1 / 33

Why ETF works on skills and migration

THE SKILLS DIMENSION OF MIGRATION: ETF SURVEY RESULTS FROM ARMENIA AND GEORGIA International Mobility Partnership Conference Skills and Employment for Migrants Yerevan, 16 October 2012 Arne Baumann, ETF. Why ETF works on skills and migration.

naomi
Download Presentation

Why ETF works on skills and migration

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. THE SKILLS DIMENSION OF MIGRATION: ETF SURVEY RESULTS FROM ARMENIA AND GEORGIAInternational Mobility Partnership ConferenceSkills and Employment for MigrantsYerevan, 16 October 2012Arne Baumann, ETF

  2. Why ETF works on skills and migration • Migration of people means also migration of skills: brain drain, brain waste, brain gain, brain circulation • No universal solution: brain XXX – depends on migration stage, country-specific conditions and individual migrant characteristics • Skills can be part of the solution and facilitate a better migration outcome for all: e.g. a more efficient employment/skill-matching process • All parties can win through more cooperation and better management of migration: ‘win-win-win’ scenario • ETF aims at providing evidence and policy instruments on education and skills for improving the outcome of labour migration 2

  3. What ETF does on skills and migration • Intelligence and analyses on labour migration trends and skill profiles of potential migrants and returnees in sending countries – e.g. ETF migration surveys for evidence collection since 2007 • Support role for EU and Partner Countries – e.g. Skills validation component of the EC Mobility Partnership with Moldova (2008-2011) • Capacity building for national stakeholders to improve governance and evidence-based policy making – e.g. Skills matching for legal migration in Egypt (2007-2010) • Networking and cooperation on skills& migration in partner countries and follow-up actions with national stakeholders to support EU Mobility Partnerships

  4. ETF Migration and Skills Surveys • To better understand the links between migration and skills through collecting evidence from the field • To learn about migration and return experiences of migrants and their families • To identify the needs for support for legal migration and circular migration (pre- and post-migration) • Migration& skills surveys in Albania, Egypt, Moldova, Tunisia and Ukraine (2007-2009) • New migration& skills surveys in Armenia, Georgia and Morocco (2011-2012) to support EU mobility partnerships 4

  5. ETF Migration & Skills Surveys: Methodology • Target groups included: 4000 respondents in each country • “Potential migrants” (2600 respondents) • “Returning migrants” (1400 respondents) • Sampling methods applied: • stratified random sample for potential migrants • snowball technique for returning migrants • The sample is largely representative with respect to: • rural/urban distribution • gender (male and female) • education levels (low: ISCED 1-2, medium: ISCED 3-4, high: ISCED 5-6) 5

  6. ETF Migration & Skills Surveys: Definitions • Potential migrant (those who intend and not intend to migrate): • Anyone who is between 18-50 years old, lived in the country at the moment of the interview and was available for being interviewed. • The survey on potential migrants is representative of the young adult population (18–50 years), so those in the same age group who are not actively seeking to migrate are included in the survey as control group. • Returning migrant (both short and long-term migrants): • Anyone who left the survey country aged 18 or over, • lived and worked abroad continuously for at least three months, • came back to own country within the last ten years, • now present and available for interview. 6

  7. Survey sample of potential migrants 7

  8. Prospective migrants: intentions and likelihood to migrate Potential migrants: intention and likelihood to migrate “Likelihood” captures the probability that the intention to migrate translates into action; it takes account of the time horizon given for migrating (within 6 months or within 2 years), the ability to finance the move, knowledge of the destination country and its language, and possession of the required documents. 8

  9. Main push factors for migration 9

  10. Potential migrants by gender 10

  11. Potential migrants by age groups 11

  12. Potential migrants by education levels 12

  13. Potential migrants by working status 13

  14. ARMENIA Prospective Migrants Russia: 60.4% USA: 10.5% France: 7.1% ARMENIA Returning Migrants Russia: 85.2% USA: 2.4% Ukraine: 1.8%

  15. GEORGIA Prospective Migrants Turkey: 14.3% USA: 14.2% Italy: 13.0% GEORGIA Returning Migrants Turkey: 31.5% Russia: 29.0% Greece: 12.7%

  16. Destination Country: EU share by gender Total EU share as a destination in Georgia: returnees (24%), prospective migrants (44%) Total EU share as a destination in Armenia: returnees (7%), prospective migrants (20%) 16

  17. Returnees: survey sample of returning migrants 17

  18. Reasons of return to home country 18

  19. Returnees: main sectors of work abroad Armenia (male): construction (58.6%), commerce (9.5%), manufacturing (8.4%), transport (7.8%), repairs (3.9%) Armenia (female): commerce (24.2%), manufacturing (17.6%), petty trade (12.1%), hospitality (8.2%), domestic service (8.2%), other (15.4%), construction (6%) Georgia (male): construction (42.3%), manufacturing (9.7%), agriculture (7.7%), commerce (7.6%), transport (7%), petty trade (5.6%), personal service (4.7%) Georgia (female): domestic service (50.5%), petty trade (10.6%), hospitality (8.2%), personal service (6.3%), manufacturing (6.5%), commerce (4.1%)

  20. Returnees: correspondence of work with education level 20

  21. Returnees: correspondence of work with education level 21

  22. Status while Working Abroad 22

  23. The use of pre-departure training 23

  24. Use of Remittances for Development at Home 24

  25. Portability of Social Rights and Return Outcome 25

  26. Returnees: most helpful experience abroad 26

  27. Returnees: work status after return 27

  28. Returnees: awareness of return schemes 28

  29. Returnees: % of employer and self-employed 29

  30. Tendency to re-migrate among returnees 30

  31. Returnees: duration and frequency of migrations 31

  32. Summary of findings • 36% of 18-50 age group in Armenia and 31% in Georgia intend to migrate, but the likelihood decreases to 12.6% and 11.4% when controlled for actual ability to migrate • Reasons for migration are all economic – lack of jobs, improving standards of living, unsatisfactory wage and career prospects at home – while reasons for return are typically family related • Pre-departure training: high interest from potential migrants (30-40%), but very little training received in reality (6% in Georgia, 2% in Armenia) • Most migrants work as unskilled/skilled workers, irrespective of their education level; skills mismatch increases with education and is higher for women • Post-return work: only 42% in Armenia and 30% in Georgia work after return; high tendency to re-migrate again: 68% in Armenia and 48% in Georgia • Remittances are used only to a small degree for education and business investments • Reintegration programmes: awareness of return support and training schemes is very limited among returnees (and participation miniscule) • Portability of social rights improves the return outcome of returning migrants 32

  33. Policy Implications Among others, the findings suggest: Effective pre-departure training can be expanded considerably and address issues such as language skills, vocational qualifications, and information about rights & obligations while working abroad. Better information about available employment abroad can help to reduce skills mismatch in destination countries; this can be achieved through building up of cross-national placement services (e.g. EURES in the EU). Comprehensive recognition of skills/qualifications in destination countries will allow to reduce brain waste by better using the skills of migrants. The potential of returning migrants for development of home countries should be used through adequate return support schemes, including through validation of the skills acquired abroad, effective placement services, increased use of remittances for business investment and support of entrepreneurial potential among returnees. Strengthening of legal migration needs to pay attention to the motivations behind migration and return, and must aim at providing legal ways for migrants to easily go back and forth between home and destination country. In light of its positive impact, the portability of social rights needs to become a mainstay of agreements between home and destination countries. 33

More Related