Migration trends in an enlarging European Union

1
Migration trends in an enlarging European Union

• Dr. Hubert Krieger
• European Foundation (Dublin)

2
Focus

• Volume and structure of migration towards the
  previous EU15 from three country groupings
  
• Ten new Member States since may 2004 (NEW10)
• Candidate countries close to entry in 2007
  Bulgaria and Romania (CC2)
  
• Turkey
• Labour market aspects of migration, not on social
  integration of migrants in receiving countries
  
• Two key questions
• What is the expected volume of migration?
• What is the structure of potential migrants?

3
Reliability of forecasts?

• Marek Kupiszewski, (Warsaw Journal of Ethnic and
  Migration studies, 2002)
  
• Forecasting international migration is one of the
  most difficult task that economists and
  demographers face.
  
• It bears the risk of serious ex-post errors.
• Some errors of forecast in the past have exceeded
  1,000.
  
• In some cases the sign of net migration -
  positive or negative were even wrongly
  predicted.
  
• Study of the Foundation
• Contains a long section on methodological
  limitations, which cannot be presented

4
Political context with enlargement in May 2004

• Transition period of up to seven years
• Only two Member States without transition period,
  but with restricted access to social welfare
  
• Bad press campaign
• Floods of millions of migrants, Welfare
  tourism
  
• Hundred of thousands of Roma invading EU
• Strong reaction by European Parliament and
  Commission
  
• Reactions in NEW10
• Disbelief and feeling of second class
  Europeans
  
• Arguments against the economic rationale behind
  the restrictions and the fear campaign

5
Political context in regard of Turkey

• Decision to start negotiations with Turkey
• Fear of attracting more Turkish workers after
  Membership
  
• Increasing unemployment
• Increasing problems of social integration and
  cultural diversity
  
• Possible positive effects
• Increased labour supply and structure of supply
• Positive effects of diversity
• Increase fertility and support sustainability of
  social security systems

6
Empirical basis

• Scope NEW10, CC2 and Turkey
• Sample 15.000 face-to-face interviews
• Over-sampling Turkey and Poland (2000)
• Timing Early months of 2002
• Organiser Gallup (Budapest)
• Finance Eurobarometer by the European
  Commission
  
• Analysis Provided by the European Foundation

7
Volume of Migration into EU Indicators

• Soft measure Wider potential
• General intention to move to EU15 in the next 5
  years
  
• Intention of general regional mobility
• Hard measure Narrow potential
• Two previous indicators
• Targeted regional mobility into the EU15 in
  comparison to other target areas of mobility
  
• Strength of intended mobility into EU15
• Assumption Freedom of movement

8
Volume of intended migration from 13 Countries in
the next 5 years ( of population over 15 years
of age)
9
Narrow potential to migrate in the next 5 years
10
Predicted migration Comparison to other studies
for NEW8 and CC2 over five years

• Focus and conditions
• Excluding Turkey, Malta and Cyprus
• Official migration under conditions of full
  mobility
  
• Foundations research 1.0 (firm intention) to
  1.4 million (basic intention)
  
• Recent econometric studies by DIW for European
  Commission 1.1 to 1.3 million
  
• Results confirm main stream predictions from
  various studied
  
• Concurs with low levels of migration after
  previous enlargements of the EU
  

11
Migration potential for Turkey

• Independent Commission for Turkey (Martti
  Ahtisaari)
  
• 2.7 million migrants in the long term (how
  long?)
  
• Foundations estimate
• 0.4 million (basic intention) and 3.03 million
  (general intention) over five years
  
• Assumption Freedom of movement

12
No tidal wave Why?

• Significant proportion has already arrived
• Similar demographic situation in NEW10 and CC2 as
  in EU15 supports inertia to migration
  
• Transfer of resources from Europe will support
  economic growth ( regional and structural
  funds)
  
• Inward investment from EU15 into NEW10 and CC2
  has partly replaced the economic need for
  migration
  
• Experience with previous enlargement of the EU
  predicts gross migration of around 2 of
  population of Candidate Countries
  
• Limitation Un-registered migration is excluded

13
Methodological limitations

• Limits
• Gap between intention to migrate and migration
  behaviour
  
• Omnibus survey and therefore no specific focus
  on migration in the questionnaire
  
• In-depth analysis on the country level has to
  consider the small number of cases
  
• Turkish results on firm intention?
• How to cope?
• Careful construction of indicators
• Comparison with results from other studies
• Detailed analysis on the basis of the softer
  indicator

14
Second part Structure of migration

• Socio-structural factors I
• Age Young and mobile?
• Gender Male dominated or feminisation?
• Labour market status Unemployed?
• Education Better educated?
• Students Young and educated?
• Income High income as barrier or as enabling?

15
Socio-structural factors II

• Marital status Singles are most mobile?
• Location Rural areas or large cities?
• Previous regional mobility Experience?
• Social capital Capacity or barrier?
• Methodological limitation
• Analysis is based on the general intention to
  migrate, as we have not enough cases for firm
  intention
  
• More focus on structural differences between
  country-groupings than extent
  

16
Gender and age

• Male dominated
• Turkey More than double
• Poland Double
• CC2 50 more
• Female dominated
• NEW9 1/3 more women than men
• Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia

• Migrants are young (
• Relation youngest (15 -24) to second youngest (25
  39) age group
  
• CC2 400 higher
• Poland/NEW9 300 higher
• Turkey 15 higher
• Conclusion Older average age of migrant in
  Turkey
  

17
Education and studying

• Migrants are the better educated
• Very strong effect in Turkey
• Some effect in Poland and NEW9
• But CC2 highest migration potential with lowest
  level of education
  

• Students are very mobile
• Very strong effect in CC2
• Half as strong in Poland and Turkey
• Lowest effect in NEW9

18
Unemployment and income

• Unemployment as push factor?
• Very strong effect in Turkey
• Half as strong the effects in the other three
  country groupings

• Income Push factor or enabling factor?
• Turkey and CC2 U-curve relationship High
  intention in lowest and highest income quartiles
  
• Poland an NEW9 Highest intention to migrate in
  highest income quartile

19
Marital status and location

• Singles are the most mobile
• Particularly strong in CC2
• Difference between mobility rate of single and
  married is lowest in Turkey

• Most migration comes out of larger cities
• But
• Turkey and CC2 Substantial migration from rural
  areas

20
Relevant structural factors Turkey

• Bi-variate analysis
• Male, single
• Age 15-24 and 25-39
• High educated
• Unemployed
• Low and high income
• Previous regional mobility
• Tenant
• High social capital

• Multivariate analysis
• Strong positive effects
• Unemployment
• Student
• High educated
• Effects
• Age 25 39
• Tenant

21
Relevant structural factors NEW9

• Bi-variate analysis
• Female
• Age 15-24
• Students
• Higher income
• Single
• Larger city
• Social capital

• Multivariate analysis
• Strong effect on intention to migrate
• Age 15-24
• Effect
• Age 25-39
• Student

22
Summary

• Very varied patterns between the four country
  groupings No factor covering all groupings
  
• Strongest joint patterns Age 15-24
• Some overlap Medium age (25-39), unemployment,
  student
  
• Results question important assumptions
• New migration is less male dominated
• Relative income in sending country is not very
  important
  
• House ownership is not serious barrier
• Push (unemployment) and pull (better prospects
  for the young and better educated)
  
• Results show limits of general migration theory

23
Conclusions

• Careful interpretation of results is necessary
• No tidal wave of migrants after enlargement and
  accession of new countries
  
• Migration policy has to consider different
  patterns
  
• Significant, but not alarming youth and student
  drain (Loss of human capital)
  
• Labour market push through unemployment
• More feminisation independent of family
  structures
  
• Increased non permanent and temporary migration

24
The end

• Thanks for your attention!

25
Relevant structural factors Poland

• Bi-variate analysis
• Male
• Age 15-24
• Better educated
• High income
• Single
• Large city

• Multivariate analysis
• Strong positive effect on intention to migrate
• Male
• Effects
• Age 15 -24
• Unemployed
• Student

26
Relevant structural factors CC2

• Bi-variate analysis
• Age 15-24
• Students
• Single
• Social capital

• Multivariate analysis
• Strong positive effects on the intention to
  migrate
  
• Age 15 -24
• Medium and high social capital

27
Previous mobility and social capital

• Does previous regional mobility support mobility
  rate to EU?
  
• Very uneven effect
• Turkey Very strong positive effect
• NEW9 and CC2 No effect

• Social capital Enabling factor or barrier to
  mobility?
  
• (Def. active participation in various
  organisations)
  
• Social capital has a positive effect on
  migration
  
• Strongest effect CC2 (5 times higher with high
  social capital)
  
• NEW9 and Turkey (double)