The Unnoticed Effects of EU Accession

Evidence on Mobility and Integration of

Bulgarian Migrants in Germany 1st
Edition Kovacheva Vesela
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-unnoticed-effects-of-eu-accession-evidence-on-m
obility-and-integration-of-bulgarian-migrants-in-germany-1st-edition-kovacheva-vesela
/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Italy between the EU and Berlusconi Effects of external

and internal factors on the Italian Public Debt Effects
of external and internal factors on the Italian Public
Debt 1st Edition Alberto Mittestainer
https://ebookmeta.com/product/italy-between-the-eu-and-
berlusconi-effects-of-external-and-internal-factors-on-the-
italian-public-debt-effects-of-external-and-internal-factors-on-
the-italian-public-debt-1st-edition-alberto-mittesta/

Mobility in Germany: Digital Transformation, Megatrends

and the Evolution of New Business Models 1st Edition
Cordelia Friesendorf

https://ebookmeta.com/product/mobility-in-germany-digital-
transformation-megatrends-and-the-evolution-of-new-business-
models-1st-edition-cordelia-friesendorf/

Integration and Resettlement of Refugees and Forced

Migrants Karen Jacobsen Editor Charles Simpson Editor

https://ebookmeta.com/product/integration-and-resettlement-of-
refugees-and-forced-migrants-karen-jacobsen-editor-charles-
simpson-editor/

Ethical Legal and Social Aspects of Healthcare for

Migrants Perspectives from the UK and Germany 1st
Edition Katja Kuehlmeyer (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/ethical-legal-and-social-aspects-
of-healthcare-for-migrants-perspectives-from-the-uk-and-
germany-1st-edition-katja-kuehlmeyer-editor/
Migrants Refugees and Asylum Seekers Integration in
European Labour Markets A Comparative Approach on Legal
Barriers and Enablers 1st Edition Veronica Federico

https://ebookmeta.com/product/migrants-refugees-and-asylum-
seekers-integration-in-european-labour-markets-a-comparative-
approach-on-legal-barriers-and-enablers-1st-edition-veronica-
federico/

Urban Mobility and Social Equity in Latin America:

Evidence, Concepts, Methods 1st Edition Daniel Oviedo

https://ebookmeta.com/product/urban-mobility-and-social-equity-
in-latin-america-evidence-concepts-methods-1st-edition-daniel-
oviedo/

European Solidarity Under Scrutiny : Empirical Evidence

for the Effects of Media Identity Framing 1st Edition
Christopher Starke

https://ebookmeta.com/product/european-solidarity-under-scrutiny-
empirical-evidence-for-the-effects-of-media-identity-framing-1st-
edition-christopher-starke/

Effects of Electric Fields on Structure and Reactivity

: New Horizons in Chemistry 1st Edition Sason Shaik

https://ebookmeta.com/product/effects-of-electric-fields-on-
structure-and-reactivity-new-horizons-in-chemistry-1st-edition-
sason-shaik/

The Law of EU External Relations: Cases, Materials, and

Commentary on the EU as an International Legal Actor,
Third Edition Jan Wouters

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-law-of-eu-external-relations-
cases-materials-and-commentary-on-the-eu-as-an-international-
legal-actor-third-edition-jan-wouters/
Studien zur Migrations- und Integrationspolitik

Vesela Kovacheva

The Unnoticed Effects

of EU Accession
Evidence on Mobility and Integration
of Bulgarian Migrants in Germany
Studien zur Migrations- und
Integrationspolitik

Reihe herausgegeben von

Danielle Gluns, Universität Hildesheim, Hildesheim, Germany
Uwe Hunger, Sozial- und Kulturwissenschaften, Hochschule Fulda, Fulda,
Hessen, Germany
Roswitha Pioch, Fachhochschule Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Stefan Rother, Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
Migration ist eines der zentralen Globalisierungsphänomene des 21. Jahrhunderts.
Entsprechend groß ist das Interesse an Fragen der politischen Regulierung und
Gestaltung der weltweiten Migration, den Rechten von Migrantinnen und Migran-
ten und der Integration von der lokalen bis zur globalen Ebene. Die Buchreihe
ist interdisziplinär ausgerichtet und umfasst Monographien und Sammelwerke,
die sich theoretisch und empirisch mit den Inhalten, Strukturen und Prozessen
lokaler, regionaler, nationaler und internationaler Migrations- und Integrations-
politik befassen. Sie richtet sich an Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler,
Studierende der Geistes-, Sozial-, Wirtschafts- und Rechtswissenschaften sowie
an Praktikerinnen und Praktiker aus Medien, Politik und Bildung.
Die Herausgeberinnen und Herausgeber werden in ihrer Arbeit durch einen
wissenschaftlichen Beirat unterstützt, den die ehemaligen Sprecherinnen und
Sprecher des Arbeitskreises bilden: Prof. Dr. Sigrid Baringhorst, Universität
Siegen, Prof. Dr. Thomas Faist, Universität Bielefeld, Prof. Dr. Karen Schön-
wälder, Max-Planck-Institut zur Erforschung multireligiöser und multi-ethnischer
Gesellschaften, Göttingen, Apl. Prof. Dr. Axel Schulte i.R., Leibniz Universität
Hannover, Prof. em. Dr. Dietrich Thränhardt, Universität Münster.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11808

Vesela Kovacheva

The Unnoticed Effects

of EU Accession
Evidence on Mobility and
Integration of Bulgarian Migrants in
Germany
Vesela Kovacheva
Hamburg, Germany

Dissertation, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, 2018, disputation on 19 March

2019 (D 6)

ISSN 2567-3076 ISSN 2567-3157 (electronic)

Studien zur Migrations- und Integrationspolitik
ISBN 978-3-658-33109-2 ISBN 978-3-658-33110-8 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33110-8

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publis-
her, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation,
reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other
physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer
software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Responsible Editor: Stefanie Eggert

This Springer VS imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
GmbH part of Springer Nature.
The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany
Acknowledgements

Shortly before Bulgaria acceded to the European Union in 2007, I migrated to

Germany to participate in a master’s programme. Overnight, I became an EU
citizen and experienced how this affected my situation in Germany. This personal
experience shaped me and motivated me to research the impact of EU accession
on Bulgarian migration.
Six years after the EU accession, I started my doctoral thesis. I surveyed 401
Bulgarian migrants in Hamburg, and I’m deeply grateful to them for sharing their
experiences with me.
Many colleagues and friends supported me during my dissertation project.
Above all others, I am indebted to my supervisors Dietrich Thränhardt and Tho-
mas Straubhaar. I thank them for their trust, skilful guidance and for being there
with help and advice at all stages of the dissertation.
I am profoundly grateful to Dita Vogel who supported and advised me during
my work as a researcher, believed in my skills, encouraged me to start my doctoral
thesis and supported me during all phases of the work. I thank her for showing
me what research means.
For the generous financial support for my research, I thank the ZEIT Foun-
dation Ebelin and Gerd Bucerius. I sincerely thank all members of the advisory
board and the team at the ZEIT Foundation for giving me the chance to participate
in the PhD programme Settling into Motion, to get in touch with great scholars
all over the world, to learn from and discuss with them.
I did my doctoral thesis during my work at the Hamburg Institute of Interna-
tional Economics (HWWI). I highly appreciate all my colleagues with whom I
worked over the years and who contributed to my work with advice and criticism.
I thank the ISMU Foundation for Initiatives and Studies on Multi-ethnicity
in Milano for hosting me and in particular Gian Carlo Blangiardo for sharing

v
vi Acknowledgements

his knowledge on the centre sampling technique. I’m grateful to the Edmund
Siemers-Stiftung that supported the fieldwork financially, and to Vladimir and
Emilija who were at my side during the fieldwork and interviewed many of the
survey participants.
The support of all the organisations in Hamburg that permitted me to do the
fieldwork in their locations or use their e-mail lists is highly appreciated. These
are the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, the Bulgarian kindergarten and school, the
German-Bulgarian association in Hamburg, the Bulgarian café Thrakia, the Bul-
garian shop BG Kost, the Bulgarian women and families club, the dance group
Zdravets, the organisations Plata, Westend, Vericom, and Evangelische Auslands-
beratung. Special thanks also to Elena Kireva, Max Steinhardt and Franziska
Sinowski for helpful advice on questionnaire preparation, and Elisabeth Bublibtz
for valuable support in the statistical analysis.
I am deeply grateful to all colleagues who read earlier versions and parts of
the doctoral thesis and gave me thoughtful and inspiring comments, in particular
to Ferruccio Pastore, Meike Löhr, Norbert Cyrus, Manuel Assner, Daniel Naujoks
and Yasar Aydin. Special thanks to Norbert Kersting for the stimulating discussion
during my thesis defence. I thank all the scholars I got to know over the years at
conferences for questioning and inspiring my research at the same time. Thanks
to the editors of this series for their useful comments and to Alec Crutchley for
his diligent proofreading of the thesis.
The submission of the doctoral thesis and its defence took place at the Uni-
versity of Münster in March 2019. During the work on my dissertation, my sons
Theodor and Daniel were born. Thanks to them, to my husband Vladimir and to
my family for being there with their love and patience.
Executive summary

The patterns of Bulgarian migration to Germany since 2007 revisited

Bulgarian and Romanian migrants in Germany show particular patterns
that contrast with all other immigrant groups. On the one hand, EU2 migrants—
Bulgarians and Romanians—have encountered considerable integration challen-
ges in areas such as housing and the labour market. On the other hand, their
naturalisation rates have been exceptionally high and considerably above the ave-
rage. Although high naturalisation rates hint at particularly successful integration
in society, Bulgarian and Romanian migrants in Germany have been widely per-
ceived as problematic. The image of poverty migration and EU2 migrants being
a burden on the social welfare state has dominated the discourse and has trig-
gered a critical discussion about the social rights of EU migrants. Thus there
seems to be a discrepancy between perceptions and realities of EU2 migration to
Germany since 2007 that challenges researchers to produce a more nuanced and
comprehensive understanding of this migration.
This study seeks to address this need by focusing on Bulgaria. Bulgaria is
small in terms of population but sends a relatively large number of migrants to
Germany in relation to its population. In 2017, it was the 16th largest EU country
in terms of population but the 5th largest EU nationality in Germany. Various
sources, such as official statistics, administrative documents, and scientific reports,
have pointed to changing patterns of migration and integration since 2007. They
are certainly to be attributed to the acquisition of EU citizenship, as it grants to
Bulgarian migrants more mobility, economic, social, and political rights than they
had as third-country nationals in the past. EU citizenship as a legal status is thus a
means for more legal integration in the receiving country. It unfolded its positive
but often unnoticed effects for Bulgarian migration and deserves more scientific
attention than it has received so far.

vii
viii Executive summary

Better legal integration in the sense of rights creates more opportunities for
participation in society. It may thus change patterns of mobility, participation in
the labour market and elections, and naturalisation practices. However, acquisition
of EU citizenship cannot alone explain the distinct patterns of Bulgarian migration
since 2007, as differences from previous EU enlargements and current EU migra-
tion indicate. In line with the experience in the 1980s, migratory movements after
the 2007 EU accession have been dynamic and mostly of temporary and circular
nature. As for other EU migrants in Germany at present, the political participa-
tion of Bulgarian migrants is at a modest level. However, Bulgarian migrants tend
to inhabit disadvantageous positions in the labour market more often than their
counterparts from other EU countries. Furthermore, they have exceptionally high
naturalisation rates despite holding EU citizenship status. How can these speci-
fic patterns of migration, integration and naturalisation of Bulgarian migrants be
explained?
The benefits of a time-location sampling survey
To address these questions, I carried out a migrant survey at the end of 2012 and
the beginning of 2013 in Hamburg. It captures the experiences of 401 Bulgarian
migrants in relation to migration, labour market participation, electoral participa-
tion and naturalisation. The survey is based on a time-location sampling technique
that consists of randomly interviewing migrants at selected migrant-oriented mee-
ting points. Time-location sampling has two key advantages compared to other
sampling techniques. First, it allows for a probability sample to be drawn from the
population of Bulgarian background. A broad set of meeting points of relevance
for the Bulgarian population was selected so that each member of the Bulgarian
population had a non-zero chance of participating in the study. The meeting points
were visited over a particular time period, and visitors were asked at random to
participate. The initial sample is biased due to different individual probabilities of
inclusion in the sample, and an inverse weighting procedure is applied ex post to
address this bias. Based on the weighted sample, it is possible to make inferences
about the total Bulgarian population in Hamburg.
Second, time-location sampling allows for the population of Bulgarian back-
ground to be captured at the local level when a proper sampling frame is missing.
Besides Bulgarian citizens who register with the local registration offices, two
further groups can be identified among people of Bulgarian background, despite
the fact that they are scarcely captured in administrative data: unregistered per-
sons and naturalised persons. Time-location sampling makes it possible to reach
them. Given that 12 per cent of the sample were unregistered Bulgarian citizens
and 11 per cent were naturalised persons, the survey results point to a significant
relevance of both groups for the Bulgarian population in Hamburg.
Executive summary ix

The migrant survey further reveals a high relevance of ethnic minorities, with
at least one-third of the Bulgarians in Hamburg belonging to an ethnic mino-
rity group. Bulgarian Turks are over-represented compared to their share in the
population in Bulgaria, while the proportion of Roma corresponds to their relative
importance in the Bulgarian population. In light of the sizeable Turkish-speaking
community in Germany, this finding suggests that a common language supports
migration.
To help explain migration patterns, labour market participation, electoral parti-
cipation, and naturalisation practices, I used descriptive and multivariate analyses.
Two subgroups of the sample were compared—migrants who arrived before
(pre-accession migrants) and after 2007 (post-accession migrants). Then, logi-
stic regressions were run to show the influence of individual characteristics and
institutional arrangements on participation. Analysis reveals that the particular
patterns of migration and integration are a result of the interaction between spe-
cific institutional settings in the country of residence and distinct features of the
country of origin. Institutional arrangements in Germany, such as national policies
related to EU citizenship, proved to affect the mobility and participation of Bulga-
rian migrants considerably. These are, in particular, the transitional periods in the
freedom of work, the dual citizenship policy, and the laissez-faire policy related
to electoral participation. It can be assumed that these policies affect the other
2007 EU accession country Romania in a similar way. Specific migration relati-
ons to Germany in the past and the particular demographic, economic, social, and
political situation in Bulgaria at present considerably contribute to the trends in
migration after EU accession. They are to be embedded in the broader historical
process of the establishment of migrant communities.
The process of establishment of a sizeable Bulgarian community in Germany
EU accession triggered a new migration wave from Bulgaria to Germany with a
significant and enduring increase in migration. New migration from the coun-
try of origin took place, but fears of excessive postponed emigration did not
come true. Two other factors contributed to a similar extent to the increase but
are largely disregarded: redirection of Bulgarian migration from crisis countries
during the global economic and financial crisis of 2007 and renewed migration
of persons with pre-accession experience in Germany. Previously unregistered
migrants became able to obtain residence status more easily than in the past
and were captured in administrative data for the first time. Furthermore, pre-
vious circular migrants who had practised back-and-forth movements between
Germany and Bulgaria to cope with the legal regulations for regular residence
became able to settle more permanently. These registration and settlement effects
of EU citizenship were most relevant in the first years after EU accession.
x Executive summary

In line with expectations, Bulgarian migrants that hold EU citizenship practice

predominantly temporary and circular migration, and have relatively short-term
lengths of residence in Germany. The dynamic migratory movements in the first
years after EU accession that characterise Bulgarian migration are known from
previous EU enlargements as well, for example in the 1980s. In contrast to them, a
sizeable proportion of Bulgarian migrants settled, and the Bulgarian population in
Germany has substantially increased. This development can be seen in the broader
context of the establishment of new migrant communities. Germany has been
among the most preferred destinations for Bulgarian migrants for decades, but in
the past opportunities for legal migration and permanent settlement were limited.
The process of establishment of a sizeable Bulgarian community in Germany
started in the 1990s but occurred at a slow pace until 2007. EU accession changed
this by opening up more opportunities for legal and permanent migration and thus
facilitating the process of establishment of a sizeable Bulgarian community in
Germany.
The naturalisation practices of Bulgarian migrants give further arguments for
the process of establishment of a sizeable Bulgarian community in Germany after
EU accession. In contrast to expectations of few incentives for Bulgarian migrants
to naturalise, they have much higher naturalisation rates since 2007 than citizens
from other EU countries. To a large extent, the high naturalisation numbers can
be attributed to a ‘naturalisation hump’: migrants who did not want to renounce
their Bulgarian citizenship in the past decided to naturalise after the dual citizen-
ship policy came into force in Germany. The introduction of the dual citizenship
policy as of 2007 coincided with EU accession and considerably supported the
naturalisation of Bulgarian migrants.
Multivariate analysis reveals that permanent settlement is the main explanatory
factor for the willingness to naturalise and is indicated by good German language
skills, long length of residence, and intention to remain in the long run. The extra-
ordinary proclivity of Bulgarian migrants to naturalise is a sign of their successful
settlement in Germany and of a great willingness to participate in society. Per-
ceived discrimination towards foreign nationals is a further decisive determinant
of naturalisation, showing that German citizenship is considered a mechanism
for overcoming discrimination on the grounds of nationality. Although the posi-
tive influence of EU citizenship on an individual’s situation is without doubt, it
neither replaces receiving country citizenship nor makes it obsolete. Full legal
integration through naturalisation continues to be of relevance, particularly for
permanent settlers. They expect practical advantages from naturalisation, such as
better job opportunities and secure residence status.
Executive summary xi

Naturalisation seems to be less motivated by alienation from the country of

origin than is assumed for countries with low economic development, political
instability and a high level of corruption. The fact that almost all naturalised
persons retained their Bulgarian citizenship hints at its high relevance for the
individual. Retention of Bulgarian citizenship is an expression of a willingness
to maintain rights and symbolic membership of the country of origin in case
of return. Similarly, migrants consider German citizenship as a mechanism for
securing rights in Germany when a person leaves the country for a lengthy
period of time. The vast majority of those interested in naturalisation attach great
importance to the possibility of maintaining their rights in Germany. This fin-
ding suggests that legal uncertainty creates strong incentives for the acquisition
of German citizenship. Since 2007, Bulgarian migrants have faced twofold legal
uncertainty. On the one hand, restricted labour market access in the first years
after EU accession limited their economic rights, and on the other hand, con-
tested access to the welfare system in the 2010s put social rights into question.
Thus, even in the context of free movement with the right of free entry and resi-
dence, the legal rights attached to national citizenship of the country of origin and
residence are a great advantage of dual citizenship and motivate EU citizens to
naturalise.
Integration challenges and potentials in the labour market and political area
Concerning their integration, understood as participation in society, Bulgarian
migrants have predominantly been perceived as problematic. Integration challen-
ges, such as migration of low-skilled persons with few prospects in the labour
market and a high level of vulnerability of Bulgarian workers, have become pub-
lic knowledge. Many migrants find themselves in disadvantageous positions in the
labour market. They work below their level of qualification, have a low income
that makes them likely to become dependent on social benefits and are prone to
violation of fundamental labour rights. Almost half (45 per cent) of the survey
respondents with experience in the German labour market had experienced viola-
tions of basic labour standards after EU accession at least once. For example, they
were not paid for a couple of days or even months, or had to work considerably
longer than agreed.
This study provides empirical evidence that the transitional periods—restric-
ting the right to be employed—substantially contributed to this vulnerability of
Bulgarian migrants in the German labour market. The requirement for a work
permit significantly increases the individual probability of self-employment, unde-
clared work, and violation of labour standards, as multivariate analysis shows.
Self-employment during transitional periods is often involuntary, driven by the
absence of a work permit, and constitutes a way of circumventing restricted labour
xii Executive summary

market access. Thus labour market restrictions redirect labour market participation
to more unfavourable forms rather than preventing it.
In light of the challenges related to the quality of employment, potential in
the labour market area, such as favourable individual migrant characteristics, has
been largely disregarded. A high proportion of persons of prime working age,
labour migrants, highly educated, and settlers facilitate labour market integration
in the long run. In contrast to the conventional wisdom that unemployed and inac-
tive people leave Bulgaria, the migrant survey shows that a sizable majority of
respondents (90 per cent) had work in Bulgaria or migrated directly after com-
pleting their studies. Since 2007, most Bulgarians who moved to Germany did so
to work, and migration proves to fit the pattern of labour migration much more
than that of poverty migration, which is commonly assumed to be dominant. A
sizable majority of Bulgarians work or study, and only a minority rely entirely on
the welfare system, thus contradicting the image of welfare tourism.
The qualification structure of the Bulgarian population resembles an hourglass,
with a considerable proportion of people with low (i.e. without vocational trai-
ning) and high education (i.e. with academic education) whereas the middle level
is scarcely present. The large proportion of high-skilled people is to be attributed
to the high relevance of educational migration, which has been a main pattern
of Bulgarian migration to Germany over time. Moreover, a sizable proportion of
respondents (one-third) completed their studies in Germany and acquired crucial
country-specific knowledge and language skills. Low-skilled migrants have arri-
ved mostly since 2007 as free movement opened up more opportunities for legal
migration than in the past. Low-skilled as well as temporary and circular workers
often lack country-specific knowledge and German language skills, which is a bar-
rier to their labour market participation. However, short-term residents may have
long-term orientations to settle that are indicated by their intention to remain and
a close attachment to the destination country. In the migrant survey, 41 per cent of
Bulgarian migrants had long-term orientations to settle permanently despite their
short length of residence. Post-accession migration has thus evolved a pattern of
classical migration of permanent settlement that favours integration in the long
run.
In contrast to the labour market area, challenges and potentials in the politi-
cal area have not yet received much public attention. The electoral participation
of Bulgarian migrants is modest, with 28 per cent stating that they would vote
if municipal elections were held the next week. Naturalised persons are more
interested in electoral participation than those holding Bulgarian citizenship. This
finding confirms previous studies on the crucial role of naturalisation for political
participation. The survey results further show that the low interest of Bulgarians
Executive summary xiii

in voting in municipal elections is closely related to a limited awareness of voting

rights and a lack of knowledge about parties and their programmes. Both findings
reveal substantial potential for mobilisation of Bulgarian migrants as voters that
has not been utilised by the laissez-faire policy related to electoral participation
of EU migrants in Germany.
Contents

1 Introduction: Becoming EU Citizens – Consequences

for Bulgarian Migrants in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 The case of Bulgaria in Migration Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Theoretical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3 Aims and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4 Structure of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 Background: History of Bulgarian Migration to Germany . . . . . . . . 13
2.1 The Cold War Period (1946–1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 The Post-Cold War Period (1989–1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3 The Visa Period (1993–2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4 The EU Pre-Accession Period (2001–2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.5 The EU Post-Accession Period (since 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3 Methodology: a Time-Location Sampling Survey Among
Bulgarians in Hamburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.1 Surveying Persons of Migration Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2 The Choice of a Time-Location Sampling Method . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3 Designing the Migrant Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.3.1 Selection of Hamburg as a Location for the Survey . . . . . 34
3.3.2 Selection of Locations for Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.3.3 Questionnaire Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.4 Fieldwork in Hamburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.5 Sample Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.5.1 Weighting Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.5.2 Sample Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

xv
xvi Contents

3.5.3 Quality of the Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4 Migration Patterns: Providing Empirical Evidence Beyond
Official Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.1 Explanations for Increased Migration After EU Accession . . . . . 57
4.1.1 Reasons for Increased Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.1.2 Patterns of Post-Accession Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.2 Estimate of the Population of Bulgarian Background
in Hamburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.3 Little-known Migrant Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.3.1 Gender, Age, Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.3.2 Ethnic Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.3.3 Motivations for Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.3.4 Labour Status Before Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.4 Duration of Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.4.1 Residence Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.4.2 Circular Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.4.3 Migrants’ Long-term Orientations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.5 Migrants’ Broader Social Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.5.1 Indicators of Cultural, Interactive and Identificative
Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.5.2 Views on Social Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5 Labour Market Integration: Analysing the Impact
of Restricted Freedom of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.1 EU Citizens in the German Labour Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.2 Level of Labour Market Participation: Indications From
Administrative Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5.3 Quality of Participation: Evidence From the Migrant Survey
in Hamburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.3.1 Self-Employment as a Strategy for Circumventing
the Transitional Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.3.2 Brain Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.3.3 Irregularities Related to Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.4 Regression Analysis on Labour Market Participation . . . . . . . . . . 114
5.4.1 Self-Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.4.2 Undeclared Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
5.4.3 Violation of Labour Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Contents xvii

5.4.4 General and Migrant-Specific Factors for Labour

Market Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
5.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
6 Political Integration: Exploring the Electoral Participation
of Recent EU Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
6.1 Political Participation of EU Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
6.2 Determinants of Electoral Participation at the Local Level . . . . . . 139
6.3 Electoral Participation of Bulgarian Migrants in Hamburg . . . . . . 141
6.3.1 Awareness of Electoral Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
6.3.2 Willingness to Vote in Municipal Elections . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
6.3.3 Motives for and against Voting in Municipal
Elections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
6.3.4 Regression Analysis on Voting Intentions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
7 Naturalisation: Explaining the Exceptional Willingness
of Bulgarians to Naturalise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
7.1 Naturalisation Practices of EU Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
7.2 Structural Determinants of Naturalisation in Germany . . . . . . . . . 160
7.3 Individual Determinants of Naturalisation for EU Citizens . . . . . . 163
7.4 Naturalisation Practices of Bulgarian Migrants in Hamburg . . . . . 167
7.4.1 Motives for and against Naturalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
7.4.2 Who is Willing to Naturalise: Descriptive Results . . . . . . . 172
7.4.3 Regression Analysis on Naturalisation Intentions . . . . . . . 180
7.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
8 Conclusion: The Unnoticed Effects of EU Accession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
8.1 Bulgarian Migration to Germany since 2007 Revisited . . . . . . . . . 191
8.2 The Backlash against EU2 Migration in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
8.3 The Need for Future Research on EU Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
8.4 Outlook for Future EU Enlargements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Abbreviations

AAPOR American Association for Public Opinion Research

AME Average Marginal Effects
AZR Central Register of Foreigners
BAMF Federal Office for Migration and Integration
BMI Federal Ministry of the Interior
CEE Central and Eastern European
GDP Gross Domestic Product
EU European Union
EU2 Bulgaria and Romania, which acceded to the EU in 2007
EU8 All EU10 states except Malta and Cyprus
EU10 All states that acceded to the EU in 2004 (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Hungary and
Cyprus)
EU12 EU10 and EU2
EU14 EU15 except Germany
EU15 All states that belonged to the EU before the 2004 accession (Austria,
Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Ireland,
Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Spain and the United
Kingdom)
EU27 All EU member states up to June 2013
EU28 EU27 including Croatia, which acceded to the EU on 1 July 2013
FRG Federal Republic of Germany
GDR German Democratic Republic
IOM International Organization for Migration
ISMU Foundation for Initiatives and Studies on Multi-ethnicity
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

xix
xx Abbreviations

OR Odds ratios
SVR Expert Council of German Foundations on Integration and Migration
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Conceptual framework of EU citizenship, migration

and integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 2.1 Bulgarian asylum seekers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 2.2 Bulgarian temporary workers in the framework
of bilateral agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 2.3 Bulgarian citizens suspected of criminal offences
against the Residence, Asylum and EU free movement
laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 2.4 Bulgarian students enrolled in the winter term
at German universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 2.5 Inflows, outflows, net migration and stocks
of Bulgarian citizens in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 2.6 Net migration and stocks of Bulgarian citizens
in the five migration periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 3.1 Comparison of gender and age distribution
in the sample against administrative data, in % . . . . . . . . . . 51
Figure 4.1 Patterns of post-accession migration to Germany . . . . . . . . . 62
Figure 4.2 Age composition of Bulgarian citizens in Germany . . . . . . 68
Figure 4.3 Age composition of Bulgarian citizens in Hamburg . . . . . . 69
Figure 4.4 Educational structure of the population of Bulgarian
background in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Figure 4.5 Educational structure of the population of Bulgarian
background in 2018 in comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Figure 4.6 Male and female respondents by education
and German language skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Figure 4.7 Ethnic structure of the Bulgarian migrant population . . . . . 74

xxi
xxii List of Figures

Figure 4.8 Reasons for migration to Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Figure 4.9 Labour status before migration to Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Figure 4.10 Circular migration to Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Figure 4.11 Intention to remain in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Figure 4.12 Intensity of private contacts with persons of Bulgarian,
German and other origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Figure 4.13 Feelings of attachment to Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Figure 4.14 Difficulties faced in terms of social integration . . . . . . . . . . 86
Figure 4.15 Perceived barriers to integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Figure 5.1 Annual growth rates in the total Bulgarian population
and Bulgarian employees subject to social security
contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Figure 5.2 Business registrations and deregistrations by Bulgarian
citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Figure 5.3 Labour and professional status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Figure 5.4 Match between formal qualification and job . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Figure 5.5 Sector of employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Figure 5.6 Monthly income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Figure 5.7 Income by educational level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Figure 5.8 Violation of labour rights for selected groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Figure 5.9 Experience of violation of labour rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Figure 5.10 Proportion of respondents without a work permit . . . . . . . . 115
Figure 5.11 Explanatory factors for the employment situation
of the individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Figure 6.1 Awareness of electoral rights at local, national
and European levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Figure 6.2 Awareness of electoral rights and intention to vote
in municipal elections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Figure 6.3 General factors and intention to vote in municipal
elections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Figure 6.4 Migration-specific factors and intention to vote
in municipal elections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Figure 7.1 Naturalisation rates of individual EU countries
in 2017, in % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Figure 7.2 Intention to apply for German citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Figure 7.3 Motives for naturalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Figure 7.4 Motives against naturalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Figure 7.5 Knowledge of EU citizenship rights when living
in another EU member state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
List of Figures xxiii

Figure 7.6 Knowledge of fundamental EU citizenship rights . . . . . . . . 175

Figure 7.7 Perceived consequences of EU citizenship
for the individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Figure 7.8 Perceived consequences of EU citizenship
for Bulgarian migrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Figure 7.9 Retention of Bulgarian citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Figure 7.10 Discrimination against Bulgarian migrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
List of Tables

Table 2.1 In- and outflows of Bulgarian citizens in the five

migration periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 3.1 Geographical distribution of Bulgarian citizens
in Germany as of 31.12.2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table 3.2 Variables in the questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 3.3 Centres of interviewing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 3.4 Sample description, weighted and non-weighted samples . . . . 48
Table 4.1 Overview of the application of transitional arrangements
for Bulgarian workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Table 4.2 Estimate of the population of Bulgarian origin
in Hamburg as of 31.12.2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 4.3 Patterns of migration based on migrants’ attachment
to Germany and Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Table 5.1 Main indicators of labour market integration for selected
nationalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Table 5.2 Labour status of the Bulgarian population aged 15–64 . . . . . . 98
Table 5.3 Significant determinants of the probability
of self-employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Table 5.4 Significant determinants of the probability of undeclared
work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Table 5.5 Significant determinants of the probability of labour
rights violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Table 5.6 Probability of self-employment, undeclared work
and labour rights violations: full results of logistic
regressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

xxv
xxvi List of Tables

Table 5.7 Impact of individual groups of variables

on the probability of self-employment, undeclared work
and violation of labour rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Table 6.1 Eligibility to vote in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Table 6.2 Participation of EU citizens in municipal elections . . . . . . . . . 136
Table 6.3 Reasons for and against voting in municipal elections . . . . . . 147
Table 6.4 Significant determinants of the intention to vote
in municipal elections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Table 6.5 Intention to vote in municipal elections: full results
of logistic regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Table 7.1 Naturalisation rates of selected nationalities in Germany . . . . 158
Table 7.2 Naturalisation of Bulgarian citizens in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Table 7.3 Significant determinants of the intention to naturalise . . . . . . . 181
Table 7.4 Intention to naturalise: full results of logistic regression . . . . . 184
Table 7.5 Impact of individual groups of variables on the intention
to naturalise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Introduction: Becoming EU Citizens –
Consequences for Bulgarian Migrants 1
in Germany

The eastern enlargements1 in 2004 and 2007 transformed more than 100 million
people into EU citizens who enjoy freedom of movement within the European
Union (EU).2 Fears of one-way mass migration from new member states emerged
(Favell and Hansen 2002) and turned migration into a highly contested issue in
the old EU member states.
Before the EU enlargements, scholars paid great attention to potential migra-
tion from the Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries to the EU153 and
produced several forecasts on migration (for an overview, see Faßmann and Münz
2002; Straubhaar 2001). After the EU enlargements, they focused on the actual
scale of migration and migration patterns from the new EU member states. Several
publications have documented sharply increasing migration and changing migra-
tion patterns from the new EU member states since 2004 and 2007 (Black et al.
2010; Galgóczi et al. 2012; Glorius 2013; Kahanec and Zimmermann 2016;

1 Seven EU enlargements have taken place in the European integration process so far: in
1973 (UK, Denmark and Ireland), 1981 (Greece), 1986 (Spain and Portugal), 1995 (Austria,
Finland and Sweden), 2004 (EU10), 2007 (EU2) and 2014 (Croatia). Following a referendum
held on 23 June 2016, the UK left the EU in February 2020, which reduced the number of
EU member states to 27.
2 Among these, 28,703,176 citizens of EU2 and 74,035,464 citizens of EU10 countries,

Eurostat Database.
3 Abbreviations of EU member states: EU10: all states that acceded to the EU in 2004 (Esto-

nia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Hungary and
Cyprus); EU8: all EU10 states except Malta and Cyprus; EU2: two countries that became
EU members in 2007 (Bulgaria and Romania); EU12: EU10 and EU2; EU15: all states that
belonged to the EU before the 2004 accession (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Fin-
land, France, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Spain and
the United Kingdom); EU27: all EU member states up to June 2013; EU28: EU27 including
Croatia, which acceded in the EU on 1 July 2013.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, 1

part of Springer Nature 2021
V. Kovacheva, The Unnoticed Effects of EU Accession, Studien zur Migrations- und
Integrationspolitik, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33110-8_1
2 1 Introduction: Becoming EU Citizens – Consequences for Bulgarian …

Scholten and van Ostaijen 2018). Scholars emphasise that migration from the
CEE countries differs from the classical migration pattern of permanent settle-
ment in the receiving country and is predominantly of temporary and circular
character (Favell and Hansen 2002; Glorius 2013). They label it ‘liquid migra-
tion’, showing the temporary, fluid and uncertain nature of migration (Engbersen
et al. 2010a; Engbersen 2018; Engbersen and Snel 2013).
Besides increased migration, scholars point to diversification of migration after
the eastern enlargements. Some scholars argue that new migrant groups, such as
retired persons, students and family members, became more relevant and exist in
parallel to traditional forms of migration (Engbersen and Snel 2013; Glorius et al.
2013). Others highlight the variety of migrant groups in the receiving countries,
such as knowledge workers, entrepreneurs, manual workers, persons working in
private households, sex workers and trafficked persons, students, non-working
spouses and children, and beggars and homeless people (Sert 2018).
After the eastern EU enlargements, Germany became a main destination for
CEE migrants and experienced for the first time a considerable increase in migra-
tion flows in the context of EU free movement (Kovacheva and Cyrus 2020).
In particular, Bulgarian and Romanian citizens have made extensive use of the
right to free movement and the EU2 countries have become the largest sources of
migrants to Germany within the EU besides Poland. Inflows from the EU2 coun-
tries have been continuously increasing and have even outnumbered those from
the EU10 countries since 2014. The registered Bulgarian and Romanian popula-
tion thus rose spectacularly from 112,400 in 2006 to more than one million in
2018 (Federal Statistical Office of Germany 2006–2019a).
EU citizenship grants to EU migrants more mobility, economic, social and
political rights that create preconditions for more participation in the core areas
of life and reduce incentives for citizenship acquisition in the receiving country.
It is thus assumed that a better legal status after EU accession would lead to more
successful integration of Bulgarian and Romanian migrants in Germany and lower
interest in naturalisation.
In contrast to expectations of smooth integration, concerns about the living
situations of EU2 migrants arose in Germany after EU accession. Several publi-
cations point to homelessness and unacceptable housing conditions (Böckler et al.
2018; Ratzka and Kämper 2018), as well as insecure and precarious working con-
ditions, unemployment and dependence on welfare benefits (Brücker et al. 2013a,
2013b; Burkert 2014). The disadvantaged positions of EU2 migrants in the core
areas of life thus hint at particular challenges related to their integration in the
receiving country and challenge the perception of EU citizens as capable of easily
integrating in society.
1.1 The case of Bulgaria in Migration Research 3

In contrast to expectations of low interest in German citizenship, the naturalisa-

tion rates of EU2 migrants have been exceptionally high since 2007. They reached
a peak in 2010 at 11.6 percent for Bulgarians and 8.7 percent for Romanians, and
were considerably above the average rates for foreign nationals (2.4 percent) and
EU nationals (1.2 percent) (Federal Statistical Office of Germany 2007–2019).
This naturalisation of EU2 migrants thus reveals new trends in the naturalisation
practices of EU migrants in Germany and calls into question the widespread con-
viction that EU citizens have few incentives to acquire citizenship in the receiving
country.
The trends of sharply increasing migration, considerable integration challenges
and high naturalisation rates remarkably distinguish Bulgaria and Romania from
other EU sending countries and call into question perceptions about EU migra-
tion. How can these distinct trends after EU accession be explained, and what is
the role of EU and national regulations in shaping them? In this study I address
these questions and explore how changing legal status from third-country natio-
nals to EU citizens after EU accession affects patterns of migration, integration
and naturalisation in the case of Bulgarian migration to Germany.
In the next section (1.1), I provide arguments for selecting the case of
Bulgaria for the study. Then I present theoretical considerations about the relati-
onship between legal status, migration and integration (section 1.2), formulate the
main research questions of the study and introduce the methodological approach
(section 1.3). Finally, I outline the structure of the study (section 1.4).

1.1 The case of Bulgaria in Migration Research

Due to their simultaneous EU accession in 2007, Bulgaria and Romania have

usually been analysed together. The two countries display similar trends in migra-
tion and integration after 2007 but differ considerably in several aspects. Two
examples exemplify this. First, ethnic migration characterises both countries, in
particular migration of Roma, but the structure of ethnic migration differs. The
most prominent ethnic groups are ethnic Turks in Bulgaria, who also constitute
a significant migrant group in the Bulgarian migrant population in Germany.
Hungarians are the largest minority group in Romania, but it is instead the
migration of ethnic Germans (Spätaussiedler) that has characterised the Roma-
nian migrant population in Germany for decades (Horváth 2007). Migration of
ethnic Germans does not apply to the Bulgarian case. Second, the labour mar-
ket participation of EU2 migrants has been increasing, in particular after the
end of the transitional periods in freedom of movement of workers as of 2014.
4 1 Introduction: Becoming EU Citizens – Consequences for Bulgarian …

However, Romanian migrants perform on average better on the labour market,

while Bulgarian migrants encounter more difficulties, which are visible in higher
unemployment rates and higher dependence on welfare benefits (Brücker et al.
2014–2015; Jobelius 2015).
Differences in migration and integration patterns provide strong arguments to
analyse both countries separately and thus to overcome generalisation tendencies
in research on EU2 migration. This study focuses on Bulgaria. Bulgarian migra-
tion is of particular interest for research due to its relatively high importance in
quantitative terms. Bulgaria is only the 16th largest EU member state in terms of
population4 but Bulgarian has been the sixth-largest EU nationality in Germany
after Polish, Italian, Romanian, Greek and Croatian since 2014.
Despite its quantitative relevance, knowledge on Bulgarian migration to
Germany remains scarce. Surveys on potential migration over the years have
repeatedly shown Germany to be the number one destination country for Bulga-
rian migrants (BBSS Gallup International 2006; Eurobarometer 2010; IOM 1993,
1998, 2008). Bulgarian scholars have, however, paid little attention to Germany
as a destination (see, for example, Christova-Balkanska and Naydenova 2010;
Liakova 2014; Mancheva 2008a, 2008b; Mintchev 2016). Two groups have attrac-
ted particular scientific attention: Bulgarian students (Christova-Balkanska and
Naydenova 2010; Liakova 2008), and persons belonging to the Turkish ethnic
minority (Mancheva 2008b, 2008a).
Bulgarian migration has attracted little scientific consideration in Germany as
well (Liakova 2014). Until 2007, it had been analysed in the broader framework
of East–West migration and in studies on potential migration after EU accession
(Dietz 2004; Gächter 2002; Hille and Straubhaar 2001). Since 2007, interest in
Bulgarian migration has increased, as is visible in the growing number of publica-
tions—scientific reports (Brücker et al. 2014–2015; Böckler et al. 2018; Glorius
2019; Glorius and Lazova 2019; Hanganu et al. 2014; Jobelius 2015; Kovacheva
2014a, 2014b; Kovacheva and Cyrus 2020; Kovacheva and Vogel 2012; Kurten-
bach 2013, 2015; Kurtenbach and Bogumil 2014; Matter 2015a, 2015b, 2017;
Montag Stiftung Urbane Räume 2012; Pfeffer-Hoffmann et al. 2015; Pfeffer-
Hoffmann 2015; Thimm 2018; Pfeffer-Hoffmann 2016a; Walther 2014) as well
as conference proceedings (Caritas and Malteser 2012; Flüchtlingsrat Schleswig–
Holstein e.V. 2014; German Caritas Association 2013; Landesarbeitsgemeinschaft
der Wohlfahrtsverbände in Schleswig 2012, 2014).

4 Populationon 1 January 2017: Bulgaria (7,101,859), Romania (19,638,309) and Poland

(37,972,964) (Eurostat 2017). Romania is the 7th largest EU country in terms of population.
1.2 Theoretical Considerations 5

Despite the increased interest in Bulgarian migration, many knowledge gaps

exist and need to be filled. Research tends to focus on selected aspects, such as
the scope and structure of migration, labour market participation and access to
welfare benefits, while leaving other aspects, such as electoral participation and
naturalisation practices, largely neglected. Little is known about the reasons for
the exceptionally high willingness of Bulgarians to naturalise and the role of the
dual citizenship policy, which has been in force for EU citizens in Germany since
2007. Knowledge is also scarce on the electoral behaviour of Bulgarians who only
recently acquired voting rights at the local level.
Research has been predominantly based on administrative data that capture
trends but are of little help in explaining them. Thus labour market statistics point
to an effect of transitional periods in the freedom to work at a macro level. Howe-
ver, little empirical evidence on their impact on the individual is available at a
micro level. Similarly, migration statistics reveal the increasing scope and chan-
ging structure of migration but are less helpful in capturing specific patterns such
as circular migration and unregistered migration.
Given the numerous little-studied aspects of Bulgarian migration to Ger-
many, the need to better understand this migration is evident. New trends in
EU migration to Germany have been associated with Bulgarian migration since
2007: increasing mobility, disadvantageous positions in the labour market and
high naturalisation rates. It is argued that they are closely related to the legal
status of EU citizenship and its functioning in a specific context. Therefore,
the next section introduces theoretical considerations about the relation between
legal status and integration, and then presents the research question and the
methodological approach of the study.

1.2 Theoretical Considerations

In 1993, a unique type of citizenship was introduced in the European Union:

EU citizenship. EU citizenship is additional to national citizenship and does not
replace it. This means that persons who hold the nationality of an EU mem-
ber state are nationals of that country and citizens of the European Union at the
same time. Although EU citizenship was officially introduced with the Maastricht
Treaty (1993), it has its foundations in the 1950s when the right of free move-
ment and non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality were set up in the
Treaty of Rome (1957). At the beginning, only workers were admitted without
restriction to the territories of the member states. They constituted a privileged
group as they enjoyed virtual equality with national workers (Castles and Kosack
6 1 Introduction: Becoming EU Citizens – Consequences for Bulgarian …

1973; Soysal 1994). Since then, the nature of EU citizenship has been conti-
nuously transformed (Kostakopoulou 2008; Kovacheva et al. 2012; Wiener 1998)
and expanded, particularly by interventions and proactive interpretations by the
European Court of Justice (Carrera and Merlino 2009; Hailbronner 2006; Kosta-
kopoulou 2008). Through the introduction of EU citizenship in 1993, the right of
free movement was extended to non-economic groups, such as students, retired
and inactive persons. Nowadays, EU citizenship is considered ‘the furthest-going
example for a new type of citizenship’ (Castles et al. 2014). Some scholars stress
its post-national (Soysal 1994) or transnational character (Bauböck 1994). Other
scholars emphasise its limited character and label it quasi-citizenship (Castles and
Davidson 2000) or hybrid citizenship (Bauböck 2011).5
Citizenship determines the legal status or the membership of the individual in
the nation state (Brubaker 1989; Kymlicka and Norman 1994) and provides for a
bundle of rights and duties (Bauböck 2006a). Citizenship in the narrow legal sense
refers to the internal aspects of the relation between the individual and the state:
citizenship as a status, rights, and duties and practice (Bauböck 2006b).6 Arguing
that EU citizenship is a distinct type of citizenship, it determines the legal status
of the individual in the European Union and confers a bundle of rights and duties
at different levels.7 Within the EU, EU citizens enjoy the freedom to move and
reside freely, the right to non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality, to
work in the EU Civil Service, to participate in the political process by voting and
standing as candidates in European Parliament and municipal elections, to petition
the European Parliament and to complain to the European Ombudsman. Outside
the EU, EU citizens enjoy the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities
of any other EU country. These rights constitute a powerful and positive symbol
of what the European Union means for the individual. Eurobarometer surveys
have repeatedly confirmed this by showing that freedom of movement is one of
the main positive results of the EU for Europeans (Eurobarometer 2015).
In EU countries, EU citizenship creates a legal hierarchy in terms of rights,
particularly in the first years of residence. Third-country citizens generally have
limited rights, EU citizens have a more extensive bundle of rights, and citizens of

5 Inthe multilevel citizenship regime in the EU, there is also national citizenship (birthright
membership in an intergenerational political community) and local citizenship (automatic
residential membership based on jus domicile) (Bauböck 2011).
6 The term ‘nationality’ is not used as it refers to the external aspect of the relation between the

state and the individual and often connotes an ethno-national relation. Nonetheless, citizenship
may also be associated with identity (see Joppke 2011).
7 For the effects of EU citizenship on social, economic and political rights from a legal

perspective (see Goudappel 2010).

1.2 Theoretical Considerations 7

the country have the full set of rights. Differences between the rights of third-
country and EU citizens usually become smaller when the individual obtains
permanent residence status. It is generally assumed that more legal rights lead
to more participation in society, for example in the labour market and political
life (Castles et al. 2014). However, although foreign citizens enjoy equality with
the native population in some areas of life, empirical evidence indicates that the
actual use of opportunities is substantially below the level for the population as a
whole (Entzinger 1999). For example, non-citizens experience higher unemploy-
ment on average than German citizens (Hille and Straubhaar 2001; SVR 2013a).
EU citizens participate less frequently in municipal elections than German citizens
(SVR 2013a).
Scholars on citizenship see the reasons for different participation in the very
nature of citizenship and emphasise the difference between rights and their actual
use. They distinguish between formal and substantive citizenship (Brubaker 1992,
1990), nominal and substantial citizenship (Bauböck 1994), or becoming and
being a citizen (Castles and Davidson 2000). Formal citizenship entails a set of
civil, social and political rights. Still, the provision of rights is neither a sufficient
nor a necessary condition for substantive citizenship, which refers to the use of
these rights and effective participation in the core areas of life (Brubaker 1990,
1992).
Considering the distinction between rights and the actual
use of them, the application of two concepts of integration is meaningful
in this study: legal integration and structural integration (see also Niesten-
Dietrich 2012). The acquisition of rights relates to the legal status (citizenship)
of the individual and indicates the level of legal integration in society.8 The
acquisition of positions refers to the actual use of the legal status and the actual
participation and is indicative of the level of structural integration in society. The
distinction between the acquisition of rights and positions is necessary for this
study to distinguish the provision of legal rights by EU accession from changes
in participation and positions that can be observed after this legal change. In
some other studies, both aspects are considered to be structural integration.9

8 When the legal status of migrants is referred to, the terms of integration and inclusion are
used interchangeably (see Thränhardt and Miles 1995).
9 Structural integration is defined as: ‘the acquisition of rights and the access to positions

and membership statuses in the core institutions of the immigration society: economy and
labour market, education and qualification systems, housing system, welfare state instituti-
ons including the health system, and citizenship as membership in the political community’
(Heckmann 2006, p. 15, 2015).
8 1 Introduction: Becoming EU Citizens – Consequences for Bulgarian …

In the following chapters, the term integration refers to structural integration

in the sense of participation and acquisition of positions, unless legal integra-
tion/inclusion is explicitly mentioned. Other dimensions of social integration that
relate to the cultural, interactive and identificative aspects of integration (Heck-
mann and Schnapper 2003; Heckmann 2006, 2015)10 are not the focus of this
study. Full legal integration of migrants means full equality with the non-migrant
population in terms of rights (Niesten-Dietrich 2012). It can be achieved through
naturalisation. Successful structural integration of migrants means that they parti-
cipate equally with non-migrants in the core areas of life, such as the educational
system, labour market, welfare system and political system (SVR 2010). Although
more legal integration is associated with more successful structural integration,
there is no automatic link between the two aspects. Legal integration may have
an impact on structural integration, but structural integration is not entirely
determined by legal integration, as Niesten-Dietrich (2012) argues.
Structural integration is a two-sided process that involves both the receiving
society and migrants (Entzinger and Biezeveld 2003; Penninx 2005). On the
one hand, the receiving society interacts through its institutional arrangements,
consisting of general public institutions, such as laws, regulations, and execu-
tive organisations, along with unwritten rules and practices (Penninx 2003). The
institutional arrangements create the structural opportunities for participation of
the individual (Penninx 2005). On the other hand, background characteristics,
preferences and attitudes characterise the individual. Both migration-related cha-
racteristics, such as language, length of residence and intention to remain, and
general characteristics, such as age, gender and education, are of relevance and
may influence the participation of the individual in society. As a consequence
of the interaction between institutional arrangements and individual characteri-
stics, migrants position themselves differently in the receiving country and that
may result in different patterns of participation and acquired positions in the core
areas of life.

10 Others scholars prefer the concepts of placement, culturation, interaction and identification

(Esser 2000, pp. 272–275). Placement is a general sociological concept for the analysis of
social integration of individuals into social systems and corresponds to structural integration
in the context of immigration (Heckmann 2006, p. 15). Therefore, the notion of structural
integration is preferred in the study.
1.3 Aims and Methodology 9

1.3 Aims and Methodology

Based on the theoretical considerations about legal status and integration, it can
be concluded that acquisition of EU citizenship by EU accession increased the
legal integration of Bulgarian migrants in Germany. EU citizenship as a legal
status determines a higher level of legal integration in the receiving society as
it grants more mobility, economic, social and political rights. More rights create
preconditions for more mobility and participation in the core areas of life, but
institutional arrangements in the receiving society and individual characteristics
strongly influence the actual use of rights and considerably shape the patterns of
migration and integration after EU accession.
Based on this conceptual framework (see Figure 1.1), the main research ques-
tion of this study is: What are the patterns of migration and integration of
Bulgarians as EU citizens, and how can they be explained by considering the
influence of institutional arrangements in Germany and individual characteristics
of Bulgarian migrants?

EU citizenship as a legal Actual use of EU Individual characteristics

status: citizenship: and attitudes
(general and migration-
Mobility rights Migration patterns specific)
Social rights Labour market
integration
Economic rights
Institutional
Political integration arrangements
Political rights (laws, regulations,
Naturalisation practices unwritten rules,
discrimination)

Figure 1.1 Conceptual framework of EU citizenship, migration and integration. (Source:

Own compilation)

More specifically, the questions to be addressed in this study are:

• Migration patterns: What are the main patterns of mobility of Bulgarian

migrants in the context of free movement? How can increased migration and a
changed structure of migration be explained, and what is the role of different
forms of migration?
• Labour market integration: How have Bulgarian migrants integrated into the
German labour market since 2007? What is the role of the transitional periods
10 1 Introduction: Becoming EU Citizens – Consequences for Bulgarian …

in the freedom of movement of workers in relation to challenges in the labour

market area?
• Political integration: How do Bulgarian migrants intend to use their voting
rights in municipal elections? What are the motives for and against voting?
• Naturalisation practices: How can the exceptionally high naturalisation rates
of Bulgarian migrants be explained? What is the role of the dual citizenship
policy and the perception of EU citizenship in naturalisation practices?

To answer these questions, I made extensive use of documents, reports and

administrative data that provided an insight into the patterns of migration and
integration at a macro level. In addition to this, I collected original empirical data
through a migrant survey in the city state of Hamburg. Survey data shed further
light on these patterns by showing how individuals make use of EU citizenship as
a legal status at a micro level. The approach of analysing different data sources
allowed for the extension of possible insights into the research topic and served
as a tool to check and verify empirical results (Flick 2011).
The survey aimed to collect empirical data about Bulgarian migrants, whose
migration and integration patterns in Germany have rarely been studied so far.
The survey was carried out in the city state of Hamburg at the end of 2012 and
the beginning of 2013. Hamburg was selected as a big city that hosted a large
Bulgarian community in 2013: 3,790 Bulgarian citizens, which corresponded to
2.6 percent of the total Bulgarian population in Germany (Federal Statistical
Office of Germany 2014). By 2018, the Bulgarian population had increased to
7,815 (Federal Statistical Office of Germany 2019). Hamburg is not one of the
cities that are known for encountering severe challenges associated with EU2
migration, such as Berlin, Bremen, Dortmund and Duisburg.11 Thus the city can
be considered as average for the Bulgarian population in Germany and apt for
exploring general patterns of migration and integration. The survey included 401
persons of Bulgarian migration background. This group encompasses Bulgarian
citizens (both registered and unregistered) and naturalised persons who were born
in Bulgaria or who have at least one parent born in Bulgaria. In the following
chapters, the notion of Bulgarian migrants refers to the population of Bulgarian
background, unless it is explicitly stated that the text refers only to Bulgarian
citizens.

11 Looking at unemployment rates of Bulgarian citizens, substantial differences are found

across German cities. In July 2015, the unemployment rates of Bulgarian migrants were high
in the cities Berlin (23 percent), Bremen (27 percent), Dortmund (31 percent) and Duisburg
(37 percent). For comparison, the unemployment rate was 12 percent in Hamburg and thus
close to the average (Brücker et al. 2015c).
1.4 Structure of the Study 11

As a one-time survey, the survey captures the situation of Bulgarian migrants at

a given point in time: individual characteristics, usage, awareness, and perception
of EU citizenship rights, migration experience, labour market experience, electoral
intentions and naturalisation behaviour. It is not possible to compare two samples
obtained before and after EU accession, and thus to show differences in patterns of
migration and integration before and after 2007. To allow for conclusions on the
consequences of EU accession based on a single survey, two other approaches
are applied. First, results for two cohorts in the sample are compared: respon-
dents who arrived in Germany before 2007 (so-called pre-accession migrants) and
respondents who arrived after 2007 (so-called post-accession migrants). Where
differences in their positions in society are identified, analysis is conducted into
how they can be explained, and to what extent they can be attributed to the
acquisition of EU citizenship. Second, multivariate analysis is used to explain
labour market participation, electoral participation and naturalisation practices of
Bulgarian migrants. Logistic regressions provide statistical evidence on the role
of relevant determinants—individual background characteristics and institutional
arrangements in Germany related to EU citizenship, such as transitional peri-
ods in the freedom to engage in dependent work and the dual citizenship policy.
Both approaches provide empirically based knowledge about the new patterns of
migration and integration since 2007.

1.4 Structure of the Study

The study explores the new patterns of migration and integration that have deve-
loped since Bulgaria’s EU accession in 2007. It starts with an overview of
migration from Bulgaria to Germany since the 1950s, thus embedding post-EU
accession migration into a broader historical context (chapter 2). In search of
empirically based explanations of post-EU accession migration, administrative
data and results from the survey among 401 Bulgarian migrants in Hamburg are
complementarily analysed. The migrant survey is based on a time-location samp-
ling method that allows for a probability sample to be drawn for the population
of Bulgarian background at the local level (chapter 3). In the following chap-
ters, the survey findings provide empirical evidence on the relationship between
EU citizenship, migration and integration. In chapter 4, the reasons for increased
migration since 2007 are discussed, and little-known features of the population
of Bulgarian origin in Germany, such as ethnic structure and scope of unregis-
tered movements, are revealed. Then, the labour market situation of Bulgarian
migrants under the influence of restricted freedom to work is analysed (chapter 5).
12 1 Introduction: Becoming EU Citizens – Consequences for Bulgarian …

Chapter 6 investigates how Bulgarian migrants make use of recently acquired

voting rights at the municipal level. Finally, the extraordinary willingness of Bul-
garian migrants to naturalise despite holding EU citizenship status is explored
(chapter 7). The study concludes with a summary on the lessons learnt from the
Bulgarian case in Germany about the transition of migrants from third-country
nationals into EU citizens and a discussion on the reasons for different expe-
riences of the eastern EU enlargement compared to previous EU enlargements
(chapter 8).
Background: History of Bulgarian
Migration to Germany 2

Migration relations between Germany and Bulgaria have their roots in the 19th
century when many Bulgarians studied in German cities such as Leipzig and Dres-
den. These relations intensified in the late 19th century when German schools
opened in large Bulgarian cities, and several German-Bulgarian cultural asso-
ciations were established (Troebst 2013), for example, the German-Bulgarian
association in Munich in 1915 (German Embassy in Bulgaria 2013).
Since World War II, important political and legal circumstances have changed
migration channels,1 and new dynamics of migration with specific migration pat-
terns have developed. Considering these changing migration patterns, the history
of Bulgarian migration to Germany can be divided into five periods (Kovacheva
2014a): the Cold War period (1946–1989), the post-Cold War period (1989–
1993), the visa period (1993–2001), the EU pre-accession period (2001–2006)
and the EU post-accession period (since 2007). This chapter gives a comprehen-
sive overview of these periods and thus embeds migration after EU accession into
a broader historical context.

2.1 The Cold War Period (1946–1989)

During the Cold War, a communist regime existed in Bulgaria. Its establishment
(1946) and fall (9 November 1989) marked the beginning and the end of the Cold
War period (1946–1989) of Bulgarian migration to Germany. A spirit of banned
migration characterised this period. Emigration of Bulgarian citizens was sever-
ely restricted by a complicated pass-issuing system and intense border controls.

1 Legal regulations aimed at managing migration, e.g. visa policy, are considered as migration

channels (European Migration Network 2012).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, 13

part of Springer Nature 2021
V. Kovacheva, The Unnoticed Effects of EU Accession, Studien zur Migrations- und
Integrationspolitik, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33110-8_2
14 2 Background: History of Bulgarian Migration to Germany

The land border between Turkey and Bulgaria was mined and there were zones
into which no unauthorised person could enter (Apap et al. 2004). Unauthorised
departure from the country and failure to return after legal departure were con-
sidered crimes for which one could be sentenced in absentia (UNHCR 1994).
In contrast to the general stance towards emigration as unwanted, emigration of
ethnic minority groups2 such as Jews, Turks and Armenians was encouraged and
even ‘prepared’ by the national authorities (Büchsenschütz 2000). Three waves
of ethnic emigration took place: in 1946–1951, 1966–1980, and the spring of
1989 when a large number of the Bulgarian Turkish minority in particular left the
country (Markova 2010).
The political ideology and the East-West division in socialist and democratic
countries had a significant impact on migration in this period. Mobility to other
communist and Arab countries was desired, whereas migration to Western demo-
cratic countries was unwelcome. Following this dichotomy, different migration
patterns were established to the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and the
German Democratic Republic (GDR).
Diplomatic relations with the communist German Democratic Republic were
established in 1949. Following that, the GDR received temporary migrant wor-
kers, political migrants, and students (Poutrus 2005). Nearly 6,000 Bulgarians
studied in the GDR from 1951 to 1989, predominantly in East Berlin, Dres-
den, Ilmenau, Halle, Jena, Potsdam, and Leipzig (Koneva 2014). An attempt
to intensify labour migration to the GDR through an intergovernmental agree-
ment was made in October 1961, but it failed as the decision was suspended in
1962 (Gruner-Domic 1996).3 In 1971, a bilateral agreement for visa-free mobility
came into force, allowing Bulgarian citizens to travel to the GDR without a visa
(German Embassy in Bulgaria 2013).
Diplomatic relations with the Federal Republic of Germany were established
in 1973. The FRG received mostly political refugees fleeing from the commu-
nist regime. Their number was estimated at 1,500 (Markova 2010). In the FRG,
these migrants were welcomed as freedom fighters and refugees (Münz 1997).
From the perspective of the Bulgarian state, they were considered as irregular
emigrants. Political refugees usually stayed permanently due to the lack of oppor-
tunities to return. As some were sentenced in absentia, they feared imprisonment
if they returned to Bulgaria. Besides political refugees, students also migrated to

2 According to the census conducted in 2011, there are two main ethnic minorities in Bulgaria:

Turkish (8.8 percent of the population) and Roma (4.9 percent) (National Statistical Institute
2011). Further minority groups are Armenians and Russians.
3 The agreement was with Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary.
2.2 The Post-Cold War Period (1989–1993) 15

the FRG, but their numbers were low: 81 Bulgarian students were registered in
1975; 121 in 1980; 115 in 1985; and 183 in 1990 (Liakova 2014). Labour mobility
barely played a role in migration to the Federal Republic of Germany. In contrast
to other European countries such as Poland and Hungary, no bilateral agreement
was signed for the recruitment of labour migrants on a temporary basis. Given the
few legal opportunities for migration in this period, the scope of migration was
at modest levels. In- and outflows to and from the Federal Republic of Germany
were below 1,000 persons annually (Federal Statistical Office of Germany 2012b).
No more than 5,000 Bulgarian citizens were registered in the Federal Republic of
Germany between 1967 and 1989 (Federal Statistical Office of Germany 2012a).
The migrants who settled in the Cold War period in Germany are often called
the ‘old Bulgarian migration’. Because of the dichotomy of migration flows—
temporary to East Germany and permanent to West Germany—it is assumed that
most of the old Bulgarian migration settled in West Germany.

2.2 The Post-Cold War Period (1989–1993)

The first years after the fall of the communist regime in Bulgaria and after German
reunification can be called a post-Cold War period in their migration relations
(May 1989–December 1993). The communist regime in Bulgaria officially ended
on 9 November 1989 when President Todor Zhivkov was deprived of power. A
law from September 1989 had already liberalised travel opportunities by allowing
Bulgarian citizens to apply for a five-year passport (UNHCR 1994). Non-return
after legal departure from the country was decriminalised. In cases of non-return,
a person would thus be subject not to criminal penalties but to administrative
measures and fines. The legal and political changes in Bulgaria coincided with
historical circumstances in Germany: the reunification of the two German states
into one—the Federal Republic of Germany. The German reunification in October
1990 led to de facto open eastern borders where control was virtually absent
(Kraler et al. 2009). These political and legal changes marked a turning point in
migration relations between Germany and Bulgaria.
Migration pressure, which had built up under communism due to strict con-
trols on exit, led to considerable migration from Bulgaria after 1989 (Engbersen
et al. 2010b). Migration pressure was strengthened by the unstable economic and
political situation in Bulgaria after the fall of the communist regime. Economic
conditions deteriorated, disillusionment spread widely, in particular as the rena-
med communist party won the first democratic elections in 1990 (Markova 2010).
Many Bulgarians decided to seek a better and more secure life abroad. Germany
became their main destination country (Bobeva et al. 1996; Markova 2010).
16 2 Background: History of Bulgarian Migration to Germany

In the post-Cold War period, brain drain emerged as an issue of major con-
cern and was considered ‘one of the most severe economic problems for the near
future’ (Straubhaar 2000). The skill ratio of Bulgarian emigration to Germany was
the highest among eastern European migrants in the period 1992–1994 (Straub-
haar 2000). Many scientists who lost their jobs in the early 1990s emigrated.
About 40,000 scientists left Bulgaria between 1990 and 1992 (Straubhaar 2000).
Germany became the second-largest destination for them after the US (Bobeva
1997).
Besides high-skilled migration, large-scale emigration of Bulgarian ethnic
Turks took place. Following the adoption of the new laws in May 1989 and their
coming into force in September 1989, 300,000 Bulgarian ethnic Turks left the
country (UNHCR 1994). The vast majority of them moved to Turkey, but some
migrated further—to Germany and Austria (Sultanova 2006).4 Two circumstan-
ces may explain this more distant migration. On the one hand, Bulgarian Turks
who migrated to Turkey and were disappointed by the situation there moved on
to Germany (Vasileva 1992). On the other hand, after the Turkish border was clo-
sed on 22 August 1989 following a decision by the Turkish authorities, migration
to Turkey became difficult, and migrants headed to western European countries
(Mancheva 2008b). Considering the large community of people of Turkish origin
in Germany—which constitutes a major social network—the country logically
became an attractive destination for Bulgarian citizens from the Turkish minority.
The identification of Bulgarian Turks who migrated from Turkey to Germany in
official statistics is difficult, as many naturalised. Almost 236,000 Bulgarian Turks
acquired Turkish citizenship, and many of them became dual citizens (Apap et al.
2004).5
In the context of open borders, migration was turbulent and characterised by
large numbers of in- and outflows. Nevertheless, due in part to the geographical
distance to Germany, the scale of Bulgarian migration was not as significant as for
other Central European countries. Very few legal options for mobility were made
available to the citizens of the former communist countries, and entry by Bulga-
rian migrants was mostly considered to be illegal. The asylum system became the
main migration channel for Bulgarian citizens to unified Germany in the post-Cold

4 During the field work in Hamburg one case was documented. A woman with Bulgarian
citizenship who belongs to the Turkish minority migrated to Turkey in the early 1990s. Later
she moved to Germany where she was working in a retail shop belonging to a Turkish owner.
5 Whether dual citizens are counted as Bulgarian citizens in the German statistics depends

on the passport used for registration in the local registration offices. After EU accession, a
tendency towards acquisition of Bulgarian citizenship by former Bulgarian citizens of Turkish
origin was observed (Bogdanov and Rangelova 2012).
2.2 The Post-Cold War Period (1989–1993) 17

War period. Of all Bulgarian applications in Europe, 78 percent were submitted

in Germany (UNHCR 1994). Between 1989 and 1993, 96,000 Bulgarians applied
for asylum in Germany, with a peak of 31,540 applications in 1992 (Dietz 2004).
Asylum seekers accounted for 53 percent of the registered Bulgarian population
in 1992 and 40 percent in 1993 (see Figure 2.1). Their proportion dropped consi-
derably after 1994 and has been below 1 percent since 1998. Since EU accession,
less than 100 asylum applications from Bulgarian citizens have been registered
annually.

35,000 60%

30,000 50%
25,000
40%
20,000
30%
15,000
20%
10,000

5,000 10%

0 0%
1991

1993
1994

1996
1997

1999
2000

2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
1992

1995

1998

2001

2015
Asylum seekers
Asylum seekers as a proportion of the total Bulgarian population

Figure 2.1 Bulgarian asylum seekers. (Source: Own compilation based on data from
BAMF/BMI (2016))

Most of the asylum applications were rejected, and people had to leave Ger-
many (Liakova 2014). A bilateral agreement between Germany and Bulgaria from
1992 allowed the forced return of rejected asylum seekers (Dietz 2004).6 Despite
many returns, a quantitatively considerable community of about 30,000 Bulga-
rians emerged for the first time in migration relations between Germany and
Bulgaria. The community in Germany was one of the first Bulgarian diasporas

6 The bilateral agreement was signed in November 1992 and regulated the return of migrants
and their reintegration in Bulgaria. Three professional training centres for unemployed and
returned migrants were established and this was assessed as a constructive approach to the
problem of reintegrating return migrants (Bobeva 1996a).
18 2 Background: History of Bulgarian Migration to Germany

in western European countries (Bobeva 1996b) and paved the way for future
migration.

2.3 The Visa Period (1993–2001)

Two events marked the start of a new phase of Bulgarian migration to Germany:
the ‘visa period’ (December 1993–February 2001). First, the mobility of Bul-
garian citizens was restricted by the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers of the
European Community, who put Bulgaria on the ‘black’ visa list of Schengen
countries in 1993. The visa requirement created an ‘unusual situation,’ as no
EU candidate countries were affected except Bulgaria and Romania (Apap and
Tchorbadjiyska 2004; Tchorbadjiyska 2007). Between January 1995 and March
2001, Bulgarian citizens needed a mandatory visa for short-term entries into all
Schengen countries, including Germany.
Second, as a reaction to the tremendous flow of asylum seekers to Germany
and the suspicion that economic migrants were circumventing restrictive legisla-
tion under the guise of political asylum, a new German asylum law came into
force on 1 July 1993. It introduced an abridged procedure for asylum seekers
and complicated the recognition of political asylum for persons who came from
so-called ‘safe countries’ (Dietz 2004). Bulgaria was declared a safe country in
1993 and that limited the role of asylum as a migration channel for Bulgarian
migrants. The number of asylum applications declined sharply to 3,367 in 1994
and 1,152 in 1995 (BAMF/BMI 2016). The recognition rate for eastern Europeans
was below 1 percent (Dietz 2004).
Two migration channels gained in importance in the visa period: temporary
labour migration based on bilateral agreements and student migration. For the first
time in German–Bulgarian migration relations, labour migration was regulated by
bilateral agreements that enabled the temporary migration of three categories of
workers: contract workers, guest employees and seasonal workers.7 A quota for
guest employees of 1,000 per year was set, but it was rarely enforced (Figure 2.2).
A fixed contingent of 2,000 work permits per year for posted contract workers was

7 List of agreements: 1) Agreement between the Republic of Bulgaria and the Federal Republic

of Germany on employment of workers from Bulgarian enterprises for execution of labour

contracts: signed 12.03.1991, in force since 31.05.1991; 2) Agreement for intermediation
of Bulgarian workers for fixed employment in the field of hotels and restaurants and in
households; 3) Agreement between the Republic of Bulgaria and the Federal Republic of
Germany on employment of workers for enlarging their vocational and linguistic skills—an
agreement for foreign workers: in force since April 1992 (Chindea et al. 2008).
2.3 The Visa Period (1993–2001) 19

set, which was increased to 2,500 in 2010. Seasonal work was not bound to an
annual quota but was limited to only two sectors—agriculture, and hotels and
restaurants. In the 1990s, posted work prevailed. In the 2000s, seasonal workers
dominated and outnumbered by far the number of contract workers and guest
employees (Figure 2.2).

9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Posted contract workers Seasonal workers Guest employees

Figure 2.2 Bulgarian temporary workers in the framework of bilateral agreements. (Source:
Own compilation based on data from BAMF/BMI (2015, 2016); Notes: Data on seasonal
workers up to 2011, on guest employees up to 2012 and posted contract workers up to 2013)

The lifting of some restrictions for foreign nationals to study in Germany in the
1990s opened up a further migration channel—the education policy—and paved
the way for significant migration for educational purposes. The long tradition of
student migration to Germany8 and the well-established position of the German

8 Educational migration is probably the oldest migration pattern to Germany and can be traced

back to the nineteenth century. In the period 1879–1899, more than 100 Bulgarians studied
in Leipzig. In 1914, 580 of 3,000 Bulgarian students abroad studied in Germany (German
Embassy in Bulgaria 2013). German schools in Bulgaria made it possible to learn German and
later migrate to Germany for purpose of study. Until the beginning of the 1980s, there were
eight schools with lessons in German—in the 1990s there were 16. German language was
taught in other 27 schools (German Embassy in Bulgaria 2013). For an overview of student
migration to Germany from 1898 up to now, see Koneva (2014).
20 2 Background: History of Bulgarian Migration to Germany

language9 at Bulgarian schools created strong incentives for student migration to

Germany. The number of Bulgarian students at German universities rose from 991
in 1993 to 7,321 in 2001 (Figure 2.4), turning Bulgaria into a significant sending
country of students to Germany at that time. A central motive for students to
migrate was the search for better economic prospects and a better future. Some
students were de facto labour migrants who used studying as a pretext to find a job
(Koneva 2014).10 After EU accession, these pseudo students (Scheinstudierende)
no longer needed to use student status to reside in Germany (Liakova 2014).
In the visa period, migration had a predominantly economic character due to
the worsening economic and labour market situation in Bulgaria. The country
faced its most severe financial crisis in 1996–1997 with hyperinflation and pro-
found implications for the economy. This situation triggered migration mainly
to southern European countries, such as Greece, Spain and Italy. Low legisla-
tive barriers, high demand for low-paid work and overall acceptance of illegal
foreign workers facilitated migration to these countries (Fihel 2007). Given the
few legal opportunities for migration to Germany, such as education and tempo-
rary work, the officially registered migratory movements were at modest levels.
After a period of negative migration balance, the economic and political crisis in
Bulgaria 1996–1997 triggered more inflows than outflows and led to a positive
migration balance once more.
Apart from officially registered migration, irregular migration played a signi-
ficant role in migration relations between Bulgaria and Germany between 1993
and 2001. Germany experienced considerable irregular migration from the Central
and Eastern European (CEE) countries in that period (Engbersen et al. 2010a). In
Bulgaria, irregular migration to Germany and the involvement of criminal orga-
nisations in smuggling were highly debated issues (Bobeva 1996a). Smugglers
charged about DM 450 for the transfer of a person, mainly using transit routes
via neighbouring countries (Bobeva 1996a).

9 The popularity of the German language in Bulgaria encourages migration. Linguistically,

the two countries are quite distant: Bulgarian is a Slavic language whereas German is a Ger-
manic language. However, German is widespread in Bulgaria and one of the three languages,
besides English and Russian, that Bulgarians speak enough to be able to have a conversation
(Eurobarometer 2012). Apart from English, German is the language considered most useful
for personal development and for children to learn for their future (Eurobarometer 2012).
10 Also in the UK, short-term labour migration was the true motive for migration of some

Bulgarian students (Ivancheva 2007).

2.3 The Visa Period (1993–2001) 21

It is assumed that the number of irregular migrants from Bulgaria who were not
captured in official statistics was not negligible. Police criminal statistics publis-
hed annually by the Federal Criminal Police Office give some indication of the
relevance of irregular migration. For example, 78 percent of Bulgarians suspec-
ted of criminal offences in 1998 were suspects of offences against the Residence,
Asylum or EU free movement laws. The proportion of residence-related offences
remained high during the visa period, ranging from 63 percent in 1994 to 78 per-
cent in 1998 (Figure 2.3). It dropped considerably after EU accession to less than
2 percent. Data on apprehensions at the border because of illegal entry reveal a
similar picture. The number of apprehensions was high in the 1990s and decre-
ased considerably after the abolishment of the visa requirement: from 2,867 in
1994 to 708 in 2000 (BAMF/BMI 2011). It can be plausibly concluded that many
Bulgarian migrants resided without registration and that the actual number of Bul-
garian migrants in Germany before EU accession was considerably higher than
the official data suggest.

12,000 90%
80%
10,000
70%
8,000 60%
50%
6,000
40%
4,000 30%
20%
2,000
10%
0 0%
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017

Criminal offences against the Residence, Asylum and EU free movement laws
committed by Bulgarian citizens
Criminal offences against the Residence, Asylum and EU free movement laws as a
proportion of all criminal offences committed by Bulgarian citizens

Figure 2.3 Bulgarian citizens suspected of criminal offences against the Residence, Asylum
and EU free movement laws. (Sources: Own compilation based on data from BAMF/BMI
(2011) and Federal Ministry of the Interior (2012–2018); Notes: No data available for 1999,
2000, 2007 or 2008)
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
permitted to turn to the fountain of light, and not forced to shape
their course by the twinkling of a satellite.”—(“Vindication of the
Rights of Woman,” Chap. II.)
Milton also discoursed learnedly, but self-interestedly, concerning
divorce, claiming for the husband a privilege and option which he
utterly denied to the wife:—“... the power and arbitrement of divorce
from the master of the family, into whose hands God and the law of
all nations had put it ... that right which God from the beginning had
entrusted to the husband.”—(“The Doctrine and Discipline of
Divorce.”)
It was this same mediæval moralist who trained his daughters in
the pronunciation of various languages, that they might minister to
his comfort by reading to him in those tongues; while he carefully
withheld from them any knowledge of the meaning of the words they
were uttering. Could a greater insult or a more degrading office be
inflicted on a cultured human intellect? Small wonder that his
daughters were sufficiently “undutiful and unkind”—as Milton styled
it—to leave him some years before his death. That the possessor of
the same virile intellect which penned the “Areopagitica,” with its
brave freedom, could tolerate and promulgate the servitude and
degradation of one half of humanity indicates in him a mental
darkness as gross and as pitiable as his physical blindness.

6, 7.—“... sanctimonious name

Of ‘woman’s duty’ ...”

“Hitherto the world has been governed by brute force only, which
means that the stronger animal, man, has kept the weaker in
subjection, allowing her to live only in so far as she ministered to his
comforts; that he has not unnaturally made laws and fixed customs
to suit his own pleasure and convenience, always at the expense of
the woman; and, what is worse, that he has in all countries given a
religious sanction to his vices, in order to bend the woman to his
wishes.... I might also add that all cruel customs relating to woman
have been imposed upon her under the guise of religion, and hence,
though so injurious and baneful to herself, she is even slower to
change them than the man. There is hardly any cruel wrong which
has been inflicted in the course of ages by man upon his fellow-man
that has not been justified by an appeal to religion.”—Mrs. Pechey
Phipson, M.D. (“Address to the Hindoos of Bombay”).
Id.... “There is nothing which men so easily learn as this self-
worship: all privileged persons, and all privileged classes, have had
it.... Philosophy and religion, instead of keeping it in check, are
generally suborned to defend it.”—J. S. Mill (“The Subjection of
Women,” p. 77).
Id.... A. Dumas fils speaks of “les femmes, ces éternelles mineures
des religions et des codes;” and of “les arguments à l’aide desquels
l’Eglise veut mettre les femmes de son côté”; and shows as the effect
that “Il y a des femmes honnêtes, esclaves du devoir, pieuses. Leur
religion leur a enseigné le sacrifice. Non seulement elles ne se
plaignent pas des épreuves à traverser mais elles les appellent pour
mériter encore plus la récompense promise, et elles les bénissent
quand elles viennent. Tout arrive, pour elles, par la volonté de Dieu,
et tout est comme il doit être dans cette vallée des larmes, chemin de
l’éternité bienheureuse.... D’ailleurs elles ne lisent ni les journaux, ni
les livres où il est question de ces choses-là; cette lecture leur est
interdite. Si, par hasard, elles avaient connaissance de pareilles
idées, ... elles en rougiraient, elles en souffriraient pour leur sexe, et
elles prieraient pour celles qui se laissent aller à propager de si
dangereuses erreurs et à donner de si déplorables exemples.... Mais,
pas plus que le bonheur, la ruse, l’ignorance, la misère et la servitude,
la foi aveugle, l’extase, et l’immobilité volontaire de l’esprit ne sont
des arguments sans réplique.”—(“Les Femmes qui Tuent,” &c., pp.
10, 91, 103.)
The evil which Dumas points out is common to all religions, of
whatever race or make; the hall-mark of every creed, from
Confucianism to Comtism, has been the subjection of woman, under
the affectation of advocating her highest interests. The pious
compound has usually been altered to meet the growing intellectual
requirements of common-sense and justice and humanity, and hence
the precepts of religion as to feminine conduct have by no means
always lain in such lines as the multitude in our modern Western
civilisation still enjoins on women. No more than the whole and
universal attitude of religion, ancient or modern, as regards woman,
is exposed or expressed in the following recapitulation of present or
historic facts:—“It is not the chastity of women, as we understand it,
but her subjection, that Japanese morality requires. The woman is a
thing possessed, and her immorality consists simply in disposing
freely of herself.
“As regards prostitution, Brahmanic India is scarcely more
scrupulous than Japan, and there again we find religious prostitution
practised in the temples, analogous to that which in ancient Greece
was practised at Cyprus, Corinth, Miletus, Tenedos, Lesbos, Abydos,
&c. (Lecky, ‘History of European Morals,’ Vol. I., p. 103). According
to the legend, the Buddha himself, Sakyamouni, when visiting the
famous Indian town of Vasali, was received there by the great
mistress of the courtesans. (Mrs. Spier, ‘Life in Ancient India,’ p.
28).”—Letourneau (“The Evolution of Marriage,” Chap. X.).
The enforcement, or commendation, or acceptance of the practice
of prostitution, with its profanation of the dignity and individuality
of woman, and its utter carelessness and disregard for either her
physical or intellectual well-being, is indubitable evidence of the
man-made (i.e., male) origin of such a scheme of religion or ethics or
economics. For, as Mrs. Eliza W. Farnham truly remarks:—“If a
doubt yet remains on the mind of any reader that I have stated truly
the part of the masculine as cause in this terrible phenomenon, let it
be considered how man has always introduced prostitution in every
country that he has visited, and every island of the sea. Does anyone
believe, for example, that if the voyages of discovery and trade had
been made by women instead of men, to the islands of the Pacific,
this scourge would have been left as the testimony of their visit, so
that, in a few generations, the populations native there would have
fallen a literal sacrifice to their sensuality, as they are actually falling
to man’s at this day? There is no comment needed on the illustration,
I am sure. The common sense of every reader will furnish the best
comment and answer the question correctly.”—(“Woman and Her
Era,” Vol. II., p. 299.)
Id.... Lastly, but most convincingly, as to the wilful and intentional
degradation and subjugation of woman by the teaching and rites of
religion, let it be noted that, among the Jews, the very fact of being a
woman is made a disgrace; and woman, the mother of the human
race, is insulted accordingly. In the morning synagogue service of
prayer, directly after unitedly blessing “Adonai,” for bestowing on the
barn-door fowl the power to distinguish between night and day, and
for not having created the worshippers present heathens or slaves,
each member of the male portion of the congregation thanks the
same Adonai “that Thou hast not fashioned me as a woman,” while
each member of the segregated female portion of the company is
instructed to submissively give thanks “that Thou hast fashioned me
after Thine own pleasure.” The male thanks for not being heathens
seem, under the circumstances, conspicuously premature.—(See
“Ohel Jakob,” i.e., “Jacob’s Temple,” the “Daily Prayer of the
Israelites,” Fraenkel’s ed., Berlin.)
That the spirit of this Mosaic or Hebrew sexual teaching, with its
incongruous assertions and inferences, has communicated itself
deeply to Christianity, may be observed from such passages as 1 Tim.
ii. 13, 14; 1 Cor. vii., 9; Eph. v. 24; Col. iii. 18; 1 Pet. iii. 1, 5; and many
others.
Id.... Buckle quotes from “Fergusson on the Epistles,” 1656, p. 242:
—“The great and main duty which a wife, as a wife, ought to learn,
and so learn as to practice it, is to be subject to her own husband.”
(See also Note XVII., 8.) And Buckle further cites, from “Fox’s
Journal,” “After the middle of the seventeenth century the Quakers
set up ‘women’s’ meetings, to the disgust of many, and (query,
because) in the teeth of St. Paul’s opinion.”—(“Miscellaneous and
Posthumous Works,” Vol. I., pp. 375, 384.)
Id.... As already said, the “sanctimonious” claim of “woman’s duty”
runs through all religions. Here, for instance, is what is reported in a
leader of the Manchester Guardian of August 15th, 1892:—
“In this country no one would place suicide in the ranks of the virtues. Here it is
a crime, but in China under certain circumstances it is regarded as an act of
heroism and devotion worthy of sympathy and of national recognition. Thus the
Governor of Shansi forwarded to the Emperor of China a memorial setting forth
the virtues as daughter and wife of a lady in that province. She was of good family,
both her father and grandfather having been officials in the district. At the age of
ten she showed her love for her mother in a peculiarly Chinese fashion. One of the
Celestial beliefs is that medicine acquires efficacy by having mingled with it some
human flesh, and the little girl cut some from her own body to be used for the
purpose of curing an illness which threatened her mother’s life. In 1890 she was
married to an ‘expectant magistrate,’ whose expectations were realised by his
appointment last autumn to a judicial post. What she had, as a good daughter,
done for her mother, she, as a good wife, did also for her husband, who fell ill; but
her remedy was inefficacious, and he died. She was now in a position which,
according to the Chinese code of ethics, has no responsibilities for a woman.
Without parents, husband, or children to demand her affectionate care, she
decided to commit suicide, and apparently not only communicated her intentions
to those around her, but had their sympathy and support in her decision. We are
told that, “only waiting till she had completed the arrangements for her husband’s
interment, she swallowed gold and powder of lead. She handed her trousseau to
her relations to defray her funeral expenses, and made presents to the younger
members of the family and the servants, after which, draped in her state robes, she
sat waiting her end. The poison began to work, and soon all was over.” The story of
a distracted wife seeking refuge in death from the sorrows of widowhood might
doubtless be told of any country in Europe, but the sequel is possible only in China.
The Governor of Shansi, struck with the courage of the lady in what he evidently
regards as a very proper though somewhat unusual exhibition of conjugal
affection, asks in his memorial that the virtuous life and death of the lady may be
duly commemorated. The prayer of the memorial has been granted by the Emperor
and a memorial arch is to be erected in honour of the suicide.”

8.—“... this reasoned day ...”

See Note XVII., 8.

 XXXVI.

1.—“By cant condoned ...”

“Much has been said by Guizot on the influence of women in

developing European civilisation. It is at least certain that several of
the fathers did everything they could to diminish that influence.
Tertullian bitterly complains of the insolence of women who venture
to teach and to baptise. He allows that in case of necessity baptism
may be administered by a layman, but never by a woman. Again,
among the other crimes of the heretics he particularly enumerates
the insolence of their women, who ventured to teach, to dispute, &c.,
&c. In ‘De Cult. Faem,’ lib. I. Cap. I., he says: ‘Let women remember
that they are of the sex of Eve, who ruined mankind, and let them
therefore repair this ignominy by living rather in dust than in
splendour.’”—Buckle (“Common-Place Book,” Note 1870).
Id.—“... man fashioned woman’s ‘sphere.’”
“We deny the right of any portion of the species to decide for
another portion, or any individual for another individual, what is,
and what is not, ‘their proper sphere.’ The proper sphere for all
human beings is the largest and highest which they are able to attain
to. What this is, cannot be ascertained without complete liberty of
choice.”—Mrs. Harriet Mill (“Enfranchisement of Women,”
Westminster Review, July 1851).

6.—“... civil law ...”

For example of this let us look at the law of our own country in
even recent times. Blackstone says:—“The husband (by the old law)
might give his wife moderate correction.... But this power of
correction was confined within reasonable bounds, and the husband
was prohibited from using any violence to his wife, aliter quam ad
virum ex causa regiminis et castigationis uxoris suæ licite et
rationabiliter pertinet (i.e., otherwise than to a man for the ruling
and punishment of his wife, lawfully and reasonably pertains). The
civil law gave the husband the same or a larger authority over his
wife, allowing him for some misdemeanours, flagellis et fustibus
acriter verberare uxorem (i.e., to severely beat his wife with whips
and cudgels), for others, only modicam castigationem adhibere (to
administer a moderate chastisement). But with us, in the politer
reign of Charles the Second, this power of correction began to be
doubted, and a wife may now (circ. 1750) have security of peace
against her husband; or in return, a husband against his wife. Yet the
lower rank of people, who were always fond of the old common law,”
(query, were the women fond of it?) “still claim and exert their
ancient privilege: and the courts of law will still permit a husband to
restrain a wife of her liberty in case of any gross misbehaviour.”
(“Commentaries,” Edward Christian’s Ed., Book I., Chap. XV.)
Such was undoubtedly the generally accepted and not infrequently
acted upon assumption; and it is certain that the Courts of Law
would, in the event of a wife absenting herself from her husband,
order her return to his custody; and would, and did imprison her in
default of her compliance. And this state of things continued until—
as Mrs. Wolstenholme Elmy records in her history of the celebrated
“Clitheroe case”—
“At length, in the year 1891, and, as in the case of the negro Somerset, upon the
return to a writ of habeas corpus, there have been found judges bold enough and
just enough to set aside the ancient saws and maxims, resting mainly upon obiter
dicta and loose phrases of previous judges used in reference to hypothetical cases
never actually before the Courts, and to declare plainly and straightly that the
personal slavery of the wife is no part of the law of England. The actual words of
the Lord Chancellor in dealing with the return to the writ are, as reported by the
Times, March 20th, 1891, as follows:—
“After stating the circumstances of the marriage, the decree, and the refusal of
the wife to cohabit, it states: ‘I therefore took my wife, and have since detained her
in my house, using no more force or restraint than necessary to take her and keep
her.’ That is the return which seeks to justify an admitted imprisonment of this
lady. I do not know that I am able to express in sufficiently precise language the
difference between ‘confinement’ and ‘imprisonment,’ but if there is any
distinction, I can only say that upon these facts I should find an imprisonment, and
looking at the return it is put as a broad proposition that the right of the husband,
where there has been a wilful absenting of herself by the wife from her husband’s
house—that it is his right to seize possession of his wife by force, and detain her in
his house until she renders him conjugal rights. That is the proposition of law
involved in the return, and I am not prepared to assent to it. The Legislature has
expressly deprived the Matrimonial Court of the power of imprisoning the wife for
refusal to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and the result of
such a system of law, if the husband had the power, would be that whereas the
Court had no power to hand the wife over into her husband’s hands, but only to
punish her for contempt by imprisonment under the control of the Court, and
without any circumstances of injury or insult, and even that power was taken away,
the husband might himself of his own motion seize and imprison her until she
consented to the restitution of conjugal rights. That is the proposition I am called
upon to establish by holding this return to be good. I am of opinion that no such
right or power exists in law. I am of opinion that no such right ever did exist in
our law. Whatever authorities may be quoted for any such proposition, it has
always been subject to this condition: that where she has a complaint of, or is
apprehensive of, ill-usage, the Court will never interfere to compel her to return to
her husband’s custody. Now this brings me to the particular circumstances of this
transaction. I am prepared to say that no English subject has a right to imprison
another English subject (who is sui juris, and entitled to a judgment of his or her
own) without any lawful authority, but if there were any qualification of that
proposition I should be of opinion that on the facts of this case it would afford an
ample justification to any Court for refusing to allow the husband in this case to
retain the custody of his wife.
“On these and other grounds the Lord Chancellor declared that the return of the
writ was bad, and ordered that the lady be restored to her liberty, the other judges
concurring.”—(“The Decision in the Clitheroe Case and its Consequences,” pp. 3,
4.)
Lord Esher was one of the two other Judges, both concurring, who
formed the Court of Appeal which granted the writ, and a few days
subsequently he gave from his place in the House of Lords the
following further statement of his judgment and views:—
“As I was a party to the judgment, which seems to have been more
misunderstood than any judgment I recollect, I, perhaps, may be excused from
making an observation. It was urged before the Court of Appeal that by the law of
England a husband may beat his wife with a stick if she refuses to obey him, and
that if a wife refused her husband conjugal rights, whatever that phrase may mean,
which I have never been able to make out, he may imprison her until she restores
him conjugal rights, or satisfies him that she will. All that the Court of Appeal
decided was that a husband cannot by the law of England, if the wife objects,
lawfully do either of those things. Those intelligent people who have declared that
the judgment is wrong must be prepared to maintain the converse—namely, that if
a wife disobeys her husband he may lawfully beat her; and if she refuses him a
restitution of conjugal rights he may imprison her, it was urged, in the cellar, or in
the cupboard, or, if the house is large, in the house, by locking her in it and
blocking the windows. I thought, and still think, that the law does not allow these
things....”—(The Times, 17th April, 1891.)
Mrs. Wolstenholme Elmy further tells us that:—
 “To Lord Selborne the married women of this country owe a further debt of
gratitude for his introduction in 1884 of the Matrimonial Causes Act of that
session, which put an end to the punishment by imprisonment of the husband or
wife who refused to obey the decree of the Court for restitution of conjugal rights.
The arguments of Mr. Lankester and Mr. Finlay in the Clitheroe case, based upon
this abolition of the power of the Court to imprison for disobedience, are known to
everyone. It would be destructive not only to personal freedom, but a gross
infraction of justice and common-sense, were a husband to be permitted to
exercise on his own behalf and at his own pleasure a prerogative of punishment
which had been withdrawn from the Court.
“That this power of imprisonment was not a mere brutum fulmen, but a terrible
reality in former days, may be learned from a Suffolk case, early in the present
century. A wife in contempt of court, a lady of good family in Suffolk, was
imprisoned in Ipswich goal for disobeying a decree requiring her to render
conjugal rights to her husband. At the end of a year and ten months she became in
want of the common necessaries of life, and was reduced to the gaol allowance of
bread and water; she suffered from rheumatism and other maladies, which were
aggravated by the miseries of her imprisonment; and after many years of such
suffering died in prison—for she never went back to her husband.”—(“The Decision
in the Clitheroe Case and its Consequences,” p. 9.)
But while the law has thus been needfully amended in England, a
further evil effect has meantime supervened in our dependency of
India; for this faculty of imprisonment by the Courts for non-
compliance with their order in the event specified, which has been
abolished in England, seems to be still existent and appealed to in
our Indian Courts. (See Note XXII., 2.) The strange thing is that the
suit for the restitution of conjugal rights is not a matter of native law,
but an inadvertent and apparently entirely unintentional
introduction from our English system; the very judges who
administer the Indian Law being at a loss to account for its
appearance in their practice. One authority, in seeking the solution of
the problem, declares that—“Mr. —— ‘could not find any enactment
directly establishing suits for the restitution of conjugal rights, and
believed there were none; but that they had been recognised in a
Stamp Act, and again in the Limitation of Suits Act passed in 1871.’
The material point is that Indian lawgivers have not consciously
given this remedy to those who did not possess it before; but that it
has slipped into our law without design. Mr. —— thinks ‘That this
class of suits was known in the old Supreme Courts, in the
Presidency towns, and as between Europeans; and it was not an
improper subject of legislation as regards Stamp Duty or Limitation
by Time: but being spoken of without qualification was held by the
High Courts to be available for all classes of the Indian communities.’
If this theory be true, it accounts in an easy way for a change effected
without any intention of the Rulers at all. It is worth enquiry into
under this aspect.” Yes, enquiry and rectification hand in hand!
Id.—“... and part divine.”
The fact has been that male lawgivers, in whatever land, have
generally asserted for their code of feminine ethics or conduct a
divine origin, and have announced the punishment for breach
thereof as a divine injunction. In very few instances, indeed, was
there any attempt to decree an equal punishment to the male who
was partner with the female in a mutual breach of this morality, and
very frequently no punishment of the male attached at all; and even
in the few cases where such a punishment was nominally threatened,
the man’s share in the offence was most generally connived at, and
passed unpunished. This double code of morality has a flagrant
exemplification in the English Law of Divorce, by which, while a man
can procure a Decree of Divorce on the simple ground of the adultery
of his wife, a woman cannot obtain a like decree for her husband’s
adultery unless that offence be accompanied by such treatment of
herself as the Court will recognise as “cruelty,” or with “desertion.”
The double scheme of sexual morality, so revoltingly tolerated, in so
far as man is concerned, by “society” in the present day is too patent
to need further words here. And the repulsive cant is still that, while
the man is allowed to go free, the punishment of the woman is due
and commendable as in accordance with “divine law.” (See Note
XIV., 3.)
 XXXVII.

3, 4.—“... lowest boor is lordly ‘baron’ styled,

And highest bride as common ‘feme’ reviled.”

“... husband and wife; or, as most of our elder law books call them,
‘baron’ and ‘feme.’”—(Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Bk. I. Chap. 15.)
But the context of the words “baron” and “feme” involved
something more than a mere façon de parler of the law books.
Edward Christian says, in Note 23 to the Chapter in “Blackstone”
above quoted:—“Husband and wife, in the language of the law, are
styled baron and feme; the word baron, or lord, attributes to the
husband not a very courteous superiority. But we might be inclined
to think this merely an unmeaning technical phrase, if we did not
recollect, that if the baron kills his feme it is the same as if he had
killed a stranger or any other person; but if the feme kills her baron it
is regarded by the laws as a much more atrocious crime, as she not
only breaks through the restraints of humanity and conjugal
affection, but throws off all subjection to the authority of her
husband. And, therefore, the law denominates her crime a species of
treason, and condemns her to the same punishment as if she had
killed the king. And for every species of treason (though in petit
treason the punishment of men was only to be drawn and hanged),
till the 30 Geo. III., Chap. 48, the sentence of woman was to be
drawn and burnt alive.”
And Mr. Courtney Kenny says, on the same point, that the English
Law of Marriage in the twelfth century had “clothed the humblest
husband with more than the authority of a feudal lord, and merged
his wife’s legal existence altogether in his own.”—(“History of the
Law of Married Women’s Property,” p. 8.)
And he exemplifies the position of the “feme” as being accurately
depicted in the words of Petruchio:—
“I will be master of what is mine own,
She is my goods, my chattels; she is my house,
My household stuff, my field, my barn,
My horse, my ox, my ass, my anything.”
—(“The Taming of the Shrew,” Act III., scene 2.)

The picture of the past masculine proprietorship and “bullyism” is

scarcely overdrawn. Ere a distant day Englishmen will shudder in
reflecting on the male creatures who were their progenitors.

5, 6.—“The tardier fear that grants the clown a share

In his own governance, denies it her.”

By a leading article on Woman Suffrage, in the Times of 29th

April, 1892, a clear light is thrown on the causes which largely
influenced the extension of the Parliamentary franchise to the poorer
class of male citizens,—“a share of political power which they are not
particularly well fitted to use,” says the Times;—and which denied
the same right of franchise to women of whatever class. The intellect
of the Times enounces that—
“Without desiring to disparage the sex in any way, we must venture to maintain
that in both camps a large female contingent would be a mischievous element. The
female Conservative politician would be an obstacle to all rational reform; the
female Liberal politician would be the advocate of every crude and febrile
innovation. No doubt we have put plausible arguments in the mouths of mere
logic-choppers by treating the franchise as a right rather than as a privilege and a
trust. Men can demand a share of political power which they are not particularly
well fitted to use, because they possess de facto a share of the physical force upon
which all political arrangements ultimately repose. Women do not possess such
physical force, and, therefore, can prefer no such claim.”
Passing over, as unworthy of serious refutation, the wild assertions
due to sex-bias in the first part of the above extract, it may be noted
how instantly the lauded masculine weapon of logic is discarded and
contemned as soon as it points in the direction of equal justice for
woman. The “physical force” question is further dealt with in Note
XLV., 6. But considering the words we have italicised, does not the
whole of the Times exposition as above justify the appellation of
cowardly “fear”? (See also p. 78.)
Id.... Yet an even more unworthy thing than denial of the suffrage
has taken place, in that English women have been really robbed of
their earlier franchises. A lady Poor Law Guardian of the Tewkesbury
Union has written:—
“... the present position of women in regard to the various franchises is
anomalous and contradictory, unworthy of that great growth of freedom which the
nineteenth century has given to men, and degenerate as regards the position which
women held in the days of the Plantagenets and the Tudors. Freedom for women
has not broadened down ‘from precedent to precedent.’ Rather has it suffered by
unnecessary legislative interference. Every woman, except the Queen, is,
politically, non-existent. It was not always so. Restrictions unknown to our ancient
constitution have crept in.... Chief Justice Lee is reported to have cited a case (in a
manuscript collection of Hakewell’s), Catherine v. Surrey, in which it was expressly
decided, that a feme sole, if she has a freehold, may vote for members of
Parliament; and a further one (from the same collection), Holt v. Lyle, in which it
was decided, that a feme sole householder may claim a voice for Parliament men;
but, if married, her husband must vote for her; whilst Justice Page declared, ‘I see
no disability in a woman from voting for a Parliament man.’ So closely, in the
minds of our Judges, were the local and Parliamentary franchises bound up, that a
question as to the rights of women in local voting seemed to involve considerations
as to their right to vote for Parliament men.
“Yet, even in the matter of these local franchises, women have suffered, and do
suffer, from legislative tinkering and sex-biassed decisions in our law courts.
“Down to 1835, women, possessing the qualifications which entitled men to vote,
voted freely in municipal elections, and in some important cities, such as London
and Edinburgh, the civic rights even of married women, possessing a separate
qualification from the husband, were well established. The Municipal Corporations
Act of 1835, however (passed by the Whig administration of Lord Melbourne), was
framed upon the evil precedent of the Reform Act of 1832, and by the use of the
words ‘male persons,’ in treating of the franchises under it, disfranchised every
woman in the boroughs to which it applied, and this disfranchisement lasted for
thirty-four years.
“Nevertheless, in non-corporate districts, women continued to vote as freely as
before, and thus secured the ultimate restitution of the rights of their disfranchised
sisters in incorporated districts; for, when in 1869, on the consideration of the
Municipal Franchise Bill of that year, these peculiar facts were brought to the
notice of the House of Commons, and it was shown that the incorporation of any
district involved the summary disfranchisement of the women ratepayers, the
House, without a dissentient word, or any shadow of opposition, adopted the
proposal to omit the word ‘male’ before the word ‘person’ in Section 1 of the Bill,
and thus restored the rights of the women ratepayers, of whom many thousands
voted, as a consequence of the passing of the Act, in the municipal elections of the
following November.”—Mrs. Harriett McIlquham (“The Enfranchisement of
Women: An Ancient Right, a Modern Need,” pp. 5, 12, 13.)
8.—“... infants, felons, fools ...”

This legal courteousness has afforded Miss Frances Power Cobbe

the text for an instructive paper: “Criminals, Idiots, Women, and
Minors: Is the Classification Sound?” (Fraser’s Magazine,
December, 1868.)
A recent instance of the official collocation is to be found in the Act
5 and 6 Vict., Cap. 35, Sec. 41:—
“And be it enacted, that the trustee, guardian, tutor, curator, or
committee of any person, being an infant, or married woman,
lunatic, idiot, or insane, and having the direction, control, or
management of the property or concern of such infant, married
woman, lunatic, idiot, or insane person, whether such infant,
married woman, lunatic, idiot, or insane person shall reside in the
United Kingdom or not,” etc., etc.
 XXXVIII.

7.—“... every bond erased ...”

“In the struggle of the races, keeping in view the teachings of

evolutionists, the most reasonable and sensible thing, in addition to
its justness, appears to be this:
“First, to place women on an equal footing with men, socially, and
in the eyes of the law. Before that is done, it is useless to talk about
women’s superiority or equality. It is all breath and words, or paper
and ink. In the eyes of the law she is man’s inferior. That is not all. In
the eyes of the law the most cultured woman is inferior to the most
uncultured man; she is, in fact, pretty much on a level with a baby, or
a boy or girl under age. Moreover, the most cultured woman in the
United Kingdom is considered inferior, politically, to the American
negro!
“Second, let the two sexes settle matters among themselves, as far
as intellect is concerned, as men now settle matters among
themselves, without imposing on each other any disability. Those of
both sexes who are weak will soon find their intellectual level; and
those of both sexes who are strong will soon come to the front.”—
Emanuel Bonavia, M.D. (“Woman’s Frontal Lobes”).
 XXXIX.

2.—“... equal power of rule ...”

“Where women walk in public processions in the streets the same as the men,
Where they enter the public assembly and take places the same as the men; ...
Where the city of the cleanliness of the sexes stands,
Where the city of the healthiest fathers stands,
Where the city of the best bodied mothers stands,
There the great city stands.”
—Walt Whitman (“Song of the Broad Axe”).

3.—“Her voice in council and in senate ...”

“Is there so great a superfluity of men fit for high duties, that
society can afford to reject the service of any competent person? Are
we so certain of always finding a man made to our hands for any duty
or function of social importance which falls vacant, that we lose
nothing by putting a ban on one half of mankind and refusing
beforehand to make their faculties available, however distinguished
they may be? And even if we could do without them, would it be
consistent with justice to refuse to them their fair share of honour
and distinction, or to deny to them the equal right of all human
beings to choose their occupation (short of injury to others)
according to their own preferences, at their own risk? Nor is the
injustice confined to them, it is shared by those who are in a position
to benefit by their services. To ordain that any kind of persons shall
not be physicians, or shall not be advocates, or shall not be members
of parliament, is to injure not them only, but all who employ
physicians, or advocates, or elect members of parliament.”—J. S. Mill
(“The Subjection of Women,” p. 94).

4.—“... harmonising word ...”

 “... the main reason why so many thoughtful women now claim
direct Parliamentary representation is an unselfish one. They desire
to take their full share in the service of the race; to help to solve those
grave social problems now so urgently pressing, and which demand
for their solution the combined resources of the wisdom, experience,
and heart of both halves of humanity. They know that the time is fast
coming—if, indeed, it be not already come—which will need for its
direction and control something more than diplomatic cleverness or
political manœuvring, which will demand the clearer conscience and
the more sensitive perception of justice born of imaginative
sympathy. It is because they hope and believe that in virtue of their
faculty of motherhood they can contribute somewhat of these
elements to the world’s well-being, and can thus speed its progress
towards a nobler future, that they claim full right and power to follow
and fulfil their highest conceptions of duty.”—Elizabeth C.
Wolstenholme Elmy (“The Decision in the Clitheroe Case and its
Consequences,” p. 17).
7.—“Self-reverent each and reverencing each.”
—A line from Part VII. of Tennyson’s “Princess.”

Id.... “The exigencies of the new life are no more exclusive of the
virtues of generosity than those of the old, but it no longer entirely
depends on them. The main foundations of the moral life of modern
times must be justice and prudence; the respect of each for the rights
of every other, and the ability of each to take care of himself.”—J. S.
Mill (“The Subjection of Women,” p. 159).
 XL.

1.—“... but a slave himself ...”

“The domination of either sex over the other paralyses the

dominion of either.”—Ellen Sarah, Lady Bowyer (Letter to Daily
News, 24th October, 1891).
Id....
“Can man be free if woman be a slave?
Chain one who lives, and breathes this boundless air
To the corruption of a closed grave!
Can they whose mates are beasts, condemned to bear
Scorn, heavier far than toil or anguish, dare
To trample their oppressors?”
—Shelley (“The Revolt of Islam,” Canto 2, s. xliii.).

2.—“... she to shape her own career be free ...”

“Not less wrong—perhaps even more foolishly wrong—is the idea

that woman is only the shadow and attendant image of her lord,
owing him a thoughtless and servile obedience, and supported
altogether in her weakness by the pre-eminence of his fortitude.
This, I say, is the most foolish of all errors, respecting her who was
made to be the helpmate of man. As if he could be helped effectively
by a shadow, or worthily by a slave.”—John Ruskin (“Of Queens’
Gardens,” p. 125).

4.—“Free mistress of her person’s sacred plan.”

Eliza W. Farnham (in “Woman and Her Era,” Vol. II., p. 92) clearly
enunciates the depth of degradation and slavery from which
woman’s person must be freed:—“When this mastery is established,
and ownership of her becomes a fixed fact, she who was worshipped,
vowed to as an idol, deferred to as a mistress, required to conform
herself to nothing except the very pleasant requirement that she
should take her own way in everything; to come and go, to accept or
reject, to do or not, at her own supreme pleasure—this being may
find herself awaking in a state of subjection which deprives her of the
most sacred right to her own person—makes her the slave of an
exacting demand that ignores the conditions, emotions,
susceptibilities, pains, and pleasures of her life, as tyrannically and
systematically as if she were indeed an insensate chattel.”
Happily, as far as England is concerned, our law no longer lends its
power to enforce such a position.

5.—“Free human soul ...”

Woman’s deep and wholesome impulse and yearning for

individual freedom and selfdom is well-spoken in the following lines,
by an anonymous writer; touchingly shown also is the
unsufficingness to her soul of even the most honeyed of unequal
positions:—
“Oh, to be alone!
To escape from the work, the play,
The talking every day;
To escape from all I have done,
And all that remains to do.
To escape—yes, even from you,
My only love, and be
Alone and free.

Could I only stand

Between gray moor and gray sky,
Where the winds and the plovers cry,
And no man is at hand;
And feel the free wind blow
On my rain-wet face, and know
I am free—not yours, but my own—
Free, and alone!

For the soft firelight

And the home of your heart, my dear,
They hurt, being always here.
I want to stand upright,
And to cool my eyes in the air,
And to see how my back can bear
Burdens—to try, to know,
To learn, to grow!

I am only you!
I am yours, part of you, your wife!
And I have no other life.
I cannot think, cannot do;
I cannot breathe, cannot see;
There is ‘us,’ but there is not ‘me’:—
And worst, at your kiss I grow
Contented so.”

7.—“From woman slave can come but menial race,”

“If the result to the family is such as I have described what must be
the effect on the race? A slow but sure degeneration. And has this not
taken place? Is the race now such as you read of it in early times
before the Mogul invasion brought the Zenana and child-marriage in
its train? Where are the Rajputs and the Mahrattas with their manly
exercises and their mental vigour? For centuries you have been
children of children, and there is no surer way of becoming servants
of servants.”—Mrs. Pechey Phipson, M.D. (“Address to the Hindoos,”
p. 9).
Id.... “If children are to be educated to understand the true
principle of patriotism, their mother must be a patriot.”—Mary
Wollstonecraft (Letter to Talleyrand).

8.—“The mother free confers her freedom and her grace.”

“The child follows the blood of the mother; the son of a slave or
serf father and a noble woman is noble. ‘It is the womb which dyes
the child,’ they say in their primitive language.... ‘The woman bears
the clan,’ say the Wyandot Indians, just as our ancestors said ‘The
womb dyes the child!’”—Letourneau (“The Evolution of Marriage,”
Ch. XI., XVII.).