CR

RC
THE SKILLS DIMENSION OF MIGRATION:
ETF SURVEY RESULTS FROM ARMENIA AND
GEORGIA
Skills and Employment for Migrants
Yerevan, 30th October 2012

Heghine Manasyan, CRRC

Special gratitude to Arne Baumann, ETF

1
 Content
 EU & Armenia Mobility Partnership Agreement and the concept of
Circular Migration

 Migration and Skills: survey overview

 Potential Migrants: some survey findings

 Return Migrants: some survey findings

 Summary and recommendations

 Joint Declaration on a Mobility Partnership between
the European Union and Armenia
Signed on 27 October, 2011 in Luxembourg by the RA and 10 EU members
http://www.mfa.am/en/press-releases/item/2011/10/27/a_eu/

The Declaration has 4 directions:

I) Mobility, legal migration and integration
II) Migration and development
III) Fight against irregular immigration and trafficking in
human beings, readmission, identity and travel
documents' security, border management
IV) Fight against irregular immigration and trafficking in
human beings, readmission, identity and travel
documents' security, border management
 Cooperation in the framework of MP: State Migration
Service & European Training Foundation

► Collection of selected labour market information

and implementation of research, including
elaboration and analysis of data, on migration and
skills, facilitating recognition of qualifications and
matching between skills and available
jobs/vacancies, etc.

► Sharing experiences and exchange good practices

in the field of employment and education policies.
 Why ETF works on skills and migration

Migration of people means also migration of skills: brain drain,

brain waste, brain gain, brain circulation
No universal solution: brain XXX – depends on migration stage,
country-specific conditions and individual migrant
characteristics
Skills can be part of the solution and facilitate a better migration
outcome for all: e.g. a more efficient employment/skill-matching
process
All parties can win through more cooperation and better
management of migration: ‘win-win-win’ scenario
ETF aims at providing evidence and policy instruments on
education and skills for improving the outcome of labour
migration
5
 ETF Migration and Skills Surveys

To better understand the links between migration and skills

through collecting evidence from the field
To learn about migration and return experiences of migrants
and their families
To identify the needs for support for legal migration and
circular migration (pre- and post-migration)
 Migration& skills surveys in Albania, Egypt, Moldova,
Tunisia and Ukraine (2007-2009)
 New migration& skills surveys in Armenia, Georgia and
Morocco (2011-2012) to support EU mobility
partnerships

6
 ETF Migration & Skills Surveys: Methodology

Target groups included: 4000 respondents in each country

• “Potential migrants” (2600 respondents)
• “Returning migrants” (1400 respondents)
Sampling methods applied:
• stratified random sample for potential migrants
• snowball technique for returning migrants
The sample is largely representative with respect to:
• rural/urban distribution
• gender (male and female)
• education levels (low: ISCED 1-2, medium:
ISCED 3-4, high: ISCED 5-6)

7
 ETF Migration & Skills Surveys: Definitions
Potential migrant (those who intend and not intend to migrate):
Anyone who is between 18-50 years old, lived in the country at
the moment of the interview and was available for being
interviewed.
The survey on potential migrants is representative of the young
adult population (18–50 years), so those in the same age group
who are not actively seeking to migrate are included in the
survey as control group.

Returning migrant (both short and long-term migrants):

Anyone who left the survey country aged 18 or over,
lived and worked abroad continuously for at least three months,
came back to own country within the last ten years,
now present and available for interview.

8
 Survey sample of potential migrants

Sample description ARMENIA GEORGIA

Sample size 2630 persons 2883 persons

Proportion women 64% 61%

Mean age 33.2 years 34.7 years

Location: capital 37.8% 25.5%

Other urban 31% 27.4%

Rural share 31.3% 47.1%

Education level Upper secondary general (37%),
before migration university (31%), post-secondary
vocational (19.4%), upper
secondary vocational (6%), lower
secondary (6%)
University educated (32%), upper
secondary general (29%), upper
secondary vocational (15%),
lower secondary (12%), post-
secondary vocational (11%)

9
 Prospective migrants: intentions and likelihood to migrate

Potential migrants: intention and

likelihood to migrate
“Likelihood” captures the probability that the intention to migrate translates into action; it takes account of the
time horizon given for migrating (within 6 months or within 2 years), the ability to finance the move, knowledge
of the destination country and its language, and possession of the required documents.
10
 Main push factors for migration

ARMENIA GEORGIA
Main push factors for migration (%) Main push factors for migration (%)

60 60
52.6
50 50

41.4
40 40 37.3

30 30

20 20
14.8 14.5

10 10 9.0

0 0
Have no To improve Unsatisfactory To improve Have no Unsatisfactory
job/cannot find standard of living wage/career standard of living job/cannot find wage and career
job prospects in job prospects
home country

11
 Potential migrants by gender

Prospective migrants and non-migrants by gender (%)

Non-migrants 44.3 55.7

Armenia

Prospective migrants 57.8 42.2

Non-migrants 44.1 55.9

Georgia

Prospective migrants 56.3 43.7

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

% of males % of females

12
 Potential migrants by age groups

Prospective migrants and non-migrants by age groups (%)

Non-migrants 44.9 23.1 32.1

Armenia

Prospective
54 19.4 26.6
migrants

Non-migrants 34.2 32.1 33.7

Georgia

Prospective
41.8 32.3 25.8
migrants

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

18-30 31-40 41-50

13
 Potential migrants by education levels

Prospective migrants and non-migrants by education level (%)

Non-migrants 5.9 63.3 30.8

Armenia

Prospective
9.1 61.3 29.6
migrants

Non-migrants 12.2 53 34.8

Georgia

Prospective
14.9 57.9 27.2
migrants

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Low (ISCED 0-2) Medium (ISCED 3-4) High (ISCED 5-6)

14
 Potential migrants by working status

Prospective migrants and non-migrants by working status (%)

Non-migrants 33.9 66.1

Armenia

Prospective
31.1 68.9
migrants

Non-migrants 27.9 72.1

Georgia

Prospective
25 75
migrants

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Working Not working

15
 Most Likely Destination by Education (%)
Armenia
70
60
11.9
50
40
30 40.3
ARMENIA 20 2.9
7.5 3.7
10 3.1
0 8.2 0.3
Prospective Migrants 0.2
Russian Fed. USA France
Russia: 60.4%
USA: 10.5% Low Medium High
France: 7.1%
ARMENIA
Three Main Destination by Education Level (%)
90
ARMENIA 80
16.4
70
Returning Migrants 60
Russia: 85.2% 50

USA: 2.4% 40 56.9

30
Ukraine: 1.8% 20
10 1.9 0.3
11.8 1.4
0 0.5 0.1
Russian Fed. USA Ukraine

Low Medium High

16
GEORGIA

Prospective Migrants
Turkey: 14.3%
USA: 14.2%
Italy: 13.0%

GEORGIA

Returning Migrants
Turkey: 31.5%
Russia: 29.0%
Greece: 12.7%

17
 Destination Country: EU share by gender

Total EU share as a destination in Georgia: returnees (24%), prospective migrants (44%)

Total EU share as a destination in Armenia: returnees (7%), prospective migrants (20%)

18
 Returnees: survey sample of returning migrants

Description ARMENIA GEORGIA

Sample size 1400 persons 1401 persons

Proportion women 13.3% 40.7%

Mean age 36 years 41 years

Location: capital 37.7% 21.0%

Other urban 29.6% 21.6%

Rural share 32.7% 57.4%

Education level Upper secondary general (42%), Upper secondary general (41%),
before migration university (22%), post-secondary university (29%), upper
vocational (14%), lower secondary secondary vocational (18%),
(12%), upper sec. vocational (9%) post-secondary vocational (10%)

19
Reasons of return to home country

20
 Returnees: main sectors of work abroad
Armenia (male): construction (58.6%), commerce (9.5%),
manufacturing (8.4%), transport (7.8%), repairs (3.9%)

Armenia (female): commerce (24.2%), manufacturing

(17.6%), petty trade (12.1%), hospitality (8.2%), domestic
service (8.2%), other (15.4%), construction (6%)

Georgia (male): construction (42.3%), manufacturing

(9.7%), agriculture (7.7%), commerce (7.6%), transport
(7%), petty trade (5.6%), personal service (4.7%)

Georgia (female): domestic service (50.5%), petty trade

(10.6%), hospitality (8.2%), personal service (6.3%),
manufacturing (6.5%), commerce (4.1%)
21
Returnees: correspondence of work with education level

22
Returnees: correspondence of work with education level

23
 Status while Working Abroad

Armenia Georgia
(%) (%)

Work permit 20 5

Residence permit 12 21

Social security coverage 2 3

Work contract 14 14

24
 The use of pre-departure training

The use of pre-departure training (%)

Prospective migrants 29.7 70.3

Armenia

Returning migrants 1.9 98.1

Georgia

Prospective migrants 40.1 59.9

Returning migrants 5.9 94.1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes No

25
 Use of Remittances for Development at Home

Armenia Georgia
(%) (%)
Use of remittances…

... for education of children 0.6 14.2

… for education of others than children (respondent,

8.3 2.1
spouse of respondent etc.)

… for business activity 0.2 0.5

… for living expenses/consumption 95.7 97.0

26
 Portability of Social Rights and Return Outcome

Do you have pension or other social

benefits from your work abroad?

Armenia Georgia
Return Outcome
(composite indicator using several
Yes (%) No (%) Yes (%) No (%)
variables)

Highly successful 6.3 0.5 0 0.6

Successful 78.1 55.0 70.0 43.9

Neither 15.6 42.3 30.0 47.2

Unsuccessful 0 2.2 0 8.3

Highly unsuccessful 0 0 0 0

Total 100 100 100 100

27
 Returnees: most helpful experience abroad

Returnees: most helpful experience abroad (%)

100%

90% Entrepreneurial skills

80% Skills related to workplace

organization, culture and work
70%
ICT skills
60%

69.0 Academic skills

50% 47.7

40% Social skills

30% Vocational/technical skills

20%
Language skills
24.9
10% 18.0

0%
Armenia Georgia

28
Returnees: work status after return

29
 Returnees: awareness of return schemes

Awareness of return schemes (%)

Armenia 1.2 98.8

Georgia 1.8 98.2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Aware Not aware

30
 Returnees: % of employer and self-employed

% of employers and self-employed among returnees

25

21.0
20.2
20

15

10 8.4
6.2
5

0
Georgia Armenia

Amongst returning migrants who work Amongst all returning migrants

31
Tendency to re-migrate among returnees

32
 Returnees: duration and frequency of migrations

DURATION OF MIGRATION ARMENIA GEORGIA

Average time per migration 9 months 17 months

Average time spent in total 19 months 22 months

NUMBER OF MIGRATIONS ARMENIA GEORGIA

1 time 59% 77%

2 times 18% 14%

3 times 9% 6%

4 times 5% 2%

5+ times 9% 1%

33
 Summary of findings
 36% of 18-50 age group in Armenia and 31% in Georgia intend to migrate, but
the likelihood decreases to 12.6% and 11.4% when controlled for actual ability
to migrate
 Reasons for migration are all economic – lack of jobs, improving standards of
living, unsatisfactory wage and career prospects at home – while reasons for
return are typically family related
 Pre-departure training: high interest from potential migrants (30-40%), but very
little training received in reality (6% in Georgia, 2% in Armenia)
 Most migrants work as unskilled/skilled workers, irrespective of their education
level; skills mismatch increases with education and is higher for women
 Post-return work: only 42% in Armenia and 30% in Georgia work after return;
high tendency to re-migrate again: 68% in Armenia and 48% in Georgia
 Remittances are used only to a small degree for education and business
investments
 Reintegration programmes: awareness of return support and training schemes
is very limited among returnees (and participation miniscule)
 Portability of social rights improves the return outcome of returning migrants
34
 Policy Implications

Among others, the findings suggest:

 Effective pre-departure training can be expanded considerably and address
issues such as language skills, vocational qualifications, and information about
rights & obligations while working abroad.
 Better information about available employment abroad can help to reduce skills
mismatch in destination countries; this can be achieved through building up of
cross-national placement services (e.g. EURES in the EU).
 Comprehensive recognition of skills/qualifications in destination countries will
allow to reduce brain waste by better using the skills of migrants.
 The potential of returning migrants for development of home countries should be
used through adequate return support schemes, including through validation of
the skills acquired abroad, effective placement services, increased use of
remittances for business investment and support of entrepreneurial potential
among returnees.
 Strengthening of legal migration needs to pay attention to the motivations behind
migration and return, and must aim at providing legal ways for migrants to easily
go back and forth between home and destination country. In light of its positive
impact, the portability of social rights needs to become a mainstay of agreements
between home and destination countries.

35
 Thank you!!!!

P.S. Other recent studies for your

interest:

Report: Social Impact of Emigration and Rural-Urban Migration in Central and

Eastern Europe (2012)

http://ec.europa.eu/social/keyDocuments.jsp?pager.offset=0&langId=en&mode=
advancedSubmit&policyArea=0&subCategory=0&year=0&country=0&type=0&a
dvSearchKey=EmigrationMigrationCentralEasternEurope&orderBy=docOrder

36