PhD. Elena Marilena Porumb Faculty of European Studies Babes Bolyai University Cluj Napoca Romania

1. MIGRATION AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC COHESION IN THE ENLARGED EUROPEAN UNION”:LESSONS FROMROMANIAN REGION PhD. Elena Marilena Porumb Faculty of European Studies Babes Bolyai University Cluj Napoca Romania Wiessman Institute Toronto 30th April 1st May 2010 eporumb@euro.ubbcluj.ro

2. Content: • Why and where migration take place In Romania • What mobility,employment opportunity and external migration • What to do? • Best practice for Romanian Inclusion Strategy for Roma People

3. Why the migration take place (Ciuca, Pirciog 2008) • Year by year, workers, with or without their families, temporary or even definitely choose to move to other more developed regions or countries in order to reduce the gaps between their employment and earnings related opportunities in between origin and destination regions/countries • This is also the case of Romania which started, at the beginning of this decade, to experience increasing migration flows for other European countries, while internal migration remained insignificant • Inequalities in terms of employment opportunities, as well as wages and quality of jobs are the most important driving forces of migration. • At the beginning, migration was considered a “relief” for the national labour market unable to generate new jobs for those affected by restructuring, the recent years came with the first hints on the possible negative effects of unmanaged migration: skill shortages, skill gaps, depopulated areas, etc. • Considered as a survival strategy at the beginning, now, migration for employment abroad tends to become a “life style” for many Romanians, in the common sense of the word

4. Context • Estimated (roughly) migration outflow: 2 million working age people: • this is 10% of population; • this is over 25% of the labor force. • Affects both unskilled (mostly) and skilled • Magnitude of outflows suggests that there are important push factors at work in Romania

5. Investigating and addressing push factors is important for sustaining convergence and productivity growth • Romania converges in income with EU 15 • Most income growth comes from productivity growth

6. low entry into employment, including for young; high young discouraged worker effects; low reallocation across sectors and occupations; high LTU; low scores in international education tests (ex. PISA). People move abroad, but much less within Romania, towards meeting labor demand

7. Work emigration rate by counties, 2002 (Data source: NIS, 2002 census. Own computations. Data series were segmented by natural brake method). Graph published in Dumitru Sandu, “Community selectivity of temporary emigration from Romania“ in Romanian Journal of Population Studies, 1, 2007

8. Declining unemployment and increased job vacancy rates, also, gave rise to worries about labour and skill shortages. Tabel : Evolution of unemployment and migration for the period 2000-2007 Source : National Institute of Statistics Therefore, it appears likely that continued labour shortages are going to constrain the functioning of the Romanian economy and nevertheless the reach of cohesion.

10. Regional paradox

11. Typical temporary emigration composition: source D. Sandu, 2008 men – constructorswomen - housekeepers Data source: Dumitru Sandu (coord.) Locuirea temporara in strainatate, FSD, Bucharest, 2006. For Englih version see http://www.osf.ro/en/program_articol.php?articol=34

12. Propensity towards mobility in Romania(Pirciog, Ciuca, et a) • Most Romanians are opened for occupational mobility in order to attain better employment - more than half of the respondents declare that they would change their occupation for a better job, while more than a third of them say that they prefer unsecured jobs with high payment as against secured jobs with low payment • Also, almost half of the investigated individuals seem to be opened to internal migration and one third to external migration for employment purposes. Propensity towards mobility in Romania(%)

13. Employment opportunities and external migration (1)(Ciuca et a, 2008) • Insufficient income and lack of jobs represent the most important motivations of the Romanian migrants • Most migrants left the country due to insufficient earnings for the daily living or for a decent life • more than 20% of migrants declare that lack of available jobs pushed them to migration. In fact, those migrating for urban areas are those looking for better jobs in terms of wages, while those migrating for rural areas are looking for any kind of jobs • better working conditions abroad represent the second reason for migration for more than 30% of the migrants. Moreover, Romanian migrants who are currently working abroad left from marginal positions on the Romanian labour market such as: daily worker, unemployed or self employed. Most important 2 reasons for which Romanian workers migrated abroad after 1st of January 2002 (%)

14. Migration still a problem now? ( Ciuca Pirciog 2008) • while employment opportunities motivate Romanians to migrate abroad, they don’t play a key role in driving internal migration • Moreover, rural areas display higher flows of external migration and lower flows of internal migration • Romania needs to develop a better management of its migration flows, including policies for immigration and support for the returning migrants’ integration. It is clear that Romanians’ migration in the years to come will depend to the governments’ capabilities to address development gaps and inequalities while increasing the access of vulnerable groups to employment and other opportunities • Therefore, only economic development and reduction of the development gaps between regions and areas of residence coupled with improving information on employment opportunities will increase internal migration to the detriment of external one

15. Rates of temporary emigration from Romania by social and demographic characteristics, 2002 Data source: Minnesota Population Center. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series-International: Version 2.0. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2006, http://international.ipums.org, sample of 10% out of the 2002 Population and housing census of Romania. Sample volume 2137967 persons. Migration figures refers to persons that were abroad of less than one year, approximately 200 thou. Graph published in Dumitru Sandu, “Community selectivity of temporary emigration from Romania“ in Romanian Journal of Population Studies, 1, 2007

16. Conclusions Migration still a problem now? ( Ciuca Pirciog 2008) • while employment opportunities motivate Romanians to migrate abroad, they don’t play a key role in driving internal migration • Moreover, rural areas display higher flows of external migration and lower flows of internal migration • Romania needs to develop a better management of its migration flows, including policies for immigration and support for the returning migrants’ integration. It is clear that Romanians’ migration in the years to come will depend to the governments’ capabilities to address development gaps and inequalities while increasing the access of vulnerable groups to employment and other opportunities • Therefore, only economic development and reduction of the development gaps between regions and areas of residence coupled with improving information on employment opportunities will increase internal migration to the detriment of external one

17. Data source: “Living temporary abroad” survey of Open Society Foundation- Gallup Organisation, August 2006, regional component of the survey. For sample description Dumitru Sandu (coord.) Locuirea temporara in strainatate, FSD, Bucharest 2006,pp.12-15. The interviewees were migrants from Alexandria and Focsani areas during their August 2006 holiday short return in Romania • The migration experience of the origin region counts for the dynamics of the intention to return: • People from high emigration areas, like Focsani, are more inclined to modify their initial plans as to stay longer abroad • People fromareas of low emigration experience are more inclined to keep their original plans as to return home

18. What to do? 1. Continue to improve labor market flexibility to stimulate mobility source Catalin Pauna WB Romania

19. What to do? 2. Reduce transaction costs for businesses to stimulate innovation and entrysource Catalin Pauna WB Romania

20. What to do? 3. Improve infrastructure/ transportation source Catalin Pauna WB Romania • In the short run, it is important to bring unskilled people from rural to growth poles; • Infrastructure needs substantial upgrading; • Transport (and housing?) subsidies by rich municipalities and employers to be considered; • Important role to be played by municipalities.

21. What to do? 4. Pay substantially more attention to education and skills upgrade source Catalin Pauna WB Romania • Low wage competitiveness erodes fast; • Access to education remains a problem in rural; • Quality and relevance of education for labor demand needs to be addressed; • Link education performance to resources; • More emphasis on life long training.

22. Romania’s Current Account Deficits, Remittances and FDIs2005 - 2008 (LAzea, 2008)

23. Can the brain drain be compensated by larger remittancesfrom skilled emigrants (Lazea 2008) • - the altruistic model (Becker, 1974; Stark, 1995): the emigrant cares about the well-being of family members left behind, but education has no effect once we control for the heigher incomes it allows; b) - the exchange theory (Bernheim, Shleifer  Summers, 1985; Cox, 1987): the emigrant makes transfers in return for (education) services, but remittances are a decreasing function of education; c) - the family loan arrangement model (Cox and Jimenez, 1992; Poirine, 1997): remittances represent an implicit loan repayment; more educated migrants remit more, even after controlling for the positive correlation of income and education.

24. How are the migrants sending their remittances to Romania  Lazea 2008 • The modern channels (e-transfer) are gaining ground. A system devised by Societe Generale for its clients, covering emigration countries (15 from Europe, 11 from Africa) + 4 French “DomTom“. Migrants can send money home using a fix or mobile phone. • Transfers are secured (through a number of codes), can be made from account to account or from account to cash, and execution takes 2 days + (depending on country). • A study by Dana Diminescu et. al. (2008) covers e-transfers done in this way by migrants from Romania, Algeria, Morocco and Senegal, for 2004 - 2007, implying 7224 transfers done by 1383 persons. Source: David Bounie, Dana Diminescu, Christian Licoppe - “A socio-economic analysis of the e-transfer service provided by Societe Generale“, 2008

25. density: high centrality PA: medium centrality CS: medium density: low centrality PA: high centrality CS: low density: low centrality PA: medium centrality CS: low density: high centrality PA: low centrality CS: medium density: medium centrality PA: medium centrality CS: medium Policy networks in comparisonSouce Achim Lang (SOCCOH) PA: Public authority with highest centrality score CS: Civil society actor with highest centrality score

26. Policy networks: • Many different network configurations • Centrality of public authorities increases at low levels of density • Centrality of civil society increases at higher levels of density Public authority centrality Civil society density Policy networks in cohesion policy: conclusions Participation profiles • National patterns and structure still dominate • Country clusters: • Central government dominance in new member states (“creeping decentralization”)‏ • Decentralized governance prevails in Spain and Germany (“no change”)‏

27. SNA Analysis Figure 12: Visualizing NE Region Fig 13. NE Region pattern

28. Romanian Inclusion Strategy for Roma People Romania has the largest Roma population in Europe 2.5 million people April 2001 Was adopted Education Employment Health & Housing Discrimination Poverty Applied in: Romanian Government Strategy for Roma Condition Improvement It is the first governmental initiative to take a comprehensive approach to addressing the problems facing the Roma minority in Romania, undertaken as part of the EU accession process and fulfillment of the political criteria established by the Copenhagen declaration (1993)

29. Department for the Protection of National Minorities in the Ministry of Public Information Roma Organizations Part of: National Office for Roma Offered input Implemented by: The Strategy Positive Development By Government Decision 3 years later The Strategy’s Objectives have not been successfully accomplished Low level of implementation The result:

30. November 2002 Published: EUMAP report on minority protection in Romania • monitoring the implementation of the Strategy at the local level; • developing the capacity of the Roma organizations to monitor and report on The implementation of public policies towards Roma. Objectives:

31. Central Government Bodies: Agency for Governmental Strategies The Ministry of Public Information Transformed in: The National Office for Roma The Office for Roma Issues Re-named Moved under: The Department for Interethnic Relations part of: The Government General Secretariat

32. Funding the Strategy: The most important funding: €16 million Came from: EU • Support to the national strategy to improve Roma conditions, Phare 2002 – €6million + €1.6 million from the Romanian government Had been allocated through the following programs: • Improving access to education of disadvantaged groups, with a special focus on Roma, Phare 2001 – €7 million plus €1.33 million from the Romanian Government; • Fund for Improving the Roma Situation, Phare 2000 – €1.15 million

33. The Strategy and new international initiatives: Started in 2003: and: Open Society Institute (OSI), World Bank in cooperation with: the European Union supported by: Civil society Government and A Decade of Roma Inclusion and a Roma Educational Fund (REF) were launched in on June 30– July 1 2003 The international conference “Roma in an Expanding Europe. Breaking the Poverty Cycle” in Budapest

34. County offices for Roma (BJR) were the first structures created in all 41 counties and remain the most important public institutional contact point for Roma issues at the local level Organizing Planning Coordinating BJR Main responsibilities: For implementing at local level the targets and tasks in the Master Plan of Measures for the Implementation of the Strategy.

35. Romanian National Council for Combating DiscriminationRNCCDstaring in 2005 WEAKNESSES: 1. Excessive length of the investigations; 2. Inability of the RNCCD staff to recognize clear instances of discrimination; 3. Lack of transparency of the investigations undertaken by the NCCD; 4. Inability to provide meaningful redress to victims of discrimination. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The RNCCD should be granted real independence from other state bodies; 2. Appointment of members of the board should reflect the independent mandate of the RNCCD; 3. The RNCCD should be given the power to apply a wider range of sanctions aimed at achieving, ‘restitutio in integrum’ for victims of discrimination;4. Legal aid should be provided to victims of discrimination, in conformity with Article 13(2) of the Race Equality Directive and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; 5. The six months time that the RNCCD has at its disposal for investigating and sanctioning the complaints brought to its attention should be extended; 6. Sufficient staffing and adequate resources should be allocated to the RNCCD under parliamentary supervision so that it is able to fulfil its mandate. Regionally based branches of the RNCCD should be established, to ensure greater efficacy in undertaking its work. • http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=1844&archiv=1

36. mobilizing community resources in order to accomplish the objectives of the Strategy; identifying solutions to the needs of the local communities; evaluating the situation of Roma in their area of responsibility; ensuring continuous communication with local administration authorities; Responsibilities: highlighting problems for which the local authorities are responsible in order to resolve them; regular reporting to the General Directorate for Relations with Prefectures mediating any interethnic or inter-community conflicts; initiating partnerships between members of Roma communities and local authorities; collaborating with decentralized institutions;

37. Stakeholders: Ministry of Labor and Social Solidarity County Offices on Roma (BJR) Local Joint Working Groups National Agency for Child Protection and Adoptions NGOs Mayor’s offices Public institutions Agency for Training and Occupation of Labor Force; The Agency for Housing; The Directorate for Labor and Social Solidarity; The Directorate for Public Health; The House for Health Insurance; The Police Inspectorate; The School Inspectorate; The Directorate for Youth and Sports; The Directorate for Culture and Denominations; The Directorate for the Protection of Children’s Rights. Local Roma NGOs also participate in the Committees Local experts on Roma affairs Improve the situation of Roma at the local level

38. The Cluj County: Population: 703,269 Area: 6,674 square kilometers Roma population: 2.9 per cent of the county’s total population Unofficial there are between 35,000 and 45,000 Roma living in the perimeter of Cluj county. The main Stakeholders in Cluj County are: County School Inspectorate Local Joint Working Groups County Office for Roma Roma non-governmental organisations Prefecture

39. In the implementation of the Strategy The Mayors’ offices, At local level substantial interaction with the Roma communities. At county level County Office for Roma The achievements identified some difficulties • - developing a relationship based • on trust with the Roma; • organizing of the Roma community • at the local level so that • there are one or more leaders who • can represent the community in relations • with local authorities; • persuading Roma groups to work • the necessary number of hours in order • to receive minimum guaranteed income; • paving an access road to one of the • Roma communities, with the direct • participation of the Roma themselves. • the low involvement • of local authorities • the insufficient allocation • of funds from the local • budget

40. Local joint working group Roma NGOs Local Institutions The activity of the Working Group has developed without specific funds from the budget Responsabilities: Evaluation of the most important needs of the Roma community

41. Housing NGOs lack the necessary financial resources for building houses Strategy at local level Roma persons, can live under legal conditions with rent contracts. Health care Strategy at local level Social protection Strategy at local level The identification of solutions for including all Roma in the health insurance system, for registering with the family doctor and for compensatory medicines, is probably the most important issue of the healthcare area of the Strategy increase the Roma community’s access to local services

42. Economic initiatives 250 jobs were allocated Strategy at local level Job Fair for Roma tailoring, PC operation, waiting tables, bartending, and hairdressing training qualification courses Justice and public order counseling project hiring a local monitor on human rights Strategy at local level legal education and delinquency prevention carried out in state institutions or by NGOs

43. No significant developing programs and strategies Child protection combating illiteracy among Roma children and the integration of Roma children in kindergartens Education Phare Financing Strategy at local level Roma pupils were registered in public schools and Romani language was introduced as an optional component at the request of parents. Culture and denominations Strategy at local level Positive image of Roma Combating discrimination

44. European Union supports the improvement of the situation of the Roma The Delegation of the European Commission in Romania, the Projects Implementation Unit under the National Agency for the Roma and the Central Finance and Contracts Unit under the Ministry of Public Finance today announced the 65 projects selected for financing worth 4.3 million Euro under the EUROPEAN UNION’s Phare Programme „Support for National Strategy for Improvement of the Condition of Roma”. The overall objective of the programme is to enhance and facilitate the active participation of Roma communities in the economic, social, educational and political life of the Romanian society and to improve their access to health services. Out of the 531 projects submitted within the established delays, 201 projects (38%) fulfilled the administrative and eligibility criteria. At the end of the evaluation process and as a result of site pre-contracting visits, 65 projects were selected, as follows: Health– 17 projects worth 647.196 Euro; Vocational training and Income Generating Activities – 34 projects worth 1.482.908 Euro; Small Infrastructure and Housing – 14 projects worth 2.189.834,28 Euro.

45. Phare RO 2002/000-586.01.02 Support to the National Strategy for Improvement of the Condition of Roma • Vocational Training and Income Generating Activities • Health • Small Infrastructure and Housing

46. Conclusions: The activity of local affairs could be improved if the following was made available: ►office space exclusively for meeting with Roma communities ►employment of community representatives as local experts on Roma affairs ► assuring a closer relation with the community, and better understanding of the relevant issues; ► additional employment of personnel or reducing the other responsibilities of local experts as the volume of work; ► developing a cooperative atmosphere among Roma, ► the involvement of other local structures and their own involvement is essential; ► fostering the participation and election of Roma representatives within the decision-making structures at the local level. ► the clarification of each partner’s responsibilities is essential ► the real partnership between public institutions and civil society must be transformed from an abstract concept into a common reality.

47. References Ciuca Vasilica, Pîrciog Speranţa, Zamfir Ana-Maria, Mocanu Cristina, “Migration Flow for Work – The Romanian Case”, 2008 Bucharest Diminescu Dana et. al. (2008) covers e-transfers done in this way by migrants from Romania, Algeria, Morocco and Senegal, for 2004 - 2007, implying 7224 transfers done by 1383 persons. Lazea Valentin, Impact of Remittances on Romania’s Balance of Payments Catalin Pauna, Migration and the sustainability of growth in Romania. European Migration: Main Challenges ... People move abroad, but much less within Romania, towards meeting labor demand ... www.ipe.ro/papers/Migration_conference.ppt Porumb Elena Marilena, Munteanu Oana, SCSNP FP6 Project report, 2007 Porumb Elena, Todoran Horea, SNA, SOCOH Project, 2008 Sandu Dumitru, Why to return to, why not to leave from Romania of the current time? European Migration: comparative advantage versus cherry-picking policies, Organised by Institute for Economic Forecasting , Bucharest, June 2008 http://www.romacenter.ro/noutati/brosura_sprjin_strategia_imbunatatire_situatie_romi_phare_2002.pdf