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
34
Embed
Migration, Emigration, Return Migration...Evolving labour migration channels: the experience of 11 Latvia from EU accession to economic recession ” Session II D OVILĖ K RUPICKAITĖ
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Migration, Emigration, Return Migration
Perspectives from Sending and Receiving Countries
International Conference in the framework of the IGU‐Commission on
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?” ELENA TOMORI, EGLANTINA ZYKA & FATMIR MEMAJ: “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 Memaj, 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: