Migration, Emigration, Return Migration · 2013. 8. 6. · Migration, Emigration, Return Migration...
Transcript of Migration, Emigration, Return Migration · 2013. 8. 6. · Migration, Emigration, Return Migration...
-
Migration, Emigration, Return Migration Perspectives from Sending and Receiving Countries
International Conference in the framework of the IGU‐Commission on “Globility”
(April 25/26, 2013, Otto‐Friedrich‐University Bamberg/Germany)
Short Papers // Book of abstracts
Edt. Daniel Göler
Geographical Research on Migration and Transition, Dep. of Geography,
Otto‐Friedrich‐University Bamberg
-
2
Scientific committee:
Prof. Dr. Daniel Göler (Geographical Research on Migration and Transition, Otto‐Friedrich‐University Bamberg)
Prof. Dr. Zaiga Krišjāne (Department of Geography, University of Latvia, Riga)
Prof. Dr. Dhimiter Doka (Department of Geography, Tirana University)
Participants:
Prof. Dr. Dhimiter Doka, University of Tirana/Albania
Ledjo Seferkolli MA, INSTAT Tirana/Albania
Prof. Dr. Zaiga Krišjāne, Latvian University, Riga
Dr. Māris Berzins, University of Tartu/Estland
Dr. Elīna Apsīte‐Beriņa, University of Lettland/Riga
Dr. David McCollum, University of St. Andrews/United Kingdom
Prof. Dr. Dovile Krupickaite, University of Vilnius/Lithuania
Prof. Dr. Birgit Glorius, University of Chemnitz/Germany
Dr. Tim Elrick, University Erlangen‐Nuremberg
Prof. Dr. Daniel Göler, University of Bamberg
Dipl.‐Geograph Matthias Bickert, University of Bamberg
Prof. Dr. Russell King, University of Sussex/University of Malmö
Prof. Dr. Ioan Ianos, University of Bukarest
Dr. Eglantina Zyka, University of Tirana/Albania
Gabor Lados, University of Szeged
Dr. Thilo Lang, Leibniz‐Institute for Regional Geography, Leipzig/Germany
-
3
Table of Contents: Page
1. Participants 2
2. Report and Summary of the Conference 4
3. Programme of the Conference 6
4. Short Papers // Abstracts 8
Session I
LEDJO SEFERKOLLI & DHIMITER DOKA: “International and Internal Migration in 7 Albania ‐ effects and prospects” ZAIGA KRIŠJĀNE, ELĪNA APSĪTE‐BERIŅA & MARIS BERZINS: “Latvian migrants: different experiences from the UK and Germany” 10 DAVID MCCOLLUM: “Evolving labour migration channels: the experience of 11 Latvia from EU accession to economic recession” Session II
DOVILĖ KRUPICKAITĖ & DONATAS GUDELIS: “Demographic factors of 12 regional differentiation of migration” BIRGIT GLORIUS: “Hi Potentials! – Bye Potentials? 16 Mobility Decisions of International Students in Germany” Session III
ELĪNA APSĪTE‐BERIŅA: “Return migration: intentions and expectations” 19
DANIEL GÖLER: “Remigration, transition and development. Aspects of multilocality and social resilience, with Albania as an example“ 21 MATTHIAS BICKERT & BILAL DRAÇI: “Albanian Return Migration from Greece: 24 Unsuccessful Entrepreneurs or a Chance for Urban Revitalization?” EGLANTINA ZYKA, ELENA TOMORI & FATMIR MEMA: “Albanian migration and 27 the effect of remittances on education”
THILO LANG: „New chances for regional development in eastern 30 Germany? Context and motivations of out‐ and return migration in an international comparison“
-
4
2 Report and Summary of the Conference
Questions of migration, emigration and return migration, analyzed with a comparative perspective from the sending and receiving countries, have been on the agenda of the international conference in late April in Bamberg (Germany). The meeting within the framework of the IGU “Globility Commission” was organized jointly by Prof. Daniel Göler (Geographical Research on Migration and Transition, Univ. of Bamberg/Germany, Prof. Zaiga Krisjane (Riga/Univ. of Latvia) and Prof. Dhimiter Doka (Univ. of Tirana/Albania). 16 invited speakers, coming from 9 countries, have been among the participants. The organizers created a workshop atmosphere to enforce an intensive scientific exchange during the meeting. Main goal of three consecutive panels on emigration, multi‐ and translocality and return migration was to discuss empirical findings and to identify relevant future fields of migration research.
The contributers to the first part (Dh. Doka/Univ. Tirana, L. Seferkolli/INSTAT Tirana, Z. Krišjāne/Univ. of Latvia, D. McCollum/Univ. St. Andrews, I. Ianos/Univ. Bukarest) stressed on emigration and in‐migration using case studies from East‐ and Southeast‐Europe, followed by wide‐spread analysis on multi‐ and heterolocality (M. Berzins/Univ. Tartu, T. Elrick/Univ. Erlangen‐Nuremberg, D. Krupickaite/Univ. Vilnius, B. Glorius/Univ. Chemnitz). The circle was closed by results of research on a recently upcoming topic, namely return‐migration (by E. Apsīte‐Beriņa/Univ. of Latvia/Riga, D. Göler/Univ. Bamberg, M. Bickert/Univ. Bamberg, E. Zyka/Univ. Tirana, G. Lados/Univ. Budapest, Th. Lang/IfL Leipzig). In his keynote Prof. Russell King (Univ. Sussex, temporarily in Malmö) named three dominant narratives on internal and international of Italian graduates. With his plea “Bridging the great migration divide” Prof. King repeatedly pointed out one of the main desiderata of contemporary migration research.
The participants agreed that migration patterns at the beginning of the 21st century are not at all completely new phenomena. But, obviously, there are new forms and novel dynamics of spatial mobility to observe. Thus, the biggest challenge of migration research is the systematization of migratory movements as well as migration theory, nearly two decades after D. Massey. Therefore open questions of methodology and problems with methods seem to play an important role: even if taking into account the increasing diversity of the object of research (migration), it seems to be more and more problematic that geographical contributions on migration research after the cultural turn in migration studies are not able to focus sufficiently on theory‐building. Studies following the qualitative‐interpretative paradigm claiming an international comparative perspective are empirically extremely difficult to carry out properly, at least due to a simple barrier which is defined by communication. The combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches in migration studies is very complex, time‐consuming and expensive and therefore quite hard to find.
The variety of the object of research (according to the motto “the regularity is its irregularity”) on one side and the methodological problems on the other cannot serve as an excuse for missing international comparability, systematization and theorization of the latter. It seems to be necessary to interpret migration studies as an interdisciplinary field of research even more and not to focus too much on migration eo ipso. The broader perspective allows scholars to respect the spatial and social contextuality and embeddedness of migrants in an appropriate manner, and, above all, migrants as actors and agents of change. In comparing “before” and “after” Geography with its broad methods and interdisciplinary should be predistined to fruitful contribute to international migration studies.
-
5
Possibly topics and general theses for the discussion have been formulated by the organizers in advance. As main results of the conference they should be named more precisely: (1) Migration is a result of individual vulnerabilities and serves as an element of social resilience. (2) There is a strong interrelation between internal and international migration; both cannot be divided neither objectively nor spatially or theoretically. (3) Return migration is nothing new. But return in times of crisis must be re‐defined in a novel manner and, regarding the effects, should be analyzed from different points of view. (4) Even obviously comparable general conditions lead to different phenomena; that’s why it is time to discuss and, if necessary, to deconstruct the diversity of resistance against migration and return migration as an option. (5) This could serve as a starting point for an analytic reconstruction of daily lives of migrants between resistance and resilience or between enabling and constraints respectively.
The mandate will be, following „post‐population Geographies“, the search for striking elements of migration studies which are mainly informed by cultural and social sciences, but using consequently the spatial approach and representing, beside migration in the narrow sense, especially individual and collective migration experiences.
The agenda of an accompanying field trip followed this credo with insights into the living of late repatriates in the city of Bamberg and with a look into the biography of the Jewish emigrant Loeb Strauss (which is documented in the Levi Strauss Museum in Buttenheim), who emigrated from rural areas of Upper Franconia to the US during the 19th century.
June 2013, Daniel Göler, Bamberg/Germany
-
6
3 Programme
Thursday, 25.4.2013
9:00 Welcome address and opening
9:15 Scientific introduction (Prof. Dr. Daniel Göler/Prof. Dr. Zaiga Krišjāne): “Reflexions on migration, emigration, and return migration”
10:00 Paper Session I: Emigration
Prof. Dr. Dhimiter Doka; Ledjo Seferkolli, Tirana/Albania: “Internal and international migration in Albania – effects and prospects”
Prof. Dr. Zaiga Krišjāne, Riga/Latvia: “Latvian migrants: different experiences from the UK and Germany“
Dr. David McCollum, St. Andrews/United Kingdom: “Labour migration from new member states to UK”
Prof. Dr. Ioan Ianos, Bukarest/Romania: “De‐industrialization, internal migration and emigration – causal relationships?”
14:00 Paper Session II: Multi‐/Translocality
Dr. Māris Berzins, Tartu/Estland: „Latvian migration networks ‐ families under crisis”
Dr. Tim Elrick, Erlangen: “The influence of migration on origin communities: Insights from Polish migrations to the West”
Prof. Dr. Dovile Krupickaite; Donatas Gudelis, Vilnius/Lithuania: “Demographic factors of regional differentiation of migration”
Jun.‐Prof. Dr. Birgit Glorius, Chemnitz: “Hi Potentials! ‐ Bye Potentials? Mobility decisions of International Students in Germany”
18:00 Keynote by Prof. Dr. Russell King, Sussex/United Kingdom: “Bridging the great migration divide: comparing the internal and external migration of recent Italian graduates”
Friday, 26.4.2013
9:00 Paper Session III: Remigration
Dr. Elīna Apsīte‐Beriņa, Riga/Lettland: “Return migration: intentions and expectations”
Prof. Dr. Daniel Göler, Bamberg: “ReEMigration, transition and development“
Dipl.‐Geograph Matthias Bickert; Bamberg; Prof. Dr. Bilal Draçi, Tirana/Albanien,: “Albanian return migration from Greece”
Dr. Eglantina Zyka; Dr. Elena Tomori; Prof. Dr. Fatmir Mema, Tirana/Albania: “Albanian migration and the effect of remittances on education”
Gábor Lados, PhD‐cand. Szeged/Hungary: “Re‐Turn migration as conclusion of an expected period of time – Results from Hungary”
Dr. Thilo Lang, Leipzig: „New chances for regional development in eastern Germany? Context and motivations of out‐ and return migration in an international comparison“
-
7
4. Short Papers // Abstracts
4.1 Paper Session I: Emigration
International and Internal Migration in Albania ‐ effects and prospects (Ledjo Seferkolli & Dhimiter Doka)
Migration is an old phenomenon for the Albanian population. It has played a very important role in the Albanian society throughout history. In this paper we try to analyze the migration and its impact. At the very beginning the paper presents an historical overview if migration, the role and the weight of the migration for Albanians, factors and causes that have contributed in this regard. In this paper we focus on internat and international migration. Migration is a phenomenon that has traditionally accompanied the historical development of the Albanian population. Factors such as the war, country invasions, poor economic situation, etc., have often forced Albanians to leave their country.
In the history of Albanian migration we identify several cases of mass emigration of Albanians. From the literature it’s known a massive wave of migration of Albanians after the death of Skanderbeg, when about 200 thousand Albanians were forced to leave the ancestral lands and settled in the south of Italy. Nowadays in southern Italy are counted about 80 settlements, or as they are known by the name Arbëresh.
During the kingdom period (1924‐1939) other Albanians left the country in direction Europe, Australia and North America (USA, Canada). Under communist period (1945‐1990) the external migration for Albanians no longer existed. By law Albanians were restricted not to leave the country. After Albanian turn, for the Albanian started a new phase of migration, a massive migration, mainly international migration.
Direction of International migration
Host country Number of emigrants
Greece 600 000
Italy 450 000
UK 25 000
USA 15 000
Germany 12 000
Canada 11 000
Belgium 2 500
France 2 000
Turkey 2 000
Total 1,119,500
Source: UNDP, 2011
Particularly important, in the context of external migration of Albanians is so called ‘Brain Drain” phenomenon. In this context there are two phases of this type of migration; the first phase includes 1990s were approximately 38% of intellectuals from the universities and scientific institutions
-
8
abandoned the country. Seconds phase started after Albanian troubles in 1997 and intensified after 2000 were majority of intellectuals migrated in USA and Canada.
Main characteristics of external migration are: massiveness (ap. 100 000 applications per year for Green Card in USA); includes mainly qualified and young generation; Familiar emigration (children included); Accompanied with loss of financial capital; Less hope for a return in Albania; Brain Drain typically is a youth drain / one third of students abroad (Breinbauer, 2008) etc.
Characteristics of internal migration in Albania
Apart of capital region and Tirana, almost the whole country is affected from massive migration. Cities and villages in drain regions shrink and Tirana is overhelmed by imigrants. Factors of massive internal migration: large differences in the natural conditions (physical map of Albania); Underdevelopment, especially in mountainous regions; Prohibition of internal migration until 1990; Close‐down of industrial activities (eg. Mining) after 1990; Less employment possibilities and high unemployment; Lack of infrastructure (Roads, Schools, Hospitals etc.). Internal migration is reflected in the regional development in Albania, large disparities Center vs Periphery. revaluation of the Centers: Hyper urbanisation; Marginalisation; Outsourcing industries; ADI and Capital accumulation and Depreciation of the Periphery: Demographic drain; Shrinkage and drain; Regional economic reorientation.
Hyper urbanization of the capital region
Due to massive internal migration in the 1990 has been a rapid growth of the Tirana city. With annual growth rates from 5 to 7% Tirana is one of the fastest growing cities in the world. Recent estimates tend to have apr. 700.000 inhabitants in Tirana and in 2015 should reach 1,5 Mio. persons, nearly 50% of population. From under urbanization to hyper urbanization the characteristics are newly builded areas, high degree of informality (more than half of buildings have been built after 1991, especially in suburban areas; nearly 90% of the building are illegal or semi‐legal; apr. 40% of population in Tirana live in informal settlements; 2/3 of population in Tirana and surrounding areas are immigrants, etc. Overall, the extremely dynamic city development shows three main levels: informal dwellings, a dynamic City‐development and internationalization of the manufacturing sector.
Situation in migration areas (For example: Northern Albania)
The unemployment rate in northern districts is 25% (District Kukes: 40%). Main part of labour force is working in agriculture (District Puka: 70%). The dependency ratio in district of Has is 80%; the Human Development Index in Qark Kukes 0,726. In Bajram Curri/Tropoja 50%) of the population is receiving social assistance. Big parts of income are gained from remittances from external migration.
A new trend in Albanian migration is the turn from out‐migration to return‐migration, because the economic and financial crisis affected its neighbouring countries. A certain number of Albanian migrants especially from Greece are forced to return.
There are positive as well as negative effects and problems of the latest Albanian re‐migration:
Positiv: as investment potential; new ideas and new instructions; new impulses in the population dynamic; from “Brain Drain” to “Brain Gain”, or Brain Circulation.
-
9
Problems and difficulties: The question of reintegration, especially of younger people; difficulties in the labour market; from a developing country to a country in transformation; the individual dilemma: Should I go or should I stay?
Conclusion
Migration, (external and internal migration), was and remain an important phenomenon for Albania, with positive and negative effects.
Mainly after political changes „Albanian turn“ (1990/1991) migration played an fundamental role in all new developments within the country.
Among others these effects are reflected in large scale disparities at regional and local level, a challenging problem.
These disparities require a new reorientation of the question concerning region and the regional – and local development. For Albania is fundamental to establish regional and local structures as prerequisite for EU funding.
The existing gap in development between the different regions of the country, mainly between the capital region and the periphery, with a tendency to further deepen, make necessary regional development plans and strategies.
-
10
Latvian migrants: different experiences from the UK and Germany
(Zaiga Krišjāne, Elīna Apsīte‐Beriņa & Maris Berzins)
The main focus of the study is to analyse the new developments of migration that have recently unfolded in Latvia. The EU enlargement and recent economic crisis has showed increased impact on the patterns of labour migration in transition economies of the Central and Eastern Europe. Enlargement of the EU in May 2004 was followed by an increase in migration from Accession countries to the old Member States within the context of open labour markets. The effects of the financial crisis in Latvia were particularly severe because before the crisis country experienced large‐scale capital inflow and therefore rapid expansion of mortgage market which was propelled by low interest rates and the entry of foreign banks. This led to the huge credit, housing and consumption boom. Since beginning of the crisis in 2008 all the main branches of the economy had faced a notable decrease in employment level and wages. The emigration from Latvia under crisis conditions became more diverse by choice of destination and population groups involved in the process. This study highlights the characteristics of Latvian immigrants in two of the destination countries: the United Kingdom and Germany. The analysis is based on an internet survey conducted in 2012. The survey was posted on a locally popular social network (www.draugiem.lv) which is widely recognised communication channel among Latvians. Sample size in the UK were 1,117 and in Germany – 426. Usage of internet serves as an asset in exploring contemporary patterns of out‐migration. Our research firstly focuses on push and pull factors in migration to these destinations. Secondly, we look on the differences between Latvian migrants in the UK and Germany with focus on education, professional status, age structure, place of out‐migration. Binary logistic regression models were fitted for these analyses. The results confirm that the patterns of emigration destinations since the EU enlargement are changing, with a rising number of Latvian residents in the UK and in Germany. Migratory regime changes since 1st of May 2011 attract more labour migrants from Latvia to Germany. The results reveal an effect of crisis that shows the change of motivations from better job and higher salaries to difficulties finding job in the origin and mortgage payments. The study highlights different pull factors in selected destinations and main distinctive characteristics for migrant groups. Highly educated and skilled migrants have higher probability to move to Germany. There were differences observed by sectors. Main sectors of occupation in Germany are construction and health care in contrary to industry and agriculture in the UK.
1 Department of Human Geography, University of Latvia, Latvia.
2 Department of Geography, University of Tartu, Estonia.
-
11
Evolving labour migration channels: the experience of Latvia from EU accession to economic recession
(David McCollum)
With the onset of recession in the UK in 2008 it was assumed that immigration from other EU countries would decline. However this has been shown to not be the case, with the volume of new arrivals from most of the East‐Central European ‘Accession 8’ (A8) countries actually increasing. The focus of this paper is Latvia, a country that had a relatively buoyant economy following its accession to the EU in 2004 but that now has one of the highest unemployment and emigration rates in Europe. Interviews carried out with labour providers, policymakers and employers are used to examine the labour migration channels that reflect and structure labour migration flows from Latvia, and how these have evolved in the period between accession and recession. The findings indicate that intermediaries such as labour providers, the state and informal social networks exert considerable influence on the nature of labour migration flows and that the relative importance of these channels displays significant temporal and spatial variations. This research represents an original contribution to the literature on labour migration channels by focusing on movements from a low to higher wage economy in the context of the introduction of free movement of labour between Eastern and Western Europe and the later onset of severe global recession. These findings are of relevance to how labour market channels are theorised and suggest that analysts need to be sensitive to how the function served by intermediaries, and their influence on migration systems, evolves over time and across space. Keywords: A8 accession, labour channels, labour migration, Latvia, recession. [Full paper in POPULATION, SPACE AND PLACE 2013] Literature FINDLAY, A. MCCOLLUM, D. SHUBIN, S. APSITE, E. AND KRISJANE, Z. (2012): The role of recruitment agencies
in imagining and producing the ‘good’ migrant. Social and Cultural Geography. iFirst article.
FINDLAY, A. AND MCCOLLUM, D. (2013): Recruitment and employment regimes: Migrant labour channels in the UK’s rural agribusiness sector, from accession to recession. Journal of Rural Studies 30, pp 10‐19.
MCCOLLUM, D. (2013): Investigating A8 migration using data from the Worker Registration Scheme: temporal, spatial and sectoral trends. Local Economy 28:1, pp 33‐48.
MCCOLLUM, D. AND FINDLAY, A. (2011). Trends in A8 migration to the UK during the recession. Population Trends 145. pp 1‐13.
MCCOLLUM, D. AND FINDLAY, A. (2012). East‐Central European migration to the UK: policy issues and employment circumstances from the perspective of employers and recruitment agencies. Centre for Population Change Working Paper 20. Available at: http://www.cpc.ac.uk/publications/2012_East_Central_European_migration_perspective_of_employers_WP20_McCollum_et_al.pdf [Accessed 15th January 2013].
-
12
4.2 Paper Session II: Multi‐ and Translocality
Demographic factors of regional differentiation of migration
(Dovilė Krupickaitė & Donatas Gudelis)
Migration in Lithuania is one of the most relevant and painful topics’. Not only because that due to the international migration Lithuania since 1990 to 2013 has lost about 16.8% of the total population at the beginning of the period (the total amount of net migration was ‐618,936). Due to migration and natural decrease Lithuania is facing threatening depopulation: 1990‐2013 the population of Lithuania decreased substantially from 3,674,800 to 2,979,000 people. The common country depopulation background is even more exacerbated due to international migration in the municipalities that are located away from the larger cities. From these municipalities the residents emigrate not only abroad, but also to the major Lithuanian cities and regions. According to census data, in some municipalities in the period since 1989 till 2011 the number of the residents had decreased to ‐37.6% (in Ignalina district municipality). This occurred particularly due to migration (internal and international) or because of the population ageing and natural population decrease that was influenced by migration.
Detailed analysis of the data underlined that during the period 2001‐2010 negative net migration was relevant for the majority of Lithuanian municipalities (except the district municipalities that are surrounding major Lithuanian cities Vilnius, Kaunas, Klaipėda and Panevėžys). However, the flows of internal and international migration were distributed differently. 2001–2010 Lithuanian average was 17.7 internal migrants and 5.1 emigrants per 1000 population. During this period international net migration was negative in all the country (Fig. 1), but relatively higher, approaching zero values appeared in the northeast and southeast Lithuanian municipalities, while the extremely low migration rates appeared in major Lithuanian cities (Kaunas, Klaipėda, Šiauliai ir Panevėžys). Meanwhile, internal net migration was positive in five district municipalities that are surrounding the major Lithuanian cities, in municipalities, located in space between biggest Lithuanian cities Vilnius and Kaunas and in Vilnius city municipality (Fig. 2). Therefore, the question arises: what factors influence the different patterns of internal and international migration?
-
13
Fig. 1. International net migration in municipalities in Lithuania 2001‐2010 (data source: Statistics Lithuania Database)
Fig. 2. Internal net migration in municipalities in Lithuania 2001‐2010 (data source: Statistics Lithuania Database)
-
14
Fig. 3. Age structure in municipalities in Lithuania 2005‐2010 (data source: Statistics Lithuania Database)
It was noticed that migration spatial distribution was visually common to the population age structure distribution (Fig. 3): international net migration was relatively lower in the regions characterised as highly aged population regions, while a positive net internal migration could be noticed in the municipalities with the relatively younger age structure of the population. In order to determine the relationship between demographical factors the correlation between population age structure and migration flows had been analyzed. It was studied the correlation between mean population age (average in 2005‐2010), percentage of under working age (0–15 year), of working age and of age of retirement (due to pension reform during the survey period the retirement age boundary was changing differently for men and women in range from 57 years 6 months to 62 years and 6 months) from total population (average in 2001‐2010) and (separately) number of departures, arrivals, emigrants, immigrants, net internal, net international and total migration net per 1000 of population (average in 2001‐2010).
The survey results underlined that there was a strong inverse correlation connection (Pearson's linear correlation coefficient with net migration r = 0.668) between international migration (immigration, emigration and net migration) and retirement age population in Lithuania. Meanwhile, there was a strong direct correlation connection (with net migration r = ‐0.719) between international migration and working age population. Whereas a weak correlation connection (r = 0.436) appeared between net migration and mean age of population. The strong connections between the demographic structures and internal and total net migration were not found, except a weak link (r = ‐0.404) between percentage of age of retirement and departures. The analysis of the distribution graphs showed that it was possible to exclude two main groups of municipalities according to the population age structure and internal migration flows: cities‘ municipalities and the municipalities including bigger than 40 thousand cities were characterized by a younger population structure where the net internal migration was higher, but the connection between the data was
-
15
weak. Meanwhile, in a separate analysis of the municipalities where there were no major cities relationship is relatively strong (especially with working age population: r = 0.515).
The comparison of age structures and migration leads to the following tentative conclusion: 1) from sparsely populated, rural areas with a predominant aged population, people mostly migrate to larger cities‘ regions (not abroad); 2) the residents of areas with the younger population age structure and as well of urban areas tend to move abroad. It is obvious that internal and international migration mechanisms are different, but there is no doubt that they are connected with each other. After a deeper analysis of these mechanisms and the reasons of their performance it could be possible to model the population change rates in the regions and propose the suggestions for the regional policy implementation.
-
16
Hi Potentials! – Bye Potentials? Mobility Decisions of International Students in Germany
(Birgit Glorius)
Currently, rounded 185,000 educational foreigners are enrolled at German universities, representing rounded eight per cent of all students in Germany. However, after graduation, most of those graduates leave Germany, either returning to their country of origin or heading for third countries. Apparently, Germany is not a main target country for those internally trained high potentials, which is partly due to structural reasons: until very recently Germany claimed to be a non‐immigration country and favoured international students to return after graduation. Facing demographic decline and significant shortages in highly qualified personnel especially in innovative branches like information technology or biotechnology, German politics developed immigration policy in favour of highly qualified foreigners and also discovered international graduates from German universities as important targets for recruitment. In the last years, some of the disadvantaging legal barriers concerning labour market integration of skilled third country nationals were lifted, so that foreign graduates have better access to the German labour market. However, the number of those who take advantage of the new measures is rather small. Hence, attention has to be turned to the question, how decisions of staying, moving or returning are taken. One important factor will be the assessment of personal changes concerning labour market integration and social or emotional integration in the host country versus other options. The presentation aimed on clarifying the question, under which personal and structural conditions and circumstances a foreign student might take the decision to stay in Germany versus leaving. Theoretically, the presentation explored a number of migration theories like neoclassical theories, structuralist approaches, transnational approach and social network theory but also theories of societal change to determine their applicability for the decision making process of high qualified educational migrants. The example of Germany as a host country of educational migrants was introduced with a statistical overview of international students at German universities and the policies that structure their recruitment, their stay and the situation after graduation. Then, a case study was presented, which explored the nexus between individual migration decisions, structural factors like regional labour market situation and specific policies, and opinions and emotional aspects concerning the stay in Germany. The case study was undertaken among international students at the Martin‐ Luther‐University (MLU) Halle‐Wittenberg in East Germany. In a series of biographical interviews, we explored their original migration decision, their educational success, social integration and future perspectives, especially regarding the question of starting a career in Germany versus leaving for another country. The results were regarded in the light of selected theoretical approaches to assess their applicability to international high skilled migration. A final discussion mirrored the results against the background of German immigration policy to identify major shortcomings. The main results are as follows: The review on theoretical approaches considered three main groups of approaches: 1) Neoclassical approaches like cost‐benefit‐calculations, 2) structuralist and network approaches (like network theory, system theory, transnational approach) and 3) theories adressing social and societal change. While the first two groups of approaches represent the mainstream of migration theory and were widely applied in empirical studies, the third group is so far rarely considered. The approaches assembled in this group are rooted in academic disciplines like philosophy, social psychology, demography and sociology. Drawing on the notion of “second modernity” and the seminal work of
-
17
authors such as Ulrich Beck, Elisabeth Beck‐Gernsheim and Zygmunt Baumann, the term of “liquid migration” was introduced to describe mobility features and decision making processes of many todays’ migrants. Empirically they are often described as spontaneous, individualistic and undecided. In the paradigm of “second modernity”, migration decisions can be conceptualized as risk minimizing strategies. The mobility decision is embedded in a bundle of biographical decisions like family formation or career development. As those aspects of life are getting more fluid and unpredictable, also migration decisions might be taken rather as short term decisions than as part of a “masterplan”. Additionally, decision making processes are believed to be highly affected by intentionality and reflexivity and are considered to be socially embedded to a large extent. Those aspects need to be addressed in empirical research concepts, including the social world as constructed through social media, which are rarely integrated in research concepts so far. The case study on international students at the Martin‐Luther‐University of Halle in Germany aimed to apply those new approaches and combine them with existing approaches to explain mobility behaviour. During the winter term 2008/09, 31 qualitative, biographical interviews were taken among graduate and post‐graduate students at the MLU. The migration biography was taken as important explanatory aspect for future migration decisions. Regarding motivation of migrating to Halle/Germany, migrants were found to having come rather accidentally to Halle and to Germany, mainly guided by preferred study programmes (in English language) or PhD‐opportunities. It became clear that the mobility decision as such was disconnected from the locational choice, which was taken in a second step and largely draws on rationality, but also on the evaluation of objective information and subjective imaginations. Regarding social integration at the place of study/work, first degree students were found to be better integrated in a German social environment than PhD‐students, who were rather absorbed by their research environment and felt no need to establish social contacts in the locality or gain higher proficiency in the German language. The first degree students, on the other hand, faced certain problems to adapt in the beginning, but then quickly improved their language proficiency, found German friends and established connections to a German social environment. Regarding the likelihood of future labour market integration in Germany, first degree students are believed to be advantaged against young researchers. Addressing future mobility decisions, it became clear that those decisions are strongly connected to other biographical decisions, such as further steps in the family life cycle or career steps. As many of the young researchers considered a scientific career, they didn’t solely consider staying versus returning, but rather integrated third countries into their future mobility plans. From the perspective of the German state as possible host of those high potentials, the transnational nature of academic careers does stand against the purpose of retaining the highly skilled. While most of the interviewees found positive reflections on their stay in Germany, many addressed concerns and constraints considering a long‐term stay. The German society was characterised of being rather not welcoming, and many of the interviewees had the overall impression that Germany was a non‐immigrant country. None of the interviewees was actually informed about the legal opportunities of German residence law regarding highly qualified migrants. They rather shaped their opinions along subjective impressions and asymmetric information. Regarding possible policy implications, one can easily see that it is not enough to shape the legal paths to the labour market for highly qualified foreigners. Being part of the global concurrence for talent, Germany has to communicate its policies more offensively and take an effort to spread information on legal possibilities for migrants. Reflecting on the applicability of the theoretical approaches discussed
-
18
above, one can partly find applications for all of the above mentioned groups of theories. For example, there are indications of bounded rationality in the considerations of the interviewees, and there is also support for the relevance of structuralist approaches or network theories. The academic career as a global or transnational career shows many features which can be explained with transnational theory. Regarding the relevance of theories of societal change, it is especially the notion of liquidity that characterizes past and future mobility decisions. Those decisions are strongly embedded in general considerations regarding future needs of career development or family cycle steps, which also have many features of fluidity. This makes future decisions largely unpredictable, not only for the individual migrant, but also from the outsider perspective of research.
-
19
4.3 Paper Session III: Remigration
Return migration: intentions and expectations
(Elīna Apsīte‐Beriņa)
This study analyses recent trends of emigration from Latvia to the Western Europe. Since year 2004 Latvia is one of the EU member states. Since the accession the country has experienced important social, political and economic changes. Latvia was also one of the countries that suffered negative economic recession effects. While being one of the EU member states Latvia due to emigration has lost around 10% of the population with the main destinations – the UK, Ireland, Germany and Nordic countries. The most drastic flows of emigration from Latvia where found after year 2008 where due to high unemployment rate which was a consequence to previous economic boom years and high number of people being unable to cover monthly payments and mortgage payments choose to live and work abroad. Economic downturn affected diversity of migration out‐flows and speed up for new wave of emigration. Moreover, new destinations are set up by different conditions and attract migrant groups with various backgrounds. This study highlights the characteristics of Latvian migrants to the top destination countries and aims to analyse differences between migrants groups moving to the UK, Ireland, Germany and Nordic countries. The analysis is based on the internet based survey conducted in year 2012. The total numbers of respondents are 2565 and the survey was conducted in the UK, Germany, Ireland, Sweden and Norway. The results of the study indicate that recent emigrants represent various groups of population with the background of previous migration experience, diversity of emigration reasons and the huge influence from the current economic conditions in the origin and decision making process while choosing the most attractive destination. Analysis distinguishes only certain groups of people who are in favor of return to the origin however setting the preconditions that could change the future plans. Current context of economic conditions, uncertainty and unemployment in Latvia leaves space for great challenge crises‐migrants are facing. The results comparing probability to return for all countries and separately for the UK, Ireland, Germany and Norway, Sweden shows that predominantly female except Sweden are more prone to return than male, labour migrants except Nordic countries compared to other migrant groups are more likely to return and people with previous migration to the UK, Norway and Sweden in general are more likely to return to Latvia than the first time migrants. Other statistically significant differences were found for people in the UK with secondary and vocational education that are less likely to return «Migration, Emigration, Return Migration – Perspectives from Sending and Receiving countries» April 25 – 26, Otto – Friedrich University Bamberg, Germany
-
20
compared to primary education level. As well as age groups where in Germany age group 24 to 37 and in the UK age group 31 to 37 compared to younger age group are more prone to return to Latvia. The general conclusions show that return migrant group to Latvia is very diverse. The improvement in economic conditions, stabilizing the situation and enhanced availability of jobs in Latvia would increase return migration flow. Furthermore also the returnees’ motives are different based on the personal experiences but mostly private and emotional. Cultural life, nature and feeling to be among Latvians play crutial role when making return decision, however the economic perspectives and ambiguity about the conditions in Latvia detter from the return in the near future.
-
21
Remigration, transition and development. Aspects of multilocality and social resilience, with Albania as an example
(Daniel Göler)
The context of globalization and transition at the beginning of the 21st century entail manifold economic, political and social changes as well as new forms of migration and mobility. This concerns also the labour migration, which tend to intensify the last years. Obvious consequences are mutual interactions between sending and receiving countries/regions. Main goal of the contribution is to stress interdependencies of out‐migration and return migration under the conditions of post‐socialist transition and the question of socio‐economic development. During the last years we analyzed in several studies, carried out in the framework of the “Geographical Research and Teaching Network SEE” (which is based on a strong and long‐term cooperation between the Universities of Bamberg and Tirana) new social practices and multilocal activities of migrants. Doing interviews we detected that most of the Albanians are “transnational” and that migrants keep intensive mutual interactions between sending and receiving countries/societies.
International Migration, remittances, and transnationality
More than 215 million people (i.e. 3% of the global population) live outside their countries of birth; additionally there are around 750 Mio. internal migrants. One of the main reasons for international migration are so‐called “advantage seekers” (i.e. labour migrants and migrants seeking for a better income, life, and living conditions in a somehow destabilized personal/individual environment). The main outcomes of migration are remittances, i.e. the money sent home by migrants. This was estimated to 483 bln. USD in 2011 and overshot the 500 bln.‐mark in 2012 (data from www.worldbank.org). In spite of the global economic and financial crisis an increasing tendency is expected – with regional variations. Remittances are three times the size of official development assistance and they provide an important lifeline for millions of poor and vulnerable households. And they are an important factor in (post‐socialist) transition countries as well: The share of remittances in Albania’s total GDP was at nearly 20% during the 1990s, falling down to 9% in 2011, after having passed it’s peak of 1,5 bln. USD in 2008 (data from World Bank).
The overall economic effects from international migration for sending countries, receiving countries, and the migrants themselves are substantial. They include the transfer of money/remittances, transfer of “social remittances” (goods etc.) and transfer of knowledge, innovation, behaviour, cultural elements. In terms of theoretical evidence it is very useful to set the lens on the “transnational social space” as a key element of the “migration‐development‐nexus”. Main point is at first the combination of traditional and new elements of migration research, which is, in fact, a change of perspective in migration research.
Secondly, and with regard to the analysis in transition countries, its necessary to recognize the new forms and phenomena of migration and their perception in migration theory: In the same way as international migration has been increasing the perspective of migration research has changed from the ‘classical’ study of courses and consequences of a permanent change of residence to analyses on origin and impact of the so‐called “transnational social spaces” (Pries 2001): Interest began to focus on circular migration processes, meaning that physical migratory movement is repeated episodically
-
22
or periodically with the consequence that different ‘places’ are connected. The “transnational social space” is interpreted as an as an arena of social interactions (Dahinden 2009, 16).
In this view some other topics become more and more relevant; these are questions related to migration networks and integration, aspects of individual action strategies, and the role of hetero‐ or multi‐locality as a new form of resilience.
Albanian transition, migration, and development
For analysing migration and its effects it is worth to rethink the words of Douglas Massey’s „Development creates migration” (1998). It’s true that post‐socialist transition creates migration. And, as a consequence, we have to ask if migration creates development. This discussion leads to the leading paradigm which see the migration‐development‐nexus as „New development mantra“ (Kapur 2004) on the one hand and to an the interpretation as a kind of „Hyperoptimism“ (Faist 2008) on the other.
Empirical findings from Albania show a close connection between private entrepreneurship and migration (Göler 2007, 2011) in a quite difficult and special transition‐context. Remittances are not only an important factor for survival but also a promoting factor for the formation of private entrepreneurship in southeast Europe. Studies based on entrepreneurs' biographies showed that capital transfers from abroad plays a more or less crucial part in the foundation of small and medium‐sized enterprises (Göler 2007). The connection of entrepreneurship and migration is a rule In Albania: Only one out of 34 entrepreneurs in our survey was not in emigration before his start‐up. In fact, start‐ups usually are prepared with a stay of several months or years abroad, mostly in Italy or Greece. According to the UN, nearly 40% of the funds needed to start up a business in Albania are procured in this way (Göler 2005, 124).
The accumulation of capital is one point, another – maybe more important one – is the transfer of knowledge and innovations from abroad into the country and society of origin: in other words, a “brain gain”. Usually this brain gain does not rely on formal qualifications or formally documented knowledge acquired abroad. Instead, skills gained by learning‐by‐doing in emigration are frequently reproduced in a self‐employment at home. And, in addition, there is also a transfer of technology, meaning that people buy the machines they were used to work with second‐hand from their former employer when they return home. Often, even long‐term supply and sales relationships result from these foreign contacts.
To that extent, the (re‐)combination of capital, knowledge, and – in some cases – highly specialised technical skills as a result of a cycle of emigration and remigration have a positive effect on private business start‐ups in most cases. But this effect should not be overestimated, because the impression is that the step into self‐employment under the extremely difficult socio‐economic preconditions (especially in rural and peripheral regions) is in some cases also a kind of 'emergency solutions', meaning that the decision for the business foundation is at least a result of missing other employment opportunities. But, all in all, and written as a first conclusion: Return migration and investment/development seem to be “a good combination in the good times.
Return migration and development in times of crisis
The same phenomena ‒ emigration, return‐migration and circular migration ‒ need to be reassessed in the current third decade of Albania’s transition and against the background of tectonic shifts in the
-
23
choices facing people and the options available to them. At the level of individual choices made by migrants, the option of returning (Labrianidis and Kazazzi 2006) was always linked to a degree of freedom, but has become a dead end with limited room for manoeuvre sooner than expected for many. Headlines in Ekathimerini on September 12, 2011 like “The Greek crisis is forcing Albanian migrants to go home” are common in Albania’s media discourse and in the Greek and Italian media. The Albanian think‐tank ACIT headlined the Greek crisis as a ‘social bomb’ for Albania (Tirana Times Oct. 5‐11, 2012, p7). How emigrants and return migrants cope with the new situation and what opportunities and problems result from the new constraints is a central question facing migration research. The current state of knowledge leads to the following points:
(1) The remigration currently taking place is not a completely new phenomenon, but one that draws on old and widespread paradigms for action. What is new is the current forced character of remigration, in particular from crisis‐stricken Greece.
(2) Remigrants leave a fundamentally altered (temporary) host society; at the same time, they encounter more or less unchanged economic, political and social conditions in Albania.
(3) “New” returnees, such as those from Greece, bring influences from abroad back with them just as previous returnees did, irrespective of the now‐altered conditions obtaining abroad.
(4) Most problematic returnees seem to be the youngsters – those, who emigrated early from Albania and grew up in their family in the host society. Having finished school there is a great advantage, if not the situation is more or less a biographical disaster for them.
So, forced return makes things more difficult for the migrants and it is more and more questionable, if return migration in the Greek‐Albanian context still can be seen as a resource under the current conditions.
Conclusions
The case studies from Albania show the ability of migration‐subsystems to cope with internal and external caused shocks, to re‐organize in this process in a novel and creative manner and, if necessary, to define themselves as a new social system. Main characteristic of this system is a wide‐spread multilocal social network led by migration, individual migration experiences, and migration culture. Migrants are in this sense interpreted as agents of societal transformations, which are able to adapt social practices from different economic, social and cultural contexts. Such kind of resilience as a performed social practice is based on creativity, knowledge and other individual and personal skills and capacities of the participants of the network.
But, migrants cannot withdraw from global influences like the economic and financial crisis. They are affected and they are forced to cope with the new circumstances; but in this case migrants are heavily dependent on the situation in the country of origin, too.
-
24
Albanian Return Migration from Greece: Unsuccessful Entrepreneurs or a Chance for Urban Revitalization?
(Matthias Bickert & Bilal Draçi)
Introduction Since the beginning of the recent global financial crisis many states suffering from an enormous economic decline and are now in a process of restructuring. Besides Spain, Portugal or Italy, particularly Greece is known as the country with deepest cuts in its national budget and a still unclear future. Since more than three years now, the Greek economy is in a great depression, which caused a major job loss for people of all ages and profession. Being naturally one of the most vulnerable groups, especially low‐skilled immigrants are facing an uncertain situation. Moreover, today there are more than 600.000 Albanian immigrants permanently living in Greece, making them by far the biggest group of foreigners in the country. Because of the recent situation, more and more Albanians decide to return to their home country, where the strongest effects of the economic crisis seem to pass by. While the Albanian state sets high hopes in the return of skilled emigrants and their capital, many aspects of the ongoing return migration remains unclear: Which group of emigrants is most likely to return? Will this result in a distinct successful entrepreneurship or will it cause a “social bomb”?
1. RESEARCH OUTLINE
1.1. Theoretical Background While internal migration was strictly regulated and out‐migration was practically inexistent during communism, the built‐up migration energy explosively discharged into high rates of emigration (GÖLER 2009: 477f; DOKA & BËRXHOLI 1997: 217). Especially in the mountainous regions of eastern Albania many settlements suffered from an exodus‐like de‐settlement (BËRXHOLI et al. 2003: 70). With around 1 Mio emigrants more than one quarter of all Albanians are nowadays living outside the country. Having a significant Greek minority as well as due to the geographic proximity to Greece, many people in South Albania chose to migrate to their Hellenic neighbours. During their time abroad, most Albanians stayed in close connection with their families at home. Not just traditional family connections and frequent visits to Albania, but especially financial economic aid (so called remittances) helped many Albanian families to survive in the rural regions – and still do so. It is calculated that around 10‐20% of the Albanian GDP is accounting to remittances (GÖLER 2009: 491f). What leads on the one hand to better monetary conditions for many vulnerable groups, such as elderly people, causes on the other hand strong dependencies from foreign capital. Especially in times of economic crises this becomes problematic, as immigrants are one of the first groups to feel the effects of economic decline. Whilst the town and the region of Gjirokastra are close to the Greek border and have, in this case, an even stronger connection to Greece than many other regions of Albania, this area is one of the most interesting regions for field work.
Instead of a more volunteer re‐migration, where a planned, self‐chosen point of return caused several cases of successful entrepreneurship in all regions of Albania during the last ten years (see GÖLER 2009), the “new” comeback to the home country is much more threatened and often caught
-
25
the emigrants unprepared. This diminishes the potential for a successful re‐migration for many returnees.
1.2. Empirical Approach To approach the relatively new phenomenon of a significant amount of forced re‐migration, a qualitative approach was chosen, in order to explore a wide range of different migrants’ biographies. In semi‐standardized guided interviews not just the latest period of the re‐migration was reproduced but also the time, circumstances and intentions of the out‐migration were an important part of the interviews as well as a retrospective on the personal burdens and benefits of the emigration period. In the end, migration pathways (according to KING et al. 2008) could be created, in order to visualize the whole circle of a migration biography. As recently the number of returnees significantly increased, with the help of a snowball scheme, migrants could easily be identified in the field. Besides its proximity to Greece, the town of Gjirokastra was chosen for its historic centre, which was made UNESCO Word Heritage in 2005. Nevertheless, the old town is suffering from major depopulation, while a nearby new town offers an active business district. An eventual positive effect of a return‐migrant’s entrepreneurship that could lead to a revitalization of the historic centre was one of the main research questions in Gjirokastra. Under this outline, in cooperation between geographers from the Universities of Bamberg, Tirana and Prishtina more than 40 interviews could be conducted in South Albania in October 2012.
1.3. Findings When trying to get a first conclusive overview on return‐migrant’s biographies it can be differed between two intentions to leave Albania. In one group (a) are those ones, who emigrated with the plan to return to Albania one day. They (and their families) often integrated less in the Greek society. The second group (b) are the fully integrated ones that never planned to return to Albania. Nevertheless, due to the forced re‐migration, both groups can be found in the field equally, sometimes even in between one family. Besides this, a typology of the different forms of re‐settlement in Albania can be made. 1) Rare cases of successful entrepreneurs that are profiting from the capital and the skills gathered during the emigration period. 2) Rather successful or unsuccessful entrepreneurs, who can often be found in unfavourable location for a business, being regularly set up on pre‐owned property. Often there was neither a plan, nor enough capital and time to start up a long planned business in a good location. 3) Employees that found work due to their skills gained abroad. 4) “Vulnerable youngsters”, which are often dependent from return‐decisions of older family members. Having been living most parts of their lives abroad, the Albanian society and sometimes even the Albanian language is unfamiliar to those young people. Being not prepared to return and having high problems to reintegrate in a country without experience with “immigrants”, they must be seen as a social bomb.
2. CONCLUSION All in all it can be assumed that the regularity of remigration is its irregularity. This also means that the intention to out‐migrate (group a and b) does not necessarily connect to success or failure when returning (group 1‐4). Examples during the empiric studies showed that also people who never planned to return could have a decent success with a new found business, whilst others who planned to return to Albania one day could completely fail with their business. But also the high hopes of the Albanian state for a vital return‐migration that brings capital and brain gain, have not just to be restrained but also must be generally questioned. Single cases of success are opposing many unsuccessful examples, where especially the “vulnerable youngsters” need to be seen as a threat, if
-
26
the state does not develop a strategy for reintegration and offers opportunities for the disillusioned. One main reason for the missing success is that the benefits of emigration such as capital and skills, often do even after 23 years of transition still not meet the necessary entrepreneurial environment for success. Last, for the depopulated area of Gjirokastra’s old town, just single positive effects of remigration on revitalization could be observed.
Literature: BËRXHOLI, A.; DOKA, DH.; ASCHE, H. & J. SIEMER (2003): Atlasi gjeografik i popullsisë së Shqipërisë [Atlasi i
Shqipërisë/Demographic atlas of Albania/Bevölkerungsgeographischer Atlas von Albanien]. Shtypshkronja Ilar, Tiranë.
DOKA, DH. & BËRXHOLI, A. (1997): Migration und sozioökonomische Prozesse in der Übergangsperiode
Albaniens. In: HELLER, W. (ed.): Migration und sozioökonomische Transformation in Südosteuropa. Südosteuropa‐Studien 59, Südosteuropa‐Gesellschaft, München. pp. 217–222.
GÖLER, D. (2009): Regionale und lokale Auswirkungen von Migrationen in Albanien. In: Südosteuropa
56 (4), pp. 472–499.
-
27
Albanian migration and the effect of remittances on education
(Eglantina Zyka, Elena Tomori & Fatmir Mema)
Introduction
Immigration is a constant phenomenon in most developed coutries and a prominent feature of globalization. In 2011 there were 33.3 million foreign citiziens resident in the EU‐27, 6.6% of the total population (eurostat foreignborn 2011), the majority, 20.5 million were citiziens of non EU countries. According to Eurostat, one of the main citezenship of foreigners residing in the EU‐27 is Albania, (approximately 1.1 million Albanians residing in EU‐27 or 3% of the total,
Albania has been experiencing emigration throughout all its history. The Bank of Albania reports that remittances have reached 692 million euro in 2011, which is about 7.3 per cent of official GDP. Remittances have gone up from 176.48 million euro in 1999 to 802 million euro in 2005, twice the size of foreign exchange revenues from exports and three times higher than foreign direct investment and about 692 million euro in 2011. This extraordinary volume of migration and remittances is likely to have had extensive consequences for the Albanian economy.
The stages of Albanian migration
Before 1944, the US and some Latin American states were the main destination countries.
1945‐1990: After 1945 with the rise of Enver Hoxha regim, the country was economically and socially isolated.
The period after ‘90 can be broken down into:
1991‐1992 streams, which was wholly uncontrolled, when approximately 300,000 Albanians left the country.
The 1992‐1996 stream, when a similar number migrated, most illegally, despite the temporary improvement of the economy and better border controls.
The collapse of the pyramid schemes in late 1996 and early 1997 caused loss of entire life savings of many individuals and households. 100000 Albanians left the country.
Since 1999: the Kosovo war took place in 1999, followed by a massive deplacement of the population of Kosovo. This humanitarian crisis is likely to have contibuted to higher emigration in this period.
The year 2000 marks the end of the massive migratory movements. The Albanian political and economic situation for this period it is considered relatively stable, although migration levels for the period after 2001 has continued to be high.
Albanian migrants have taken in consideration several factors, in their choice of destination countries, such as: geographical vicinity, cultural and linguistic proximity, supported by legal access opportunities in these countries. During years, most of all Albanian emigrants have moved to Europe, (in 2010, 94% of them moved in Europe while 6% have moved outside Europe). Greece, Italy and Western Europe were the main destinations for Albanian emigrants. Recent opportunities to find
-
28
better employment, legal status and socio‐cultural conditions for themselves and their children pushed Albanians to USA, Canada and other countries. Albanian migration was closely related to political economic and social changes in the country: The political natyre of albanian migration is evident not only in the earlier stage where in march 1991 but even in the later stage, in 1997 one major factor for an increase in migratory flows was the political and civil unrest in the country.
After the collapse of the communisme, Albania emerged as the poorest country in Europe, a high level of unemployement and very few future prospects. The Albanian economy has experienced a considerable real average growth of the GDP of 4,3% between 1990 and 2001. From the year 2002 the real average growth of GDP is stabilized in roughly 5% till 2008 and in 2010 was about 3 %. High growth rates have been accompained by a reduction of poverty. However, it is important to note that there are still significant regional and urban/rural disparities. The unemployment rate is higher in the north‐eastern part of the country, reaching around 24% compared with 13% in the central and southern area.
Migration and remittances
Remittances are the main channel through which migration impacts nonimmigrant in the source countries. Migrant profile in terms of their destination choices, human capital level and others characteristics are key factors that influence remittances flows. For Albania, Italy and Greece are the main countries workers’ remittances "originate” from, accounting for about 38.6% and 41.9% of the total. According to the Bank of Albania in 2011 remittances from EU represented 90.7% and from USA only 8.1%. In Albania remittances have been an increasing source of household income and their share in the income level of low income families has increased during years. Remittances support families to survive, providing them with the means to buy food and other resources, to invest in healthcare and education of their children and to improve the housing. According to the Bank of Albania, 2008 the main part of remittances (74%), was spent in non productive activities. Indeed, about 48% of remittances were used for consumption goods (food, clothing, house furniture and refurbishing, etc). About 20% of remittances are used for investment and saving–related purposes, 3.5% is used to finance the business activity and to invest in real state. About 16% was used for building or renewing houses, and another 10% was used for medical care and education.
The value of remittances sent to Albania was the highest in 2007 when the global crisis start but it has fallen after consistently after this year. In 2007 they were 13.71% of GDP, in 2009 remittances were 10.94% and in 2011 only 7.3% of GDP. The data shows that in 2011 the value of remittances sent to Albania was 692 million euro or 27% less than in 2007. The decrease after 2007 in the flows of remittances are related also with the increase of unemployment rate in Greece and Italy as the main source of remittances to Albania. The average of unemployment rate in these countries increased from 6.7% in 2007 to 10.15% in 2009 and in the same period the flows of remittances started to decrease in Albania.
An important aspect of the migration and development debate concerns on the effect of remittances on education in the sending countries of origin. Several studies have been undertaken about educational outcomes, how they are affected by the remittances and migration experience. One stream of literature has shown that there is an increase
-
29
of educational outcomes of family members, by relaxing the household’s liquidity constraints; remittances allow an investment in education. An opposite stream, argues that migration of a family member, i.e. absence of the parent, may have negative effects on the child’s schooling.
Grigorian and Melkonyan (2008), using data from Armenia present evidence that remittance receiving households spend less on the education of their children. McKenzie and Raport (2006) found that migration has a large negative impact on schooling attendance and attainment of 12 to 18 year‐old boys and 16 to 18 year‐old girls in Mexican households. Hanson and Woodruff (2003) note that migration may disrupt household structure, removing children from the presence of guardians and role models, and require older children to take on additional household responsibilities. Lucas (2005) argues that remittances from the family members abroad, in particular parents, support further education of children in the country of origin, but the absence of parents and consequently no custody on school performance of children might deteriorate the educational outcomes.
In case of Albania, Giannelli and Mangiavacchi (2010) show that past parental migration has had negative effect on school attendance in the long‐term with higher hazards of school drop‐outs for Albanian children left behind. Pihlainen (2010), focusing on Albania, tests the hypothesis whether households that receive remittances from abroad spend more money on children’s education than the others. It has shown that in the Albanian context this is not always confirmed. Miluka & Dabalen (2008) explore the effect of remittances on education, and show that in case of Albania there is a weak impact on human capital of such income sources. Trako (2008) found that remittances decrease the likelihood of attending school for children (12–17 years old) in recipient households and that remittances decrease the likelihood of participating in the labor force for adults between 22 ‐ 65 years old.
Migration and the remittances have greatly contributed to increase household’s income and to keep many families out of poverty. While many studies suggest a significant and positive impact of remittances on children’s school attendance, in Albania this is not always confirmed. The debate of relationship between remittances and investment on human capital (important for the country development) is an open one.
Some References
Eurostat. Lucilla Scanircchia Statistics in focus, residence permits issued to non‐EU citizens. European Commission. 43/2011. Pg.1‐6.
Instat. Population and housing census in Albania. Preliminary result. December 2011. Pg.14,15. Economic development and European Integration. A literature review on various aspects of Albanian
migration.Nov. 2008.Pg 51‐73. http://www.migrationinformation.org/Resources/albania.cfm
http://www.migrationinformation.org/Resources/albania.cfm
-
30
New chances for regional development in eastern Germany? Context and motivations of out‐ and return migration in an international comparison
(Thilo Lang)
Abstract After massive emigration from East to West Germany in the 1990s, meanwhile a considerable return trend of East German emigrants can be observed. Recalling the current discussion on shortage of skilled workers, high qualified East German re‐migrants can be considered as a potential for regional development. However, a common assumption suggests a primary return of the economically less successful emigrants (return of failure). Empirical findings on the determinants of re‐migration and on the motives that drive a return are rare. The few existing studies point to both, the relevance of economic failures in the host context and social factors in the home context fostering the return decision. Moreover, in current literature, there is no quantitative empirical analysis on return typologies to which re‐integration and return interventions can be addressed. Therefore, in this paper we investigate various factors that decrease resp. increase the return probability. We also empirically identify so far only theoretically discussed return types among East German re‐migrants. Our empirical analyses draw on the East Germany subsample of the Re‐Turn online survey, conducted in 2012. Our findings suggest the relevance of so far rather neglected social network factors increasing the return probability independently of the economic standing in the host context. Correspondingly, we identif