theodore lianos
Post on 14-Jul-2016
18 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
MIGRATION IN THE BALKANS
by
Theodore P. Lianos*
Department of EconomicsATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS
May 9, 2005Athens
*Professor, Department of Economics, AUEBAthens :76, Patission Str., Athens, 104 34Email : tplianos@aueb.gr
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
2
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.
3
Table 1Growth Rates of GDP of Balkan Countries
Year Albania BosniaHerzegovina
Bulgaria Croatia FYROM Romania Serbia Montenegro
19901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003
-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 pricesSource: United Nations Database.
4
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.
5
(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.
6
Table 2
Migration, Population and Income in the Balkan Area
Net-Migration Rates, 2000-2003
Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 Net Migration Between 1989-2002Ths Percent
Population Ths2000 2003
GDP Per Capita (d)Current $, 2003
Albania -10.36 -3.69 -1.46 -1.39 -709 -22.3 3113 3169 1915Bosnia-
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 2533Croatia 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 2225Romania -0.17 +0.02 -0.07 -0.54 -663 -2.9 22435 22200 2550Serbia-
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:
7
(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 Census1 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
1 The census is taken in March 21, that is before the seasonal demand for labor reaches a pick. The peak season for seasonal employment in Tourism, Construction and Agriculture is late spring and summer. Thus the Census count is probably an underestimation of the average stock of migrants over the year.
8
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.
Despite the fragmentary nature and the rather low quality statistical data, the
following conclusion can be drawn. There are two counties from which substantial
migration flows emanate i.e. Albania and Romania. The flows from Albania are
directed mainly to Greece and Italy whereas the flows from Romania are directed
mainly to Italy, Germany, Hungary and Austria. These are flows that have been
developed since 1990. There are important differences between these two countries.
Albania is a small country with the second lowest per capita income in the area and an
unemployment rate of 17%, and experiences no substantial return migration, at least
there are no indications pointing to a return flow. Romania is the most populous
country in the area with an unemployment rate of 8% and good prospects of growth,
as it is expected to be a member of the European Union in 2007 (its growth rate in
2003 is 4,5%). Looking at the same statistics from the point of view of the receiving
countries, it appears that Greece, Italy and Germany are the main destinations for
migrants from the Balkan countries whereas Austria and Hungary are becoming
significant poles of attraction.
9
(iv) Summary and Conclusion
Despite the lack of adequate data, some general conclusions can be drawn
regarding migration within the Balkan countries and also migration flows to and from
these countries. Regarding the within the Balkans labor movement, Greece is clearly
the only country receiving significant numbers of immigrants from Albania, which is
the major emigration country, from Bulgaria and from Romania. It is hard to make a
judgment for Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina as it is difficult to know to what extent
the in and out flows of migrants represent economic mobility and to what extent they
represent residual effects of the civil conflict. Regarding the out of the Balkans labor
mobility the main receiving countries are Italy, Germany Austria and Hungary, with
Italy receiving mainly Albanian and secondarily Romanian emigrants.
It is difficult to make predictions, within reasonably narrow ranges, regarding
future migration flows in the Balkan area. However some comments may be made.
First the rates of growth of the economies of the Balkan countries will probably differ
substantially. Romania and Bulgaria, which will soon become members of the
European Union, and Croatia a little later, have good chances for relatively high rates
of economic growth. These three countries taken together have a population of
approximately 34.5 million which corresponds to 66% of the population of the Balkan
area (excluding the population of Greece). It is likely that growth in the whole Balkan
area will be based on modern labor saving technologies, given the need for
international competitiveness. Therefore, although economic growth may not
necessarily be accompanied by substantial reductions in the volume of
unemployment one certainly does expect an increase in employment opportunities.
On the other hand, independently of how well these countries do in terms of growth,
the income differences in comparison with the other European countries will remain
large for a long period. All things considered, it is reasonable to assume that even if
the present trends continue in the short-run, one may expect that in the medium and
longer the Balkan countries will not be sizeable pools of emigration flows.
10
Some Preliminary Results form a Bosnia – Herzegovina Survey
It is useful at this point to present some preliminary results from a Bosnia –Herzegovina Survey on Migration and Remittances. Table 3 show the mobility across sectors of employment of 862 individuals before migration and after their return. According to this table 166 individuals were employed in Agriculture before migration. After their return 41 of them are employed in Agriculture again, 125 are employed in other sectors and 33 who were employed in other sectors before migration, are now employed in Agriculture. Thus, overall, Agriculture has lost 192 (=166-74) individuals. Similar calculations can be made for the other sectors. In general, Agriculture, Manufacturing and Construction show the more substantial losses in this sample and Hotels and Restaurants, and Public Administration show gains. The largest difference is in the category “other” which has twice as much employment after return.
Table 4 which shows the changes in Professional status can be read in a similar fashion. What is important here is that craft worker and related jobs are increasing after return whereas the category “unskilled workers” is reported by a substantially lower number. However it is to be noted that more people are reporting that they are unemployment after their return than before they left.
Table 5 show the acquisition of additional qualification while abroad as reported by migrants that have return home. According to this table the majority of migrants has reported learning a new language, but only one third has learned new skills on the job.
11
Table 3Sector of Employment Before and After Migration
Before After1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Total
1. Agriculture2. Fishing3. Mining4. Manufacturing5. Electricity, Gas, Water6. Construction7. Trade, Repairs8. Hotels+Restaurants9.Transportk Comm.10.Financial Services11. Real Estate12. Public Adm.13. Eduction14.Health, Social Work15. Other Services16. Private House bold 17. Extra-Territorial Org.18. Other
Total
41001406203000010007
74
010001000000000000
2
103003000000000000
7
8015.7246340010111016
105
000070000001000004
12
1400925322101020010014
110
20112117221001110013
45
1005121212100011008
44
30040220230000000010
44
100000000701000000
9
010000010110000001
5
10110521150171210012
50
100100100000300005
11
1000001000000100000
12
000001002000012001
7
200301000001100101
10
000000000000000001
1
900640951117112073012074
314
1662121352313045375818130917840167
862
Note : Pearson’s X2 statistic is X2=2575.6 with 272 df. and it is significant at 1%.
12
Table 4Professional Status Before and After Migration
Before1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Total
1.Senior Official Manager2. Professional3. Technician4. Clerk5..Service or Sales Worker6. Stilled Agric. Worker7. Craft worker and Related8.Plant or Machine Operator9.Unskilled Worker10. Armed Forces11. Student12. Unemployed13. Other
10
4401
1
1
6
0
0163
2
55362
1
2
6
1
0172
1
32210
0
0
2
0
1233
1
86282
0
1
1
0
0313
32421
0
4
3
6
0124
2001
4
2
0
2
0002
6157
2
50
6
2
00126
0513
1
1
15
8
0053
4233
5
3
4
52
00611
0000
0
0
0
0
0000
0000
0
0
0
0
0110
1
47910
1
16
5
41
13329
6575
1
8
7
18
001025
15
95576455
16
88
55
130
2128571
37 88 38 54 50 13 97 42 93 0 2 139 92 745Note : Pearson’s X2 statistic is X2=1233.5 with 132 df. and it is significant at 1%.
Table 5Additional Qualifications
Type of Qualification NumberYES NO Percent of Yes
New LanguageMastering a new ProfessionNew Skills on the jobNew Skills (with exams)Enhancement of Education
464122292 4014
446788618870896
51%13.4%32,1% 4,4% 1,5%
Additional Qualification 634 276 69.7
The distribution of average monthly incomes earned is presented on Table 6. Two separate distributions are shown, one for migrants who sent money back home and one for migrant who did not. Both distribution are skewed to the left. The mean values are 1069 USD for the first and 688 USD for the second.
13
Table 6Distributions of Average Monthly Income Earned (USD)
IncomeUSD
Migrants Sending Money
Migrant Not Sending Money
Number Recent Number Recent0-500
500-10001001-15001501-20002001-25002501-30003001-35003501-40004001-45004501-70007001-7500
1111701995019712331
19.630.035.28.83.41.20.20.40.50.50.2
1747457219313-1-
50.721.616.66.12.60.90.30.9-
0.3-
Sum 566 100 343 100
14
The distribution of average remittances is shown on Table 7. It is also skewed to the left. The mean value of this distribution is 328 USD. From the average values of incomes and remittances it is estimated that approximately 30% of income earned is remitted.
Table 7
Distribution of Aggregate amount of Remittances during last trip abroad
Amount (USD) Number Percent
<100 257 45.1
1000 – 2000 45 8.0
2000 – 3000 44 7.8
3000 – 4000 28 4.9
4000 – 6000 43 7.6
6000 – 8000 60 10.6
8000 – 10000 38 6.7
1000 – 20000 27 4.8
20000 – 30000 12 2.1
30000 – 60000 6 1.1
>60000 6 1.1
Sum 566 100
Finally it is interesting to see how remittances are use. According to Table 8, approximately thirty percent of migrant reported that remittances were used for food and clothing, twenty-two percent for the education of children and twenty-eight percent for a general category “savings” which probably means later use for one of the other items of the table.
15
Table 8
Uses of Remittances
Remittances Where Used for Number Percent
Savings 156 27.8
Investment in Business 20 3.6
Education of children 125 22.3
Food and Clothing 170 30.3
Medical Expenses 8 1.4
Education 6 1.1
Buying Property 9 1.6
Home Repair 39 7.0
Wedding, Celebration, Funeral - -
Buying Land 10 1.8
Buying a Car 2 0.4
Starting a new Business 3 0.5
Charity 2 0.4
Other 11 2.0
Sum 561 100
16
Appendix Table 1
Intra-Balkan Migration Flows
ToFrom
Albania Bosnia + Herzegovina
Bulgaria Croatia FYROM Greece Romania Serbia + Montenegro
Albania 9 215 3Bosnia +
Herzegovina118832 251 - Ø
Bulgaria 15 69 11Croatia*
1996+97+98- 2747 - - 55
4741 19
610Ø 3517
FYROM*1996+1998
6 20 3 30342
- 1 23
Ø 388
Greece 2 153 115Romania*
1996+97+9883
Ø 4956
3326
3-
822 - 339
2000-2003 2 Ø 2 2 Ø 557 55Serbia +
Montenegro10478 1333 140 103
Source: UN Statistics Division Demographic Database, Statistical Office of the Republic Macedonia, Central Bureau of Statistics of Croatia, National Commission for Statistics of Romania. For Romania 2000-2003, the data were supplied by D. Gheorghiou SOPEMS correspondent.
Note: * Indicates the country reporting emigrant and immigrant figures. In cells where there are two numbers, the number below shows the reverse flow. For example, according to Romanian estimates, during the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 49 people in total have moved from Romania to Bulgaria whereas 56 people in total have moved from Bulgaria to Romania.
17
Appendix Table 2.
Migration Flows 1997-2003(Ths)
YearsCountries
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Albania
Bosnia +Herzegovina Bulgaria Out 64.0 54.0 66.0 In Net 0.8 4.2 -0.3 Croatia Out 18.5 7.6 14.3 6.0 7.5 11.8 6.5 In 52.3 51.8 32.9 29.4 24.4 20.4 18.5 Net 33.8 44.2 18.6 23.4 16.9 8.6 11.9 Fyrom Out 0.2 0.5 0.1 In 0.6 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.3 Net Greece Out In Net 12.2 33.9 32.1 Romania Out 19.9 17.5 12.6 14.8 9.9 8.2 16.0 In 8.4 11.3 10.5 12.4 11.0 6.6 3.9 Net -13.3 -5.6 -2.1 -2.4 1.1 -1.6 -12.1Serbia + Montenegro Out 12.69 164.4 In 117.4 214.2 Net -9.5 49.8
Note: Net Migration figures do not necessarily equal the difference between Out and In flows. Some signs do not agree with those of Table 1 e.g. Serbia and Montenegro. Empty cells mean non available data.
Source: Central Bureau of Statistics Republic of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro Statistical Office, International Labour Office, Eurostat, Population Statistics 2004
18
Appendix Tables 3
Intra-Migration by Country of Immigration and Emigration 2002
ToFrom
CZ DK DE EL ES FR IE IT CY HU NL AT PT SI SK FI SE UK
Albania IM 40 20 1500 110 10 50 EM
Bosnia+Herzeg IM 80 210 10570 480 10 120 60 1130
Bulgaria IM 730 150 13230 360 440 120 50 170
Croatia IM 150 30 12990 170 10 210 150
EM 10 1450 10 20 20 1110 160 10 10FYROM
IM 200 110 3950 170 30 10 150Greece
IM 60 260 15910 4420 1080 10 70 60Romania
IM 80 610 4440 20 5360 180 10 150 390 EM 100 - 1310 60 170 230 120 1320 20 900 70 290 10 120 40 50
Serbia+Monten IM 320 180 25770 260 900 10 140 220 2070
Source: Eurostat, Population Statistics 2004, Tables F-12 and F-13Note: IM and EM indicate that the reporting country is the Immigration and Emigration country respectively.
19
Appendix Table 4
Migration Inflows – Outflows (Ths), 1997-2002
AUT CAN CZEH FRANCE GERM HUNG ITALY NOR SWEDEN SWITZ USAAlbania
107.5Bosnia+Herzegovina To 17.1 48.8 6.3 73.8 From 15.2 8.4 0.6 242.5 1.6Bulgaria
0.5Croatia To 18.9 60.7 From 14.7 74.9Fyrom To 4.1 15.9 From 1.6 12.8Greece To 84.0 1.3 From 99.2 0.3Romania To 7.6 0.2 5.4 93.7 36.3 66.2 From 4.8 77.2 2.1Serbia+Mon To 35.5 0.8 4.0 240.2 7.6 41.5 8.3 38.0 From 24.1 284.5 7.1Source: OECD, Trends in International Migration, various years.
20
Appendix Table 5
GERMANY FRANCE UK ITALY GREECE EU-15 CAN-USA REST OF WORLD TOTAL
Croatia
1196+97+98
Emigration to 812 16 8 72 1 1209 199 34742 36150
Immigration from 8167 153 29 301 2 11873 1286 135564 148723
FYROM
1996+1998
Emigration to 14 - - - 1 33 2 460 495
Immigration from 24 5 4 4 11 61 64 2421 2546
ROMANIA
2000+2003
Emigration to 6313 1843 390 6938 557 19743 15849 11612 47204
Immigration from 889 374 37 354 113 2100 1229 28226 31555
Source: D. Gheorghiou
21
top related