MIGRATION IN THE BALKANS
by
Theodore P. Lianos*
Department of Economics
ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS
May 9, 2005
Athens
*Professor, Department of Economics, AUEB
Athens :76, Patission Str., Athens, 104 34
Email :
MIGRATION IN THE BALKANS
Introduction
This paper presents the recent labor migration flows in the Balkan Countries among these countries and from these countries to others. It also reports some preliminary finding from a survey in Bosnia-Herzegovina regarding some effects of migration of the professional status of migrants, their qualifications, their incomes earned, their remittances back home and the use of these remittances.
The Effects of Migration
Migration has many effects on the economy of the country of origin.
On the positive side one may mention the following :
i) Reduction of social pressures if the rate of unemployment is high. If part of the unemployed labor force migrates social tension may subside and thus the general economic and political environment may improve.
ii) Migration may be a means by which part of the labor force may acquire new techniques and general knowledge which may be useful for them and for the economy upon their return.
iii) Remittances to the country of origin normally follow migration flows and these monetary funds can be very substantial. In addition to the obvious positive effects on the receiving families, remittances may ease the foreign exchange constraint which many countries face.
On the negative side one may mention the following :
i) Migration may result in a substantial loss of young and dynamic labor fore, since a considerable proportion of migrant will stay in the country of destination and never return for good to the country of origin.
ii) The human capital (learning new production techniques new languages, etc.) that migrants acquire in the country of destination may be very small. Many migrant are employed in Agriculture, in Construction and in Services (Hotels, restaurants, etc.) where no additional human capital is acquired. The opposite may also happen, namely migrants are often misemployed and they may lose part of their human capital instead of acquiring new.
iii) Remittances may also have negative effects in at least two ways. First, remittances may be used mainly for consumption and not for productive purposes. This may have the effects of creating inflationary pressures and increasing imports. Second remittances may create negative work incentives, in the sense that as long as remittances are flowing in, there is less pressure for work in the labor market. It addition, one may mention that a substantial flow of remittances may appreciate the domestic currency and thus reduce export increase imports.
From this brief description of the possible positive and negative effects of migration, it appears that in theory no general conclusion can be drawn regarding the effects of migration on the long run growth of the sending economy. Probably, the net effect may depend on how migration and remittances are combined with the other factors that enhance or limit the prospects of growth. It seems, therefore, that the effects of migration may differ by country, depending on the prospects of growth, the institutional framework and government policies.
Growth Rates of Balkan Countries
The growth rates of GDP of the Balcan countries for the period 1990-2003 are presented on Table 1. The obvious characteristics of these growth rates is their erratic behaviour. For all countries the growth rates differ greatly from year to year. This is due to two main factors. First, to the disorganization of the economic structure that followed the fall of communist regimes and the need for the reconstruction of these economics within a new, largerly unknown to them, institutional framework. Second, to the internal conflicts that followed the fall of the old regimes.
However, during the last five years these economies seem to have achieved a normal way of economic functioning, and their rates of growth appear to vary within reasonable limits. For the seven countries appearing on Table 1, the (unweighted) average growth rate in each of the last three years at approximately 4%.
The growth prospects of these countries may differ. One would expect that Bulgaria and Romania, which will soon become member of the European Union, and Croatia, a little later, will be, ceteris paribus, in a better position to exploit the possibilities that will be opened to them and grow at a steady and high rate. Of course, it is not implied that all Balkan countries will growth at the same rate or that the existing regional imbalances will disappear. In fact, it is possible that regional imbalances may become more pronounced as some countries or regions may become poles of attraction at the cost of others. However, it is expected that the entire area will benefit when the general economic environment of the Balkan region improves as a result of growth of some, if not all, countries in the area.
Table 1
Growth Rates of GDP of Balkan Countries
Year / Albania / BosniaHerzegovina / Bulgaria / Croatia / FYROM / Romania / Serbia
Montenegro
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003 / -9.9
-28.0
-7.2
9.6
8.3
13.3
9.1
-10.3
12.7
8.9
7.7
7.9
4.8
5.9 / -12.1
-26.1
-26.9
6.5
32.9
54.2
36.6
15.4
9.5
5.4
4.5
3.7
3.2 / -9.1
-10.4
-7.3
-1.5
1.8
2.9
-9.4
-5.6
4.0
2.3
5.4
4.1
4.8
4.8 / -21.1
-11.7
-8.0
5.9
6.8
5.9
6.8
2.5
-0.9
2.9
3.8
5.2
4.7 / -6.2
-6.6
-14.7
-1.8
-1.1
1.2
1.4
3.4
4.3
4.5
-4.5
0.9
3.1 / -5.6
-12.9
-8.8
1.5
3.9
7.1
3.9
-6.0
-4.8
-1.2
2.1
5.7
4.9
4.7 / -11.6
-27.9
-30.8
2.5
6.1
5.8
7.4
2.5
-23.7
6.4
5.5
3.8
1.0
Note : Growth Rates are estimated on GDP values in 1990 prices
Source: United Nations Database.
Migration in the Balkan Countries
In analysing migration flows among the Balkan countries and also between the Balkans and other countries one is faced with rather serious problems regarding the availability and nature of statistical data. First, in most cases it is not clear whether an individual reported as migrant is a long term mover, a temporary mover, a seasonal worker, someone on the move to another destination, a returning migrant, a member of a family already in country with no intention to work, a student who may or may not be partially employed, a refugee, member of the staff of a foreign company in the country, etc. Second, the available data are fragmentary in the sense of being available for some years for some countries and for different years for other countries. Third, the method for collecting of migration data, i.e. the definitions and the sources, may differ by country. Fourth, the accuracy of the data differ by country. For example, the number of emigrants from country i to country j in a certain year is often very different from the number of immigrants to country j from country i in the same year. Obviously, the reporting systems of the various countries do not have the same reliability. Fifth and very important for the Balkan area, the reported data usually refer to legal migrants based, for example, on residence or work permits. However, the extent of illegal migration is very large, at least for some countries and for some years, and therefore the estimates presented on the following tables are underestimates.
In examining statistical data, in general and migration data, in particular, for the Balkan countries one should bear in mind the fall of the communist and socialist regime in the beginning of the 1990’s and the civil conflicts during the 90’s. It is therefore preferable to concentrate on migration flows after 1996 because the more recent flows correspond closer to what is termed economic migration.
The problems mentioned above do not render the available data useless. By combining migration flows and stocks for various years and countries some conclusions can be derived regarding the main labor mobility tendencies in the Balkan countries.
(i). Migration in the Balkan Area
There are no systematically collected and complete data on migration flows in the Balkan countries. However by combining data for outflows, for inflows and for stocks for various years and for various countries from various sources, it is possible to draw information and conclusions about the volume of migration flows, and the main origins and destinations of migrants in the Balkan countries.
The Balkan countries. (i.e. Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, FYROMacedonia, Romania and Serbia-Montenegro) have a total population of 52 million (2003), 42% of which (i.e. 22 million) is Romanian. It is interesting to note that the total population of the area is declining. In the period 2000-2003 it has declined from 54.8 mil. to 52 mil., that is by 5.2% in three years. The level of income in these countries is relatively low. The per-capita gross national income of these countries is below 15% of that of the European Union (EU-15). This immediately suggests two opposite forces regarding migration in the medium and longer term. On the one hand, the relatively low level of incomes (in combination with the proximity) is a strong push force for migrating, but on the other the volume of potential migrant flows should be small given the population size.
Table 2 shows the net migration rates for the years 2000-2003 and also for the period 1989-2002. It appears that the Balkan area has lost approximated two and a half million people after the collapse of the communist regimes. During the last four years 2000-2003, the net migration rates differ among countries. Albania and Bulgaria have negative and high rates. The net migration rates of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia are declining very quickly between 2000 and 2003 indicating that these migration flows are related to internal conflict of the earlier years, and as the situation settles the migration flows will diminish or even disappear.
2
Table 2
Migration, Population and Income in the Balkan Area
Net-Migration Rates, 2000-2003Country / 2000 / 2001 / 2002 / 2003 / Net Migration Between 1989-2002
Ths Percent / Population Ths
2000 2003 / GDP Per Capita (d)
Current $, 2003
Albania / -10.36 / -3.69 / -1.46 / -1.39 / -709 / -22.3 / 3113 / 3169 / 1915
Bosnia-Herzegovina / 25.92 / 8.91 / 2.97 / 0.32 / n.a / n.a. / 3977 / 4140 / 1613
Bulgaria / -5.06 / -4.9 / -4.74 / -4.58 / -689 / -7.7 / 8170 / 7824 / 2533
Croatia / 5.42 / 13.37 / 9.72 / 1.61 / -314 / -6.6 / 4446 / 4456 / 6398
FYROM / -5.66 / -1.54 / -1.49 / -1.46 / -46 / -2.4 / 2026 / 2049 / 2225
Romania / -0.17 / +0.02 / -0.07 / -0.54 / -663 / -2.9 / 22435 / 22200 / 2550
Serbia-Montenegro / -1.9(a) / -3.38 / -1.38 / -182 / -1.7 / 10637 / 8104 / 1843
Total / -2603 / 54804 / 51962
Note: Migrants per 1000 population
When more than figures are given for one year, we choose the figure for the largest series.
(a) From UN, Int Migration Report 2003 (c) For the period 1991-2001 (d) UN Dept of Economics + Social Affair.
Source:
2
(ii). Migration Among the Balkan Countries
In the Balkan area, Greece is the only country that, after 1990, has become an important destination for migrants from Albania, primarily, and to a much lesser extent from Bulgaria and Romania. According to the 2001 Census[1] of population, the stock of migrants that has been accumulated over the decade of 1990 in Greece is 762 ths people and includes 438 ths Albanians, 35 ths Bulgarians and 22 ths Romanians. It is estimated that 12,5% of the Albanian labor force and 14% of the Albanian population are in Greece. The stock of all immigrants to Greece correspond to 9.5% of its labor force and to 7.5 of its population. By any standards, these percentage are high for both countries. Due to proximity and common borders, immigration to Greece involves, to a substantial extent, seasonal and circular movements the size of which cannot be measured.
The other migration flows within the Balkan area are very small and should not have any economic significance for the sending or receiving countries (See Appendix Table 1). The flows among Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia-Montenegro are, in all likelihood, the results of the civil conflict in Former Yugoslavia and are not expected to last. The practically non existing migration flows should not be surprising, given that these countries are not much different economically and that there are much better opportunities for economic improvement in the surrounding countries of the EU.
(iii) Migration from the Balkan Countries
It has already been mentioned that the existing statistical data on migration flows from and to the Balkan countries are fragmentary with missing values by country and year and by substantial differences by source. However, some basic trends can be seen from the available data. From Tables 3,4 and 5 of the Appendix, it appears that Germany is the most preferred country as a place of destination for migrants from the Balkan countries. This seems natural given the past huge flows of migration from Former Yugoslavia to (West) Germany and the contacts that have been established in the meantime between those that have migrated and stayed in Germany and their relatives and friends in the new countries of Former Yugoslavia. In the present period (after 1990) some new countries appear to have become places of destination of substantial immigration from the Balkan countries. As mentioned above Greece has (according to the 2001 Census of Population) a stock of 438 ths Albanians 35 ths Bulgarians and 22 ths Romanians. Italy has also become a country of destination with 107,5ths immigrants from Albania, 66.2 ths from Romania, 41.5 ths from Serbia-Montenegro and 15.9 ths from the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, for the 1997-2001 period. Smaller but still significant migration flows are directed to Austria and Hungary. During the period 1997-2001, Austria has received 35.5 ths immigrants from Serbia-Montenegro 18.9 ths from Croatia and 17.1 ths from Bosnia. Hungary has received 36.3 ths immigrants from Romania and 7.6 ths from Serbia and Montenegro. These are the gross out-migration flows. The net migration flows are, of course, smaller and vary by country as can be seen from tables 3, 4 and 5 of the Appendix.