Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Theodore Lianos
Theodore Lianos
Theodore Lianos
by
Theodore P. Lianos*
Department of Economics
ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS
May 9, 2005
Athens
Introduction
This paper presents the recent labor migration flows in the Balkan Countries among
these countries and from these countries to others. It also reports some
preliminary finding from a survey in Bosnia-Herzegovina regarding some effects
of migration of the professional status of migrants, their qualifications, their
incomes earned, their remittances back home and the use of these remittances.
The Effects of Migration
Migration has many effects on the economy of the country of origin.
On the positive side one may mention the following :
i)
ii)
iii)
less pressure for work in the labor market. It addition, one may mention
that a substantial flow of remittances may appreciate the domestic
currency and thus reduce export increase imports.
From this brief description of the possible positive and negative effects of migration,
it appears that in theory no general conclusion can be drawn regarding the effects of
migration on the long run growth of the sending economy. Probably, the net effect
may depend on how migration and remittances are combined with the other factors
that enhance or limit the prospects of growth. It seems, therefore, that the effects of
migration may differ by country, depending on the prospects of growth, the
institutional framework and government policies.
Growth Rates of Balkan Countries
The growth rates of GDP of the Balcan countries for the period 1990-2003 are
presented on Table 1. The obvious characteristics of these growth rates is their erratic
behaviour. For all countries the growth rates differ greatly from year to year. This is
due to two main factors. First, to the disorganization of the economic structure that
followed the fall of communist regimes and the need for the reconstruction of these
economics within a new, largerly unknown to them, institutional framework. Second,
to the internal conflicts that followed the fall of the old regimes.
However, during the last five years these economies seem to have achieved a
normal way of economic functioning, and their rates of growth appear to vary within
reasonable limits. For the seven countries appearing on Table 1, the (unweighted)
average growth rate in each of the last three years at approximately 4%.
The growth prospects of these countries may differ. One would expect that
Bulgaria and Romania, which will soon become member of the European Union, and
Croatia, a little later, will be, ceteris paribus, in a better position to exploit the
possibilities that will be opened to them and grow at a steady and high rate. Of
course, it is not implied that all Balkan countries will growth at the same rate or that
the existing regional imbalances will disappear. In fact, it is possible that regional
imbalances may become more pronounced as some countries or regions may become
poles of attraction at the cost of others. However, it is expected that the entire area
will benefit when the general economic environment of the Balkan region improves as
a result of growth of some, if not all, countries in the area.
Table 1
Growth Rates of GDP of Balkan Countries
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Albania Bosnia
Bulgaria Croatia FYROM Romania Serbia
Herzegovina
Montenegro
-9.9
-9.1
-5.6
-28.0
-12.1
-10.4
-21.1
-6.2
-12.9
-11.6
-7.2
-26.1
-7.3
-11.7
-6.6
-8.8
-27.9
9.6
-26.9
-1.5
-8.0
-14.7
1.5
-30.8
8.3
6.5
1.8
5.9
-1.8
3.9
2.5
13.3
32.9
2.9
6.8
-1.1
7.1
6.1
9.1
54.2
-9.4
5.9
1.2
3.9
5.8
-10.3
36.6
-5.6
6.8
1.4
-6.0
7.4
12.7
15.4
4.0
2.5
3.4
-4.8
2.5
8.9
9.5
2.3
-0.9
4.3
-1.2
-23.7
7.7
5.4
5.4
2.9
4.5
2.1
6.4
7.9
4.5
4.1
3.8
-4.5
5.7
5.5
4.8
3.7
4.8
5.2
0.9
4.9
3.8
5.9
3.2
4.8
4.7
3.1
4.7
1.0
available for some years for some countries and for different years for other countries.
Third, the method for collecting of migration data, i.e. the definitions and the sources,
may differ by country. Fourth, the accuracy of the data differ by country. For
example, the number of emigrants from country i to country j in a certain year is often
very different from the number of immigrants to country j from country i in the same
year. Obviously, the reporting systems of the various countries do not have the same
reliability. Fifth and very important for the Balkan area, the reported data usually
refer to legal migrants based, for example, on residence or work permits. However,
the extent of illegal migration is very large, at least for some countries and for some
years, and therefore the estimates presented on the following tables are
underestimates.
In examining statistical data, in general and migration data, in particular, for
the Balkan countries one should bear in mind the fall of the communist and socialist
regime in the beginning of the 1990s and the civil conflicts during the 90s. It is
therefore preferable to concentrate on migration flows after 1996 because the more
recent flows correspond closer to what is termed economic migration.
The problems mentioned above do not render the available data useless. By
combining migration flows and stocks for various years and countries some
conclusions can be derived regarding the main labor mobility tendencies in the Balkan
countries.
(i).
the Balkan countries. However by combining data for outflows, for inflows and for
stocks for various years and for various countries from various sources, it is possible
to draw information and conclusions about the volume of migration flows, and the
main origins and destinations of migrants in the Balkan countries.
The Balkan countries. (i.e. Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia,
FYROMacedonia, Romania and Serbia-Montenegro) have a total population of 52
million (2003), 42% of which (i.e. 22 million) is Romanian. It is interesting to note
that the total population of the area is declining. In the period 2000-2003 it has
declined from 54.8 mil. to 52 mil., that is by 5.2% in three years. The level of income
in these countries is relatively low. The per-capita gross national income of these
countries is below 15% of that of the European Union (EU-15). This immediately
suggests two opposite forces regarding migration in the medium and longer term. On
the one hand, the relatively low level of incomes (in combination with the proximity)
is a strong push force for migrating, but on the other the volume of potential migrant
flows should be small given the population size.
Table 2 shows the net migration rates for the years 2000-2003 and also for the
period 1989-2002. It appears that the Balkan area has lost approximated two and a
half million people after the collapse of the communist regimes. During the last four
years 2000-2003, the net migration rates differ among countries.
Bulgaria have negative and high rates.
Albania and
Herzegovina and Croatia are declining very quickly between 2000 and 2003
indicating that these migration flows are related to internal conflict of the earlier
years, and as the situation settles the migration flows will diminish or even disappear.
Table 2
Migration, Population and Income in the Balkan Area
Net-Migration Rates, 2000-2003
Net Migration Between 1989-2002
Ths
Percent
Population Ths
2000
2003
Country
2000
2001
2002
2003
Albania
BosniaHerzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
FYROM
Romania
SerbiaMontenegro
Total
-10.36
-3.69
-1.46
-1.39
-709
-22.3
3113
3169
1915
25.92
8.91
2.97
0.32
n.a
n.a.
3977
4140
1613
-5.06
5.42
-5.66
-0.17
-4.9
13.37
-1.54
+0.02
-4.74
9.72
-1.49
-0.07
-4.58
1.61
-1.46
-0.54
-689
-314
-46
-663
-7.7
-6.6
-2.4
-2.9
8170
4446
2026
22435
7824
4456
2049
22200
2533
6398
2225
2550
-3.38
-1.38
-182
-1.7
10637
8104
1843
54804
51962
-1.9(a)
-2603
(ii).
important destination for migrants from Albania, primarily, and to a much lesser
extent from Bulgaria and Romania. According to the 2001 Census 1 of population, the
stock of migrants that has been accumulated over the decade of 1990 in Greece is 762
ths people and includes 438 ths Albanians, 35 ths Bulgarians and 22 ths Romanians. It
is estimated that 12,5% of the Albanian labor force and 14% of the Albanian
population are in Greece. The stock of all immigrants to Greece correspond to 9.5%
of its labor force and to 7.5 of its population. By any standards, these percentage are
high for both countries. Due to proximity and common borders, immigration to
Greece involves, to a substantial extent, seasonal and circular movements the size of
which cannot be measured.
The other migration flows within the Balkan area are very small and should
not have any economic significance for the sending or receiving countries (See
Appendix Table 1). The flows among Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and SerbiaMontenegro are, in all likelihood, the results of the civil conflict in Former Yugoslavia
and are not expected to last. The practically non existing migration flows should not
be surprising, given that these countries are not much different economically and that
there are much better opportunities for economic improvement in the surrounding
countries of the EU.
(iii)
flows from and to the Balkan countries are fragmentary with missing values by
country and year and by substantial differences by source. However, some basic
trends can be seen from the available data. From Tables 3,4 and 5 of the Appendix, it
appears that Germany is the most preferred country as a place of destination for
migrants from the Balkan countries. This seems natural given the past huge flows of
1
The census is taken in March 21, that is before the seasonal demand for labor reaches a pick. The
peak season for seasonal employment in Tourism, Construction and Agriculture is late spring and
summer. Thus the Census count is probably an underestimation of the average stock of migrants over
the year.
migration from Former Yugoslavia to (West) Germany and the contacts that have been
established in the meantime between those that have migrated and stayed in Germany
and their relatives and friends in the new countries of Former Yugoslavia. In the
present period (after 1990) some new countries appear to have become places of
destination of substantial immigration from the Balkan countries. As mentioned
above Greece has (according to the 2001 Census of Population) a stock of 438 ths
Albanians 35 ths Bulgarians and 22 ths Romanians. Italy has also become a country
of destination with 107,5ths immigrants from Albania, 66.2 ths from Romania, 41.5
ths from Serbia-Montenegro and 15.9 ths from the Former Yugoslavian Republic of
Macedonia, for the 1997-2001 period. Smaller but still significant migration flows are
directed to Austria and Hungary. During the period 1997-2001, Austria has received
35.5 ths immigrants from Serbia-Montenegro 18.9 ths from Croatia and 17.1 ths from
Bosnia. Hungary has received 36.3 ths immigrants from Romania and 7.6 ths from
Serbia and Montenegro. These are the gross out-migration flows. The net migration
flows are, of course, smaller and vary by country as can be seen from tables 3, 4 and 5
of the Appendix.
Despite the fragmentary nature and the rather low quality statistical data, the
following conclusion can be drawn. There are two counties from which substantial
migration flows emanate i.e. Albania and Romania. The flows from Albania are
directed mainly to Greece and Italy whereas the flows from Romania are directed
mainly to Italy, Germany, Hungary and Austria. These are flows that have been
developed since 1990. There are important differences between these two countries.
Albania is a small country with the second lowest per capita income in the area and an
unemployment rate of 17%, and experiences no substantial return migration, at least
there are no indications pointing to a return flow. Romania is the most populous
country in the area with an unemployment rate of 8% and good prospects of growth,
as it is expected to be a member of the European Union in 2007 (its growth rate in
2003 is 4,5%). Looking at the same statistics from the point of view of the receiving
countries, it appears that Greece, Italy and Germany are the main destinations for
migrants from the Balkan countries whereas Austria and Hungary are becoming
significant poles of attraction.
European Union, and Croatia a little later, have good chances for relatively high rates
of economic growth. These three countries taken together have a population of
approximately 34.5 million which corresponds to 66% of the population of the Balkan
area (excluding the population of Greece). It is likely that growth in the whole Balkan
area will be based on modern labor saving technologies, given the need for
international competitiveness. Therefore, although economic growth may not
necessarily be accompanied by substantial reductions in
the volume of
10
11
Table 3
Sector of Employment Before and After Migration
Before
1. Agriculture
2. Fishing
3. Mining
4. Manufacturing
5. Electricity, Gas, Water
6. Construction
7. Trade, Repairs
8. Hotels+Restaurants
9.Transportk Comm.
10.Financial Services
11. Real Estate
12. Public Adm.
13. Eduction
14.Health, Social Work
15. Other Services
16. Private House bold
17. Extra-Territorial Org.
18. Other
1
41
0
0
14
0
6
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
7
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
8
0
1
5.7
2
4
6
3
4
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
16
5
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
6
14
0
0
9
2
53
2
2
10
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
14
7
2
0
1
1
2
1
17
2
2
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
13
After
8
9
1
3
0
0
0
0
5
4
1
0
2
2
1
2
21
0
2
23
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
8
10
10
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
12
1
0
1
1
0
5
2
1
1
5
0
17
1
2
1
0
0
12
13
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
5
14
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
16
2
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
18
90
0
6
40
9
51
11
7
11
2
0
7
3
0
1
2
0
74
Total
166
2
12
135
23
130
45
37
58
18
1
30
9
17
8
4
0
167
Total
74
105
12
110
45
44
50
11
12
10
314
862
44
Note : Pearsons X2 statistic is X2=2575.6 with 272 df. and it is significant at 1%.
12
Table 4
Professional Status Before and After Migration
Before
1.Senior Official
Manager
2. Professional
3. Technician
4. Clerk
5..Service or Sales
Worker
6. Stilled Agric.
Worker
7. Craft worker
and Related
8.Plant
or
Machine Operator
9.Unskilled
Worker
10. Armed Forces
11. Student
12. Unemployed
13. Other
1
10
2
2
4
4
0
1
4
1
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
10
0
11
0
12
1
13
0
Total
15
55
3
6
2
3
22
1
0
8
6
28
2
3
2
4
21
2
0
0
1
6
1
5
7
0
5
1
3
4
2
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
7
9
10
6
5
7
5
95
57
64
55
16
50
16
88
15
55
52
41
18
130
0
1
6
3
0
1
7
2
1
2
3
3
0
3
1
3
0
1
2
4
0
0
0
2
0
0
12
6
0
0
5
3
0
0
6
11
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
3
32
9
0
0
10
25
2
12
85
71
88
38
54
50
13
97
42
93
139
92
745
37
Note : Pearsons X statistic is X =1233.5 with 132 df. and it is significant at 1%.
Table 5
Additional Qualifications
Type of Qualification
New Language
Mastering a new Profession
New Skills on the job
New Skills (with exams)
Enhancement of Education
Additional Qualification
YES
464
122
292
40
14
634
Number
NO
446
788
618
870
896
276
Percent of Yes
51%
13.4%
32,1%
4,4%
1,5%
69.7
13
Table 6
Distributions of Average Monthly Income Earned (USD)
Income
USD
0-500
500-1000
1001-1500
1501-2000
2001-2500
2501-3000
3001-3500
3501-4000
4001-4500
4501-7000
7001-7500
Sum
Migrants Sending
Money
Number
Recent
111
19.6
170
30.0
199
35.2
50
8.8
19
3.4
7
1.2
1
0.2
2
0.4
3
0.5
3
0.5
1
0.2
566
100
100
14
Number
257
45
44
28
43
60
38
27
12
6
6
566
Percent
45.1
8.0
7.8
4.9
7.6
10.6
6.7
4.8
2.1
1.1
1.1
100
Table 8
Uses of Remittances
Remittances Where Used for
Savings
Investment in Business
Number
156
20
Percent
27.8
3.6
15
Education of children
Food and Clothing
Medical Expenses
Education
Buying Property
Home Repair
Wedding, Celebration, Funeral
Buying Land
Buying a Car
Starting a new Business
Charity
Other
Sum
125
170
8
6
9
39
10
2
3
2
11
561
22.3
30.3
1.4
1.1
1.6
7.0
1.8
0.4
0.5
0.4
2.0
100
16
Appendix Table 1
Intra-Balkan Migration Flows
To
From
Albania
Bosnia +
Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia*
1996+97+98
FYROM*
1996+1998
Greece
Romania*
1996+97+98
2000-2003
Serbia +
Montenegro
Albania
Bosnia +
Herzegovina
Bulgaria
2747
20
8
3
2
49
56
2
Croatia
FYROM
9
118832
215
251
15
-
69
55
474
-
30
342
2
33
26
2
10478
1333
Greece
Romania
-
1
1
822
19
610
2
3
153
-
Serbia +
Montenegro
3
11
3517
388
115
339
557
55
140
103
Source: UN Statistics Division Demographic Database, Statistical Office of the Republic Macedonia, Central Bureau of Statistics of Croatia,
National Commission for Statistics of Romania. For Romania 2000-2003, the data were supplied by D. Gheorghiou SOPEMS correspondent.
Note: * Indicates the country reporting emigrant and immigrant figures. In cells where there are two numbers, the number below shows the
reverse flow. For example, according to Romanian estimates, during the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 49 people in total have moved from
Romania to Bulgaria whereas 56 people in total have moved from Bulgaria to Romania.
17
Appendix Table 2.
Migration Flows 1997-2003(Ths)
Years
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
64.0
54.0
66.0
0.8
18.5
52.3
33.8
4.2
7.6
51.8
44.2
-0.3
14.3
32.9
18.6
7.5
24.4
16.9
0.5
1.2
11.8
20.4
8.6
0.1
2.3
6.5
18.5
11.9
1.2
6.0
29.4
23.4
0.2
1.2
12.6
10.5
-2.1
12.2
14.8
12.4
-2.4
33.9
9.9
11.0
1.1
32.1
8.2
6.6
-1.6
164.4
214.2
49.8
Countries
Albania
Bosnia +Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Out
In
Net
Croatia
Out
In
Net
Fyrom
Out
In
Net
Greece
Out
In
Net
Romania
Out
In
Net
Serbia + Montenegro Out
In
Net
Note:
0.6
19.9
8.4
-13.3
17.5
11.3
-5.6
12.69
117.4
-9.5
16.0
3.9
-12.1
Net Migration figures do not necessarily equal the difference between Out
and In flows. Some signs do not agree with those of Table 1 e.g. Serbia and
Montenegro. Empty cells mean non available data.
18
Appendix Tables 3
Intra-Migration by Country of Immigration and Emigration 2002
To
CZ
DK
DE
EL
ES
FR
IE
IT
CY
HU
NL
AT
PT
40
20
1500
110
80
210
10570
480
10
730
150
13230
440
150
10
30
12990
1450
200
110
3950
60
260
15910
80
100
610
-
4440
1310
320
180
25770
SI
SK
FI
SE
10
50
120
60
1130
120
50
170
10
210
160
150
10
UK
From
Albania
IM
EM
Bosnia+Herzeg
IM
Bulgaria
IM
Croatia
IM
EM
FYROM
IM
Greece
IM
Romania
IM
EM
Serbia+Monten
IM
360
10
170
20
20
1110
170
4420
60
170
230
120
1320
20
20
260
1080
900
5360
70
900
290
30
10
150
10
70
60
150
390
40
220
2070
180
10
10
10
140
120
10
50
19
Appendix Table 4
Migration Inflows Outflows (Ths), 1997-2002
AUT
CAN
CZEH
FRANCE
GERM
HUNG
ITALY
NOR
SWEDEN
SWITZ
USA
Albania
107.5
Bosnia+Herzegovina
To
From
Bulgaria
17.1
15.2
8.4
0.6
48.8
242.5
6.3
73.8
1.6
0.5
Croatia
To
From
18.9
14.7
60.7
74.9
Fyrom
To
4.1
From
1.6
Greece
To
From
Romania
To
7.6
0.2
5.4
From
4.8
Serbia+Mon
To
35.5
0.8
4.0
From
24.1
Source: OECD, Trends in International Migration, various years.
15.9
12.8
84.0
99.2
1.3
0.3
93.7
77.2
36.3
2.1
66.2
240.2
284.5
7.6
41.5
8.3
38.0
7.1
20
Appendix Table 5
GERMANY
FRANCE
UK
ITALY
GREECE
EU-15
CAN-USA
REST OF WORLD
TOTAL
1196+97+98
Emigration to
Immigration from
FYROM
812
8167
16
153
8
29
72
301
1
2
1209
11873
199
1286
34742
135564
36150
148723
1996+1998
Emigration to
Immigration from
ROMANIA
14
24
1
11
33
61
2
64
460
2421
495
2546
6313
889
1843
374
390
37
6938
354
557
113
19743
2100
15849
1229
11612
28226
47204
31555
Croatia
2000+2003
Emigration to
Immigration from
Source: D. Gheorghiou
21