Italy

and bought farming machineries. Now, I farm sunflower and corn, and its

going well. Nothing to complain about…”



„Do you know who returned to Romania? Those who managed to put

away some money. But new ones still keep coming here. They stay in

Brunete (vicinity of Madrid, a/n), like some products at peasant markets,

waiting for employers to offer them some work. Women usually find

something. But there’s no place for men in Spain. There are so many of

them in Brunete who don’t even have money to pay rent. So, they live 12-

13 in one house, and even than they cannot afford rent.”


„My husband gets illness pension from the Italian state, 700 EUR per

month. So, we decided to come back, as we can live well with this money in

Romania. We bought a house here in the village and by husband found

work as truck driver in Braşov. In Italy, employers take advantage of the

crisis and pay less or delay payment. They cut my salary from 1,500 to

1,200 EUR and it didn’t want to stay there anymore, I couldn’t save

anything anymore.”


However, numerous migrants have not achieved their migration objectives, did not make savings, did not finish constructing the house, did not have a ‘fallback plan’ or the necessary resources to make one, and even if they cannot make savings, they find the host country to be more advantageous. These migrants prefer to poor there, working temporary or illegally, which bring just enough to survive, to cover the day by day costs of living, something that would be impossible to do in Romania.

„I don’t like it here either, but what could I do in Romania? Freeze and

starve to death because there are no jobs? Neither here or there, do I have

job. Here, I obtain a driving license to learn a new skill. I was thinking

about going to France, but then again I don’t speak French. Maybe I go

with a friend. Now I get paid half of what I used to get before. But I am

content with the fact that I have a place to stay and what to eat. If not, I

would end-up on the streets.”


This migrant category – affected by the crisis, while lacking the resources necessary to return to Romania – represent also those who often return temporary and who are predisposed to a specific type of cyclical migration, constantly going back and forth between origin and destination countries.


„Some go back to Romania and live there for a short while, then return

here and seek employment. Some of them had some savings and so the

crisis acted as a catalyst for returning home, where they would have

opportunities.”


„Some will return, of course, for a longer or shorter period of time, to solve

their problems home, try their luck there. Eventually they return to Spain

or wherever it was good, where there are jobs. It is important to

understand the concepts of cyclical migration and mobility.”

(Woman, 46 years old, representative of a Romanian association in Spain)

Generally, those who return in this manner try to find employment. Often they do not find any, or if they manage to find a job, the wage is unsatisfactory, and so, once again, they go abroad. The chances for a returned migrant to come back abroad are higher if the migrant keeps in touch or has acquaintances in the destination country. These contacts are useful for securing a new job abroad.

„Indeed, he returned. He used to work in Spain, in constructions, but he

lost his job. He came back and found a job at a security agency in

Bucharest for 800 RON. But commuting with the bus to Bucharest cost

him 400 RON, and by the end of the month he would ended-up with

nothing. He used to tell me ‘mom, I used to make 100 EUR per week in

Spain, not per month’. My daughter is there, working in a butchers shop.

She found work for my boy too. Yes, he went back abroad 10 days ago.”

(Woman, mother of a migrant in Spania, Dâmboviţa County)

Another temporary return strategy is that of coming back to Romania for the period during which the migrant collects unemployment benefits from the foreign country. This time lapse allows the migrant to try his luck in Romania and to test the local labor market, being able to cover for their living expenses with the monthly unemployment benefit. The chances of going back abroad, once the unemployment benefit period is over, are reduced if the former migrant finds satisfactory employment in Romania. However, usually the registered unemployed migrants or those who lost their jobs prefer to combine living from unemployment or social benefits with illegal or temporary work. The generosity of the foreign social system plays a critical role in this context.


„Rather than coming back home, Romanians prefer to receive the

minimum benefit of 426 EUR and work illegally, where they still make

some money. Another possibility is to become independent (self-employed

a/n) when unemployed: the Spanish state gives you the entire amount of

the unemployment benefits for an investment, if you have a business plan.”


„Romanians do not return because the crisis in Romania is worse than the

one here. People have social services in Spain, some income, and the

monthly benefit of 420 EUR. Many lost their jobs, but compensate

working illegally and collecting unemployment benefits. When migrants

return to Romania they are badly perceived because they have work

experience, a different mentality and lived in a democratic society.

Romania is not ready for this. Romania is not ready to maximize what all

these migrants bring back home – the abroad experience.”


Although the crisis accelerated the return propensity to Romania for most migrants, there is a segment of respondents who claim that, in their case, the crisis acted as an inhibitor. The decision to not return (to remain abroad) is mainly based on the argument of worsening situation in Romania. However, we do not have reliable information regarding the return decision before the crisis.

„Lots of people wanted to come back previous 2007. They even planned

everyday life for a temporally, a transition period before returning to

Romania. In 2007-2008, all wanted to return because there were

opportunities, as Romania was booming economically. Nobody anticipated

the crisis. Thus, unfortunately, Romania is opportunity-less, no jobs

whatsoever. In the end, they come again to Spain and stay here because

Romania is impossible.”



Most Romanian migrants interviewed in both Spain and Italy emphasize they do not want to return home, mainly because of the attitudes and everyday treatments experienced as a Romanian citizen. Additionally, even when abroad, Romanians ‘feel abandoned by those back home, although those live of the money we send home’ and authorities use them as ‘milking cows’, ‘căpşunar’ (strawberry pickers, meaning low level unskilled works a/n), ‘parents who abandoned their own children and do not see them for years’. In their opinion:

„Bucharest authorities, see us just as a problem that needs to be solved and

to do that, they need our money, even if we are just căpşunari, as they

say.";

„.. when is elections time, they ask for our vote and make promise, this and

that, and then they raise the consular fees, and you come back to Romania,

to stay line for passports until you drop.";

„... can’t you see how congested are queues at the Consulate. We don’t

respect ourselves, never mind the Italians… they know, that those which

push and shove like some sheep and stay in lines every morning are the

Romanians.";

„... ufff, we want so many things. We want people back home who govern

to fight for us, including abroad. Eventually, the foreigners stand up for us

and speak well of us. We want the same from Romanians. We want people

who lead to do more for the country, so that we do better and we have

jobs."

(Interviews in Italy and Spain)

4.11.3. Satisfaction with the return to Romania

The returned migrants divide into two groups: 63% are happy that they returned to the country, mainly because ‘they are home, with family’ and 35% are unhappy because incomes are too small, jobs are lacking and ‘it is difficult to live in Romania’.

FIGURE 2. 22. Satisfaction with return to Romania (%)


Returned migrants estimate that they live ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’54 in the home country than abroad, because earnings are insufficient and the general situation of Romania implies ‘poverty’, ‘corruption’, ‘useless laws’, ‘lack of opportunities’ and jobs.

Very few consider that they live ‘better’, specifically because they are ‘home, with family’.55

To sum it up, the majority of returned migrants is satisfied with their return, but live worse in Romania than abroad. The family and the fact that they are home represent the main sources for satisfaction, while incomes, job opportunities and the general situation of Romania are the main sources of dissatisfaction.

54 31% live ‘worse’ and 40% live ‘much worse’. 55 Just 6% of the returned migrants declare that they live ‘somewhat better’ or ‘much better’ in Romania. 21% consider they live ‘the same’ in Romania as abroad, and 2% did not answer.

25

10

3

21

42

Foarte nemulțumit

Destul de nemulțumit

Destul de mulțumit

Foarte mulțumit

Non-răspuns

Nemulțumit(ă) pentru că:

18% - bani puțini, lipsa banilor, 8% ”nu sunt

locuri de muncă”, 8% În România, ”nu e bine”,

”se trăiește greu”, ”lumea e rea”, ”nesimțire”,

”mizerie”, ”lipsă de civilizație”

Mulțumit(ă) pentru că:

54% ”sunt acasă, alături de familie și

prieteni”, 10% altele: ”merg la școală”,

”termin casa”, ”fac nuntă”, ”sunt liniștit

sufletește”, ”am rezolvat treburile”

4.11.4. Plans for the stay duration

Out of all returned migrants, just 22% decided to remain in the country ‘for good’, and 6% plan to stay home for more than one year. Approximately 20% are not decided, while more than half (52%) plan to go for work abroad again after 3-12 months or once the economic recession passes.

TABLE 2. 14. How long intend the returned migrants to stay in Romania (%)

3 months 4-6 months

7-12 months

13-36 months

Until find a job abroad For good

Not decided

12 18 10 6 12 22 20


During their stay in Romania, only 11% find employment, while 32% of all returned migrants seek jobs. A small share is involved (5%) or plan to become farmers (17%): “to stay home, together with my family/children and help my parents with farming”. Few of them (19%) have or intend to start a business and only one in every three intends to remain in Romania and run the business, while the other two in every three plan to go abroad again, to reside and finance the business.

TABLE 2. 15. Plans of the returned migrants during their stay in Romania (%)

No

No, but intends to

Already did it

No answer

To fiind a job 47 32 11 10 To leave as long as possible with the money earned abroad 17 30 5 48 To start a business 68 17 2 13 To do agriculture 69 17 5 10 To do something else 80 8 0 13 To get unemployment benefits 81 5 2 13 To get a bank credit 82 5 0 13 To obtain european funds for starting/developing a business 83 4 0 14


Plans, such as finding a job in Romania or intention to live off the savings made abroad as much time as possible, do not significantly vary by gender, age, occupation, residence area (urban/rural), activity sector, departure year, number of departures abroad, destination country or support network capacities.

Among the returned migrants who already have a job (with or without work contract), the majority found employment in a different place than the one previous to going abroad. Nearly all are ‘dissatisfied with the current job, in comparison with the job abroad”, particularly, due to wage.

Just in isolated cases, the returned migrant has plans to obtain unemployment benefits, to make a bank loan or to apply for financing programs from European funds.

Overall, when asked about their stay plans in Romania, the returned migrants mention also other plans including: 15% want to rest and have fun; 14% want to work on the house (renovate, build); 12% want to spend time with family – ‘raise my children’, ‘help my parents’, ‘visit relatives’; and 7% want to continue their studies. Very small shares intend also ‘to solve various problems’, ‘to retire’, ‘to consult a medic and/or health care’, ‘to find a spouse’, ‘to have my wedding’.

BOX 13. Requirements for the successful return of Romanian migrants, back home

Generally, the interviewed migrants who returned to Romania are trying either to find a job or to set up a small business. Apparently, the length of stay for those who seek and, eventually, find a job is shorter than the length of stay of those who start a business. This is just a simple empirical observation, not validated by the quantitative data.

A possible explanation could be that starting a business takes longer than finding a job and becoming dissatisfied with the available earnings. Usually, the majority interviewed persons – accounting for both returned and abroad migrants – declares the intention to start a business once returned, over the intention to find employment.

A specific group is represented by the persons over 50 years, whose main return plan comes down to retirement and to collect the pension offered by the foreign state, which will allow them have a comfortable life in Romania.

„We bought some land. We struggle to make something, to build… This

year, we are building our house, bit by bit. We finish a room then move to

the next one. My future is in Romania. I will return when I have a house

and a job, and to have a child. Maybe we will start a small business, in

plumbing or something. I wouldn’t invest too much in Romania for a

company. I would invest little money, for two vans or so, it’s enough for a

plumbing company.”


„Well, we will work in Italy until retirement, that’s for sure… We will

work as long as we can, until the Italians give us pension and then we will

go back, serenely, back home. Still… a long way to go!”


CHAPTER 5.

MONEY SENT BACK HOME, TO ROMANIA, BY MIGRANTS ABROAD

The information regarding the money sent home was reported by persons from households with migrants abroad, by migrants on vacation in Romania as well as by the returned migrants. These three groups of respondents provide significantly different reports. While migrants (on vacation or returned) tend to declare that, in the last year, they sent money back home ‘often’ or ‘very often’, the persons from households with migrants abroad – the beneficiaries – claim in a significantly higher proportion that they have ‘never’ received any money.

FIGURE 2. 23. Frequency of cash transfers from migrants abroad to Romania (%)


12

21

18

9

40

34

31

16

8

10

22

34

15

5

24

Foarte des

Destul de des

Destul de rar

Foarte rar

Niciodata

Migranți reveniți (N=130)

Migranți în concediu în țară (N=99)

Persoane din gospodării cu migranți în străinătate (N=650)

Young persons (18-29 years), especially pupils and students, and persons from settlements of 20 thousand inhabitants or more, declare in a considerably higher proportion (51-61% over 33% for all persons with migrants in the household) that, in the past year, they ‘often’ or ‘very often’ received money from abroad. The persons with migrants in household which reside in settlements of less than 20 thousand inhabitants, as well as those from poor rural communities,56 in significantly larger proportions, report that, in the past year, they received ‘rarely’ or ‘very rarely’ money from abroad. Lastly, more than 55% of persons 65 years and over (predominantly, retired), as well as of graduates of professional schools (vocational training), declare that, in the past year, they received no money from abroad (as opposed to 40% of all persons in households with migrants).

Considerable differences are also recorded in terms of migrants’ characteristics. Thus, young migrants abroad (18-29 years) send ‘very rarely’ or ‘rarely’ money back home. The same goes for specialists, workers in services (i.e. hotels, restaurants) and machinery/equipment operators (especially, in transport). In contrast, craftsmen (particularly, in constructions) send much more often money back home.

The share of migrants from Italy and Belgium who send money home ‘often’ or ‘very often’ is significantly higher than from other migrant countries. Unlike, about 40-50% of migrants from Germany, Great Britain, Greece and Nordic countries send ‘very rarely’ or ‘rarely’ money to Romania. More than 80% of the migrants from Canada, Australia, Ireland, and Hungary, have, in the past year, ‘never’ sent money home.

Other characteristics relating to respondent, household or migrant are insignificant. In other words, irrespective of gender, education, ethnic origin or religion of the respondent, size of the household, number of children, household/individual income, approximately one third of the households receive ‘often’ / ‘very often’ money from abroad, 27% receive ‘rarely’ / ’very rarely’, and 40% do not receive any remittances (Figure 2.23).

56 ’Poor rural communities’ refer to rural settlements for which the development level as measured by IDC (Sandu et al., 2009) is among the lowest 33% in Romania.

For more than half of the households with migrants, the money received from abroad represents a ‘big share, helping a lot’ or a ‘very big share, without them I don’t know how we would manage’ of the total household income.

FIGURE 2. 24. The contribution of remittances to the total income of households with migrants for work abroad (%)


The respondents for which remittances account for an insignificant part of total household income belong to two population categories – specialists and elderly persons (65+ years), in particular those from settlements (urban/rural) with a relatively high development level.57

Cash remittances represent a significant part of total household income especially for young, pupils/students and unemployed, in particular those from settlements (urban/rural) with a medium development level.58

57 The development level as measured by IDC is among the highest 33% in Romania. 58 The development level as measured by IDC (Sandu et al., 2009), is among the average 33% in the country.

Non-răspuns

O parte destul de

mare. Se simte destul

de bine la venitul

gospodăriei, ne ajută

mult.

O parte foarte mică,

neînsemnată. Și cu ei,

și fără ei, tot aia este

O parte destul de

mică. Se simte

oarecum la venitul

gospodăriei, dar nu

cine știe ce. Ne

descurcăm și fără ei

Singura sursă de venit

a gospodăriei.

O parte foarte mare.

Se simte foarte mult

la venitul gospodăriei.

Nu știu ce ne-am face

fără ei.

41%

11%18%

24%

Young migrants (18-29 years) send smaller amounts of money, while 45-64 years migrants send money without which the Romanian household would not manage.

Besides money, 37% of the households with abroad migrants receive other types of goods. This is specific for pupils/students in a significantly higher proportion (56%). Parcels with various goods are sent home in particular by the migrants working in Italy or France.

The comparative analysis records significant statistical differences between counties (Table 2.16 and Figure 2.25). If in Maramureș and Neamţ counties, every fifth household receives money from abroad, only one in ten households benefits from abroad remittances in Brașov County.

In Călărași County, the households with migrants that receiving ‘very often’ money from abroad are overrepresented. In Dolj county, the share of households with migrants receiving ‘rather often’ remittances from abroad is considerably higher, than for the other counties; while in Vaslui County are overrepresented households that ‘rarely’ receive money from abroad. However, overall, the differences between counties, although seem high, are not statistically significant. That is, about 60% of households with migrants (from any county) receive money from the relatives working abroad (either often or rarely).

Finally, households from Dolj County, in a significantly higher proportion (49% in comparison to 37%, the average for all six counties), receive parcels with various goods (Figure 2.25).

... for the six selected counties, 14 out of 100 households receive

money from the relatives abroad and 9 households out of 100

receive other types of goods. For about half of these

households, remittances account for a large share of total

household monthly income, without which they could not

manage ...

TABLE 2. 16. The percentage of households receiving cash and in kind remittances from the members abroad, by county

Distribution of persons in ...

Households

without migrants

Households with migrants

Total sample

Households receiving cash

remittances from members abroad

Households receiving in kind

(parcels) remittances from members abroad

(A) (B1) (A+B1)

TOTAL - N 2062 671 2733 2733 2733

- % 75,4% 24,6% 100% 14,2% 9,2%

County - Braşov 81,8% 18,2% 100% 9,8% 5,1%

- Călăraşi 84,0% 16,0% 100% 11,3% 3,8%

- Dolj 79,8% 20,2% 100% 11,3% 9,9%

- Maramureş 67,2% 32,8% 100% 18,5% 13,2%

- Neamţ 64,8% 35,2% 100% 21,0% 11,9%

- Vaslui 75,1% 24,9% 100% 14,4% 10,8%


FIGURA 2. 25. (A) The frequency of money transfers to Romania by county (%) and (B) The percentage of households receiving in kind remittances (parcels) from the members abroad, by county (%)


8

27

9

12

10

11

18

23

27

21

21

14

21

11

15

15

17

26

8

9

6

8

12

7

46

27

41

38

40

33

Braşov

Călăraşi

Dolj

Maramureş

Neamț

Vaslui

Foarte des Destul de des Destul de rar Foarte rar Niciodata

28

24

49

40

34

43

72

74

51

60

66

57

Braşov

Călăraşi

Dolj

Maramureş

Neamț

Vaslui

Primesc pachete Nu primesc pachete

BOX 14. The money transfers of Romanian migrants abroad

The interviewed Romanian migrants declared that, as a result of the crisis, they prefer to send back home parcels with necessary goods, for the following two reasons:

- On one hand, they have some control over how the money is spent, as it is for the bare necessities of people back home. Thus, the migrants can make more savings and return home faster, once the migration objective is achieved.

- On the other hand, the interviewees consider that both the quality of products, as well as quality/price ratio is much better abroad than in Romania. Similarly, in some cases, migrant workers stated that some products are for free or almost nothing, either because Spaniards abandoned things or can be easily purchased on the black market.

“We directly send food, clothes, because they are cheaper abroad...”


“I send 100-150 EUR, once a month, every two or three months, as needed

for food, for the kid’s school expenses and other household expenses. ‘Cause

one needs money to keep a household running. And, from time to time, I

would send packages of all kinds, clothes, things, food and so on...”


Romanians working abroad emphasized the fact that, especially in the recession context, the money and aid is vital as it secures the survival of those back home. Romanians who worked in Spain and Italy mentioned encountering obstacles because of the crisis and the sacrifices they have to make in order to continue supporting those back home. Nevertheless, if the destination country still provides opportunities to overcome the crisis, then families back home ‘would starve to death’, ‘could no longer survive’ or ‘could simply not manage’ because ‘the crisis in Romania is way worse than in Spain/Italy’.


The interviewed migrants agree that, given the crisis, the money they send to Romania in order to support people back home is aimed to assure decent living standards and to compensate for the Romanian worsening situation, where prices keep rising, wages get cut and job loss. Therefore, the absence or cessation of remittances could lead to severe poverty, especially if this would happen suddenly.

5.1. The evolution of cash remittances from abroad

For the majority of households with migrants abroad, the sum of money received remained ‘the same’ for the interval February-August 2010. However, 32% of persons in households with migrants reported shrinkages of the received sums of money.

FIGURE 2. 26. The evolution of cash remittances from abroad in the last six months


The proportion of households with migrants who received less money (or none at all) from abroad is significantly higher in Maramureș County (52%). In contrast, in Neamţ (72%) the households which received in the last 6 months about the same amount of money from abroad are overrepresented, while in Călărași (23%) it is significantly higher the proportion of those who received ‘more’ or ‘somewhat more’ money.

Mult mai mult

3%

Ceva mai mult

6%

La fel

50%

Non-răspuns

9%

Nu au mai

trimis nimic

6%

Mult mai mic

7%

Ceva mai mic

19%

5.2. The uses in Romania of the remittances from abroad

Migration literature which analyzes the development impact of remittances report that: remittances, either individual or collective, either sent through formal or informal channels, either money or in kind, have a limited impact and contribution to the processes of investment and job creation at origin. Actually, remittances are destined for consumption and everyday life, and only a small percentage goes to investments. This fact is also characteristic for Romania (e.g. Sandu, ed., 2006), being confirmed by the FES-CCBS research.

FIGURE 2. 27. The common usage pattern of remittances sent by migrants abroad to households in Romania, in the past year (%)


The majority of households with migrants use the money received from abroad to cover current expenses and to pay debts. House related issues rank the third – refurbishment, renovation, expansion, construction and endowment with goods.

The interviews with the representatives of local authorities and leaders have

identified the following behaviors of earnings management for Romanians

4

2

3

4

15

15

20

20

28

51

78

În alt mod

Donații și alte acte de binefacere

Investiții/ afaceri

Petrecerea timpului liber/ turism

Construcția/ achiziționarea de noi locuințe

Realizarea de economii

Educația copiilor

Bunuri de folosință îndelungată (în afară de maşină)

Îmbunătățirea locuinței existente

Plata datoriilor

Cheltuielile de zi cu zi

working abroad: comfort related expenditures and daily life satisfaction

(building, renovation and/or endowment of dwelling, acquisition of land or

car etc.) and investments, such as starting a business:

„As soon as they save a bit of money, they come back home to refurbish their

house. They plan to do that as abroad, accordingly modernizing their homes.”

„They don’t open businesses, not only because of money insufficiency. They

are rather afraid of investing and of not getting back any return.” (Representatives of local authorities, Romania)

Only 20% of the households with migrants that receive money from abroad declare to invest in children’s education. If we limit the analysis just to households with children, the percentage slightly increases to a mere 27%. In other words, just one in every four households with migrants abroad and in which children are present, use remittances for the children’s education.

However, households with migrants abroad and in which children are present (65%) receive remittances in a significantly higher proportion than childless households with migrants abroad (58%).59 Likewise, households with children receive money more often than those without children. In addition, remittances for households with children have a higher contribution to the total budget than in the case of childless households.

Only a minority of 3% of households with migrants that receive money from abroad use remittances for investment, opening or developing a business.

59 This result is consistent with other various studies on remittances. For example, Roman and Ileanu (2011) show that having children in the country of origin represents a determinant factor for remittance transfer decision, for all Eastern European migrants residing in Spain (INE data, 2009). Thus, a person who has children back home is 4 times more likely to send money, in comparison with a childless person. In contrast, the presence of other types of kin (such as parents or spouse) at the origin country, do not significantly affect the decision to send remittances.

BOX 15. The investments of migrants in Romania

The interviews with representatives of local authorities highlighted that, in addition to social, economic and business environment circumstances back home, migrants take in consideration the amenities and opportunities available at local level when thinking of making business investments, be it pre- or post- return to Romania.

The support provided by local authorities encourages the entrepreneurial spirit among migrants:

„Yes, we also offered a business training course here, locally. 34 young

people attended, out of which two even started a business with some furry

animals, how are they called… chinchillas. I went there myself and

business is booming. For now, just 2 out of 34 succeeded. This business is

with animals, but there are others who came for agriculture, greenhouses

which are still developing.”

(Representative of local authorities, Romania)

The investment plans of those working abroad are strongly affected by the corruption, bureaucracy and ‘clientelism’ in Romania, as perceived by respondents. Even those who invest in Romania claim to be dissatisfied with the ways in which the administrative and banking systems operate, with the lack of amenities for small enterprises, and with the conditions that enable a predictable and stable business environment. Ultimately, the qualitative study shows that the main factors which discourage Romanian migrants’ investments are not the insufficient financial resources or the lack of entrepreneurial spirit, but rather the bureaucratic obstacles, cumbersome and discretionary procedures, and corruption from Romania.

„I wouldn’t make any bank loans here. There (in Italy a/n) the loan

interest is smaller and they don’t ask you for one hundred documents. I

could not repay the debt there, if I wanted, it’s very convenient, but that’s

not the point. Here, I have never turned to the state for anything. There are

so many doors to open to obtain something – so better not! […] Well, now

I farm sunflower and corn, but I intend to open a pig farm and sell piglets.

Life is more expensive here than in Italy, if it hadn’t been for my family, it

wouldn’t be worth living here.”



„Tax-wise it is better in Italy. My brother has a company in Romania,

‘pero’ it isn’t going well at all. There are no odds in Romania. They all

steal, try to fool you, this and that, so I don’t like it. If Romania recovered,

I’d go back, if it worked alright. I would love to live in my native country.

But for now, here it is good even if you are ‘straniero’.”


„Italians are much more fair-minded. I’d like for all Romanians to return

home. How come it is possible to do something abroad, but not at home? If

only the state would help!”


CHAPTER 6.

THE INTENTION TO MIGRATE FOR WORK ABROAD

Out of the population of the analyzed six counties, 9% lived or worked abroad in the last two years. The proportion is almost two times larger for persons in households with migrants, in comparison to households without migrants.

FIGURE 2. 28. Migrating for work abroad – experience in the last 2 years and future intentions (%)


For the future, 22% of the entire population, meaning more than one in every five adults, intend to leave to work abroad. Once again, the proportion is significantly higher for persons in households with migrants abroad (29% versus 20% of persons in households without migrants). The propensity to

7

67

10 11 93

14

60

914 16

29

65

10 12 113

100

139

49

28

0

A trăit sau a

lucrat peste

hotare în ultimii 2

ani

- cu siguranță nu - probabil nu - probabil da - cu siguranță da - nu știe

În viitor, intenționează să plece la muncă în străinătate

(A) (B1) (A+B1) (C)

depart is much higher among the returned migrants, out of which 49% will ‘probably’ and others 28% will ‘definitely’ go back abroad for work.60

The higher and more direct the experience a person has with migration for work abroad, the greater the propensity to adopt this strategy again. Therefore, among persons in households without migrants and without migration experience, only 18% intend to leave. Among persons who have only indirect experience (having relatives abroad), about 24% intend to leave. For persons who have direct experience with migration and no relatives abroad the percentage increases to 52%, while for those with direct experience and relatives abroad the percentage reaches a high 65%.

Table 2.17 presents the profile of prospective migrants.

Considerably more men than women consider working abroad as a life strategy, especially in the case of persons with no migration experience.

The correlation between age and migration intention is strongly negative.61 The higher the age of the person, the lower the probability of intending to go work abroad.

The correlation between migration intention and the completed education level is also significant.62 However, in this case, the correlation is positive, meaning that the propensity to work abroad increases with the level of education. However, significantly higher proportions of persons who intend to go work abroad are identified for high-school graduates, rather than for persons with maximum 8 grades or for university graduates. More precisely, the population category with the highest propensity to go abroad refers to young high-school graduates, pupils/students, house persons or unemployed. Thus, prospective migrants reproduce the already existing Romanian labor migration pattern.

60 Migrants on vacation in Romania will be returning abroad for work. 61 Pearson coefficient -.43 (p=.000). 62 Pearson coefficient +.12 (p=.000).

TABEL 2. 17. Profile of prospective migrants for work abroad (% A+B1 – representative sample at population level)

Certainly no

Probably no

Probably yes

Certainly yes

Don’t know

Total

TOTAL – N 1.781 264 316 292 80 2.733

TOTAL - % 65,20% 9,70% 11,60% 10,70% 2,90% 100%

Worked abroad in the last 2 years 30,9% 9,3% 21,2% 35,6% 3,0% 100%

Gender - women 68,4% 9,5% 10,7% 8,9% 2,4% 100% - men 61,6% 9,8% 12,5% 12,7% 3,4% 100%

Age - 18-29 35,3% 14,9% 20,8% 25,2% 3,8% 100% - 30-44 52,1% 12,6% 17,7% 15,5% 2,2% 100% - 45-64 74,0% 8,6% 9,0% 6,0% 2,5% 100% - 65 years and over 90,7% 4,0% 1,3% * 3,5% 100%

Education - maximum 8 classes 77,9% 6,6% 7,2% 5,8% 2,5% 100% - apprentice 62,1% 8,5% 13,0% 12,5% 3,9% 100% - high school 57,1% 11,4% 13,6% 15,1% 2,7% 100% - post-high school 66,7% 7,8% 15,1% 7,8% 2,6% 100% - university 60,5% 15,7% 11,3% 10,2% 2,4% 100%

Ocupaţie - retired persons 86,2% 6,0% 3,4% 1,9% 2,6% 100% - houswifes 55,9% 9,7% 15,8% 15,8% 2,9% 100% - unemployed 46,7% 13,3% 15,8% 22,4% * 100% - students/pupils 33,7% 16,0% 23,1% 22,5% 4,7% 100% - agricultors 66,7% * 16,7% 10,0% * 100% - workers 46,3% 11,4% 18,8% 19,1% 4,4% 100% - „gray collars” 54,4% 12,2% 18,5% 12,9% 2,1% 100% - „white collars” 61,3% 14,9% 8,8% 11,6% 3,3% 100% - employers, managers 63,5% 12,2% 13,5% 9,5% * 100%

TABEL 2.17 (continuation)

Certainly no

Probably no

Probably yes

Certainly yes

Don’t know

Total

TOTAL – N 1.781 264 316 292 80 2.733

TOTAL - % 65,20% 9,70% 11,60% 10,70% 2,90% 100%

Revenue of the household(monthly, per capita)

- Q1 (150 lei/month/ person) 60,7% 5,6% 17,8% 13,9% 2,0% 100%

- Q2 (300 lei//monthly/ person) 69,0% 9,9% 10,2% 8,8% 2,1% 100% - Q3 (500 lei/monthly/ person) 64,4% 11,3% 9,0% 10,7% 4,5% 100% - Q4 (700 lei/month/ person) 71,9% 9,7% 8,0% 9,4% * 100% - Q5 (1.300 lei/monthly/ person) 70,6% 11,8% 8,4% 7,4% 1,9% 100% (Quintile) NO answer 61,9% 9,6% 13,0% 11,7% 3,8% 100%

Monthly revenue

- Q1 (without revenues) 49,5% 11,3% 18,1% 17,9% 3,3% 100%

Of the person

- Q2 (300 lei/lper month) 74,7% 6,9% 7,8% 8,0% 2,5% 100%

- Q3 (600 lei/lper month) 74,3% 7,9% 8,7% 6,6% 2,5% 100% - Q4 (800 lei/per month) 69,6% 8,2% 9,9% 8,7% 3,5% 100% (Quintile) - Q5 (1.500 lei/lper month) 66,2% 13,9% 9,7% 7,6% 2,7% 100% No answer 55,4% 9,6% 15,8% 16,3% 3,0% 100%

Children - no children in the household 71,0% 8,7% 9,4% 8,2% 2,7% 100% - there are children in the household 55,1% 11,8% 15,1% 14,9% 3,0% 100%

TABEL 2.17 (continuation)

Certainly no

Probably no

Probably yes

Certainly yes

Don’t know

Total

TOTAL – N 1.781 264 316 292 80 2.733

TOTAL - % 65,20% 9,70% 11,60% 10,70% 2,90% 100%

Residential - urban 63,6% 11,3% 10,8% 11,1% 3,2% 100% area - rural 67,1% 7,8% 12,5% 10,2% 2,5% 100%

Type of - poor community 67,9% 7,9% 11,1% 9,5% 3,7% 100% Locality - medium developed community 65,3% 7,4% 13,7% 12,8% * 100% - developed community 67,9% 8,2% 14,3% 6,6% 3,1% 100% - towns under 20 000 inhabitants 63,7% 9,7% 13,1% 9,4% 4,1% 100% - towns over 20 000 inhabitants 63,6% 11,6% 10,2% 11,5% 3,1% 100%

County - Braşov 68,1% 9,4% 9,9% 9,7% 2,8% 100% - Călăraşi 69,6% 6,7% 8,9% 13,3% * 100% - Dolj 70,6% 9,3% 6,1% 9,8% 4,3% 100% - Maramureş 51,4% 10,5% 21,0% 14,4% 2,7% 100% - Neamţ 63,3% 12,8% 12,8% 9,2% 1,9% 100% - Vaslui 67,2% 8,2% 12,3% 9,3% 3,0% 100%


The ‘grey collar’ occupational categories also present a significantly higher percentage of persons who intend to go work abroad. Among these, technicians and foremen (especially those working in constructions) and workers in services have a considerably higher propensity to depart. In contrast, among clerical staff (particularly civil servants) just 17% plan to leave Romania. Accordingly, the prospective migrants are overrepresented by employees working in the private economy sector.

At the household level, the propensity to go work abroad is significantly higher for persons living with a large number of members, with children and who already have several members working abroad.63

The insufficiency of income has a strong influence on the intention to go work abroad. There are two types of circumstances which correlate with significantly stronger intention of departure:

(1) Persons from low-income households, who see no other option than working abroad, since working in Romania does not generate sufficient income to overcome poverty.

(2) Persons (especially, the young) with very low personal incomes (pupils/students, house persons, unemployed) from well-off families (with medium-high income, cars, computers, mobile phones). The majority of these households already have migrants abroad, so young

63 The correlation Pearson coefficient for intention to migrate and number of migrants in the household is +.21 (p=.000). The correlation coefficient with the number of members of the household is +.15 (p=.000), and for the number of children in the household is +.09 (p=.000).

... in conclusion, at the individual level, the intention to go work

abroad is significantly higher for men, young persons, high school

graduates (pupils/students, house persons and unemployed) and

‘grey collars’ (especially in constructions and services). The higher

and more direct the migration experience, the stronger the intention

to go abroad...

persons want to leave not because of poverty, but to pursue the ‘success pattern’ of the household, which is working abroad.

Geographically, there are a few statistically significant differences. However, if we take into consideration the proportion of persons who intend to go abroad (‘definitely’ or ‘probably’) there are no significant discrepancies for community level predictors: residence area, community development/ poverty level, local economic growth, social problems and other. The only difference occurs between counties, as the propensity to go abroad is significantly higher for Maramureș County and significantly lower for Dolj County.

6.1. Why do people want to go work abroad

Romanian migrants currently working abroad left for money (section 4.4) and also money is the key stimulus for prospective migrants. In other words, (prospective) migrants aim an income that provides better living, a decent life, and ‘a future for children’.

The second reason is the ‘economic crisis in Romania’. Abroad, the developed countries offer more opportunities, jobs are easier to find and revenues are better, while the situation back home is characterized as ‘desolation, poverty, injustice, disappointment’.

FIGURE 2. 29. The reasons for departure of prospective migrants (%)


6

10

13

15

35

59

Situația proastă din țară, sărăcie, mizerie, hoție, dezamăgire

Lipsa unui loc de muncă în România

Un trai mai bun, o viață decentă

Peste hotare sunt mai multe posibilități

Criza economică din România

Pentru bani, să câștig mai mult decât aș câștiga în România

6.2. Plans about going abroad of prospective migrants

As previously showed, the intention to go work abroad is higher especially for migrants who returned due to the crisis. Moreover, out of all persons who ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ will depart, over half are inclined to go back abroad in maximum 12 months.

TABLE 2. 18. Plans of departure of prospective migrants (% persons who intend to migrate ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’)

Persons from


Persons from

households with

migrants Total

sample

Lot of returned migrants

(A) (B1) (A+B1) (C)

Very soon, in maximum 1 month 17 34 22 0

Soon, in apr. 2-3 months 13 8 11 9

In 4-12 months 20 24 21 42

More than one year 18 12 16 23

Don’t know 33 22 29 26

Total -% 100 100 100 100

- N 412 196 608 104


Therefore, if we take into account the entire adult population of the six counties, 12% plan to go work abroad before the summer of 2011 (within 12 months) and others 10% plan to depart later. However, the intention to work abroad is significantly higher among adults from families with children, especially if one member of the household is already working abroad. Thus, the population which intends to go work abroad increases from 18% for persons without children to 26% for persons with children and without migrants, reaching 41% for persons who have children as well as parents/ relatives who work abroad. Consequently, a rough estimate shows that going for work abroad could affect, in 2011, over 16% of the total children

population in the six counties, besides the 27% children already affected by labor migration.

On the long-term, circa 22% of prospective migrants have no definite plans,

while 14% want to remain permanently abroad. For migrants who plan to leave for only six months, the persons with children in household and residing in Maramureş County are overrepresented. In contrast, prospective migrants from Neamţ and Braşov counties plan to migrate for five years or more.

TABLE 2. 19. Long-term plans of prospective migrants (% persons who intend to migrate ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’)

Persons from households

without migrants

Persons from households with

migrants Total

sample

(A) (B1) (A+B1)

I work maximum 6 months and I return

11 22 15

I work maximum 1 year and I return 13 12 13

I work maximum 2 years and I return 14 15 15

I work maximum 5 years and I return 22 23 22

I leave forever 15 10 14

Don’t know 24 17 22

Total -% 100 100 100

- N 412 196 608


... given that people from households with children have a

higher propensity to migrate abroad, an additional 16% of

children (0-18 years) in the six counties might be affected by

migration in 2011 ...

Prospective migrants prefer the same destinations as migrants settled (or returned from) abroad, predominantly Italy and Spain. Overall, 29% of the studied population (A+B1) intends to go to Italy, accounting for 7% of the entire adult population at origin.64

Spain is the second preferred destination. Overall, 11% of the studied population (A+B1) intends to go to Spain, accounting for over 2.5% of the whole adult population at origin.65

Approximately 23% of prospective migrants (of A+B1) do not know in what country to migrate (15%) or are willing to go ‘anywhere’ (8%). Generally, these are persons without direct migration experience and without relatives abroad.

Women who intend to go abroad specify Italy as preffered destination country, in a significantly higher percentage, while men mostly prefer Germany and Great Britain.

The Roma population expresses interest for Spain in a percentage 2.5 times higher than the rest of the population (29%). Spain is also selected by a disproportionately higher share of workers in services.

Both Italy and Spain tend to be the favorite destinations for the majority of prospective migrants from rural areas. Those residing in urban areas are proportionally scattered over a larger number of countries. Nevertheless, at the same time, prospective migrants from urban regions are in a significantly higher proportion undecided about the destination country.

The destination country significantly differs in accordance with the origin county of the prospective migrant. Subsequently, over half of the persons who intend to work abroad from Neamţ and Dolj counties, consider Italy. Prospective migrants from Călărași County predominantly prefer Spain or ‘anywhere’. Persons from Brașov County, in significantly higher percentages, consider Germany, Hungary or far away destinations, such as United States and Australia. Prospective migrants from Maramureș County plan to go to

64 Italy was mentioned as destination by 24% of persons from households without migrants, 40% of persons from households with migrants and 53% of returned migrants. 65 Spain was mentioned as destination by 10% of persons from households without migrants, 15% of persons from households with migrants and 20% of returned migrants.

France, Belgium, the Netherlands or other Nordic European countries. Lastly, persons who intend to go abroad from Vaslui County form a distinctive group as a significant proportion chooses Great Britain as destination country.

The selection of the destination country is based on four main reasons: (1) 28% have information that in that country incomes are satisfactory and there are jobs available; (2) 17% have relatives or friends working there, who can help with integration, accommodation and finding work; (3) 9% have previous migration experience in that country ‘I know how to handle things and the (foreign) language’; (4) 3% have already made some type of employment arrangement. The other mentioned various reasons (13%) or ‘I do not know’ (30%, out of which the majority are prospective migrants who are clueless about the destination country or are willing to go work anywhere).

The majority of prospective migrants who do not have definite plans regarding when, where and stay duration, are over 45 years, women and men, employed or retired persons, that most likely do not intend to go work abroad, but want to express their discontent with the country situation.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Labor migrants represent an important resource both for destination and origin countries. The global economic and financial crisis has profoundly affected all countries, generating direct consequences on the lives of migrants and their participation on the labor markets. All these effects have manifested as increased social and economic vulnerabilities, in a context of generalized nationalistic political discourses and of negative public opinions on immigration, which lead to the adoption of restrictive and protectionist migration policies.

Given the economic recession which amplifies and aggravates many of the existent problems, it is essential for politicians and decision-makers of destinations countries to strengthen collaboration ties with the origin countries. Moreover, it is essential to jointly develop appropriate programs and public policies which would facilitate efficient migration management. These programs should aim to encourage temporary labor migration and productive return migration, in order to capture the contribution of migrant and immigration benefits in a coherent and long-term manner. Lastly, it is essential to not let populist political discourses or restrictive measures against immigration and labor migrants become the mainstream reactions to the economic crisis.

The recession has brought back on the public agenda debates on migration, labor force mobility, access to welfare, education, services and certain positions/qualifications. The very issues that constitute the fundamental values and freedoms foundation on which the European space was built upon, such as equal opportunities, liberty, respect for human rights, solidarity and protection of vulnerable groups by all those who are part of the European community, regardless of whether they are residents or not. Furthermore, the crisis questions the core values and principles which make us Europeans and poses multiple challenges relating to society and economy,

but also to the ways in which labor migration / employment mobility is managed as a constitutive component of future Europe.

The research presented in this volume is part of the long series of migration studies regarding Romania labor migration. In many ways, our analysis confirms the results of previous studies. Nonetheless, the added value of this research, besides the recent data, brings into discussion the relation between migration and economic recession, including a comprehensive analysis on crisis-triggered migration return to Romania.

Our study shows that during the crisis, migration although less intense in terms of ‘first time’ departures, has not significantly diminished and it is not likely to decrease in the future, as ‘the crisis in Romania is worse’ than in Spain, in Italy or in the developed states.

The economic crisis has had multiple negative effects on the population in Romania as well as on the Romanian migrants working abroad. The workers marginalized on the labor market, with reduced human capital, low income and few material assets, describe themselves as being the most affected by the crisis. Actually, within the country, lowering incomes, diminishing savings and job loss have resulted in worsening of living conditions of the general population, particularly of the most vulnerable categories. Abroad, among the Romanian migrant workers, those who experienced the worst of the crisis have been the unskilled ones and those working without documents in the informal economies of the destination countries. The sectors which tend to predominantly hire migrant workers, such as construction and tourism, have been among the most drastically affected in the economy. This fact has caused a significant increase in the unemployment rate amongst migrant workers, this rate being higher than that amongst native workers.

The majority of Romanians working abroad describe the impact of the crisis by: ‘lots of migrants started losing their jobs’, ‘living costs have increased’, while ‘migrants’ wages have been cut’. However, when asked about their own incomes, most migrants (63%) declare that incomes remained the same for the past six months and only a small percentage (17%) of migrants reported income reductions. The impact of the economic crisis on the revenues of Romanian migrant workers varies significantly depending on the economic situation and crisis manifestation in the destination country. For

example, the wages of migrants working in Spain have decreased substantially in comparison with those of migrants in Italy.

Money represents the main reason for emigrating, because in Romania ‘you cannot earn decent money’ and ‘you cannot make a future’. Money is the predominant reason for migration, regardless of age, gender, educational level, occupation, location of the migrant (abroad or returned), and even the household or personal income.

Given the crisis, the return of migrants to their countries of origin is a foreseeable consequence. In the case of the Romanian migration, the crisis led to return migration, but at a rather low rate. Contrary to estimates and speculations of the Romanian media at the beginning of the crisis, which anticipated a massive return migration phenomenon, the reality was different. The return migration was a relatively minor phenomenon, as confirmed in our analysis. At the level of the selected six counties, in September 2009 - August 2010, just 4.5% households have at least one person returned due to the crisis. Significantly higher return rates, of approximately 7% are recorded for Moldova counties (Neamţ and Vaslui), while in Braşov county the return rate is only 1.7%. In addition, the return is mostly temporary and not permanent. Thus, most likely, migrants will not massively return to Romania, at least not for many years to come.

The return migration to Romania is an effect of: age, education, geographical mobility, country of destination, occupation and support networks abroad. Multivariate analysis models shows that, ceteris paribus, the odds of returning back home are significantly higher for young migrants working abroad (18-45 years), for persons with a medium or superior level of education, for people who sought work or have worked in several countries, those returning from Italy or Spain, where they worked particularly in agriculture and had no support networks to facilitate integration in the destination country.

The FES research shows that the returned migrants do not differ by gender from the abroad migrants. In other words, neither depart, nor return from work abroad more women than men. The multivariate analysis confirms that gender is not a significant determinant of the decision to return to Romania. However, official statistics indicate that the crisis has affected women less than men. The demand for labor in the feminized sectors such as domestic

labor - cleaning, elderly care - has remained the same, while unemployment sharply amplified in the masculinized economic sectors - especially in constructions. This phenomenon applies to Romanian migrants residing both in Spain and in Italy.

Consistent with other migration studies, our research illustrates that migrants are significantly younger than the population of the origin counties. In terms of going to work abroad, most migrants leave for the first time at 21-27 years of age. The average age at the ‘first time’ departure is 30 years for women and 28 years for men. However, after 44 years of age, significantly more women than men go abroad. Age is also relevant for the return migration. For young persons (18-29 years) the odds of returning back home, as compared with staying abroad, are over seven times, and over ten times higher for adults (30-44 years) respectively, compared with elderly persons’ (60+ years) return propensity. In other words, an advanced age is not a favoring factor of returning back home.

By comparison with the abroad migrants, the returned migrants in the economic crisis context, were at the time of the first departure less qualified, thus, less prepared to adapt to the foreign labor market demands. However, a low level of education (of maximum 8 grades) is accompanied by reduced return propensity. Therefore, it does not support the hypothesis according to which low education levels favor the return migration, as the primary school migrants prefer to be homeless in Italy or Spain than ‘starve to death in Romania’.

Persons who returned because of the recession left Romania later than the other migrants, so they had less time to gain experience, make useful connections and develop skills to cope with the crisis in the destination countries. Nevertheless, the multivariate analysis demonstrates that other factors, and not the year of first departure, significantly increase the probability of returning to Romania.

According to official statistics, self-employment has proven to be a response to the crisis more frequent for migrant than for the native populations. This is the case also for the Romanian migrants. The number of Romanian entrepreneurs has substantially increased during the crisis, especially in one of the main destination countries for Romanians: Italy. The small number of

entrepreneurs migrants included in our research does not allow a statistical analysis. Nonetheless, the FES-CCSB data show that abroad, migrants, both residing there and returned in Romania, have similar occupations: the vast majority - about three quarters – are service workers, artisans/craftsmen or unskilled workers.

The returned migrants were characterized, at the moment of the first departure, by a higher proportion by persons who failed or did not attempt to enter the Romanian labor market. Therefore, they succeeded to accumulate fewer work experience, both in Romania and abroad. Over a third of migrants did not try or failed to find a job in Romania, so after they finalized education and/or after an unemployment period decided to go abroad, where they managed to enter labor market.

Among the migrants who worked in Romania previous to going abroad, predominate horizontal or downward occupational mobility, as in the destination country they find either similar jobs or jobs for which they are overqualified. Only circa 14% of migrants present upward mobility, meaning they have better positions or occupations abroad than in Romania, either because, in the meanwhile, they underwent education/ training courses, or because they have had relevant knowledge and skills necessary in the context of developed economies. On the labor market of the destination country, the downward occupational mobility is specific to women, and upward / horizontally occupational mobility is specific to men.

However, in terms of occupation, neither self-employment nor occupational mobility, or first entry on the labor market at destination country (and not in Romania) are not factors which significantly favor or inhibit the return migration. Just the agricultural occupation at destination represent a significant factor that increases the chances of returning in the country. This is explained by the fact that agricultural workers go abroad for determined periods or seasonal work, and so the coming back home occurs naturally once the labor contract expires. Qualitative findings indicate that most of those who worked in agriculture almost always practice this type of circulatory migration. Thus, the return of migrants working in agriculture is most probably temporary, the propensity for (re)going back abroad being rather high.

As for the geographical mobility, the data did not support the hypothesis according which the returned persons would present lower mobility than the abroad migrants. On the contrary, more likely to return to Romania are migrants who worked in several countries, rather that those who worked in a single foreign country.

The likelihood of returning back home depends on the country of destination. Italy and Spain are favorite destinations of the Romanian migrants. Subsequently, the return odds are 1.8 times higher for migrants in Italy, and respectively 2.1 times higher for those in Spain, in comparison with other foreign countries. We conclude that the probability of return is higher for migrants from Spain, as the Spanish economy and its labor market are strongly affected by crisis, distressing all sectors and leading to extremely high unemployment rates of 20% for native labor force and 30% for the Romanian migrants.

In addition, in Canada are overrepresented migrants who do not return (either for vacation or longer periods), while in France and Greece are overrepresented migrants on vacation in Romania.

The majority of migrants seeks support in the destination country from foreigners and/or newly made Romanians friends. The success strategy for Romanian migrants involves combining two elements: (a) siblings abroad who help you adapt to the new environment, quickly teach you the ‘rules of the game’ or forces you to make the necessary preparation arrangements for them abroad and (b) investments in ‘weak ties’, having as many acquaintances as possible, preferably natives of the destination country with which to spend time, on which you can rely and from which you can learn effective integration methods.

Therefore, the support provided by relatives or foreigners is another important factor for the decision to return to Romania. Having siblings abroad significantly decreases the chance of return, regardless of the migrant’s individual characteristics, destination country and all other considered factors. Moreover, having extensive social networks at destination (including natives of that country) and positively perceiving the abroad experience promote social integration in the host country, which in turn,

leads to no return migration. The better integrated the migrant, the lower the probability of returning to Romania.

Unlike the abroad migrants: (1) the returned migrants have significantly fewer support from siblings abroad either because they have none or because they are all in Romania, (2) significantly less returned migrants have someone besides relatives to await them at destination, (3) significantly fewer work with Romanian friends or colleagues, (4) made some foreign friends or acquaintances, but in a much smaller extent, (5) when faced with a personal problem, mostly ‘solve it on their own’, and (6) as they left later, have more friends on which they can count on in Romania and not abroad.

The more recent the migrant left, the smaller the newly social network made abroad. The collected data demonstrate that migrants who left previous to 2005 consider either that they have most friends abroad or that they have as many friends in Romania as abroad, while migrants left after 2005 believe they have most friends in Romania. In other words, recently departed abroad migrants have fewer friends or relatives at destination, on which they can rely on, and correspondingly, their return propensity is higher.

Over 90% of the returned migrants state that they ‘fairly well’ or ‘very well’ integrated at the destination country. Consequently, the Romanian migrants, even those who returned back home felt integrated in the Western societies where they found employment. Persons, who consider not to have integrated, are mostly those who did not make foreign friends or spent all their time with Romanians at destination country.

Perceptions on the host country are unanimously positive. The majority of the returned migrants, when asked about the things they disliked, answered ‘nothing, everything was great’. They enjoyed the ‘quiet life’, the ‘comfortable life’, the justice, the respect for people and work, the sociability and politeness of people, the ‘smiling people’, the order, the civilized manners, the cleanliness and the modern way of life ‘different from the petty life in Romania’. The most frequently mentioned negative aspects relate to ‘racial hatred against Romanians’, but also to the ‘Romanians beggars’, ‘Romanian thieves’, ‘Romanian Roma’, and being away from home and family.

The FES-CCSB data indicates that most Romanian migrants were expected at the destination country by colleagues, friends or relatives. However, over half

of the male migrants dared to go to work abroad without prior arrangements, without being expected by anyone abroad. On average, each migrant ‘drags’ other three migrants to work abroad. Migrant women make arrangements for a smaller number of people than migrant men (on average 2.4 persons compared to 3.4 persons). A common strategy is when a household member goes first abroad and shortly after finding employment invites siblings or spouses to join.

This research provides evidence which supports the fact that migration is associated with a risk of family fragmentation. Married migrants, both women and men, present abroad the same marital behavior as the single migrants. Moreover, having children back home assures a higher number of visits to Romania, as well as consistent and often remittances transfers. However, this does not imply a higher propensity for return. In fact, in rural areas, the presence of children in the household back in Romania significantly reduces the probability for return.

From the perspective of family policies, it is relevant to note that, during the crisis (September 2009 - August 2010), almost a third (31%) of households with children and migrants abroad received no money or goods. Likewise, for households with children that received remittances from abroad, just for half, the money significantly contributed to the welfare of the family. Thus, the problem of children left behind by migrant stresses the need for strong and efficient migration policies, as for children the crisis translates into an increased risk of income/consumption poverty, in addition to the absence of parental care and emotional-affective deprivation.

Nonetheless, the most frequently invoked reason for return is ‘missing the family’ / ‘longing for home’, and the second reason is achieving the migration goal. Only few migrants returned to Romania because of job loss or due to income reduction.

We consider that individual factors will continue to dominate the return decisions of Romanian migrants, even more so given the prolonged economic crisis in Romania. This result from the fact that both at local and national level there are no measures which target and facilitate the return of migrants, and, by that matter, no Romanian strategy or policy for labor migration/

mobility, relevant for the EU-27 space, which to maximize benefits and the development effects of migration regarding the origin settlements

The rate of return from work abroad is more or less the same for rural and urban settlements, developed or deprived, with serious or marginal social issues. A significantly higher proportion of households with returned persons are found in settlements (rural or urban) where emigration is widespread and where the local economy does not offer real opportunities. Thus, the data invalidates the hypothesis according which the return migration is conditioned by the economic opportunities at origin. At least in the cases of the studied counties, the greater and more diversified the local economy at origin, the lower the return rates.

The multivariate analysis confirms this trend, but also points out that the development level of the origin rural settlement, the residency area as well as the origin county have not significant effects on return migration.

Is the return of migrants permanent? The large proportion of return migrants, stating that they plan to go abroad again, makes us believe that we are dealing mostly with a temporary return phenomenon. The more extensive and direct the migration experiences of a person, the greater the propensity to adopt, once again, this life strategy. The main motivation for the intention to emigrate is dissatisfaction with the return situation: most of the returned migrants consider that they live worse or much worse than abroad, being discontent with low income, poverty, inefficient laws and the corruption from Romania.

The majority of returned migrants, at the time of the survey, were looking for a job and just a small percentage of them had found one. However, most of those who found employment declare to be less satisfied with the job in Romania than that abroad, mainly due to the wage. Moreover, neither does the option for return migrants to remain permanently by opening a business hold: those who intend to start a business are relatively few (17%) and the number of those who have started a business was too small for performing a statistical analysis.

Therefore, the economic crisis did no cause a massive wave of return migration in the case of Romanian migrants. Furthermore, those who returned intend to stay in Romania, most likely, for a limited period. Despite

the economic crisis impact on the Western Europe countries, the labor market opportunities are still more numerous there than in Romania. In fact, the number of persons with no migration experience and who declared the intention to go work abroad is almost three times the number of returned persons, which proves that, in reality, the economic recession inflamed the propensity for migration, while the return migration phenomenon was rather weak. Furthermore, given the Romanian crisis, the plan of emigrating and finding a job abroad becomes, for most Romanians, a necessity and the only possible alternative for making ‘a decent life’ based on ‘honest money’.

The impact of the crisis on the Romanian labor migration is evident in terms of remittances sent from abroad. Although abroad migrants tried to continue supporting those back home by sending either money or goods, given the deterioration of labor market conditions in all destination countries, the remittances entered a downfall curve and dropped, mid-2011, to about half of the maximum level, of 2008. In 2010, two years after the onset of the economic crisis, remittances were higher than in 2007, previous to the recession, although recorded decreases in 2008-2009. It is important to note that the percentage of migrants in Italy and Belgium who send ‘often’ or ‘very often’ money to Romania is significantly higher than in other countries.

Concomitantly, the study highlights the migration effects on Romania, given the financial and economic crisis context. The crisis severely affected Romania: soaring prices, job losses, wage cuts, VAT increase up to 24%, state benefits cutbacks. Under these conditions, remittances from Romanians migrants abroad and the help they offered to their families back home proved to be vital, often representing the difference between poverty and decent life. At the six counties level, among a hundred households, 14 receive money from relatives working abroad and 9 receive other goods. For circa half of these households, remittances represent a large part of the monthly income, without which the household could not make it. The positive economic impacts of migration overlap with negative social effects: although all categories of interviewed persons agree that migration rather ‘contributes to development of Romania’ and ‘helps people who leave to see how people from other countries live’, at the same time, they outlined the negative consequences of this phenomenon: ‘migration separates families’, ‘makes

people obsessed with money’ and ‘emphasizes the social inequalities between the rich and the poor’.

It is clear that, at least in the case of the Romanian migrants, the only effective strategies for avoiding the dramatic consequences of the economic crisis were individual. The strategies consisted mainly in the orientation to other regions or destination countries, re-professionalization or return to Romania. Thus, for the future, the key is to develop a strategy which regulates and ensures the effective management of migration. It is essential, given the socio-economic crisis which flounced all over European and beyond, to reinforce relations between decision-makers from Romania and those from the destinations countries of the Romanian migrants.

Finally, we hope that our study The impact of the economic crisis on the

Romanian labor migration will represent a source of pertinent and documented information regarding the realities of Romanian migration and its manifestations in the time of crisis. Furthermore, the study is an useful and relevant instrument for decision makers at all levels, which can be utilized in defining, improving public policies / national strategies regarding labor migration.

REFERENCES

• Brădăţan, C. E. and Sandu, D. (2012) “Before Crisis: Gender and Economic Outcomes of the Two Largest Immigrant Communities in Spain”, in International Migration Review, vol. 46, 1 (Spring 2012):221–243.

• Constant A. and Zimmermann K. F. (2004) Self-Employment Dynamics

Across the Business Cycle: Migrants Versus Natives, IZA Discussion Paper No. 1386, http://ftp.iza.org/dp1386.pdf.

• Dăianu, D. (coord.) (2002) Balance of payments financing in Romania.The

role of remittances, Romanian Center for Economic Policies, Bucharest.

• European Commission (2010) Employment in Europe 2010, http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=593

• Holst E. and Schrooten M. (2006) Migration and Money – What

determines Remittances? Evidence from Germany, DIW Berlin, SOEP, and University of Flensburg, Berlin.

• Koehler J., Laczko F., Aghazarm C. and Schad J. (2010) Migration and

the economic crisis in the European Union: implications for policies, Research and Publications Division, IOM, http://www.iomdublin.org/Migration_and_The_Economic_Crsis_in%20_he%20_U.pdf

• López-Sala A. and Ferrero-Turrión, R. (2009) Economic Crisis and

migration policies in Spain: The big dilemma, Paper presented at the annual conference of the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, University of Oxford, New Times, Economic Crisis, geo-political

transformation and the emergent migration order.

• Metro Media Transilvania and Agenţia pentru Strategii Guvernamentale (2007) Comunitatea românească în Italia: condiţii

sociale, valori, aşteptări, www.mmt.ro/cri.pdf.

• Montagnana, S. (2010) Impactul crizei asupra pieţei muncii din România, published at 5th May 2010 at http://www.sapereproject.ro/index.php?option=com_content&view=

article&id=60%3Aimpactul-crizei-asupra-pietei-muncii-din-romania&catid=23%3Amonografii&Itemid=66

• More I., Godenau D., Yurena Gonzalez D., Kurzawinska E. and Moreno Alberto, I. (2010) Immigracion y remesas informales en Espana,

Ministerio de Trabajo e Inmigracion, Documentos del Observatorio Permanente de la Inmigracion, www.remesas.org.

• Neef R. and Adair Ph. (coord.) (2004) Shadow Economies and Social

Transformation in Romania, LIT Verlag Munster.

• Neef R. and Stănculescu M. S. (coord.) (2002) The Social Impact of

Informal Economies in Eastern Europe, Ashgate.

• Observatorul Social, University of Bucharest, 2010, Barometru de

incluziune socială, sondaj reprezentativ la nivel naţional pentru angajatorii şi angajaţii din România, http://media.unibuc.ro/attachments/article/909/Barometrul%20de%20Incluziune%20Sociala%202010_Angajati_Angajatori_07.10.2010.pdf.

• OECD (2009) International Migration and the Economic Crisis:

Understanding the Links and Shaping Policy, in Responses in International Migration Outlook, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/18/46292981.pdf .

• Pajares M., (2010) Inmigración y mercado de trabajo. Informe 2010.

Análisis de datos de España y Cataluña, Documentos del Observatorio Permanente de la Inmigración, Madrid.

• Pajares M., (2009) Inmigración y mercado de trabajo. Informe 2009.

Análisis de datos de España y Cataluña, Documentos del Observatorio Permanente de la Inmigración, Madrid, http://extranjeros.mtin.es/es/ObservatorioPermanenteInmigracion/Publicaciones/archivos/Inmigracion__Mercado_de_Trabajo_OPI25.pdf

• Papademitriou D. G., Sumption M., Terrazas A. cu Burket C., Loyal S., Ferrero-Turrion R. (2010) Migration and immigrants two years after

the financial collapse: where do we stand?, Migration Policy Institute, Washington DC, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/MPI-BBCreport-2010.pdf

• Pittau F., Ricci A. and Ildiko Tims L. (coord.) (2010) Românii din Italia

între respingere şi acceptare, Confederation Caritas Romania and Caritas Italiana, http://www.caritas-cluj.ro/download/Romanii%20din%20Italia%20intre%20respingere%20si%20acceptare.pdf

• Ratha D., Mohapatra S. and Silwal A. (2009) „Outlook for Remittance Flows 2009-2011: Remittances expected to fall by 7-10 in 2009”, in Migration and Development Brief, no.10, World Bank, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/334934- 1110315015165/Migration&DevelopmentBrief10.pdf

• Roman M. and Ileanu B. (2011) Modelarea deciziei de remitere a

emigranţilor est europeni, http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/31776/1/CiBERom_articol_Roman_Ileanu_final.pdf.

• Sandu, D. (2005) „Emerging Transnational Migration from Romanian Villages”, în Current Sociology, vol 53, 4:555-582.

• Sandu, D. (coord.) (2006) Locuirea temporară în străinătate. Migraţia

economică a românilor: 1990-2006, Soros Foundation Romania, Bucharest.

• Sandu, D. (2007) „Community selectivity of temporary emigration from Romania”, in Romanian Journal of Population Studies, vol. I, 1-2: 11-45.

• Sandu D. (coord.) (2009) Comunităţi româneşti în Spania, Soros Foundation Romania, www.soros.ro/ro/publicatii/content15?15#.

• Sandu D., Voineagu V. and Panduru F. (2009) Dezvoltarea Comunelor

din România, Report INS and University of Bucharest, http://sites.google.com/site/dumitrusandu

• Sandu D. (2010) Lumile sociale ale migraţiei româneşti în străinătate, Polirom, Iaşi.

• Soros Foundation Romania (2009) Accesul Autorităţilor Locale la

Fondurile Europene, decembrie 2009, http://www.soros.ro/ro/publicatii.php?pag=5#

• Stănculescu M.S., Marin M. and Hommes G. (2009) Economia

Informală în România 2008, INS, PHARE project „Development of Economic Statistics” (2005/017-553.03.07.02), September 2007 – February 2009, Bucharest.

• Stănculescu M.S. (2010) “Incluziune socială la nivel local în România”, in A. Toth, C. Dărăşteanu and D. Tarnovschi, 2010, Autorităţile locale faţă în faţă cu fondurile europene, pp. 48-63, Soros Foundation Romania, Bucharest.

• Şerban, M. and Toth, Al. (2007) Piaţa forţei de muncă în România şi

imigraţia, Soros Foundation Romania, Bucharest.

• Toth, G., Toth, Al., Voicu, O. and Ştefănescu, M. (2007) Efectele

migraţiei: copiii rămaşi acasă, Soros Foundation Romania, Bucharest.

• Voinea, L. (2010) Raport de avertizare timpurie: piaţa muncii, Biroul pentru observarea pieţei muncii şi a calităţii locului de muncă, POSDRU, Bucharest.

Data

• ANOFM, Rapoarte de activitate, 2009 and 2010, www.anofm.ro.

• National Bank of Romania, http://www.bnr.ro/Publicatii-periodice-204.aspx

• Eurostat, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home

• ILO Department of Statistics, Romania: country profile, February 2011.

• Instituto Nacional de Estadística, http://www.ine.es.

• National Institute of Statistics, Anuarul Statistic, for 1977 and 1992; Forţa de muncă în România. Ocupare şi şomaj, for 2000 and 2007, www.insse.ro/

• Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, www.madr.ro.

• World Bank (2010) Remittances Data Watch, http://blogs.worldbank.org/peoplemove/remittances-data-watch.

Articles in newspapers

• FADERE, Comunicat remis ziare.com, Jumătate din românii cu vechime

în Spania afectaţi de restricţii, August 2011, www.ziare.com/diaspora/romani-spania/jumatate-din-romanii-cu-vechime-in-spania-afectati-de-restrictii-1114945.

• Ilie, L. ”Banii trimiși din străinătate – fenomen social”, 17 July 2006, http://www.euractiv.ro/uniunea-europeana/articles|displayArticle/articleID_7456/Bani-pentru-acasa.html

• Marga A. “Emigrare şi Imigrare”, Ziua de Cluj, January 2011, http://www.ziuadecj.ro/eveniment/emigrare-si-imigrare--59222.html.

• Pirloiu, M. ”Se adâncește criza banilor trimiși acasă de românii care lucrează afară”, Capital, 18 May 2011, http://www.capital.ro/detalii-articole/stiri/se-adanceste-criza-banilor-trimisi-acasa-de-romanii-care-lucreaza-afara-147359/pagina-comentarii/1.html

• Stoiciu, V. ”De ce e mai bine vânzător în Cipru decât patron în România”, România Liberă, 12 May 2010, http://www.romanialibera.ro/exclusiv-rl/reportaj/de-ce-e-mai-bine-vanzator-in-cipru-decat-patron-in-romania-186226.html

• Stoiciu, V. ”Migranţii români, prinși între două crize”, Dilema Veche, http://86.124.112.53/sectiune/societate/articol/migrantii-romani-prinsi-intre-doua-crize

• Voiculescu L. „Fraţilor, mai vreau să muncesc, mă va ajuta cineva? Totul despre cum vor mai munci românii în Spania”, Gândul, July 2011, http://www.gandul.info/financiar/fratilor-vreau-sa-lucrez-ma-poate-ajuta-cineva-totul-despre-cum-vor-mai-munci-romanii-in-spania-8509925.

LIST OF GRAPHS Part I

FIGURE 1. Remittances of the Romanian workers abroad by quarter ............16

FIGURE 2. Citizenship of the EU and non-EU migrants, residents of EU-27 (2010) .................................................................................................................23

FIGURE 3. The evolution of Romanian migrants legal residents in Spain......24

Part II

FIGURE 2. 1. The crisis affected ‘(very/rather) much’ country and population (%)......................................................................................................................49

FIGURE 2. 2. Effects of the crisis on incomes (%) ...............................................51

FIGURE 2. 3. Impacts of the crisis (%) ..................................................................54

FIGURE 2. 4. The kinship relations between respondents and migrants still working abroad (% migrants working abroad)...........................................61

FIGURE 2. 5. Distribution by age categories – comparison between migrants and resident population at the origin (%) ....................................................62

FIGURE 2. 6. Distribution of types of migrants by the year when they left for work abroad for the first time (%).................................................................63

FIGURE 2. 7. Distribution of types of migrants by the destination country / country where from migrants have returned (%) .......................................64

FIGURE 2. 8. What determined you to leave for work abroad? (%) ................67

FIGURE 2. 9. Employed population (15 years or over) by occupational groups (%)......................................................................................................................73

FIGURE 2. 10. The occupational mobility of migrants residing abroad ..........74

FIGURE 2. 11. Number of employment years in Romania and abroad by type of migrants (%).................................................................................................76

FIGURE 2. 12. The economic sector in which the migrants work/ worked, in Romania before the first departure and abroad in August 2010 (%) .......77

FIGURE 2. 13. The age of the ‘first time’ departure for women and men (%) 80

FIGURE 2. 14. The perceived effects of the crisis on migrants (%)...................83

FIGURE 2. 15. Types of migrants by age categories and marital status (%)....87

FIGURE 2. 16. The distribution of migrants by siblings living abroad (%) .....88

FIGURE 2. 17. The distribution of natives and Romanians with whom migrants interact also for leisure (%) ............................................................91

FIGURE 2. 18. With whom migrants dwell abroad (%) .....................................99

FIGURE 2. 19. Factors of integration of migrants in the host society (%)......100

FIGURE 2. 20. The aspects Romanian migrants liked/disliked abroad (%) ..101

FIGURE 2. 21. The reasons for returning from work abroad (%) ...................115

FIGURE 2. 22. Satisfaction with return to Romania (%)...................................121

FIGURE 2. 23. Frequency of cash transfers from migrants abroad to Romania (%)....................................................................................................................125

FIGURE 2. 24. The contribution of remittances to the total income of households with migrants for work abroad (%) .......................................127

FIGURE 2. 25. (A) The frequency of money transfers to Romania by county (%) and (B) The percentage of households receiving in kind remittances (parcels) from the members abroad, by county (%)..................................130

FIGURE 2. 26. The evolution of cash remittances from abroad in the last six months ............................................................................................................133

FIGURE 2. 27. The common usage pattern of remittances sent by migrants abroad to households in Romania, in the past year (%)...........................134

FIGURE 2. 28. Migrating for work abroad – experience in the last 2 years and future intentions (%) .....................................................................................138

FIGURE 2. 29. The reasons for departure of prospective migrants (%) .........144

LIST OF TABLES

Part I

TABLE 1. Concentration of the migrant workers within the economic sectors that employ unskilled labor ...........................................................................10

TABLE 2. Evolution of remittances, 2006-2009, by region, in USD millions...15

TABLE 3. Number of unemployed persons among the main immigrant groups in Spain................................................................................................25

TABLE 4. Fluctuations of the employed migrants by main immigrant groups in Spain .............................................................................................................26

TABLE 5. The evolution of the foreign citizens in Italy (2007-2009) ................33

TABLE 6. The number of the established employed and of the newly employed Romanian migrants in Italy .........................................................34

Part II

TABLE 2. 1. Distribution of population and sample by county, gender and age categories (%) ............................................................................................40

TABLE 2. 2. Distribution of population and sample by county and locality size (%) ..............................................................................................................41

TABLE 2. 3. The socio-demographic profile of respondents from the sample representative at the population level, 2010 (%) .........................................46

TABLE 2. 4. Changes of living conditions in the last 6 months (February - August 2010) (%) .............................................................................................52

TABLE 2. 5. Rate of departures for work abroad and rate of returns in the country (% households)..................................................................................58

TABLE 2. 6. The occupational status of Romanian migrants, previous to ‘the first time’ departure, abroad in August 2010 or before returning to Romania (%) .....................................................................................................70

TABLE 2. 7. The profiles of the types of migrants by gender-age categories (%)......................................................................................................................79

TABLE 2. 8. The occupational status of migrants residing abroad, in Romania previous to the first departure and at destination in August 2010, by gender (%) ........................................................................................................81

TABLE 2. 9. The marital status of migrants previous to the ‘first time’ departure (%) ...................................................................................................86

TABLE 2. 10. Marital behavior of migrants residing abroad by the marital status previous to the ‘first time’ departure abroad (%) ............................87

TABLE 2. 11. Support networks by type of migrants (%)..................................89

TABLE 2. 12. The types of migrants by housing arrangements abroad (%)....98

TABLE 2. 13. Eplanatory models of return migration to Romania.................111

TABLE 2. 14. How long intend the returned migrants to stay in Romania (%)..........................................................................................................................122

TABLE 2. 15. Plans of the returned migrants during their stay in Romania (%)..........................................................................................................................122

TABLE 2. 16. The percentage of households receiving cash and in kind remittances from the members abroad, by county ...................................129

TABLE 2. 17. Profile of prospective migrants for work abroad (% A+B1 – representative sample at population level)................................................140

TABLE 2. 18. Plans of departure of prospective migrants (% persons who intend to migrate ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’) ..............................................145

TABLE 2. 19. Long-term plans of prospective migrants (% persons who intend to migrate ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’) ..............................................146

LIST OF BOXES

BOX 1. Romanian migrants caught in between two crises ................................13

BOX 2. Identity crisis and the invisible Romanian migrant community .........29

BOX 3. Why being a seller in Cyprus is better than being a company owner in Romania ............................................................................................................35

BOX 4. Geographic mobility is for the Romanian migrants a success coping strategy..............................................................................................................66

BOX 5. Migration as life story................................................................................68

BOX 6. The circulatory seasonal migration of agricultural workers ................72

BOX 7. Family/couple migration...........................................................................82

BOX 8. The deterioration of the labor market......................................................84

BOX 9. Social networks in the host society ..........................................................93

BOX 10. The migration experience in times of economic crisis and the perception of the destination country.........................................................102

BOX 11. A different kind of migration experience............................................108

BOX 12. Coming back to Romania ......................................................................115

BOX 13. Requirements for the successful return of Romanian migrants, back home................................................................................................................124

BOX 14. The money transfers of Romanian migrants abroad.........................131

BOX 15. The investments of migrants in Romania ...........................................136

RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

QUESTIONNAIRE A

START TIME (HH: MM) |___|___| : |___|___| Good afternoon! I am an interview operator working for CCSB Survey Company and we are

doing a sociological study on aspects of public life in Romania. In order to comply with the

statistical standards, I would like to talk to the member of your household who is older than 18

and has most recently celebrated their birthday.

SEL 1 Recently, did any member of this household returned from work abroad? Only if they ask what is ‘recently’: current year (2010)

1. Yes 2. No 99. DK/NA SEL 2 If YES, Are you here for just a few days, maximum two or three weeks, on vacation, to visit your relatives or do you intend to stay longer in the country? 1. Intends to stay longer 2. Just for a few days, on vacation 99. DK/NA If YES, to STAYING LONGER →→→→ QUESTIONNAIRE C Talk to the returned person. If more than one, randomly select, the one who is nearest to their birthdate.

If YES, to ON VACATION →→→→ QUESTIONNAIRE B Randomly interview the member of the Romanian household who is about to celebrate their birthday. We recommend having that temporarily returned person from abroad to participate in discussions (questions regarding facts, not opinions, i.e. when did you first go abroad? In which country did you go?) SEL 3 If NO member of the household has recently returned from working abroad Does any member of your household work abroad? 1. No 2. Yes 99. DK/NA

If YES, a member of the household is gone to work →→→→ QUESTIONNAIRE B Randomly interview the member of the household who is about to celebrate their birthday. We recommend having the head of family or their spouse to participate in discussions (questions regarding facts, not opinions, from questionnaire B, which most likely are more accurately answered by the head of the family or their spouse). If NO →→→→ QUESTIONNAIRE A Randomly interview the member of the household who is about to celebrate their birthday. Attention! In the case of the questionnaire B: Questions regarding opinions (what do you think? Is it better? Is it worse?) are to be answered by random means (birthday method) →→→→ we need representative opinions. At the end of the interview, for socio-demographics answers the person randomly chosen (birthday method) →→→→ we need representative sample. Factual questions (Where? When? Do you think he/she will return?) are best to be answered by the head of the family or the member on vacation in Romania -> we need precise answers. Q01. Most likely you have heard about the current economic crisis which is affecting many countries, all over the world. How much do you think the economic crisis affected Romania? 5. Very much 4. Much 2. Little 1. Very little 99. DK/NA

Q02. How much did the crisis affect you and your family? 5. Very much 4. Much 2.Little 1. Very little 99. DK/NA Q03. How exactly did the crisis affect you or your family?

NO YES DK/NA a. you or a member of the household lost his/her job 0 1 99 b. household income shrunk 0 1 99 c. you work overtime because you fear of losing your job 0 1 99 d. household savings reduced 0 1 99 e. things you used to afford before, which now you no longer afford

0 1 99

f. paying the bank installments is difficult 0 1 99 g. household members gone abroad had to return to Romania 0 1 99 h. the money sent by household member working abroad has reduced

0 1 99

Q04. Compared to one year ago, your family spends more or less for the following categories of goods/services Spends

more Spends less

Spends the same

DK/NA

A. food 3 1 97 99 B. education 3 1 97 99 C. health 3 1 97 99 D. holidays 3 1 97 99 E. heating and other dwelling utilities (waste, cold water, sewage, hot water, etc.)

3 1 97 99

F. repairs 3 1 97 99 G. agriculture (farming machineries, equipments, etc.)

3 1 97 99

Q05. In the following year, do you believe that the economic situation of Romania will improve or worsen? 5. Will considerably improve 4. Will improve just a little 3. Will stay the same 2. Will worsen a little 1. Will considerably worsen 99. DK/NA

Q06. Which of the following statements describe best the changes in your living conditions in the last 6 months?

5. They have become very good (we can afford everything we need) 4. They have become good (good enough for us to afford expensive things, but with limitations in other areas) 3. They have become satisfactory (enough to make a decent living, but we cannot afford expensive things) 2. They have worsened (just enough for bare necessities) 1. They have become very bad (not even enough for bare necessities) 99. DK/NA Q07. Compared to last year, in your community, do you think the number of people working abroad reduced or increased? 5. Increased a lot 4. Increased a little If increased (code 5, code 4), go to Q9. 3. Remained the same If stayed the same (code 3) or 99 DK/NA go to Q10. 2. Reduced a little If reduced (code 1, code 2), go to Q8.

1. Reduced a lot 99.DK/NA

Q08. If it decreased (code 1 or 2) In your opinion, do you think that the decrease of persons going for work abroad is a result of: (multiple answer, max. 3 choices)

a. Job loss in the host country 1 b. Smaller incomes in the host country 2 c. Achieving the set objectives for working abroad (enough money earned,

etc.) 3

d. Finding a job in Romania 4 e. Health reasons 5 f. Homesickness 6 g. Tougher legal conditions in the host country 7 h. The authorities in the host country assisted with the return to Romania 8 i. The foreign native attitude towards migrants deteriorated 9

Q09. If it increased (code 4, code 5; multiple answer) In your opinion what are the causes of the increase of persons going for work abroad:

a. Decline of the economic situation in Romania as a result of the crisis (job loss, lower incomes)

1

b. They intended to leave anyway 2 c. Disappointment with living conditions and opportunities in Romania 3 d. They had family members working abroad 4

Q10. Do you think migration has a positive or negative influence on Romania? 1. Negative 2. Positive 99. DK/NA

Q11. Looking at the following statements, with which do you agree or disagree? 5. Total agree

4. Partial agree 2. Partially disagree

1. Totally disagree 99. DK/NA

a. migration contributes to the development of Romania 5 4 2 1 99 b. migration tears families apart 5 4 2 1 99 c. migration makes some people richer and other poorer 5 4 2 1 99 d. migration makes people think only about money 5 4 2 1 99 e. migration is the only way for some to make a decent living 5 4 2 1 99 f. migration helps those that emigrate to experience life in

other countries 5 4 2 1 99

Q12. If you were unemployed and it would be difficult to find a job in the neighboring regions, would you be willing to leave your home and go work in another county? If unemployed, change “If you were…” with “Given that you are…”

Q13. If YES (code 5 or 4), In comparison with how much you earn or would earn here, what is the estimated salary that will motivate you to move to another county? Attention! The total sum, nu just more than now

Q12. 5. YES, definitely I would leave 4. YES, probably I would leave 2. NO, probably I would not leave 1. NO, definitely I would not leave 99. DK / NA

IF YES (5 or 4)

Q13. How much should the offered salary be? Write exactly as mentioned, including the currency (RON, Euro, US dollar etc.)

In another county

If yes ----> ...........................................

Q14. What about going abroad? If you were unemployed and it would be difficult to find a job in the neighboring regions, would you be willing to leave your home and go work abroad? If unemployed, change “If you were…” with “Given that you are…”

Q15. If YES (code 5 or 4), In comparison with how much you earn or would earn here, what is the estimated salary that will motivate you to go work abroad? Attention! The total sum, nu just more than now

Q14. 5. YES, definitely I would

leave 4. YES, probably I would leave 2. NO, probably I would not leave 1. NO, definitely I would not leave 99. DK / NA

IF YES (5 or 4)


In another county

If yes ----> ...........................................

Q16. Have you worked or lived abroad in the past 2 years? 1. Yes 2. No 99. NA Q17. Do you intend to leave to work abroad? 5. Definitely YES 4. Probably YES 2. Probably NO → Skip Q14 – Q18 1. Definitely NO → Skip Q14 – Q18 99. DK/NA → Skip Q14 – Q18

Q18. If yes, What are the reasons for which you want to go work abroad? ___________________________________________________________________________99. DK/NA

Q19. If yes, What are the reasons for which you want to go work abroad? 1. The Romanian economic crisis 2. The desire to live in a foreign country 3. More opportunities abroad 4. Lack of job opportunities in Romania 5. I have relatives abroad with whom I want to live 6. I earn better abroad than in Romania 80. Other. Which ? _________________________________ 99. DK/NA Q19 If yes, When do you intend to go work abroad? 1. Very soon, in maximum 1 month 2. Pretty soon, in about 2-3 months 3. In about 6 months 4. In about one year. 5. In more than one year 80. N/A (Does not intend to leave) 99 DK/NA Q20. If yes, What are your long-term plans in the case you manage to go abroad? 1. I work maximum 6 month and then return to Romania 2. I work maximum one year and then return to Romania 3. I work maximum 2 years and then return to Romania 4. I work maximum 5 years and then return to Romania 5. I am going abroad indefinitely 99. DK/NA Q21. If yes, In what foreign country would you go? ____________________________________________________ 99. DK/NA Q22. If yes, Why would you prefer to go in that foreign country? ____________________________________________________ 99. DK/NA Q23. Please tell me whether you consider true or false the following statement: "If you worked abroad in different EU countries and you retire, the retirement fund is calculated based only on your contribution made in the country where you last worked”? 1. True 2. False 99. DK/NA

Finally, some questions about socio-demographics D1. GENDER 1. Man 2. Woman D2. AGE ( years) |___|___| 99. NA D4. How many persons are there in your household? Including children |___|___| 99. NA D5. How many children (under 18 years) are in the household |___|___| 99. NA

D11. ETHNIC ORIGIN 1. Romanian 2. Hungarian 3. Roma/gipsy 6. Other. Which one? _____________________________ 99. NA D12. EDUCATION (graduated) 1. No education 2. Primary (4 grades) 3. Secondary (7, 8 grades) 4. Vocational / training high school 5. High-school (12 grades, Baccalaureate) 6. College 7. Undergraduate 8. Post-graduate (masters, PhD, post-doc degrees) D13. EMPLOYMENT You are currently employed as? ______________________________ 99. DK/NA D14. STATE/PRIVATE If he/she is employed Are you employed by STATE or PRIVATE establishment? 1. State institution 2. Private company 80. N/A (not applicable, inactive) 99 DK/NA D15. RELIGION If he/she states “Christian”, ask what type of a Christian? ______________________ 99. DK/NA D16. How many mobile phones are there in your household? ______________ 99. DK/NA D17. How many cars (motor-vehicles) are there in your household? _________ 99. DK/NA D18. How many PCs are there in your household? ______________________ 99. DK/NA D21. Personal income (VEN P) How much was your NET PERSONAL income (‘in the hand’) in that last month? _______________ ROL 99. DK/NA D22. Household income (VEN G) How much was you NET HOUSEHOLD INCOME in the last month? _______________ ROL 99. DK/NA D23. CITY/TOWN/COMMUNE/VILLAGE __________________________________ D24. COUNTY __________________________________ D25-32. Address and contacts END TIME (HH: MM) |___|___| : |___|___|


QUESTIONNAIRE B











0 1 99


0 1 99


more Spends less

Spends the same

DK/NA


3 1 97 99


3 1 97 99






j. Job loss in the host country 1 k. Smaller incomes in the host country 2 l. Achieving the set objectives for working abroad (enough money earned,

etc.) 3

m. Finding a job in Romania 4 n. Health reasons 5 o. Homesickness 6 p. Tougher legal conditions in the host country 7 q. The authorities in the host country assisted with the return to Romania 8 r. The foreign native attitude towards migrants deteriorated 9


e. Decline of the economic situation in Romania as a result of the crisis (job loss, lower incomes)

1

f. They intended to leave anyway 2 g. Disappointment with living conditions and opportunities in Romania 3 h. They had family members working abroad 4


Q11. Analizând următoarele afirmaţii, cu care dintre acestea sunteţi sau nu de acord?

5. Total de acord 4. Parţial de acord

2. Parţial împotrivă 1. Total împotrivă

99. NS / NR

a. migraţia contribuie la dezvoltarea României 5 4 2 1 99 b. migraţia destramă familiile 5 4 2 1 99 c. migraţia face ca unii să fie mai bogaţi şi alţii mai săraci 5 4 2 1 99 d. migraţia face ca oamenii să fie interesaţi numai de bani 5 4 2 1 99 e. migraţia este singura şansă pentru cineva să câştige un ban decent 5 4 2 1 99 f. migraţia îi ajută pe care pleacă să vadă cum se trăieşte în alte părţi 5 4 2 1 99




IF YES (5 or 4)


In another county

If yes ----> ...........................................





IF YES (5 or 4)


In another county

If yes ----> ...........................................

Q16. Have you worked or lived abroad in the past 2 years? 1. Yes 2. No 99. NA Q17. Do you intend to leave to work abroad? 5. Definitely YES 4. Probably YES 2. Probably NO → Skip Q14 – Q18 1. Definitely NO → Skip Q14 – Q18 99. DK/NA → Skip Q14 – Q18

Q18. If yes, What are the reasons for which you want to go work abroad? ___________________________________________________________________________99. DK/NA Q19. If yes, What are the reasons for which you want to go work abroad? 1. The Romanian economic crisis 2. The desire to live in a foreign country 3. More opportunities abroad 4. Lack of job opportunities in Romania 5. I have relatives abroad with whom I want to live 6. I earn better abroad than in Romania 80. Other. Which ? _________________________________ 99. DK/NA Q19 If yes, When do you intend to go work abroad? 1. Very soon, in maximum 1 month 2. Pretty soon, in about 2-3 months 3. In about 6 months 4. In about one year. 5. In more than one year 80. N/A (Does not intend to leave) 99 DK/NA Q20. If yes, What are your long-term plans in the case you manage to go abroad? 1. I work maximum 6 month and then return to Romania 2. I work maximum one year and then return to Romania 3. I work maximum 2 years and then return to Romania 4. I work maximum 5 years and then return to Romania 5. I am going abroad indefinitely 99. DK/NA Q21. If yes, In what foreign country would you go? ____________________________________________________ 99. DK/NA Q22. If yes, Why would you prefer to go in that foreign country? ____________________________________________________ 99. DK/NA Q23. Please tell me whether you consider true or false the following statement: "If you worked abroad in different EU countries and you retire, the retirement fund is calculated based only on your contribution made in the country where you last worked”? 1. True 2. False 99. DK/NA

Q24. Please list the household members which are working abroad. The following questions

apply for each abroad person.

1 Gender 1 Man 2 Woman 99 DK/NA

2 Age 99 DK/NA

3 Kin relation with the respondent 4 Until now, for how many years did he/she work abroad? 5 In what country is he/she right now? 6 Where is he/she currently residing? If unknown, mention region. 7 He/she is working abroad as? 8 In what activity sector does he/she works abroad? 9 Is he/she member of any abroad work union? 0 No 1 Yes 99 DK/NA 10 Before returning in Romania ...?

1. Was an entrepreneur/business owner 2 Was an employee 3 Was unemployed 99 DK/NA

11 If unemployed, What was his/her job previous to unemployment? 12 If unemployed, In what activity sector did he/she work previous to unemployment?

13 If unemployed, During the abroad unemployment period, did he/she receive any benefits or not? 0 No 1 Yes 99 DK/NA

14 While abroad, did he/she have the same occupation or changed occupations? 1 One occupation 2 Several occupations

15 In case of several jobs, What other occupations did he/she had previous to the current one? If more, separate by coma

16 How many times did he/she go abroad to work?

17 If more than once, In what countries did he/she work abroad? If more, separate by coma

18 If more than once, What was the first country where he/she went?

19 In what year did he/she go working abroad for the first time? 20 Previous to the first work abroad experience, what was his/hers occupation in

Romania? 21 Previous to the first work abroad experience, how many employment years did he/she

have in Romania? 0 = None

22 Previous to the first work abroad experience, for how many years did he/she work legally (with papers) in Romania? 0 = Never had a work contract

23 Previous to the first work abroad experience, what was his/her marital status? 24 After going abroad, did he/she marry or remarry?

1. Yes, with a Romanian 2. Yes, with a foreigner 3 Did not marry, but lives together with a Romanian 4. Did not marry, but lives together with a foreigner 5. No 99 DK/NA

25 Previous to the first work abroad experience, did he/she have any minor children or not? 0 No 1 Yes

27 Do you think he/she will indefinitely return to Romania or ultimately, settle indefinitely abroad? 5 Definitely YES 4. Probably YES 2 Probably NO 1. Definitely NO 99 DK/NA

28 If yes (code 5 or 4) When do you think he/she will return indefinitely to Romania? 1. In maximum 6 months 2. Between 6 months to 2 years 3. Later 80 N/A (I do not think he/she would ever come back) 99 DK/NA

29 What are the dwelling conditions of the abroad member? 1 Personal house, complete purchase 2 Personal house, incomplete purchase (still paying installments/debts) 3 Rent 80 Other (social housing, homeless etc.) 99 DK/NA

30 Does the abroad member have any siblings abroad? 1. Yes, they are all abroad 2. Some are abroad, some are in Romania 3. All siblings are in Romania 90. N/A (does not have any siblings) 99 DK/NA

Q25. What are the reasons for which the member(s) of your household went to work abroad? ______________________________________________________________________ Q26. How did the economic crisis affect the member(s) of your household working abroad? ________________________________________________________________________________ Q27. Out of the information you have from the abroad member(s) of your household, which were the effects of the crisis on the migrants? (Multiple answer)

NO YES

DK/ NA

1. More and more migrants are losing their jobs? 0 1 99 2. The attitude of the locals/natives became reserved / negative? 0 1 99 3. The revenues, salaries, incomes of migrants have decreased? 0 1 99 4. The living costs have increased? 0 1 99 5. The authorities of the host country became stricter? 0 1 99 6. Many migrants began losing their housing conditions? (??) 0 1 99

80. Other. What? 0 1 99

Q28. Did the household receive any money from abroad in the last year or not? 1. Yes, very often 2. Yes, often 3. Yes, rarely 4. Yes, very rarely 5. No, never 99. DK/NA

Q29. How much do the received amounts account for in the total household income? 1. A very insignificant amount. It is the same with or without it. 2. An insignificant amount. It makes a sensible difference in the household income. However, we can manage without them. 4. A significant amount. It makes quite the difference in the household income, it helps a lot. 5. A very significant amount. It makes a major difference in the household income. I do not know what we would do without it. 6. The received money is the sole income source of the household. 99. DK/NA Q30. How did the abroad revenues fluctuate in the past 6 months? 5. They sent considerably more 4. They sent more 3. The same 2. They sent less 1. They sent considerably less 97. They did not send any 99. DK/NA Q31. Usually, for what are the received revenues from abroad used for? (Multiple answer max.

5 choices) 1. For current consumption of the household/daily life 1 2. To pay off debts 2 3. For the acquisition of long-term goods, other than cars (i.e. home appliances and

electronics) If yes, what type of devices? __________________________ 3

4. For repairs/renovations/extension of the current house 4 5. For the construction/acquisition of a new house/apartment 5 6. For savings 6 7. For investments/business 7 8. For the education of children 8 9. For leisure (tourism) 9 10. For donations or charities 10

80. For something else. What? _____________________________ 80 99. DK/NA 99 Q32. Except for money, do the household abroad members send other things as well? 1. Yes 2. No 99. DK/NA



QUESTIONNAIRE C











0 1 99


0 1 99


more Spends less

Spends the same

DK/NA


3 1 97 99


3 1 97 99






s. Job loss in the host country 1 t. Smaller incomes in the host country 2 u. Achieving the set objectives for working abroad (enough money earned,

etc.) 3

v. Finding a job in Romania 4 w. Health reasons 5 x. Homesickness 6 y. Tougher legal conditions in the host country 7 z. The authorities in the host country assisted with the return to Romania 8 aa. The foreign native attitude towards migrants deteriorated 9


i. Decline of the economic situation in Romania as a result of the crisis (job loss, lower incomes)

1

j. They intended to leave anyway 2 k. Disappointment with living conditions and opportunities in Romania 3 l. They had family members working abroad 4


Q11. Analizând următoarele afirmaţii, cu care dintre acestea sunteţi sau nu de acord?

5. Total de acord 4. Parţial de acord

2. Parţial împotrivă 1. Total împotrivă

99. NS / NR

g. migraţia contribuie la dezvoltarea României 5 4 2 1 99 h. migraţia destramă familiile 5 4 2 1 99 i. migraţia face ca unii să fie mai bogaţi şi alţii mai săraci 5 4 2 1 99 j. migraţia face ca oamenii să fie interesaţi numai de bani 5 4 2 1 99 k. migraţia este singura şansă pentru cineva să câştige un ban decent 5 4 2 1 99 l. migraţia îi ajută pe care pleacă să vadă cum se trăieşte în alte părţi 5 4 2 1 99




IF YES (5 or 4)


In another county

If yes ----> ...........................................





IF YES (5 or 4)


In another county

If yes ----> ...........................................

Q16. Have you worked or lived abroad in the past 2 years? 1. Yes 2. No 99. NA Q28. Please answer the following questions regarding your work abroad experience.

1 Gender 1 Man 2 Woman 99 DK/NA

2 Age 99 DK/NA

4 For how many years did you work abroad? 5 From what country did you return to Romania? 6 Previous to returning to Romania, where did you reside abroad? If unknown, mention

region. 7 Previous to returning to Romania, what was your occupation abroad? 8 Previous to returning to Romania, in what activity sector did you work abroad?

9 Abroad, were you a member of a work union? 0 No 1 Yes 99 DK/NA

10 Before returning to Romania...? 1. I had my own business 2 I was employed 3 I was unemployed 99 DK/NA

11 If unemployed, What was your previous job to unemployment? 12 If unemployed, In what activity sector did you work previous to unemployment?

13 If unemployed, During your unemployment period abroad, did you receive any benefits or not? 0 No 1 Yes 99 DK/NA

14 While abroad, did you have the same occupation or changed occupations? 1 One occupation 2 Several occupations

15 In case of several jobs, What other occupations did you have previous to last one? If more,

separate by coma

16 For how many times did you go for work abroad?

17 If more than once, In what countries did you work abroad? If more, separate by coma

18 If more than once, Which was the first country you migrated to?

19 In what year did you go for the first time to work abroad? 20 Previous to your first work abroad experience, what was your occupation in Romania? 21 Previous to your first work abroad experience, how many employment years did you

have in Romania? 0 = None

22 Previous to your first work abroad experience, for how many years did you work legally (with papers) in Romania? 0 = Never had Employment Record Card (??)

23 Previous to your first work abroad experience, what was your marital status? 24 After going abroad, did you marry or remarry?

1. Yes, with a Romanian 2. Yes, with a foreigner 3 I did not marry, but I live together with a Romanian 4. I did not marry, but I live together with a foreigner 5. No 99 DK/NA

25 Previous to your first work abroad experience, did you have any minor children or not? 0 No 1 Yes

26 Do you consider to have returned indefinitely to Romania or are you considering going again for work abroad? (not only short-stays, visits, vacations) 5 Definitely YES, I will not go abroad 4. Probably I will not go abroad 2 Probably I will go abroad 1. Definitely, I will go abroad 99 DK/NA

27 If going abroad (code 2 or 1), Do you believe that, ultimately, you will return indefinitely to Romania? 5. Certainly YES 4. Probably YES 2. Probably NO 1. Certainly NO 99 DK/NA

28 If returning to Romania (code 5 or 4) When do you think you will return indefinitely to Romania? 1. In maximum 6 months 2. Between 6 months to 2 years 3. Later 80 N/A (I do not think I will return) 99 DK/NA

29 Last time you were abroad, in what type of dwelling did you live? 1 Personal house, complete purchase 2 Personal house, incomplete purchase (still paying installments/debts) 3 Rent 80 Other (social housing, homeless etc.) 99 DK/NA

30 Do you have any siblings abroad? 1. Yes, they are all abroad 2. Some are abroad, some are in Romania 3. All siblings are in Romania 90. N/A (does not have any siblings) 99 DK/NA

Q29. What determined you to go to work abroad? (Instant answer) _____________________________________ 99. DK/NA Q30. When you went abroad (if he/she left several times: the first time departure), was someone waiting for you or not? 1. No, no one expected me. 2. Yes, a family member expected me. Who? (Kin relation) ______________________________ 3. Yes, someone expected me, not a family member. Who? (Type of relation: friends, neighbors, colleagues from work, etc.) ______________________________ 99. DK/NA Q31. Previous to returning to Romania, did you live alone or shared housing? 1. I lived alone. 2. I shared with a family member. Who? (Kin relation) _______________________________ 3. I shared with someone, not a family member. Who? (Type of relation: friends, neighbors, colleagues from work, etc.) ________________________________ 99 DK/NA Q32. If shared (2 or 3), with how many people did you share housing? |___|___| Q33. While abroad, at your work place, were you alone or did you know others from Romania? 1. I was alone, I did not know anyone. 2. I was with a family member. Who? (Kin relation) _________________________________ 3. I knew someone, not a family member. Who? (Type of relation: friends, neighbors, colleagues from work, etc.) _________________________________ 99. DK/NA Q34. Once abroad, did you invite others to join you? (Did you ‘drag’ along others)? 1. Yes 2. No 99. DK/NA Q35. If yes, how many persons did you invite? |___|___|

Q36. In general, did you make friends/acquaintances among foreigners (natives of that country), with whom to keep in touch even outside the work environment? 1. Yes 2. No 99. DK/NA Q37. If yes, who were these foreigners? (Multiple answer) 1. Work colleagues 2. Bosses/Owners/Managers 3. Neighbors 4. The flat-mate(s) 5. The priest 6. The religious community 80. Other. Who? __________________________ 90. N/A (not applicable, no friends among foreigners) 99. DK/NA Q38. In general, did you make friends/acquaintances among abroad Romanians, with whom to keep in touch even outside the work environment? 1. Yes 2. No 99. DK/NA Q39. If yes, who were these Romanians? (Multiple answer) 1. Close family. What kin relation? _________________ 2. Friends/neighbors/acquaintances from Romania 3. Friends made abroad 4. Work colleagues 5. Bosses/Owners/Managers 6. Neighbors 7. The landlord 8. The priest 9. The religious community 80. Other. Who? _____________________________ 90. N/A (not applicable, no friends among Romanians) 99. DK/NA Q40. Usually, while abroad, with who did you got along better, with whom did you spend your time at work: Romanians or foreigners? 1. Only Romanians 2. Only foreigners 3. With both 4. With neither 99. DK/NA Q41. Usually, while abroad, with who did you got along better, with whom did you spend your time outside of work, leisure time: Romanians or foreigners? 1. Only Romanians 2. Only foreigners 3. With both 4. With neither 99. DK/NA Q42. In general, while abroad, when you had a personal problem (health, money, others), who did you turn to for help: Romanians or foreigners? 1. Local Romanians 2. Local foreigners 3. Both local Romanians and foreigners 4. None, I ask those in Romania 80. None, I managed alone 99. DK/NA Q43. Where do you have more friends and acquaintances, in the foreign country where you worked or in Romania? 1. In Romania 2. Abroad 80. Do not read! I have as many friends in Romania and abroad

90. Do not read! I do not have many friends either in Romania or abroad 99. DK/NA

Q44. In general, do you consider that your travel abroad was a positive or a negative experience? 5. It was definitely a positive life experience; I had only to gain, both financially and personally. 4. It was rather a positive experience, with both good and bad, but mainly good. 2. It was rather a negative experience, with both good and bad, but mainly bad. 1. It was definitely a negative life experience; I had only to lose, I should have stayed home and never go abroad. 99. DK/NA Q45. Which were the things you liked abroad? _______________________________________________________________ 99. DK/NA Q46. Which were the things you did not like or annoyed/bothered you abroad? _______________________________________________________________ 99. DK/NA Q47. Overall, do you think you managed to integrate abroad or not? 5. Definitely yes, I integrated very well 4. Somewhat yes, I integrate relatively well 2. Somehow no, I did not really integrate 1. Definitely no, I did not integrate at all 99. DK/NA Q48. Why do you consider to have integrated or not? ________________________________________________________________ 99. DK/NA Q49. Previous to returning to Romania, how did your abroad income fluctuate in the last 6 months? 5. I earned way more than before/usual How much more? ___________ EUR 4. I earned more than before/usual How much more? ___________ EUR 3. I earned the same 2. I earned less than before/usual How much less? __________ EUR 1. I earned way less than before/usual How much less? _________ EUR 97. I did not earn anything/made no money 99. DK/NA Write down the amount exactly as mentioned, in absolute value, in currency mentioned above. If

indicating the percentage, allow it, but only at the initiative of the respondent. Q50. Usually, while abroad, did you sent money back home to Romania? 1. Yes, very often 2. Yes, often 3. Yes, rarely 4. Yes, very rarely 5. No, never 99. DK/NA Q51. While abroad, how were you employed, predominantly legal or illegally, without papers? 5. I only worked legally, with papers 4. I worked predominantly legally, with papers, with moments/periods when I worked illegally 2. I worked predominantly illegally, without papers, with moments/periods when I worked legally 1. I only worked illegally, without papers 99. DK/NA

Q52. When did you return to Romania? (Preferably the accurate date, such as the month - for

instance, April 2008. If not possible, then the moment in time: one day ago, one week ago, 3 months ago,

one year ago, etc.) ________________________

Q53. How long do you intend to stay in Romania? (Period: one day, one week, 3 months, one year, etc.) _______________________________________________________________ 99. DK/NA Q54. What determined your return to Romania? (Instant answer) ________________________________________________________________ 99. DK/NA Q55. Of the following statements, which made you return to Romania? (Multiple answer)

0. No 1. Yes 99.DK/NA

1 Family reasons 2 I decided to continue my education 3 I achieved my goals for which I went abroad 4 I lost my job abroad 5 My earrings abroad decreased 6 I had problems with the foreign authorities 7 My legal residence permit expired 8 The attitude of the foreign natives deteriorated towards migrants

9 The authorities of the foreign country offered financial assistance to ease the return

10 More convenient work opportunities appeared in Romania 80 Other, what else ___________________________________

Q56. Are you satisfied or not with the return to Romania? 5. Very satisfied 4. Satisfied 2. Dissatisfied 1. Very dissatisfied 99. DK/NA Q57. Why are you satisfied/dissatisfied with the return to Romania? _______________________________________________________ 99. DK/NA Q58. Do you consider that in Romania you live better or worse than abroad? 5. I live way better in Romania than abroad 4. I live better in Romania than abroad 3. It is somewhat the same, either in Romania or abroad 2. I live worse in Romania than abroad 1. I live way worse in Romania than abroad 99. DK/NA Q59. Why do you consider to live better/same/worse, here, in Romania than abroad? _____________________________________________________________ 99. DK/NA

Q60. Would you consider going abroad again or not? 5. Definitely YES 4. Probably YES 2. Probably NO 1. Definitely NO 99. DK/NA Q61. If YES (code 4 or 5), Where do you would you go to work abroad? 1. In the same country, at the same place where I worked last time 2. In the same country, but in a different place from where I worked last time 3. In a different country. Where? ______________________ 99. DK/NA Q62. If a different place (2, 3), Why do you consider going in a different place than where you previously were? _________________________________________________________ 99. DK/NA Q63. At the place you are considering as destination, are there other people you know or not? 1. Yes 2. No 99. DK/NA Q64. If yes (code 1), Are they Romanians or foreigners? 1. Only Romanians 2. Only foreigners 3. Both Romanians and foreigners 4. Neither 99. DK/NA Q65. What changes do you think recently occurred abroad, in the country where you last worked, previous to your return to Romania? (Instant answer)

_______________________________________________________ 99. DK/NA

Q66. Previous to returning to Romania, which of the following changes do you think have recently occurred in the foreign country were you last worked?

No Yes DK/NA 1 Many migrants began losing their jobs 0 1 99 2 The attitude of locals became more reserved/negative 0 1 99 3 The salaries of the migrants got reduced 0 1 99 4 The cost of living increased 0 1 99 5 The authorities in the host country became stricter 0 1 99 6 Many migrants started losing their dwellings (??) 0 1 99 80 Other, what?_____________________________ 1

Q67. What are do you intend to do during your stay in Romania? What are your plans in Romania? _____________________________________ 99. DK/NA

Q68. What are do you intend to do during your stay in Romania? What are your plans in Romania? (Multiple answer)

0. No 1. Yes 99. DK/NA

I will try to... / I intend to...

I have already ...

1 Find employment 2 Become a farmer

3 Live as long as I can with the money I earned abroad

4 Get unemployment benefits 5 Start my own business 6 Get a bank loan. If yes, for what purpose? _______________ 7 To obtain European funds for business / development 80 Other, what? ____________________

Q69. After your return to Romania, did you get employed or not? 1. Yes, I got employed at the same place where I worked previous to going abroad 2. Yes, I got employed at another place than previous to going abroad 3. Yes, I got employed for the first in Romania 4. I came back to my business which I employed previous to going abroad 5. I started my own business 6. I am currently not employed 80. Another situation. Which? ______________________________ 99. DK NA Q70. If employed (code 1, 2, 3), How satisfied are you with your employment in Romania, in comparison with the one abroad? 3. I am more satisfied with the job I have in Romania than with the one abroad 2. I am equally satisfied with the job I have in Romania and abroad 1. I am dissatisfied with the job I have in Romania than with the one abroad 99. DK/NA Q71. Why are you satisfied / dissatisfied with your employment in Romania than the one abroad? _________________________________________________________ 99. DK/NA Q72. If business owner (cod 4,5), How is your business in Romania going? 5. Very good 4. Good 2. Bad 1. Very bad 99. DK/NA Q73. If business owner, Why is business going good/bad? _______________________________________________________ 99. DK/NA Q74. If you were unemployed and it would be difficult to find a job in the neighboring regions, would you be willing to leave your home and go work in another county? If unemployed, change “If you were…” with “Given that you are…”


Q74 5. YES, definitely I would leave 4. YES, probably I would leave 2. NO, probably I would not leave 1. NO, definitely I would not leave 99. DK / NA

IF YES (5 or 4)


In another county

If yes ----> ...........................................





IF YES (5 or 4)


In another county

If yes ----> ...........................................

Q78. Please tell me whether you consider true or false the following statement: "If you worked abroad in different EU countries and you retire, the retirement fund is calculated based only on your contribution made in the country where you last worked”? 1. True 2. False 99. DK/NA


INTERVIEW GUIDE

This guide presents the main questions of the research, but during discussions also additional questions

appeared.

General discussion about migration and the socio-economic situation of the host country / destination - Personally, do you believe that in the last year you lived better or worse than before? - What were the main factors that influenced your own and your family’s economic situation? - How do you think things are going in Romania? What about Spain / Italy? - Do you consider that in the past 2 ½ years, the economic situation deteriorated? How come? The migration history - For how long have you been working in Spain / Italy? - How did you first arrive? Did someone help you to go abroad? Did you have family/friends at the destination? - How did you find work? - What are the main reasons for which you came to work in Spain / Italy? - Before coming to Spain / Italy, were you employed in Romania? In what activity sector were you active? Working abroad - In what activity sector do you work in Spain / Italy? - How many jobs did you have until now? In what activity sectors/cities? - Since you came to Spain / Italy, have always been employed or where there periods of when you were unemployed? If yes, when? Can you please tell us about the unemployment periods and whether you received unemployment benefits? About how much would that amount to? The mobility of labor migrants - Before coming to Spain / Italy have you worked in other foreign countries? - Have you ever considered the possibility of going to other besides Romania? If yes, which? Why? The economic crisis and its effects - You have probably heard about the economic crisis, do you believe it affect you and or not? If yes, in what manner did the crisis affect you? - From what you heard from those back in Romania, where do you think the crisis was most acute – abroad or back home? Can you please explain? - Do you believe that in near future the situation in Spain / Italy / Romania will improve or not? Please detail? - Since the appearance of the economic crisis, did you have any reservations regarding job loss or salary reduction?

- If you were to lose your job, would you seriously consider returning to Romania? If yes, why? If not, why? Incomes and remittances - How do you manage your money / savings earned in Spain / Italy? - Currently, are you sending more or less money to Romania than two years ago? - Have you ever taken into consideration investing the money earned abroad in Romania? If yes, in what sector and for what purposes? If not, why? - Many Romanian which worked in Spain / Italy have purchased houses abroad. Did you ever think about this possibility? Connection with Romania - The rest of your family are also in Spain / Italy or remained in Romania? - Do you have many relatives (siblings, cousins, etc.) in Romania? What about friends? How and how often you communicate with them? - Are you following the political, social and economic developments in Romania? Integration at the destination country - In your opinion, where do you have most friends in Romania or Spain / Italy? - If you have a serious problem for example a health issue, where would you seek help: from Romanian friends made in Spain / Italy, from Spanish / Italian friends, from family back in Romania? - Personally, how do you find the Spanish / Italians? - Overall, do you consider understanding better Romanians or Spanish / Italians? - How satisfied are you with the attitude and treatment of Spanish / Italian? Does it seem that in recent years their attitude changed? In what way? Can you please give an example? - With whom do you prefer to spend your free time abroad? - How would you describe the Romanian community in Spain / Italy? Future Plans - In the long run, what are your future plans? - Do you intend to go to work in other countries? - Where/how do you see yourself in 5 years from now? Return to Romania - Do you intend to return to Romania or remain abroad? What are the reasons on which you took this decision? Socio-demographics Gender Age (years old) Last graduate school The kin relation with the migrant (if the case) Occupation (in August 2010) Origin settlement Destination country/settlement

the impact of the economic crisis on the labor …the impact of the economic crisis on the labor...

Documents