Brain drain or brain waste – improving the link between migration and education & skill levels

1. Brain drain or brain waste – improving the link between migration and education & skill levels Prague, 6 March 2009 Ummuhan BARDAK European Training Foundation

2. What is the ETF? • A specialised agency of the European Union, based in Turin/ Italy and operational since 1994 • Expert advise and support to the EU institutions, in particular the Commission, in the context of EU external relations policies • Mission to improving human capital development (HCD) in 29 partner countries, with specific programmes and projects in education and training, VET, lifelong learning, labour market and employment, social inclusion etc. • Regular support provided to three EU instruments: IPA: Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance ENPI: European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument DCI: Development Co-operation Instrument

3. ETF’s partner countries Candidate countries: Croatia, FYR of Macedonia, Turkey Eastern Europe and Central Asia: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan South Eastern Europe: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro, Kosovo EU Member States Mediterranean region: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, West Bank and Gaza Strip

4. ETF Migration and Skills Project: 2006-2008General objective: To investigate the links between migration and skills Countries covered: Albania, Moldova and Ukraine (new sending countries); Egypt and Tunisia (old sending countries) Research process: literature review; fact-finding missions; field survey with 2,000 respondents per country: 1000 potential and 1000 return migrants; face-to-face interviews through structured questionnaires; data collection and analysis; validation with the national stakeholders; validation with the international community Ukraine Albania Moldova Tunisia Egypt Tunisia 4

5. Definitions (1) POTENTIAL MIGRANT • Anyone who was aged 18–40 years, lived in the country at the moment of the interview and said he/she was ‘seriously thinking of leaving abroad to live and work’.  The survey on potential migration was intended to be broadly representative of the young adult population (18–40 years) in each country, in order to have a control sample of those in the same age group who are not actively seeking to migrate.

6. Definitions (2) RETURNING MIGRANT Someone who: • left the survey country aged 18 or over; • lived and worked abroad continuously for at least six months; • returned at least three months before the interview and within the previous ten years; • present during the fieldwork and available for interview. • Those who returned within the past three months, or more than ten years ago, were not included in the survey.

7. Sampling (1) • Two surveys in each country: 1000 potential migrants and 1000 returning migrants interviewed. • Face-to-face interviews at respondents’ households with a written questionnaire. Only one person from each household was interviewed (except if exist one returning migrant and one potential migrant in one household). • 2-stage cluster sample: • first-stage clusters: a minimum of 4-6 regions chosen to represent the geographical & economic diversity of the country • second-stage clusters: villages, communes and municipalities chosen to represent geographical diversity of the selected regions

8. Sampling (2) Selection of interviewees: • Potential migrants:households selected following random routes. Within each household, interviewers chose the interviewee through random procedures (i.e. by taking the person whose month of birth falls next). • Returning migrants: In each selected locality & region, households selected following a ‘snow-ball’ technique.

9. Representativityof the surveys • Potential migrants’ survey was designed to be broadly representative of the 18-40 population of the country. BUT: • ‘Gender bias’: Men over-represented in Egypt, in Tunisia and, to a lesser extent, in Albania. • ‘Educational and Age bias’: Educated people and youth over-represented compared to census statistics, mainly due to fieldwork problems. • Returning migrants: As ‘snow-ball’ technique was followed, the sample is not random and, thus, not representative.

10. Key Potential migrants: intention and likelihood to migrateLikelihood is calculated based on: time horizon for migration (within 6 months and 2 years), ability to finance move, knowledge of destination country and its language, have at least 4 out of 6 necessary documents and no difficulties to get the others. Intention % Likelihood % Albania Moldova Egypt Tunisia Ukraine

11. What are the main push factors for migration?Main reasons for going abroad are to improve standards of living, lack of jobs, and low salaries in all countries. Beware of ‘family unification’ in Albania, and ‘no future’ answers in Egypt and Tunisia as third reason. Albania Moldova Egypt Tunisia Ukraine

12. Key Gender: share of male migrantsShare of males are significantly higher among returning migrants, and in Egypt, Tunisia and partially Albania. Female migrants are significant and increasing among potential migrants in Moldova, Ukraine and Albania. Potential % Returning % Albania Moldova Egypt Tunisia Ukraine

13. Key Age groups: More than two thirds of potential migrants are in the 18-29 age group: Tunisia (83%), Egypt (76%), Albania (71%), Moldova (66%) and Ukraine (63%). Returning migrants % 18/24 Potential migrants 25/29 Returning migrants 30/34 35/44 Potential migrants Returning migrants Potential migrants % Egypt 18/24 Potential migrants 25/34 Returning migrants 35/44 45/54 Potential migrants Returning migrants 55/64 Albania Moldova Tunisia Ukraine +65 Potential migrants Returning migrants

14. What is the level of education of migrants? In Albania, Egypt, Moldova and Tunisia qualifications of migrants are spread across all levels of education. Most Ukrainian migrants have medium or high education levels. Beware of around 35% high-skilled migrants in Egypt, Tunisia and Ukraine, and huge increase in the education levels of potential migrants compared to returnees in Tunisia. Key Low ISCED 1-2 Medium ISCED 3-4 High ISCED 5-6 Albania Moldova Egypt Tunisia Ukraine

15. Destination country: EU sharePotential: Most likely destination, Returning: Main destination EU is the main destination for Albanians and Tunisians (80%), around 50% of migration for Ukrainians and Moldovans, one third of migration for Egyptians. Key Potential Returning Albania Moldova Egypt Tunisia Ukraine 15

16. Potential migrants: most likely destination by education Key Italy 31% Greece 27% UK 15% Low = ISCED 1-2 Russia 35% Medium = ISCED 3-4 Italy 23% Spain 7% High = ISCED 5-6 Tunisia France 51% Italy 18% Canada 8% Saudi Arabia 23% Italy 23% Kuwait 16% Albania Moldova Egypt Ukraine Russia 18.7% Germany 11.6% Italy 10.2% 16

17. Working status: share of employed migrantsFor potential migrants, having a job does not prevent migration – around half of potential migrants in Egypt, Moldova and Tunisia, and around 72-75% in Albania and Ukraine have already a job, but still think of migrating abroad.Returning migrants usually find a job upon return, not retired. Key Potential Returning Albania Moldova Egypt Tunisia Ukraine 17

18. Returnees: Is there a correlation between education level and the jobs performed by migrants abroad?There is particular pattern in new migration countries (Albania, Moldova and Ukraine) where almost no correlation exists between the level of skills and the job performed abroad. Old migration countries (Egypt and Tunisia) show another pattern with relatively better matching between education of migrants and jobs performed abroad. Host countries can benefit more if they make the best use of migrants’ skills. Albania Moldova Egypt Tunisia Ukraine

19. Key Returning migrants: intention to migrate again and intention to migrate to the same destination countryTendency to re-migrate among the returnees is highest in Moldova (51%) and Albania (43%), and lower in Ukraine (30%), Tunisia (24%), and Egypt (23%). Higher level of temporary and/or seasonal character of migrant movements in new migration countries. Plan to migrate again Plan to migrate to same destination country Albania Moldova Egypt Tunisia Ukraine

20. Key Returning migrants: study or training abroadIt is not a significant reason, but beware of higher share in Tunisia (28%), Albania (16,5%) and Ukraine (12,4%). Study or training Yes No 83,5% 94,9% 91,0% 72,0% 87,6% 28,0% 16,5% 12,4% 9,0% 5,1% Albania Moldova Egypt Tunisia Ukraine

21. Key Returning migrants: most helpful experience abroadGeneral experience (being exposed to a new place and way of doing things) and skills learned at work are most helpful. Skills learned at work Formal education/training Experience in general Other 42,3% 30,3% 40,5% 12,2% 50,9% 85,7% 67,9% 53,6% 55,9% 42,9% Albania Moldova Egypt Tunisia Ukraine

22. Key To what extent is pre-departure training used?Pre-departure training is rarely available and rarely used by migrants, although interest for such a training is high among potential migrants (esp. VET and language training). Returning migrants Potential migrants (interest) Albania Moldova Egypt Tunisia Ukraine

23. Why did migrants return to their home country?Main reasons of return are family reasons (voluntary) and expulsion/ end of work permit (involuntary). See particularly Tunisia and Albania “sent away by the authorities”. Albania Moldova Egypt Tunisia Ukraine

24. Key Are returning migrants aware of return schemes?Average time spent abroad is 11.2 years (Tunisia), 7.7 years (Egypt), 5.2 years (Albania), 2.5 years (Ukraine), and 2 years (Moldova). Return schemes are rare and/or use of these schemes is very limited. Not aware Aware Albania Moldova Egypt Tunisia Ukraine

25. Key Returning migrants: social integrationIntegrated: People living in areas with mostly locals/hardly any immigrant at all and having very frequent contacts with local people.Not integrated: People living in areas with almost all/mostly immigrants and having rare/none at all contacts with local peopleSocial integration is difficult to measure, but no direct link is seen with the level of education and work status. Integrated Semi-integrated Not integrated Albania Moldova Egypt Tunisia Ukraine

26. Key Returning migrants: social integration by education Integrated Integrated Integrated Integrated Integrated Semi-integrated Semi-integrated Semi-integrated Semi-integrated Semi-integrated Not integrated Not integrated Not integrated Not integrated Not integrated Low = ISCED 1-2 Medium= ISCED 3-4 High = ISCED 5-6 Egypt Albania Moldova Tunisia Ukraine

27. Observations/Conclusions (1) • The skill levels of migrants are spread across all levels, with a recent trend towards medium and high skills, yet this does not necessarily reflect the quality of education; • There is a double skill mismatch between what the education system supplies and the labour market demand both domestically but also abroad, especially for the new sending countries; • Skill shortages and oversupply as a result of migration are difficult to quantify in sending countries. Sector analysis should be undertaken to study these issues better; • Migration per se is not an incentive to pursue a particular type of training/field of education; • The main reasons for going abroad are to improve one’s living standard, however having education and a job does not prevent migration;

28. Observations/Conclusions (2) • Migration project is usually an individual initiative. There are few (if any) programmes for managed labour migration and where programmes may exist, they are not being used; • Skill needs are not systematically considered in the migration decision. Little or no training is available to migrants prior to departure, but if used VET and language training are rated as most useful; • Training abroad is rare, and on-the-job training is considered most useful, but being exposed to a new place is a valuable experience; • Use of return schemes is rare, the learning benefits of working and living abroad are not systematically captured and capitalised upon return in home country.

29. Policy implications • New versus old sending countries - need for policy differentiation: use of remittances, migrant networks, social integration, education etc; • Securing ‘decent’ jobs at home is essential: parallel investments in education and labour market reforms can help promote economic development in the sending countries; • Education/skills dimension is important for managed labour migration: -if the EU wants to join the global hunt for talent and stay competitive; -if the sending countries want to “gain” and not “waste” brains; • Recognition of qualifications before and after migration remains open: -no direct match between migrants’ skills and the jobs held abroad; -no system of validation of ‘non-formal learning’. 29

30. ETF Synthesis Report on Migration and Skills available by April 2009 www.etf.europa.eu uba@etf.europa.eu 30