European Immigrations: Trends, Structures and Policy Implications

290 Pages·2012·3.897 MB·English

by  Marek Okólski

IMISCOE
European Immigrations: Trends, Structures and Policy Implications is one of the few O RESEARCH
k
attempts to conceive of the ‘Old Continent’ as a common economic and cultural ó
l
space of immigration. Europe’s post-enlargement states, too, are presented as having s
k
i
a high degree of social and political coherence. New empirical evidence underscores
(
e
their common experience, while disclosing factors and trends underlying their d European Immigrations
.
)
respective migrations, particularly from Southern and Eastern Europe. Key threads
E
are the long-term transition that countries undergo from net emigration to net u
r
immigration, as well as developments in migrant infl ows, integration and policy. o
p
e
a Trends, Structures and
n
Marek Okólski is founder and director of the Centre of Migration Research (CMR) at
I
m
the University of Warsaw and professor at the University of Warsaw and the Warsaw Policy Implications
m
School of Social Sciences and Humanities. ig
r
a
t
i
o
n
Marek Okólski (ed.)
“Th is book smartly conceptualises migration in diff erent areas of Europe and off ers insightful theoretical models to s
understand past and recent trends.”
Tim Elrick, University of Toronto, Canada
“An impressive team of internationally acclaimed migration scholars expertly take stock of and debate Europe's latest
round of migration trends... A rich blend of theory and empirical analysis.”
Russell King, Sussex Centre for Migration Research, University of Sussex, UK
“Th e predominant focus on Southern and Eastern Europe enriches our understanding of European migrations as a
complex and constantly evolving system of systems.”
Ferruccio Pastore, Forum of International and European Research on Migration, Turin, Italy
     
.. AMSTERDAM UNIVERSIT Y PRESS
European Immigrations
IMISCOE
International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion inEurope
The IMISCOE Research Network unites researchers from, at present, 28 institutes
specialising in studies of international migration, integration and social cohesion in
Europe. What began in 2004 as a Network of Excellence sponsored by the Sixth
Framework Programme oftheEuropeanCommission hasbecome,asof April2009,an
independentself-fundingendeavour.Fromthestart,IMISCOEhaspromotedintegrated,
multidisciplinary and globally comparative research led by scholars from various
branches of the economic and social sciences, the humanities and law. The Network
furthers existing studies and pioneers new scholarship on migration and migrant
integration. Encouraging innovative lines of inquiry key to European policymaking and
governanceisalsoapriority.
The IMISCOE-Amsterdam University Press Series makes the Network’s findings and
results available to researchers, policymakers and practitioners, the media and other
interested stakeholders. High-quality manuscripts authored by Network members and
cooperating partners areevaluated byexternal peerreviewsandtheIMISCOE Editorial
Committee.TheCommitteecomprisesthefollowingmembers:
TizianaCaponio,DepartmentofPoliticalStudies,UniversityofTurin/Forumfor
InternationalandEuropeanResearchonImmigration(FIERI),Turin,Italy
MichaelCollyer,SussexCentreforMigrationResearch(SCMR),UniversityofSussex,
UnitedKingdom
RositaFibbi,SwissForumforMigrationandPopulationStudies(SFM),Universityof
Neuchâtel/InstituteofSocialSciences,UniversityofLausanne,Switzerland
AgataGórny,CentreofMigrationResearch(CMR)/FacultyofEconomicSciences,
UniversityofWarsaw,Poland
AlbertKraler,InternationalCentreforMigrationPolicyDevelopment(ICMPD),Vienna,
Austria
JorgeMalheiros,CentreofGeographicalStudies(CEG),UniversityofLisbon,Portugal
MarcoMartiniello,NationalFundforScientificResearch(FNRS),Brussels/Centerfor
EthnicandMigrationStudies(CEDEM),UniversityofLiège,Belgium
MarlouSchrover,InstituteforHistory,LeidenUniversity,TheNetherlands
PatrickSimon,NationalDemographicInstitute(INED),Paris,France
MiriSong,SchoolofSocialPolicyandSociology,UniversityofKent,UnitedKingdom
IMISCOEPolicyBriefsandmoreinformationonthenetworkcanbefoundat
www.imiscoe.org.
European Immigrations
Trends, Structures and Policy Implications
edited by Marek Okólski
IMISCOE Research
Cover design:Studio Jande Boer BNO, Amsterdam
Layout: The DocWorkers, Almere
ISBN 978 90 89644572
e-ISBN 978 90 48517275 (pdf)
e-ISBN 978 90 48517282 (e-Pub)
NUR 741 /763
©MarekOkólski/Amsterdam UniversityPress,Amsterdam2012
All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved
above,nopart ofthisbookmay bereproduced,storedinorintroduced into
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written
permission ofboth thecopyrightownerandthe author of thebook.
Table of Contents
Introduction 7
Marek Okólski
1 Transition fromemigration toimmigration
Isit thedestiny of modern European countries? 23
Marek Okólski
2 Early startersand latecomers
Comparing countries ofimmigration and
immigration regimes inEurope 45
Joaquín Arango
3 ‘Old’ immigration countriesin Europe
The concept and empiricalexamples 65
Heinz Fassmannand UrsulaReeger
4 Migration transitions in an era ofliquid migration
Reflections on Fassmannand Reeger 91
Godfried Engbersen
5 Immigrants, markets and policies inSouthern Europe
The makingof an immigration model? 107
João Peixoto, Joaquín Arango,Corrado Bonifazi,
Claudia Finotelli, Catarina Sabino, Salvatore Strozza and
Anna Triandafyllidou
6 The Southern European‘model of immigration’
Asceptical view 149
Martin Baldwin-Edwards
7 Framing the Iberian model of labour migration
Employment exploitation, defacto deregulationand
formal compensation 159
Jorge Malheiros
6 EUROPEANIMMIGRATIONS
8 Patterns of immigrationin the Czech Republic, Hungary
and Poland
Acomparative perspective 179
Dušan Drbohlav
9 Anuncertainfutureofimmigration inEurope
Insightsfrom expert-based stochastic forecastsforselected
countries 211
Arkadiusz Wiśniowski, Jakub Bijak, Marek Kupiszewski and
Dorota Kupiszewska
10 Commentson ‘Anuncertain futureof immigration
in Europe’by Wiśniowskiet al. 233
Leovan Wissen
11 Migration policy matters
Acomparative analysisof policy recommendations 239
MagdalenaLesińska
12 The evolving areaoffreedom,security and justice
Taking stock and thinkingahead 259
Dora Kostakopoulou
Europe,a continent of immigrants
Aconclusion 269
Marek Okólski
Contributors 275
Introduction
Marek Okólski
Not long ago, Europe was symbolically reunited – at least, such might be
the perception of the first eastward enlargement of the European Union on
1 May 2004. The accession of eight Central and Eastern European (CEE)
countries to the EU gave rise to further dismantling of those barriers
between East and West that had been erected in the Cold War era. What
followed was a softening of divisions across European societies and an
intensification of mutual contacts and flows of knowledge and ideas. Many
varied social phenomena in the East were expected to converge with those
in other parts of the continent. Migration patterns, regimes and policies
ranked among those phenomena.
At the beginning of 1989, when the Poles – and slightly later, citizens of
other CEE countries – were granted unlimited freedom of international
travel, a considerable part of western public opinion and western states re-
acted with anxiety, if not phobia. It was feared that freedom of movement
– a basic human right that for decades prior to 1989 the West had unstint-
ingly supported – could result in excessive flows of people from CEE to
theWest.
The East-West exodus did not happen, however. This was because the
former communist countries of Europe, still aptly perceived in the late
1980s as politically and economically similar, set different goals for them-
selves and chose various strategies for transition to democracy and market
economy, thus undergoing massive change. An important outcome of that
change was a growing capacity to contain within the region itself the vast
migration potential that had accumulated over the period of communist
repression. This iswhy in theearly 1990s,tens ofthousands ofBulgarians,
Romanians, Ukrainians and other CEE nationals opted for migration to
other former communist countries, notably to the Czech Republic,
Hungary and Poland, instead of following in the footsteps of their fellow
countrymen who (in much smaller numbers than expected) headed for the
West.1 In comparison with Western Europe, the Czech Republic and some
other economically booming CEE countries were both geographically and
culturally closer for the migrants and thus involved less risk for the pio-
neers of international mobility of people from Ukraine, Romania or other
source countries.
8 MAREKOKÓLSKI
Over the 1990s the inflow of foreigners to CEE countries continued. Its
forms became more mature; the earlier dominant form – the movement of
pettytradersandirregularworkersengaged invariousoddjobs –gaveway
to the flow of predominantly regular contract workers or small-scale entre-
preneurs. By attracting considerable numbers of migrants from faraway
countries, such as China (in Hungary and the Czech Republic) or Vietnam
(in theCzech Republicand Poland), thenational andethnic composition of
incoming foreigners became more diverse. At this time, communities of
settledmigrants begantoappear,especiallyinlargecities.
ItappearedthatthoseCEEcountriesintheforefrontofpoliticalandeco-
nomic transition were undergoing changes similar to those experienced a
few decades earlier by four Southern European countries – namely, Italy,
Spain, Greece and Portugal. These southern countries, along with the proc-
ess of economic integration with Western Europe, rather rapidly changed
their migration statuses. Having been important source countries for guest
worker migration to many western economies in the 1950s and 1960s,
while suffering from excess labour supply, they shifted to become new
major European destinations forimmigrant workers.
Since almost all Western European countries had also undergone such a
transition, albeit at least a quarter of a century earlier, it seemed rather nat-
ural to predict that once Eastern Europe became economically integrated
with the rest of the continent, the migration patterns in that region would
change accordingly. Or, atleast, to profoundlyconsidersuch a hypothesis.
*
Indeed, large scope of geographical coverage, long duration, high volume
of migratory movements and a shift in migration balance from negative to
positive on the European soil seem to be an unprecedented social phenom-
enonofmodernity.2Thebeginningofmass emigration from Europeisusu-
ally dated to the early nineteenth century. Jean-Claude Chesnais (1986) ar-
gues that over a whole century, in the period 1815-1914, more than 60
million inhabitants of Europe (one fifth of its 1850 population) abandoned
the continent of origin and, according to Russell King (1996), approxi-
mately 50 million Europeans moved to other continents between 1850 and
1914.3 In roughly the same period (1861-1920), the United Sates, alone,
saw the arrival of 30 million immigrants, 27 or 28 million of whom were
probably of European origin (Miller & Castles1993 after Borjas 1990).4 In
addition, many millions of European people migrated to other countries
within the continent. For instance, between 1876 and 1920, from a total of
fifteen million Italian immigrants, nearly seven million went to other
European countries, notably to France, Switzerland and Germany.
Similarly, a considerable proportion of Irish migrants moved to England
and Scotland, whereas Germany was a destination of a large number of
INTRODUCTION 9
Poles (Castles & Miller 1993). In a sharp contrast, until the late 1940s in-
tercontinental migration to Europe did not match the emigration figures. It
predominantly included returning emigrants whose proportion relative to
theout-migrants was usually well below 50per cent (King 1996).
In relative terms, (overseas) emigration per 1,000 resident population
was very high in almost all European countries. In certain decades of the
1850-1910 period, it exceeded five per 1,000 on a yearly basis. In coun-
tries such as England, Scotland, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Finland,
Austria-Hungary, Italy, Spain and Portugal, it accounted for a large part of
their naturalincrease(Baines 1991; Hatton& Williamson2008).
The recent picture is strikingly different. Europe has become a continent
of net immigration. From 1960 to 2010, the overall positive migration bal-
ance was around 32.9 million, that is approximately one fourth of the total
128.3 million increase in the European resident population in that period
(UN 2009). According to the United Nations estimate, between 1960 and
2005, the number of international migrants in three of four major parts of
the continent (northern, southern and western) rose from 10.3 million to
39.3 million or, in relative terms, from 2.8 per cent to 9.0 per cent of the
total population (UN 2006).5
A growing importance of immigration to Europe can be best illustrated
by the following observation: the first decade of the twenty-first century
saw the rate of netmigration close to (plus) 3.5 per 1,000 population inthe
group of 27 member countries of the European Union, whereas the respec-
tive rate ofnaturalincreasewas below oneper 1,000 (Eurostat2009).
Corrado Bonifazi(2008) attemptedtoestablishthetime whenEuropeat-
tained its status of net immigration. In the 1950s, the migration balance
was still strongly negative (-4.8 million over the decade). In the 1960s, the
net loss continued, but at a substantially lower level (-600,000). In the next
decade, the balance became positive (+3 million). Thus, the 1970s wit-
nessed a breakthrough. Since that time the gap between immigration and
emigration in favour of the former has been systematically growing.
Bonifazi, however, also stressed distinctive differences in migration trends
between majorgroups ofcountries andindividual countries themselves.
Western Europe turned to a net immigration regime in the 1950s, where-
as Northern and Southern Europe only did so in the 1970s.6 In turn, if the
Russian Federation was excluded, Eastern Europe remained a net emigra-
tion region until the end of the century, if not beyond that date.7 On the
other hand, Belgium, France, Switzerland and Germany became a net im-
migration area as soon as in the 1950s,8 while Italy only did so in the
1990s. In 1950, many countries of Europe which nowadays are perceived
as immigration areas, hardly hosted foreign residents; in Finland, Greece,
Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and the United
Kingdom, their share in the total population was below 1 per cent (in some
of them – below 0.3 per cent). After a half-century or so, the proportion of