OVERVIEW OF MIGRATION PROCESSES IN EAST/CENTRAL

EUROPE

Dušan DrbohlavDušan DrbohlavCharles University Charles University

Prague, Prague, Czech RepublicCzech Republic

Faculty of Science, Faculty of Science, Department of Social Geography and Department of Social Geography and

Regional Development Regional Development   

drbohlav@natur.cuni.czdrbohlav@natur.cuni.cz

Based on a presentation:Based on a presentation: „International Migration „International Migration Patterns in the New EU Member States“. A contribution Patterns in the New EU Member States“. A contribution delivereddelivered at an international “annual seminar 2004“: at an international “annual seminar 2004“: „Europe´s Coming Generations: Demographic Trends „Europe´s Coming Generations: Demographic Trends

and Social Change“, organized by: the European and Social Change“, organized by: the European Observatory on the Social Situation, Demography and Observatory on the Social Situation, Demography and

Family, the Austrian Institute for Family Studies and the Family, the Austrian Institute for Family Studies and the European Commission. Brussels, BelgiumEuropean Commission. Brussels, Belgium, September , September

20042004..

GOALS – TO DESCRIBE AND PARTLY EXPLAIN MIGRATION PATTERNS IN EIGHT NEW MEMBER STATES (NMS):

The Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

STRUCTURE: - BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

- MIGRATORY TYPES AND OVERALL MIGRATION SCALES- FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO MOVEMENTS - IMPACT OF MIGRATION ON SOCIETIES- POLICES AND PRACTICES- CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS- PROBABLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MIGRATION MOVEMENTS

THIS PAPER IS BASED ON:

1) AUTHOR´S OWN EXPERIENCE

2) RESULTS OF THE EU PROJECT: „Sharing Experience: Migration Trends in Selected Applicant Countries and Lessons Learned from New Countries of Immigration in the EU and Austria“ (see Drbohlav 2004, Korys 2004, Divinský 2004, and Zavratnik-Zimic 2004)

3) SALT´S STUDY (2003)

4) OTHER SOURCES (e.g., Wallace-Stola 2001, Kielyte 2002, Nyíri 2003, Niessen-Schibel 2003, Zsoter 2003, Krieger 2004, A New 2004).

HISTORY 1) 19th century – the FWW – Mass migration to the „New 1) 19th century – the FWW – Mass migration to the „New

World“World“ 2) Interwar period – labour migration to WE2) Interwar period – labour migration to WE 3) Aftermath of the SWW – 30 million people (12 million 3) Aftermath of the SWW – 30 million people (12 million

ethnic Germans) on the moveethnic Germans) on the move 4) Since the end of the 1940s – socialist/communist 4) Since the end of the 1940s – socialist/communist

regimes – international migration regimes – international migration greatly greatly rerestrictedstricted … …

- illegal emigration … in the wake of political upheavels: Hungary - illegal emigration … in the wake of political upheavels: Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1948, 1968, 1956, Czechoslovakia 1948, 1968, and and Poland 1980/1982Poland 1980/1982

- ethnically based migration- ethnically based migration

- mutual exchange (among socialist countries) of labour force - mutual exchange (among socialist countries) of labour force (Vietnam, Cuba, Angola etc.) (Vietnam, Cuba, Angola etc.)

HISTORY

FFrom more liberal towards extremely rom more liberal towards extremely rrestrictive estrictive migration migration policiespolicies during the during the communist era:communist era:

- 1) Slovenia (within former Yugoslavia) and 1) Slovenia (within former Yugoslavia) and Hungary Hungary

- 2) Poland and Czechoslovakia 2) Poland and Czechoslovakia - 3) the Baltic states 3) the Baltic states

HISTORY THE FOLLOWING HISTORICAL MIGRATORY THE FOLLOWING HISTORICAL MIGRATORY

LINKS OF THE NMS HAVE PARTICULARLY BEEN LINKS OF THE NMS HAVE PARTICULARLY BEEN DEVELOPED AND ESTABLISHEDDEVELOPED AND ESTABLISHED: :

   TThe Baltic states:he Baltic states: Russia, … Finland, GermanyRussia, … Finland, Germany The Czech RepublicThe Czech Republic: : Slovakia, Germany, USASlovakia, Germany, USA HungaryHungary: : Romania, former Yugoslavia, SlovakiaRomania, former Yugoslavia, Slovakia PolandPoland: : the former Soviet Union, Germany, France, USAthe former Soviet Union, Germany, France, USA SlovakiaSlovakia: : the Czech Republic, USA, the Czech Republic, USA,

HungaryHungary SloveniaSlovenia:: the former Yugoslavia, Germany, Austria, Italythe former Yugoslavia, Germany, Austria, Italy

MIGRATORY TYPES AND OVERALL MIGRATION SCALES

AA HIGHLY COMPLEX MIGRATION FIELDHIGHLY COMPLEX MIGRATION FIELD - - an enormous an enormous variety of both long and short term movements variety of both long and short term movements to, to, from, and from, and within the regionwithin the region::

- „classical“ permanent migrants- „classical“ permanent migrants

- labour circular migrants- labour circular migrants

- petty traders/labour tourists- petty traders/labour tourists

- cross-border commuters- cross-border commuters

- transit migrants- transit migrants

- asylum seekers- asylum seekers

- „Western immigrants“- „Western immigrants“

- ethnic immigrants - ethnic immigrants

Many illegal/irregular migrantsMany illegal/irregular migrants

International Migration Patterns in NMS:Estimate – Beginning of the 2000s

Country INTO OUT THR.

Czechia ++++ ++ +++

Estonia + + +

Hungary ++++ ++ +++

Latvia + ++ +

Lithuania + ++ +

Poland ++++ ++++ ++

Slovakia ++ ++ +++

Slovenia ++ + ++

CURRENT MIGRATION PATTERNS – ESTIMATES: FLOWS INTO, OUT, THROUGH (in absolute terms)

Population, Area, and Components of Population Change in NMS, 2000-2002

 Country Population1 Area

Km2 Natural Increase annual average 2000-2002 (%)

Net Migration annual average 2000-2002 (%)

Growth Rate annual average 2000-2002 (%)

Czechia 10,203,3 78,865 -0.17 -0.08 -0.25 Estonia 1,356,0 45,100 -0.40 0.01 -0.39 Hungary 10,142,4 93,031 -0.36 0.10 -0.26 Latvia 2,331,5 64,500 -0.53 -0.18 -0.71 Lithuania 3,462,6 65,200 -0.24 -0.24 -0.48 Poland 38,218,5 312,683 0.01 -0.04 -0.03 Slovakia 5,379,2 49,035 0.01 0.02 0.02 Slovenia 1,995,0 20,251 -0.04 0.17 0.12

Selected Migratory Parametres – Stocks in NMS, 2002

COUNTRY Stock of Foreign Population

Stock of Foreign Population per 1,000 inhabitants

Stock of Foreign Population as a Share of Total Population (%)

Stock of Foreign Labour

Czechia 231,000 22.6 2.3 161,711 Estonia 269,500 198.7 19.7 Hungary 115,900 11.4 1.1 49,800 Latvia 439,500 184.8 18.5 Lithuania 32,700 9.5 1.0 Poland 34,100 0.9 0.09 24,643 Slovakia 29,500 5.5 0.6 9,117 Slovenia 44,700 22.4 2.2 36,000

Selected Migratory Parametres – Flows in NMS, 2001-2002

Country Inflow of Foreign Population, Average for 2001-2002

Inflow of Foreign Population, Average for 2001-2002, per 1,000 inhabitants

Outflow of Population, Average for 2001-2002

Outflow of Population, Average for 2001-2002, per 1,000 inhabitants

Czechia 28,800 2.8 27,000 2.6

Estonia 1,400 1.0 900 0.7

Hungary 19,500 1.9 1,900 0.2

Latvia 1,200 0.5 4,600 2.0

Lithuania 4,900 1.4 7,200 2.1

Poland 6,600 0.2 24,000 0.6

Slovakia 2,300 0.4 1,200 0.2

Slovenia 7,300 3.7 4,200 2.1

Number of Asylum Applications Submitted in NMS, 1998-2003 (in thousands)

Country 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Czechia 4.1 7.3 8.8 18.1 8.5 8.1

Estonia - 0 0 0 0 -

Hungary 7.1 11.5 7.8 9.6 6.4 1.9

Latvia 0.1 0 0 0 0 -

Lithuania 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Poland 3.4 3.0 4.6 4.5 5.2 5.1

Slovakia 0.5 1.3 1.6 8.2 9.7 6.2

Slovenia 0.5 0.9 9.2 1.5 0.7 0.8

Factors Contributing to Migration Movements

„„PUSH/PULL“ FACTORS:PUSH/PULL“ FACTORS:

- Economic- Economic conditions conditions

- Democratic regime, political stability- Democratic regime, political stability

- Geographic- Geographic locations locations

- Migratory legislation and practices- Migratory legislation and practices

- Cultural distance (- Cultural distance (nativesnatives vis-a-vis immigrant groups) vis-a-vis immigrant groups)

- Diasporas- Diasporas

- Perception of immigrants by - Perception of immigrants by nativenative population population (xenophobia)(xenophobia)

It seems that there are no strong push factors that would It seems that there are no strong push factors that would propel a mass migration from NMS – except Poland.propel a mass migration from NMS – except Poland.

Impact of Migration Movements on Societies

In particular, In particular, ECONOMICALLY-DRIVEN immigration helps propel ECONOMICALLY-DRIVEN immigration helps propel motors of transformation processes – mainly in capitals and other motors of transformation processes – mainly in capitals and other urban areasurban areas

XXOften „brain-waste“ and exploitation for/of illegal/irregular Often „brain-waste“ and exploitation for/of illegal/irregular immigrantsimmigrants

- Circular labour migrants via trans-border commuting improve - Circular labour migrants via trans-border commuting improve living standards and local/regional milieuliving standards and local/regional milieu

- „Western immigrants“ transfer know-how and new technologies- „Western immigrants“ transfer know-how and new technologies and and new cultural patterns (e.g. capitalist ethos of work)new cultural patterns (e.g. capitalist ethos of work)

Immigration vis-a-vis CULTURAL contributions, DEMOGRAPHIC Immigration vis-a-vis CULTURAL contributions, DEMOGRAPHIC changes, changes in the SOCIAL and GEOGRAPHICAL structures changes, changes in the SOCIAL and GEOGRAPHICAL structures =>=>=>=>=>=> so far no nation-wide influence on these issues so far no nation-wide influence on these issues

Migration/Integration Policies and Practices - There was a mandatory alignThere was a mandatory alignmentment with the EU norms (with some with the EU norms (with some

exceptions – e.g. the Schengen Agreement)exceptions – e.g. the Schengen Agreement)

- More restrictive rather than more More restrictive rather than more liberalliberal policies (reinforce border policies (reinforce border controls, tighten visa regimes, strict asylum schemescontrols, tighten visa regimes, strict asylum schemes,, etc.) etc.)

- Coherent and mutually complementary policies are still missing Coherent and mutually complementary policies are still missing =>=>=>=>=>=> Czechia Czechia ((followed by Poland and Sloveniafollowed by Poland and Slovenia)) did more than did more than other NMS while forming their policies/practicesother NMS while forming their policies/practices

- States´ integration States´ integration programsprograms – ethnically based migrants preferred – ethnically based migrants preferred (contoversial issues – Hungary, Slovakia) (contoversial issues – Hungary, Slovakia)

- New pro-active policy – Czechia and its program targeted at attracting New pro-active policy – Czechia and its program targeted at attracting skilled/qualified foreign labour forceskilled/qualified foreign labour force

Conclusions

TThe conditionality of migration, qualitative he conditionality of migration, qualitative aspects of the migratory process and the nature aspects of the migratory process and the nature of the migration policies and practices of the migration policies and practices - - similar similar to those in Western Europeto those in Western Europe

In NMS, tIn NMS, there is more intensive mobility, more here is more intensive mobility, more immigrationimmigration,, and more transit movements, and more transit movements, while generally emigration from NMS has been while generally emigration from NMS has been stabilizing or decreasing stabilizing or decreasing

However, However, in terms of migratory patterns, NMS in terms of migratory patterns, NMS create no homogeneous group create no homogeneous group

As compared to other NMS, As compared to other NMS, the Baltic states the Baltic states areare,, for many reasons for many reasons,, at a at a less developedless developed stagestage

Probable Future Development

„„Past experience and several studies of thePast experience and several studies of the prospective enlargement have failed to prospective enlargement have failed to indicate that further large scale movements indicate that further large scale movements from the new to the existing member states from the new to the existing member states will occur, although there is bound to be will occur, although there is bound to be some redistribution of population as the some redistribution of population as the economies of the EU become more economies of the EU become more integrated“integrated“ (Salt 2003) (Salt 2003)

Immigration to Selected Western European Countries from CEEC – Delphi survey, N=15 and 9 – Czech experts, 2003

Emigration from Selected CEEC to Western Europe – Delphi survey, N=15 and 9 – Czech experts, 2003