Lessons from Migration after EU Enlargement

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. www.econstor.eu The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn is a local and virtual international research center and a place of communication between science, politics and business. IZA is an independent nonprofit organization supported by Deutsche Post Foundation. The center is associated with the University of Bonn and offers a stimulating research environment through its international network, workshops and conferences, data service, project support, research visits and doctoral program. IZA engages in (i) original and internationally competitive research in all fields of labor economics, (ii) development of policy concepts, and (iii) dissemination of research results and concepts to the interested public. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may D I S C U S S I O N P A P E R S E R I E SIZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author. Lessons from Migration after EU Enlargement 1 IntroductionWhat once was unimaginable, then a vision, turned into reality, when eight Central and Eastern European countries 1 (EU8), together with Cyprus and Malta, and Bulgaria and Romania (EU2), joined the European Union in May 2004 and January 2007, respectively. While cheered by many, EU enlargement brought about a number of concerns as well. The change it impinged on the European migration landscape was unprecedented in many aspects: the population size of the acceding countries was large; the differences in income between the old EU member states 2 and the EU8 and the EU2 were substantial; essentially no migration between the former Soviet bloc and the West was allowed during the decades of separation by the "Iron Curtain"; and the new member states underwent a complex process of societal transformation to a free society and a market-based economy prior to their EU accession.These specific circumstances partly explain the sensitivity of the migration issue among the general public as well as policy makers across Europe, who feared economic, social, cultural and political consequences of free east-west migration in an enlarged EU. Competition in the labor markets and for welfare benefits has prominently driven these fears. In contradiction of the European Union's fundamental principle of free movement, 3 these fears have materialized as transitional periods of up to seven years, which ...

European Union: expansion and migration

“…Indeed, in the context of labor market tightness and skill shortages, the governments began to form more active policies toward migrants working abroad, which included attempts to incentivize return migration (Galgoczi et al 2009;Kureková 2011). Unlike in most EU-8 countries, remittances have been more significant in Bulgaria and Romania (Kahanec et al 2010). …”

“…The post-accession migration from EU-8 embodied a new profile of migrant, marking a change in typical characteristics of people leaving the region in the 1990s (EC 2008;Kaczmarczyk & Okolski 2008;Kahanec & Zimmermann 2010). While the preenlargement migrants were typically middle-aged with vocational education and previous work experience, the post-accession migrants were predominantly young and with tertiary education.…”

“…The mobility from Central and Eastern Europe has been characterized by short-term or temporary character rather than permanent resettlement (Pollard et al 2008; Accession Monitoring Report 2009). Kahanec and Zimmermann (2010) document diversion of more skilled migrants to the countries that liberalized labor market access early on, whereas restrictive transitional arrangements seem to have led to adverse selection of post-accession immigrants.…”

“…Based on a broad account of labor-market impacts of post-accession migration flow in receiving countries, Kahanec et al (2010) conclude that there is little evidence that they would crowd out native workers from employment or lower their wages. Similarly, relatively low welfare dependency was documented among post-accession immigrants, although there is some evidence that it grew as the migrants fulfilled the legal requirement of employment duration to qualify for such benefits (Kureková 2011).…”

“…The scarcity of employment often involved temporary migration strategies characterized by low investment in host-country-specific human capital, strong attachment to work, and a high saving rate in view of transferring the accumulated resources to the countries of origin upon return. The existent surveys indeed report relatively poor working conditions typified by lower wages and longer working hours among the migrant laborers (Trades Union Congress 2007; Kahanec & Zimmermann 2010). Yet, especially among the young migrants, the working experience gained abroad has been valued by potential employers upon their return (Kurekova 2011).…”