RomanianMigrationAbroad PDF

Study for www.migrationonline.
cz, Multicultural Center Prague, November 2004
A Country Report on Romanian Migration Abroad: Stocks and

Flows After 1989
Dumitru Sandu, Cosmin Radu, Monica Constantinescu, Oana Ciobanu*
Introduction
Dynamics of the Romanian migration system
The great shift into internal migration
The deconcentration of emigration
Temporary emigration as the new pillar of the migration system
Relations within the migration system
On the migration system by the structure of migration intentions
Formal and informal institutions
Case studies
Migration towards Yugoslavia
Border crossing before 1990
Border crossing after 1990: diversification and informalisation of work contexts
The Romanian-Serbian border as subject of recent political redefinition
Migration towards Hungary
Movement of people and goods before 1990
Movement of people and goods during transition
Romanian-Hungarian Treaty and Hungarian Status Law: impacts on migration
Migration towards Spain
Migration from Jebel-Timis to Germany - a village case study
Annex 1: Dynamics and structure of internal and external migration
Annex 2 : Institutions and publications related to international migration
Institutions
Publications
References
*
Dumitru Sandu is Professor of sociology at the University of Bucharest. Last published book "Sociabilitatea
in spatiul dezvoltarii" (Sociability in the Development Space), Iasi: POLIROM, 2003; last published study:
"Status inconsistency as a predictor of public action attitudes in Romania", Current Sociology, 52, 6 , 2004.
Email: dsandu@dnt.ro.
Cosmin Radu is a PhD student at the University of Bucharest, Faculty of Sociology. He is interested in cross-
border migration. Email: yotile@yahoo.com.
Monica Constantinescu is a research fellow at the The Research Institute for Quality of Life - Romanian
Academy and a PhD candidate at the University of Bucharest. Last published study "Importanta legaturilor
slabe in migratie" (The importance of the weak ties in migration), Sociologie Romaneasca, 3, 2004. Email:
c.cosmin@pcnet.ro.
Ruxandra Oana Ciobanu is a PhD student at the University of Bucharest. Her domains of interest are
migration and migration policies, population and development and the urban space. Email:
ciobi_oana@yahoo.com.
Study for www.migrationonline.cz, Multicultural Center Prague, November 2004
Introduction*
Temporary migration abroad is a post ’89 social innovation that followed the law of
diffusion for any social innovation. The phenomenon is new, complex and with very high
dynamics. As a result, the empirical evidence for this topic is rather poor. The strategy that
we have chosen on how to introduce the topic to the reader is to not make a review of
literature on the topic but to present some key aspects of the phenomena by quantitative and
qualitative analysis. The first part of the paper is an approach on temporary migration
abroad with respect to the Romanian migration system. The key elements of the system are
the streams and institutions. The basic streams that constitute the new migration system of
post ’89 Romania are those formed by permanent emigration, temporary emigration and the
migratory movement of the population within the country, between different residential
types (especially between village and city). The institutional components of the system are
introduced in the second part of the paper. The high diversity of the migration abroad
patterns is presented by a set of four case studies in the third part of the analysis. Three of
them are country case studies referring to migration towards Serbia, Hungary and Spain.
The fourth one is a village case study.
The last census from March 2002 indicated a number of around 360 thousand
people as temporary emigrants from Romania. For a country of 21,680,000 people, that
means a rate of about 17‰ temporary emigration. Was this a high or a low rate? It depends
on the reference. In comparison with other Eastern or Central European countries with a
longer history in sending migrants abroad it might be considered a low rate. If one
considers the situation before 1989 when Romania was a closed country, the figure is still
quite high. It is also high compared to definitive emigration (Table A 2) and to the total
internal migration (Table A 1). The three types of spatial movement – internal migration,
permanent emigration and temporary emigration – are related in a complex, dynamic web.
Before analysing their interrelations, it is necessary to make a short description of each of
them.
Dynamics of the Romanian migration system *
The great shift into internal migration

After 1989, a sharp increase was seen immediately in the total migration movement. It was
mainly net rural-urban migration that was almost five times higher in 1990 than in the
previous years (Table A 1). The change however, was short term and rather artificial.
Before 1989 many people lived as temporary in-migrants in the cities, coming from villages
and not having the possibility of getting a permanent residence especially into the large
cities. The new context after the political turning point of 1989 allowed them to get official
residence into the city. It was a kind of compensation migration, a compensation for the
frozen political-administrative context that dominated before that revolutionary change
(Figure 1).
The post-communist transition brought with it an increase in urban unemployment,
an increase in general poverty, a land restitution process and the need for new adaptive
strategies from the part of the transition losers.
*
Dumitru Sandu
*
Dumitru Sandu
1
In this new context urban unemployment acted as a force pushing for former in-
migrants coming from villages, into the cities. The need to survive was met with lower
costs in rural areas, with taxes remaining low and the help of small plots of restituted land.
Targeting cities for residence and returning from them to former village residences
was the new dominant pattern of survival strategy for large segments of the population.
As in any crisis period, voluntary movement of the population declined. The
average volume of the total migration reduced by more than double in the period between
1990-1996 compared to 1983-1989 (Table A 1). Rural-urban migration continued to be
main stream within the set of residential movements of the population up to 1996 but the
trend of its decline was clear.
The year 1997 remains a turning point in the history of Romanian migration. It is in
this year that the long lasting trend of a dominant rural-urban migration started to be
replaced by the prevalence of the reverse trend from cities to villages.
80
70
rural-urban
60
50
40
rural-rural
30
20 urban-urban
urban-rural
10
Figure 1. The share of residential streams of internal migration, 1968-2002

(For detailed figures, see Table A 1)
The shift in the migration structure after 1996, with the unusual increase of the
share of urban to rural movement, is consistent with a sharp increase in the rate of poverty
from 20% in 1996 to about 31% in 1997 and 36% in 20002. In spite of the fact that the
level of poverty declined at about 25% in 2003, the share of urban to rural movement in
relation to the total migration continues to be very high.
The deconcentration of emigration

The first two or three years after 1989 were a compensation movement in external
migration that was similar to those in internal migration during the period between 1990-
1992. Around 100 thousand people left the country for permanent residence in Germany.
2
http://www.caspis.ro/saracie.htm#DINAMICA_SĂRĂCIEI_PE_2003_ÎN_RAPORT_CU_1995-
2002, consulted 10.29.2004
2
The majority of them were Germans who did not have the opportunity to leave the country
before 1989. After 1992, once the majority of the Germans had left the country, the rate of
external migration had a sharp decline. A second decrease of the stream of external
migration was recorded after 1998. In general, the volume of emigration was much lower
after 1989 (about 18,000 each year), compared to the previous years from 1980 to 1989
(with an average emigration of 29 thou. each year) (Table A 2).
In spite of the large variation in volume, the structure of emigration by country of
destination had a large inertia (Table A 2). Germany, the USA and Hungary were the main
destination countries before and after 1989. Ethnic identities and networks of relatives were
the main basis for this structural continuity in the structure of emigration. The German
prevalence in the structure of emigration continued until to 1996. After this year, the
dominant streams became those directed towards the USA and Canada. The pattern of a
concentrated field of migration directed towards North America seems to be replaced in
2003 by a more dispersed field, with rather equal volume streams oriented to Germany,
Canada, USA, Italy and Hungary.
Canada, Italy, Austria and France are the new destinations that attract a larger share
after rather than before 1989 (Table A 2). The emigration towards Israel, however, is the
opposite of a declining flow in absolute and relative terms.
Temporary emigration as the new pillar of the migration system

Temporary emigration is the most dynamic segment of the total migration based in
Romania after 1989. Even if its patterns are less documented, it is obvious that working
abroad is a pattern that affected the whole country (Table A 3, Figure 2).
very high, over 30 ‰ BOTOSANI

MARAMURES
SATU_MARE
SUCEAVA
SALAJ BISTRITA-NASAUD IASI

BIHOR NEAMT
medium, 10-19‰ CLUJ
HARGHITA
high, 20-29‰ VASLUI
BACAU
ARAD
ALBA COVASNA
HUNEDOARA SIBIU BRASOV
TIMIS GALATI
ARGES BUZAU
CARAS-SEVERIN PRAHOVA BRAILA TULCEA
VILCEA
GORJ
DIMBOVITA
MEHEDINTI IALOMITA
very low,under 5 ‰ ILFOV
OLT CALARASI CONSTANTA
DOLJ
GIURGIU
low ,5-9‰
TELEORMAN
Figure 2. Temporary emigration rates by county, 2002 census

(NIS data, own computations. Data refer to people that are temporary abroad
of more than six month at census moment)
The migratory movements have been, up to 2002, especially from the not so poor regions
where high cultural diversity exists. This is the case of the Western part of Moldova, a
historical region and from the Northern part of Transylvania (Sandu, 2004).The lowest
3
level of emigration was, at the census moment, mainly from the rather poor, isolated areas
(Vaslui, Ialomita, Teleorman, Calarasi, Mehedinti, Gorj, Salaj).
In relation to movements from the villages, the variation of temporary emigration
was higher for the larger villages of higher educational stock, smaller percentage of elderly
people and having a high cultural (especially religious) diversity (Figure 3). Villages of
high migration abroad are mainly located in the proximity of small towns from poor
counties, into non-isolated areas.
% religious minorities.1992 0.30
education stock , 1992 0.08

% gymnasium grad. people , 2002 0.05
favoring factors
% vocational sch. grad.2002 0.02
% high school grad, 2002-0.12
% 0-17 years old pop 0.07

% 18-59 years old pop. 0.06
village size 0.03

defavoring
factors
housing stock develop., 1992 -0.01

size of the nearest city -0.02
commuters, 2002 -0.05
plain location of the village -0.06

county development, 1998 -0.09
village isolation -0.09
-0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Figure 3. Predictors of temporary emigration from villages, 2002

(Source, D.Sandu, Cultura si experienta de migratie in satele Romaniei”, Sociologie
Romaneasca, 3/2004. Figures in the diagram indicate partial regression coefficients; “grad”
refers to “graduated”).
4
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
high level (between 30

permanent thou to 100 thou emig. per average level, around 18 thou per
emigration year) year low level (under 18 thou persons per year)
prevalence of North dispersed
high German emigration still prevalence of German emigration America emigration emigration
temporary low rate, early adopters of migration abroad as higher rate, semi-legal, contagion free circulation in
emigration innovative life strategy phenomenon Schengen space
sharp, artificial
increase of RU
internal migration
migration (between 40% to systematic decrease of RU sharp increase of UR migration as to reach more than
between village 70% out of total migration (from 35% to 25% out 25% out of total migration; period of negative net rural-
and city migration of total migration) urban migration
Figure 4. Key trends and stages into the dynamics of the Romanian migration system after 1989.
5
Relations within the migration system
There is an obvious overlap among the stages of the three main components of the
Romanian migration system. Each of them evolved by about three stages after 1989 (Figure
4). The limits for permanent emigration and for the internal migration are quite clear and
consistent with structural and level variation by the intervals 1990-1991/1992, 1991/1992-
1996/1997, 1996/1997 -2003.
Temporary emigration cannot be measured in time as precisely as the other two
components of the stream. There is only partial empirical evidence that allows for the
formulation of some hypotheses. It is obvious that the circular migration abroad started to
be more consistent after 1996/1997 with the increase of domestic poverty, the sharp
increase in return migration from cities to villages and the decline of permanent emigration.
In the mid-nineties one witnessed the second turning point in the dynamics of the
Romanian migration system, following the first one in 1990.
A third turning point, which is relevant only to external migration, is related to 2002
as the beginning of the free circulation of Romanians into the Schengen Area. This is
associated with a more dispersed migration field, with streams directed towards more
destinations and with a more balanced share of the different streams within the total
emigration.
The negative association between permanent and temporary emigration is very
noticeable within the migration system of Romania for the years following 2000. The easier
the pendular movement abroad, the lower the probability for permanent emigration. The
regularity could be valid especially for the first stages of circular migration abroad. It is
also very likely that the processes will give us an idea of the way the economy of the
country will go. A positive trend in the economic growth of the country will support the
negative relation between permanent and temporary emigration. A positive relation
between the two (higher temporary emigration, higher permanent emigration) could emerge
if the experience of working temporarily abroad will be accompanied by a decline in the
domestic standard of living.
The integration of temporary migration abroad into the Romanian migration system
is highly supported by different causal approaches (Table 2). The details are available
especially for temporary emigration from villages. This type of emigration was
significantly supported in its initial stages (Figure 4) by the return migration from the cities,
by the breakdown of village-city commuting, by former village experiences of migration
abroad during communist times and the return of migrants from abroad after 1989. There is
clear empirical evidence that the restructuring of urban employment and of the internal
migration system favored an increase of temporary emigration abroad.
6
Table 1. Main categories of factors that favoured external circular migration of

Romanian rural population during the period 1990-2001
Categories of factors Sub- Factors
categories
COMMUNITY / attractive jobs 1. unemployment in the close urban centre
REGIONAL deficit in the
2. town-village return migration
CONSTRAINTS urban region
requiring for life which the 3. reduction of village-town commuting
strategies through external village especially in rural micro-regions around
circular migration belongs to small and medium size towns
COMMUNITY / accessible 4. migrants from the village / region who went
REGIONAL information abroad before 1989
OPPORTUNITIES on 5. migrants displaced and returned to the
opportunities village/ region from abroad after 1990
related to jobs 6. migrants from the village / region actually
/ businesses / departed abroad
manner to get 7. structured networks of formal or informal
abroad, communication between origin and possible
favoured destination
through
8. increased chances of information in western
border regions
9. increased chances of information in villages
located near towns
INCREASED social capital 10. integration in transnational networks of
PROFESSIONAL- kinship, religious, ethnical, business type
FAMILIAL etc.
OPPORTUNITIES for human capital 11. education
external circular professional experience
migration economic 12. resources for travel and accommodation at
capital destination
COMMUNITY / ideologies of 13. „the best country" for emigration /
REGIONAL destination circulation
IDEOLOGIES favourable countries
to certain forms of ideologies 14. perception of limited chances for things "to
external migration about the time sort out" in the own country as to personal
spent in own life objectives; worse "now" than yesterday
country and tomorrow worse than "today" in the
own country
ideologies on 15. the best manner to get and to succeed there,
"means" according to the resources
ideologies on 16. what could be obtained for the individual
"objectives" person and for the family by migrating
Data source: Dumitru Sandu (2000), p.35
On the migration system by the structure of migration intentions

The migration streams of a country have a systemic nature because they are determined by
the same set of national, community and personal/familial characteristics. A country’s
migration streams have a systemic nature also due to the fact that they emerge from the
same set of challenges of local and international markets (as described in the new
economics theories of migration, Massey et al, 1999) and function within the same set of
institutions and networks. Families chose different and multiple work and life strategies in
7
order to cope with uncertainty and the level of living problems. In the end, different
migration streams are interrelated due to the fact that the life strategies of the migrants are
interrelated. A causal approach of the structure of the intentions to migrate could support
the fact that their structure is an underlying factor of the structural nature of migration
flows.
The intention to migrate for temporary work abroad occurs much more frequently
than the intention to move within the country (Table 2). This is a clear sign that the
propensity for temporary emigration is higher than the propensity for internal migration.
Table 2.The structure of the migration intentions by residence (%)

reasons for migrating…. Residence Total
rural urban
for work abroad and within the
2.4 2.4 2.4
country
only for work abroad 8.0 11.2 9.7
only within the country 3.7 5.8 4.9
no 86.0 80.6 83.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Data source: Public Opinion Barometer, Open Society Foundation, Oct. 2004
The two contrasting types of migration – for work abroad and within the country –
have common and specific determinants (Table 2). The younger generation from
households with international migration experience is more inclined to migrate within or
outside the country. Temporary emigration for work is higher amongst men than women. It
is also higher for vocational educated people, for those that traveled abroad and live in
rather large localities with high unemployment.
8
Table 2. Predictors of the intention to migrate

type of migration intention*
temporary external
for work and only temporary
internal external for work only internal
Coef. P>z Coef. P>z Coef. P>z
Age -0.110 0.000 -0.064 0.000 -0.040 0.000
Man 0.576 0.086 0.640 0.000 -0.192 0.474
under 8
grades 0.721 0.325 -0.199 0.479 -0.616 0.133
high school 1.461 0.017 0.345 0.185 -0.104 0.724
vocational
school 1.622 0.007 0.484 0.062 0.081 0.810
Urban -0.076 0.898 -0.480 0.156 0.822 0.048
material
capital 0.010 0.950 -0.080 0.386 0.060 0.544
networks 0.078 0.389 0.012 0.828 0.125 0.014
hhds with
migrants
abroad 1.300 0.002 0.991 0.000 0.684 0.010
County
development 0.014 0.414 -0.004 0.649 -0.010 0.366
unemployment
rate 0.061 0.006 0.044 0.002 0.010 0.532
population of
locality -0.058 0.680 0.200 0.008 -0.160 0.118
life satisfaction -0.393 0.295 -0.376 0.069 -0.150 0.517
traveled
abroad 0.356 0.408 0.688 0.011 -0.441 0.154
_cons -1.476 0.386 -2.651 0.002 0.076 0.946
Data source: Public Opinion Barometer, Open Society Foundation, Oct. 2004
Multinomial logistic regression with standard errors adjusted for the residence in the same locality. *reference
category – people that do not intend to migrate;Number of obs = 1798; Wald chi2(42) = 464.25;
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000; Log pseudo-likelihood = -912.43914; Pseudo R2 = 0.1795 (Data processing by
STATA)
Locality characteristics are less important for the intentions of internal migration.
The propensity to change residence is higher for young people living in urban areas with
good network capital.
An implication of the above analysis is that an increase in local unemployment will
have as an outcome a higher probability for temporary emigration abroad than for internal
migration. Similarly, a higher amount of dissatisfaction with life tends to be converted to a
higher degree into temporary emigration than into out-migration. Personal family
experience of working abroad is a significant factor for stimulating all types of migration,
with concern to either internal or external destinations.
9
Formal and informal institutions*

Analytically speaking, we can distinguish between two clusters of institutions concerned
with migration. The first is that of formal institutions and it is represented by state
institutions as well as private and nongovernmental organisations. According to Lăzăroiu
(2002) there are several institutional actors that represent the Romanian state in its attempts
to control and manage the flows of international migration. With importance at the national
level, the same author points out the following institutions: The Ministry of Labour, Social
Solidarity, and Family, including the agencies dealing with international treaties and
employment, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Public Information, Border Police,
International Organization for Migration, and institutions at the local level – church, village
or town hall, school. In the hereby presentation I use some data available on two agencies
coordinated by the Ministry of Labour, Social Solidarity, and Family, that proved recently
to be the most active and visible. More concretely, I make two short presentations of the
Office for Labour Force Migration and the Department for Labour Abroad. The first one
has been instituted by the Government’s Decision no. 1320/2001 and its main tasks are: “a)
the implementation of the international treaties signed by Romania in the area of labour
mobility as well as of the mutual agreements between the Romanian Government and other
state governments, b) recruitment and placement of labour in foreign countries, within the
states with whom Romania has not signed bilateral agreements regarding labour, c)
providing work permits to foreigners who work in Romania, d) cooperation with the
institutions which have competences in the area of labour in Romania, the member states
from the European Union, as well as from other states”1. This new state agency was created
as an alternative to private recruitment agencies. A great number of intermediaries of this
kind were supposed to hold a local and regional monopoly on the recruitment of labour
abroad.
The state intervened by creating the OLFM and its local and regional offices. The
establishment of this new institutional actor has created discontent among private
intermediaries (Lăzăroiu (2002). They argue that the state should not undertake the
placement of labour for at least two reasons. On the one hand, they said that by the part of
the state, the limited ability of dealing with a great number of clients will decrease
significantly the quality of services. On the other hand, they addressed accusations of non-
loyal competition. Given the new management formula, the state directly competes with the
private agencies of recruitment, it creates the rule of the game and it is a subject of its own
rules at the same time. The private intermediaries have been aware of the greater
attractiveness that the state will always exert upon people willing to get a secure job abroad.
According to the Office’s (official) statistics, until August 2004 approximately 97,500
people have obtained legal contracts via OLFM. Among the most requested destinations
intermediated by OLFM are Spain and Germany. The last selection for places in agriculture
in Spain was organised between 17th and 18th August 2004. 740 working places were
offered with contracts of between 2 and 6 months in the provinces of Toledo and Cordoba.
The announcement also indicates the medium salary (approximately 35 EUR per day) and
the number of working hours (8 per day)2.
Because the Romanian state has received numerous complaints concerning the lack
of observance by many foreign employers regarding the medium salary, number of working
*
Cosmin Radu
10
hours and access to national insurance, the Government decided that one more institution is
needed. Therefore, The Department for Labour Abroad was constituted in August 2004.
The new institution is coordinated by the same Ministry of Labour, Social Solidarity, and
Family and among its main tasks are the improvement of social and economic protections
for Romanian citizens working abroad, the building of an effective network composed by
observers, organizations of Romanian communities and embassies abroad, and the securing
of a permanent relationship between migrants and Romanian institutions. According to
official declarations,\ DLA will be involved, along with nongovernmental institutions such
as International Organization for Migration, Mission Bucharest, in various campaigns
aimed at increasing the awareness of the risks employed by illegal arrangements during
migration. The DLS has been enthusiastically announced by several Romanian political
actors as an indispensable institution that will be to a greater extent involved in preventing
human rights violations among Romanian labourers abroad.
Along with the attempts made by the Romanian state in order to prove that it is
taking care of Romanian migrants, there are various informal institutions composed of
structures aimed at facilitating migration. Even if the great diversity of such institutions is
able to discourage any effort of systematization, we should note that these structures are
built on the ability of people to participate in social networks, community solidarity, the
weakness of the state (corruption, bribery, clientelism, institutional voids) being the main
factors that push the people towards informal arrangements. In order to elude to the
imperfections of the state’s institutions, people tried to find the most suitable solutions to
their problems. Until 1st January 2002, visas for tourism were required in order for people
to go abroad.. Since the embassies and consulates have very complex procedures and
restrictions, those willing to work abroad resorted to informal providers of visas who
appeared without delay in the early 1990s. Thus, another advantage secured by informal
arrangements is flexibility. However, the money required for “black” visas for Spain,
Germany or other distant countries represented a significant amount of saving for an
average Romanian family. The cost for so-called “black” visas was about 1,000-1,500
EUR. The strategies based on such arrangements involved a large amount of risk taking.
During our fieldwork many people complained that they were cheated, explaining how they
were paying the money but did not receive a visa.
Other forms of institutions facilitating migration towards the Schengen countries are
the social networks of money lending or usury. A large amount of evidence of money
lending strategies for the purpose of migration was collected from both rural and urban
areas. Among social groups involved in such networks one can mention the family and
circles of close kin, neighbours, or professional usurers who collect the amount loaned plus
half of the loan as usury. For instance, relying on such “contracts” with professional usurers
is a generalized strategy of departure in a village of Harghita county where almost every
adult has been working in Hungary for the last 15 years (Voiculescu, forthcoming).
Another interesting case is that of migrants to Spain or Italy who lend money to neighbors,
kin, and other people residing in the same village or town who wish to migrate. Perhaps the
most visible informal institution, recognized as such even by the state’s agents, is that of
transportation companies. “Trying to reach their destination – the ‘black’ labour market of
the different Western countries – those interested are helped by diversely benevolent
people, notably, transportation or tourism companies which under the pressure of short-
term high profits, lend the passengers the amount of money necessary at the customs
office”3.
11
Case studies
4
Migration towards Yugoslavia *
Border crossing before 1990
The history of economic cooperation between Romania and the Yugoslav Federation
started in the early 1960s with the construction of an extended binational project on the
Danube River – the hydro-electric plant “Porţile de Fier I” and “Porţile de Fier II”. Not
only was the construction binational, but also the use and the maintenance, including a
system of navigation on the Danube. Consequently, a crucial moment in the history of
Romanian-Yugoslavian relations was the signing of a bilateral agreement in 1967, which
stipulated that the citizens of both Romania and Yugoslavia living in the villages and towns
nearby the frontier, were allowed to cross the border and circulate freely throughout these
countries for approximately 8 days per month, without visas and even without passports.
The only paper required for travel purposes was “pasul de mic traffic,” issued by local
officers as an alternative individual passport available only for the border between Romania
and Yugoslavia.
The declared purpose of the trips to Yugoslavia was tourism, yet everyone was
aware that by traveling periodically to the neighboring country, people tried to improve
their consumption standards. Such travel had to do with the purchase of basic items -
foodstuffs, jeans, coffee, shoes, cigarettes, electronics - that individuals could not always
find available in local shops without efforts. The shortage economy, as defined by Janos
Kornai (1992), represented a system within which the consumer goods were rationalized
and thus, in scarce supply. On the lookout for ordinary goods, the consumers were often
forced to seek substitutes, to save money unwillingly and to become materially and
psychologically frustrated. Given these coordinates related to the planned production and
consumption of goods in the former economic sector, people increasingly became active in
the second economy (Sampson 1986; Sik 1988, 1999) in order to supplement the basic
consumption items. Therefore, the border crossings in the years of socialism were
stimulated by this shortage of consumer goods.
The departures to Negotin or Pancevo, the Yugoslav towns with the largest free
marketplaces near to the border, were planned for every Saturday evening when small
groups of two or three people were gathered, ready to go to Drobeta Turnu Severin,
Moraviţa or another point of border crossing. Not only Romanians were part of those
looking for goods but also Yugoslav citizens. Sunday evening they were back, after a day at
the market involving both shopping and retailing home-made products. „Usually, after
ending the retailing of goods, I was concerned with shopping from the same place. It was
not necessary to bring money home. Money was useless because the shops were empty”5.
From morning till night they were trying to sell all their goods stored within their bags.
They were staying overnight with Serbian families who also helped them with keeping the
goods that have not been sold. Some things bought on Yugoslav markets and shops were
for the consumption needs of the household, while others were re-sold or given as „gifts”
and „bribes” to different persons: customs officers, doctors, socialist managers, workplace
colleagues, or kin. Such cross-border activities were available only to those who had the
*
Cosmin Radu
12
abilities and network capital required. Peasants or cooperative state farms’ members, the
elders and the poorest (the Roma) were less involved in these activities. The most active
were women, the young and workers in industry or services (school teachers, doctors,
administrative workers, bureaucrats).
Border crossing after 1990: diversification and informalization of work contexts

After 1990, the opening of the Romanian border has been an opportunity for border
residents to reinforce contacts with their Yugoslavian neighbors. They started to cross the
border and to look for informal jobs such as house construction, agriculture, housekeeping
(especially women) and forestry. On the other hand, villagers from the Yugoslavian border
have a long migration experience (Schierup 1990). The recruitment contracts of
Yugoslavian guest workers in Austria, for example, were signed since 1966 (Kohlbacher,
Reeger 1999). Many Yugoslavian households are incomplete as almost all young people
used to get jobs in Austria and Germany. Family obligations and different sorts of
remittances maintain a certain level of welfare among Yugoslavian villages. At present,
hiring Romanians in household work, farming or construction is a generalized strategy
among Serbs. Economic advantages secured by temporary migration to Yugoslavia are
obvious for Romanian villagers. During the year of 2001, the day-laborers used to be paid
an amount between 15 and 30 DM. More concrete, they were paid about three times more
than they were in their village for the same type of work. The Yugoslavian rural settlements
became a real informal labor market for Romanians living on the border. If the border
crossing has been a selective process during socialism, one could say that after 1990, the
border crossing expanded. More and more people were looking for temporary jobs, given
the differences between national currencies, inflation, unemployment, prices and incomes
(Thuen 1999; Berg 2000) or for trading opportunities. The content and meaning of such
earning opportunities will be seen more specifically in the light of an important shift, from
the scarcity of goods to the scarcity of money (Chelcea 2002). People are now confronted
with difficult circumstances and they cannot always obtain their subsistence exclusively
from their own land or from non-monetary, natural economic practices (barter, harvest,
fishing). At present, there is an increasing number of Romanian citizens working seasonally
in Yugoslavia who attempt to go to more distant countries such as Austria or Germany by
using their (strong or weak) relationships with Serbian employers. This does not mean that
the flow of labourers to Serbia is decreasing. Both migration patterns are maintained as
major subsistence strategies thanks to an unprecedented development of social networks.
Between 1990 and 2002, the Romanian workers in Yugoslavia (or, more recently,
Serbia) were allowed to cross the border by showing a valid passport at the customs office.
The former special permits named “pas de mic trafic” granted only to those living within
border communities were also at hand and recognized as valid. There is some evidence that
even people without passports or “pas” were successful in crossing the border by using the
cars transporting workers hired at Portile de Fier I and II on the bridges over the Danube.
The period between 1990 and 2002 has been one of the most permeable and negotiable
periods during the last 40 years. This is because border control was minimal for most of the
time.
After 1st January 2002, along with the alignment of Romania to the Schengen Treaty,
the Romanian-Serbian border became a subject of increased legal and administrative
ambiguity at the expense of migrants. The amount of money required for border crossing as
well as the necessary monthly trips to the customs office in order to stamp the passport was
13
the main source of bad news for cross-border labourers. Ambiguity derived from the lack of
exact information about the sum of money required. It was the time when the relationships
between customs officers and their clients – migrants – shifted from gift-giving (consisting
of cigarettes, coffee and others items) to bribery. “They – the customs officers – were
always claiming their ‘rights,’ but then it was harder than ever”6.
A very difficult situation was created at the end of 2003 and beginning of 2004
when the officers set the tax of border crossing at 1,500 EUR, an enormous sum of money
for an ordinary Romanian villager, be they labourers abroad (or “tourists,” using the official
language). Even if the money was not as much as for other distant countries (they had to
show only 250 EUR in order to prove their ability to cover monthly subsistence expenses)
the migrants were very pesimistic about the future of their affairs in Serbia7. But the
situation was partially solved by developing informal institutions able to surpass the new
obstacles and useful in helping temporary migrants to Serbia. The most salient were the
transportation companies, which became temporary providers of money. The driver of the
bus was distributing the money required to all passengers, and after leaving the customs
office, he was taking it away. Every traveler had to pay around 50 EUR for this service, but
they were generally speaking, satisfied. The amount gained by the company on every
border crossing, except for the regular cost of the ticket, was distributed between the
customs officers and the firm involved. However, the migrants became completely
dependent on such informal structures as they started to exclusively use the collective
means of transportation, namely buses.
The Romanian-Serbian border as the subject of recent political redefinition

By the beginning of July 2004 the Romanian Government has imposed compulsory visas
for the citizens of Serbia and Montenegro who travel to Romania. Given the reciprocal
nature of the agreement, the same conditions have been granted for Romanians who travel
to Serbia. The Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs explained the implementation of these
practices as attempts to harmonize the legislation to the European Community border
regulations. At the same time, Romanian officials said that a considerable pressure on
implementation of the new regulations was the prerequisite to close the negotiations with
European Union. Similar agreements have been concluded between Romania, on one hand,
and Turkey, Ukraine, and Republic of Moldova, on the other. According to the same
decision-makers, by introducing visas Romania is trying to “control effectively” the illegal
migration of foreign citizens, invoking the risk that this kind of migration can constitute for
national security8. Unfortunately, the new regulations give rise to a negative official
definition of cross-border labour migration and has unexpected negative economic effects
at the regional and local level.
Romania decided to not only introduce visas for Serbian citizens but also in
November 2003 cancelled the bilateral agreement concluded in 1967 by the Romanian and
Yugoslavian governments of that time. The Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was
surprised to find out such decisions and blamed Romanian government for setting up
expensive visas: taxes between 25 and 60 EUR, unlike Bulgarians or Hungarians who
decided upon visas of 3 and respectively 5 EUR. Many commentators already suggested
that the high taxes imposed by Romanian government will entirely shut off the “natural”
and stable relationships between border communities and will lead also to an end of
commercial, economic and touristic contacts.
14
The negative economic consequences have been rapidly seen after approximately two
weeks. By the middle of July tourism and transportation companies in the Western
Romania downsized their activities dramatically. According to a Romanian newspaper,
tourism has decreased by around 90 percent compared to the previous period9. Actually,
most of the former tourists to Serbia were day labourers, seasonal workers, or small-scale
traders. These activities represent permanent jobs not only for many Romanians living on
the border, but for those living in distant places too. One day after the implementation of
the new regulations at the customs office in Moraviţa, someone stated: “if the number of
travelers exceeded 57,000 during May 2004, the current situation is that nobody crossed the
border towards Serbia within the last ten hours”10. The average daily number of persons
crossing the border towards Serbia through the customs office of Moraviţa is around 1,400.
The opposite flow, from Serbia to Romania does not exceed 400 persons per day at the
same point of border crossing11. Most of the Serbs traveling to Romania are kiosk owners
or shopkeepers who supply their stocks of goods from the wholesale markets in Bucharest
and other Romanian cities.
Another visible consequence was the long queues, formed by tens and hundreds of
people waiting in the front of the Embassy of Serbia and Montenegro in Bucharest and
Timişoara. The extended networks of employers and employees as well as both supply and
demand of labour fastened the circulation of letters for visa that are needed in order to go to
Serbia.
Migration towards Hungary*12
Movement of people and goods before 1990

One of the most salient patterns of cross-border movement before 1990 was the so-called
small scale traffic, an opportunity granted only to near border communities’ members. The
people living in these areas were allowed to a limited number of short term trips for
tourism. Actually, they were involved in buying and selling scarce consumer goods. The
small-scale cross-border shopping and retailing (“trader tourism”) was the people’s
response to the shortages during socialism. The period between 1970 and 1990 especially is
a case in point. The rules of production and redistribution governed by the socialist state at
the macroeconomic level have been experienced by people in many ways. One form of
adaptation has been identified as a “culture of shortage” (Chelcea 2002). Basically, this
included household strategies based on selling, buying and recycling different consumer
goods. The flow of goods that was smuggled across the border represented the main
consequence of migration during communism. Along with the increasing interest of
Hungarian governments in ethnic Hungarians living beyond the kin state’s borders, another
kind of migration started in the late 1980s. This was political territorial mobility, rather than
economic. The first flow of emigration of ethnic Hungarian refugees took place in 1987.
The greatest emigration rates from Romania have been registered in 1987 (3,845), 1988
(11,728), 1989 (10,099), and in 1990 (11,040) (Horvath 2002). These permanent
movements were followed by discontent and cooling down of relations between Ceauşescu
and Hungarian government and drew attention upon Hungarian minority issues. The
tensions reached the highest intensity when Hungary changed its Constitution. The new
Constitution stipulated that “the Republic of Hungary shall sense its responsibility for the
*
Cosmin Radu
15
fate of Hungarians living outside its borders and shall promote its fostering of their links
with Hungary” (ibid.).
Movement of people and goods during transition

Currently, Hungary receives a great number of Romanian migrants for at least two reasons.
Firstly, the Hungarians form the largest minority group in Romania, including over
1,600,000 inhabitants. Thus, migration to Hungary is partly explained by the transnational
linkages between the Hungarians of Romania and their ‘mother nation’. Given the dynamic
policies initiated by the Hungarian state especially after the breakdown of the communist
regime, the Hungarians living in the northern region of Romania – Transylvania – have
been entitled to various opportunities related to economic cross-border mobility or local
political participation. An intensely debated issue is that of dual citizenship. This forms the
content of claims of the World Association of Hungarians, a nationalist organization which
started to function in the Western diaspora and to activate towards granting the dual
citizenship for Hungarians. “Dual citizenship” is understood as “a kind of potential
protection in a threatening situation”13. Not only the ethnic Hungarians have taken
advantage of the opening of borders after 199014, but other inhabitants of Transylvania have
done so as well. Ethnically mixed networks are supposed to be an important factor that has
contributed to a great diversity of migration flows into Hungary. Thus, we encounter
different aims of travel, according to the ethnic structure and interests in migration of the
people involved, from private visits and tourism to labour and asylum. In order to explain
successfully why Hungary is still a very attractive place for many households dealing with
minimising the risks of the rapid social and economic change, we should note that the
general standards of living in the countries of Central Europe are higher than those
encountered in Eastern European states. Previous research has indicated that economic
performance during transition is an explanatory variable for the temporary migration of
Eastern citizens to the Central European countries (Wallace, Stola 2000). The relative
success of transition in Hungary was associated with an important shift in lifestyle
preferences and patterns of work. People began to hire immigrants in current household
activities, such as cleaning, gardening, harvesting and so on. Therefore, a great amount of
household work is currently carried out, at least in rural areas of Hungary, by migrants from
Eastern Europe. Romanian citizens, including ethnic Hungarians, represent the largest
migrant group in Hungary. For instance, the number of short term residence permits for
labour purposes issued to Romanian citizens in 1993 was 3,795 and it was exceeded only
by that of citizens of the former Yugoslav (4090), out of a total number of 11,634 work
permits15. This means that almost 33% of the foreign labour force was Romanian. We
should add here the number of visas issued for private visits: 14,906 for Romanian citizens,
out of a total of 21,60616. In 1995 the number of Romanian citizens working legally and
illegally in Hungary has been estimated by Hungarian statistics to be around 50,000
(Horvath 2002). Another point of attractiveness is the existence of open-air free markets in
several cities in Hungary: Budapest, Pecs, Szeged and so on. Access in these places is very
easy and the activity is highly valued by a great number of people from Eastern European
countries who try their luck in retailing cheap or second-hand consumer goods. Even in this
field Romanians are well represented, among Poles, Chinese and Vietnamese, Ukrainians
and Serbs. This form of small scale-trading has been a source of upward social mobility17
for many residents of Eastern Europe. Trading situations are aimed at an unprecedented
development of various social networks. “This new circulation of people and goods within
16
the region created new sets of social relationships between ethnic groups, between bordering
countries and between producer and consumer” (Wallace 1997). Romanian citizens were
successful in their attempts of working or trading in Hungary because of proximity,
language proficiency, and a great level of acceptance/tolerance from the Hungarian side.
The polls suggested that Romanian citizens are more welcome than Serbs, Chinese, Black
Africans, or Arabs. They are accepted as co-workers, neighbours, fellow citizens, family or
friends (Juhasz 1995). “The migratory movements are of special importance for relations
between the Hungarian minority and Hungary. On the one hand, they point to the fact that
relations between the minority population and its kin state are not purely symbolic or
cultural, but comprise an important economic dimension” (Horvath 2002).
Secondly, for many years Hungary was a buffer zone, a country chosen for transit
towards more distant destinations. Romanian labourers going west, legally or illegally,
were travelers or short term residents throughout Hungary.
Romanian-Hungarian Treaty and, Hungarian Status Law: impacts on migration

A great amount of pressure on migration was made by political relations between Romania
and Hungary. The first post communist Hungarian government led by the Prime Minister
Antall transformed Hungarian foreign policy into a minority-related policy (Horvath 2002),
based on concepts of self-determination, independence and autonomy18. Antall’s famous
phrase “in spirit I would like to be the Prime Minister of 15 million Hungarians” has been
also an unexpected statement, seemingly opposed to his initial declarations and promises of
“a European government, not only in geographical sense” (ibid.). The Hungarian minority
of Romania started to take advantage of substantial funds granted by Hungary. By the
bilateral treaty of 1991 Hungarian government tried to enlarge the spectrum of minority
rights but the relations between the two states remained stagnant. At that time, several
Romanian nationalist parties have been set up. Among them, PRM (The Great Romania
Party), PSM (The Socialist Party of Labour) and PUNR (The Romanian National Unity
Party) were well represented in the Chamber of Deputies after the first elections in 1992.
PDSR (The Romanian Social Democracy Party) started the cooperation with these political
organizations and these affected, in turn, the relations with Hungary and foreign policy
makers (ibid.). Following the pressure exercised by international organizations, the
Romanian President Iliescu proposed reconciliation between Hungarians and Romanians
that was materialized through the Treaty concluded in September 1996.
The Hungarian Status Law (LXII/2001) formulated by the Orban government
stipulates the preservation of national identity of Hungarians abroad, improving the living
standards and introduces the insufficient articulated idea of unification of the Hungarian
nation (Stewart 2002). Those eligible were permitted to receive work permits for three
months each year (including access to national insurance, pension contributions and so on)
in Hungary. In order to prove the eligibility to these advantages, Hungarian certificates
have been required, along with recommendations from the part of an institution such as
local church or the party (Romanian Magyar Democratic Union). 450,000 Hungarian
certificates have been issued until now19. The Romanian reaction was that the law disposes
the exercise of the de-terriorialised influence of the Hungarian state and thus, attempts to
decrease Romania’s sovereignty. However, by January 1st 2002, Romania has become a
member of the Schengen agreements and the various benefits of the Status Law became
fuzzy and less visible. More recently, after May 1st 2004, the Hungarian certificates lost
their relevance entirely, as long as Hungary became part of the European Union. According
17
to European regulations, the Hungarian state cannot discriminate positively the Hungarian
minority of Romania. Therefore, the norms for mobility must be applied in the same
manner to all Romanian citizens20.
Following the integration of Hungary within European Union important flows of
cross-border mobility have developed. These are supposed to especially affect the
economic arrangements of the border areas. The small-scale Hungarian retailers and
wholesalers started to supply their stocks of sugar from the Romanian side. It is widely
documented that the smuggling of sugar is one of the most lucrative forms of trafficking at
this time21. One thousand kilos of sugar can be bought from Romanian wholesalers in
exchange for approximately 175 Euro. A month after the integration, a radio station
estimated that 10,000,000 kilos of sugar have been bought from Romania and re-sold in
Hungary. The traders avoid taxation by smuggling under 1,000 kilos at once22. These
arrangements are organized at the expense of Hungarian producers of sugar and, generally
speaking, the Hungarian state loses significant amounts of money, approximated several
millions of HUF. The increase in prices leads to a great number of Hungarian citizens,
approximately double the previous, in the nearby border shops. Not only is sugar much
sought after, but also shoes, cigarettes, and beer23.
Migration towards Spain*
Romanian migration to Spain could be mainly identified with the movement of people to
this destination after 1990. Before this date, the communist system of supervising its
citizens’ circulation abroad reduced Romanian international migration to the country in
question to accidental cases. Thus when discussing Romanian migration to Spain, we make
references to movements after 1990.
The beginnings of the phenomenon should probably be placed immediately after
December 1989. The very first departures identified within different research projects24
make reference to the period 1990 – 1991.
These departures seem to be part of isolated individual projects for international
migration, not necessarily oriented to Spain. From individuals, especially on the base of
kinship and friendship relations (as main channels to transmit information and support from
migrant to non-migrant) migration to Spain began its development based on network
mechanisms. (see Box 1. The very first migrant – story from Coslada )
Box 1. The very first migrant – story from Coslada25

N. is a women who arrived in Spain in 1992. She is considered to be one of the “oldest”
Romanian migrants in Coslada. I asked her to recall the beginnings of Romanian
migration to Coslada.
In 1989 or 1990 the first Romanian Adventist came to Spain. He was from Galaţi County.
He traveled by ship to Spain. His intention was to emigrate to US, but he was forced to
stop his trip in a Spanish seaport. He met another Romanian at the Adventist church in
Madrid. (…) The next two Romanians came also from Galaţi26. Six months later, the
other two arrived (from Piteşti3 and Slatina4) – they were part of the same family. In N’s
*
Monica Constantinescu
18
opinion, in 1991 there were 6 Romanians, all living in Aravaca, one of Madrid’s suburbs.
In 1992, when she came, there were 12 Romanians. She did not hear about others. Four
or five of them were working in construction, in Coslada. The Spanish employer arranged
for them to rent a flat in Coslada, in order to have them closer to the work place. In this
way the Romanian story in Coslada began. One and half months after her arrival, an
entire bus with Romanian came to Coslada. He remembers they stopped in France and
crossed the border between France and Spain by taxi. From this bus 12 persons were
members of her family. In one week other 20 Romanians came… (Notes from interview
with N. 42 years old, Romanian migrant to Coslada)
In spite of a low initial visibility in the Romanian public space, the migration seems
to have registered from the very beginning a relatively accentuated growth. In 1991, 2,61227
work permits were granted to immigrants of Romanian nationality. It is clear that the
number of work permits is not a strong measure for the migration volume, but the relatively
high number or Romanian immigrants who, in 1991-1992, achieved a legal status as
workers seems to indicate a numerous Romanian population from the early stages of
migration.
Starting from 1990, migration to Spain registers a permanent growth. The evolution
of the phenomenon is not easy to explain. It is not the purpose of this paper to provide an
extensive analysis of this migration development. However synthetically, the evolution of
the flow can be attributed to:
a) Factors related to the country of origin: Romanian hesitant economic evolution after
1989 contributed to the maintenance of a significant gap between the wages and living
standards of Romania and Western European countries;
b) Factors related to the country of destination: Spain “discovered” its position as a country
of destination for international migration recently (the switch from emigration to
immigration country is recent and marked the attitude of the state and society regarding
migrants). The absence of precise policies and institutional mechanisms in the field marked
the development of migration to Spain (not only for the Romanians) creating with the
migrants (at least Romanian ones) an image of an easily accessible and very tolerating
country. The typical answer of Romanian migrants to the question if they have had
problems with Spanish authorities is “Here you have problems only if you steal or do
things like this. If you work, nobody has anything to do with you” (M., Romanian migrant
to Madrid) (see also Box 2: Story of a young migrant Spain experienced an accentuated
economic growth in recent years. The accelerated development created a need for work
force impossible to be covered by national resources. Jobs in agriculture, construction and
services became opened to clandestine workers coming from different countries of Africa,
Latin America, Asia or Europe;
c) Factors related to the international context: The establishment of the Schengen Area and
the free circulation of persons within its boundaries relieve the entrance formalities to some
states. Practically during the period of visa restrictions, each country from the Schengen
Area could have provided (by granting a visa) an easier way of entrance to Spain (and not
only).
19
Box 2: Story of a young migrant

Migrant: “I went to the Police in Madrid to look for work. I asked them if they could help
me, because I really needed to work”.
Interviewer: Weren’t you afraid of being arrested and expelled as long as you were
illegally there?
Migrant: “No, because I knew that they don’t do anything if you are honest and you want
to work. I don’t steal. I don’t do such things. Why should they arrest me? I only wanted
to work” (Interview with C. Romanian migrant, 19 years old, Madrid)
The existence of a migration “reservoir” in the country of origin, the possibility of

finding work and to work without accentuated risks in the destination country and multiple
entrance opportunities (even if expensive) make possible a constant growth of the migration
volume. In 2000, the Romanian residents in Spain were 10.983. This number increased to
24.856 in 2001 and 33.705 in 200228.
In 2002 an innovative IOM study prepared by a team of Romanian specialists tried
to estimate the international migration dimensions at the level or rural areas and small
towns. The total number of international migrants for rural areas and small towns was
estimated at about 200.000 persons29, out of which 8.4 % was in Spain30. It is not our
intention to discuss the virtues and the limits of the method used to estimate the number of
migrants. Yet, further analyses31 of the results of the above named study allow interesting
conclusions to be formed regarding the characteristics of the process. The network
development of the flow is proved by the statistical methods. Therefore it becomes clear
that there are origin areas dominated by movements of people to a specific destination
country. Spain together with Italy qualified as the “dynamic destinations” for contemporary
Romanian international migration, the counties of Teleorman, Dâmboviţa and Alba were at
that time the most important origin area.
The network development had important consequences for migration as a whole. In
2002, in Spain could be identified by emerging “daughter communities,”32 with a
predictable evolution to transnational communities (see Box 3: Alba Iulia Region and its
daughter community Alcala de Henares)
Box 3: Alba Iulia Region and its daughter community Alcala de Henares
Alcala de Henares was a favorite destination for Romanians coming from central part of
the country: “We are here from Alba Iulia,” says Mr. G, president of the Romanian
Migrants Association.
In 1992, Mr. G. was one of the first Romanians coming to Alcala. Now he lives here with
his wife and their three children. He says that he does not remember how many friends
and relatives he “brought” to Spain.
In 1998, with a group of friends, Mr. G set up, “officially, with papers” how he likes to
emphasize, an association of Romanian migrants. The association was very active. Now
(n.a. in 2002) the Romanians in Alcala have their own church, a football team, the city of
Alba Iulia is twined with Alcala…
In December 2001, the Association celebrated Romania’s National Day in a public way,
inviting the Mayors from Alba Iulia and Alcala and officials from the Romanian
Embassy in Spain. The Association members organized several exhibitions of Romanian
20
traditional art. At the moment, they are looking for a way to help the Town Hall in Alba
Iulia possibly with some computers donated by the Alcala Town Hall.
The most ambitious plan of the association is to twin the Madrid Community with a
Romanian region that they intend to create having the head quarter in Alba Iulia. (Notes
from interview with Mr. G, Romanian migrant to Alcala)
The contradiction between the increasing number of persons looking for means to
accomplish their migration plans and the restrictive migration policies of receiving
countries acted, in Romania also, as a precondition for the set up of the migration black
market. The particular conditions of migration from Romania to Spain (see the previous
considerations related to factors which supported this flow) offered for years good
opportunities for the development of the institutionalized elements of migration.
Entrepreneurs transporting persons, money and parcels from and into Spain, visa
traffickers, institutions that offer support to illegal migrants at destination (as the charity
programs of catholic church), meeting places for Romanian migrants, Romanian churches,
Romanian newspapers, Romanian Associations, etc. All these are already known at origin,
becoming institutionally stable and conferring migration a certain independence.
The year 2002 marked a change in the Romania international position in Europe.
Starting from the 1st of January, the Romanians have been granted the right to free entrance
into the Schengen Space. How this change influenced the international migration to Spain
is still a question to be answered. Signals from different studies seem to indicate an
accentuated growth in the number of persons leaving the country in the first months of
2002. This was followed by a decrease. It is also probable that this change accentuated the
circular character of the phenomenon.
The reactions of the Romanian and Spanish states to the flow can be generally
qualified as delayed. Until 2002, the agreements between the two states were concentrated
on the problem of Romanian citizens’ readmission.
In 2002, Romania and Spain signed the first bi-lateral agreement for the work force.
The number or Romanians having chosen to work legally in Spain increased dramatically
in 2003 compared with the first year (from 2623 in 2002 to 16439 in 200333), transforming
Spain into the second largest legal receiver (after Germany) of the Romanian work force.
Migration from Jebel-Timis to Germany - a village case study*
Social capital appears as a ubiquitous concept concerning migration theories when

discussing the continuation of migration flows. The fieldwork34 that our team conducted
verified this assumption through the presence of both strong and weak ties (Faist 1997)
between migrants at both their origin and destination. In the following pages I will present a
case study of the migration to Germany from the village of Jebel in which I show that in the
absence of migration networks the functions of the latter are taken by migrant supporting
institutions (Massey et all. 1999:253). The migration phenomenon adapts to the social
reality. In order to show this I will start with a presentation of the village so that the reader
*
Ruxandra Oana Ciobanu
21
will get an understanding of the context of the migration from Banat35 to Germany. The
second section will refer to the social networks and migrant supporting institutions in
relation to the migrants’ strategies – to migrate, find a job and a host at the destination.
The village of Jebel is located 30 kilometers away from Timişoara, the largest city
of Banat, and the second of the country. A large population of Germans known as “Svabi”
used to live in the region of Banat, who were brought there by the Habsburgs in the XVIII
century. Beginning in the 1980s, Germans from Banat started to leave for Germany;
however the main exodus occured after 1989. Even if there were many villages with a large
population of Germans in Banat, there are only a few families in Jebel (fieldwork
interviews) which explains the little impact the German migration had on the local
migrants. Jebel is the administrative center of the commune with the same name, and
comprises two villages (the second village is Pădureni), with the largest population in Jebel.
Generally, migrant networks make migration possible by reducing the costs of
engaging in a migratory event (Massey et all 1999). New migrants are helped with crossing
the border, locating shelter at their destination, finding a job, and adjusting and adapting in
a foreign country. Being part of a migration network diminishes the risks of the
‘adventure.’ However, the absence of such networks does not eliminate migration. The
floor is taken by migration supporting institutions that, just as networks, increase the access
to resources through an institutionalized framework. It is important nevertheless, to notice
that while in the case of migration networks the availability of resources depends upon the
participation in a network, the distribution of knowledge is much higher with regard to
migrant supporting institutions.
A primary element that shows the absence of migration networks in the village
Jebel is the fact that if in the rest of the country in the rural area the church represents an
important starting point in the construction of networks for migration. In Jebel the
fieldwork provided us with no evidence for the existence of such networks. It is only the
case of Pentecostals who migrate mainly to Switzerland and the United States of America.
Besides, there is an orthodox church, a Romano-catholic one, and a Baptist gathering.
At present, the principal destination for the migrants is Germany. Those who
migrated in the first wave (identified to be in the early 1990s) passed through Austria, and
stayed there for a while with friends. Lately, less people leave for Germany without a
contract because it is very difficult to get the necessary papers. Due to the fact that people
did not know each other or stated that they do not know other neighbors who migrated to
Germany, it is difficult to asses the intensity of the migration phenomenon. Also, after
conducting our fieldwork, and comparing the Jebel village with other villages, it can be said
that this is not a mass phenomenon.
In the migration history of the village people also used to migrate before the 1989
Revolution. Some crossed the borders illegally either into Hungary or Serbia, and others
worked for goods transportation companies as drivers. The new destinations are Spain or
Portugal to work in agriculture and construction. However, the number of migrants going to
these last two destinations is only a few. The fieldwork introduced us to only a couple of
families. However, similar to the migration to Germany, the migrants to these other two
destinations did not know each other. Another type of migration is the illicit trade in Serbia.
This has been functioning for a long time in the entire South – West part of Romania.
Furthermore, there is the region of Serbian Banat, at present a part of Serbia, but used to be
part of Romanian territory. People know each other and there is a history of trade that links
22
them. Cigarettes were brought illegally in the country and other goods are sold later on in
the Timişoara bazaar.
Relevant in the context of migration is the commuting experience. For the moment
(2001) around 10% of the inhabitants of Jebel commute to work in Timişoara, compared to
60-70% before 1989 (they used to work at Elba, C.F.R. or Electromotor). People commute
now to Timişoara with their own car and less by bus or train. If in the first migration wave
to Germany there were small groups of 2 to 4 friends. Today migration is an individual
phenomenon. Those who migrated during the first wave to Germany had difficulty finding
a place to work because they did not have persons to recommend them to the managers. As
a consequence, at present they prefer to migrate “secured” through mediation firms. When
leaving based on a contract one knows where s/he will stay, for how long, where they
would work, the payment, everything. People get in touch with a company that
intermediates between companies outside the country and labor force in the country, and
migrate based on a contract. Therefore, the main means to migration is through
intermediate companies from Timişoara that facilitate 2-3 month contracts in Germany for
work. The alternative jobs are in agriculture, construction or caretaking of elderly people.
The advantage of migrating with a contract is that if for those who migrate on their own or
as part of a social network the Schengen Act involves having money to show at the border
or a visa, for the first the new rule does not change the situation, as the migrants receive
work permits. There are no connection persons at the destination, opposed to the migration
networks. Migrants meet only at a destination and realize that they have other neighbors
there.
People argue that the absence of migration networks is based on individual
characteristics such as selfishness. “The people from Banat do not help each other ... People
are envious around here” (A.I., 43 years old, agricultural engineer at the Town Hall). For
example one of the ‘definitive migrants’ who returns periodically to the village did not help
anyone migrate to Germany, furthermore, he does not say where he lives and pretends not
to remember other people from the village.
They argue that the impossibility to migrate without a contract has to do with the
absence of money. It is impossible (people say) to migrate on your own to Germany,
because in order to leave one needs money. Another form of proof with regard to the
absence of migration networks comes from the fact that in areas with strong migration
networks, packages are sent home by other migrants, or buses that travel daily between
origin and destination. In Jebel, the situation is different; packages are sent by post office,
and rarely through a transportation company located in the next village.
Therefore, migration networks are substituted by the migration supporting
institutions. If social ties were meant to reduce the costs of migration, the role to facilitate
the passing of the border and finding both shelter and a job is now taken over by various
private institutions and sometimes voluntary organizations. Another argument in support of
the role of migration supporting institutions is the absence of financial resources to initiate
migration. Nevertheless, one should not regard migrant networks and migration supporting
institutions as exclusive, but rather as a structural complement (Goss and Lindquist in
Massey et all 1999:44).
23
Annex 1: Dynamics and structure of internal and external migration*

Table A 1.Internal migration by streams of residential type, 1968-2002
rural- rural- urban- urban- TOTAL total migration rural to urban net out-migration
rural urban rural urban %
% % % % N rate1 N average rate2 (‰)
(‰) year
values
1968 31 35 11 23 100 287657 14.6 70108 5.6
1969 31 36 11 22 100 280400 14.0 71328 5.6
1970 32 38 11 20 100 293337 14.5 78293 73243 6.1
1971 30 41 10 19 100 310946 15.2 98232 7.6
1972 32 39 11 17 100 338150 16.4 96118 7.5
1973 30 43 10 17 100 375107 18.0 121372 9.4
1974 25 48 9 18 100 375094 17.8 147002 11.4
1975 29 45 10 16 100 299413 14.1 105366 8.2
1976 23 52 7 18 100 346140 16.1 156702 12.2
1977 21 55 7 18 100 343366 15.9 163121 13.4
1978 18 56 7 19 100 353466 16.2 174721 14.5
1979 14 61 5 20 100 317394 14.4 175920 14.5
1980 12 63 5 20 100 333884 15.0 195383 16.2
1981 11 65 4 19 100 324852 14.5 197614 16.7
1982 13 63 5 19 100 300128 13.4 171408 150247 14.8
1983 13 61 5 20 100 253892 11.3 142091 12.4
1984 15 58 6 21 100 231422 10.2 120628 10.5
1985 16 57 6 20 100 196058 8.6 99859 8.8
1986 24 51 8 18 100 238505 10.4 102717 9.1
1987 21 53 7 19 100 199555 8.7 91983 8.2
1988 23 53 7 18 100 208658 9.1 95967 8.7
1989 19 55 6 19 100 192900 8.3 94494 106820 8.7
1990 9 70 4 18 100 786471 33.9 521422 49.2
1991 19 50 10 20 100 262903 11.3 105789 9.9
1992 23 39 14 24 100 293182 12.9 74701 7.2
1993 25 35 15 25 100 240231 10.6 48910 4.7
1994 26 30 18 26 100 266745 11.7 32344 3.1
1995 28 25 21 26 100 289491 12.8 12500 1.2
1996 24 25 23 27 100 292879 13.0 3683 46321 0.4
1997 26 23 27 25 100 302579 13.4 -12588 -1.2
1998 24 22 28 26 100 276154 12.3 -17998 -1.8
1999 22 21 31 27 100 275699 12.3 -26620 -2.6
2000 23 20 34 24 100 244507 10.9 -34938 -3.4
2001 20 25 28 28 100 284332 12.7 -9490 -0.9
2002 22 22 30 26 100 320819 14.7 -25326 -21160 -2.5
Data source: National Institute of Statistics (NIS), own computations (DS).
1 total migration to 1000 inhabitants; 2 rural-to-urban net migration to 1000 rural inhabitants.
*
Dumitru Sandu
24
Table A 2.Permanent emigration by destination country, 1990- 2003
Total Germany USA Hungary Canada Italy Austria France Israel Sweden Greece Australia Other
Total 1980- 287753 149544 33931 27250 7495 3128 9275 4593 14629 4909 3131 3646 26622
N
1989
% 100 52.0 11.8 9.5 2.6 1.1 3.2 1.6 5.1 1.7 1.1 1.3 9.3
1990 96929 66121 4924 10635 1894 1130 3459 1626 1227 996 576 611 3730
1991 44160 20001 5770 4427 1661 1396 4630 1512 519 381 354 301 3208
1992 31152 13813 2100 4726 1591 528 3282 1235 463 686 143 297 2288
1993 18446 6874 1245 3674 1926 645 1296 937 324 199 80 236 1010
1994 17146 6880 1078 1779 1523 1580 1256 787 417 176 87 220 1363
1995 25675 9010 2292 2509 2286 2195 2276 1438 316 520 193 136 2504
1996 21526 6467 3181 1485 2123 1640 915 2181 418 310 274 165 2367
1997 19945 5807 2861 1244 2331 1706 1551 1143 554 468 232 207 1841
1998 17536 3899 2868 1306 1945 1877 941 846 563 129 316 206 2640
1999 12594 2370 2386 774 1626 1415 468 696 326 98 214 124 2097
2000 14753 2216 2723 881 2518 2142 270 809 433 90 328 143 2200
2001 9921 854 1876 680 2483 1486 167 463 279 51 105 79 1398
2002 8154 1305 1356 903 1437 1317 293 233 106 42 60 58 1044
2003 10673 1938 2012 984 1444 1993 338 338 164 50 64 45 1303
total 1990-2003 N 251681 81434 31748 25372 24894 19920 17683 12618 4882 3200 2450 2217 25263
% 100 32.4 12.6 10.1 9.9 7.9 7.0 5.0 1.9 1.3 1.0 0.9 10.0
Data source: NIS
25
Table A 3.Temporary emigration rate by county and rural/urban residence (‰)

Historical region Cultural area urban rural total
Moldova West Bacau 47.8 33.4 40.1
Neamt 46.9 39.2 42.0
Suceava 33.0 36.2 35.1
Vrancea 73.4 48.9 58.3
more developed East Galati 14.0 14.6 14.2
Iasi 20.5 12.9 16.5
poor East Botosani 18.8 9.3 12.8
Vaslui 12.5 5.0 8.0
Muntenia North Arges 8.6 3.1 5.6
Dambovita 20.7 8.7 12.3
Prahova 8.9 5.9 7.4
North-East Braila 10.7 2.4 7.7
Buzau 8.6 3.8 5.7
South Calarasi 7.0 1.9 3.8
Giurgiu 8.7 6.7 7.3
Ialomita 8.5 2.4 4.8
Teleorman 10.5 7.3 8.3
Oltenia South Dolj 11.3 4.1 7.7
Mehedinti 5.3 3.8 4.5
Olt 5.9 2.7 3.9
North Gorj 4.4 2.9 3.5
Valcea 20.0 9.5 13.6
Dobrogea Constanta 13.7 5.3 11.2
Tulcea 18.1 17.8 17.9
Transilvania Soth-West Alba 29.4 14.1 22.9
Hunedoara 12.7 6.0 11.1
Saxon Brasov 30.9 19.4 27.9
tradition Sibiu 21.6 10.7 17.9
Central Cluj 23.4 11.8 19.6
Mures 19.9 15.1 17.5
Hungarian Covasna 26.7 14.2 20.5
prevalence Harghita 30.2 25.7 27.7
North Bistrita-Nasaud 42.7 33.4 36.8
Salaj 24.5 13.1 17.6
Crisana- Maramures Maramures 41.4 29.1 35.6
Maramures Satu Mare 45.9 49.8 48.1
Crisana Arad 11.8 12.2 12.0
Bihor 14.2 7.5 10.7
Banat Caras-Severin 18.1 13.1 15.9
Timis 18.1 14.1 16.5
Municipiul
Bucharest Bucuresti 7.9 3.3 7.3
Total 18.6 14.6 16.7
Data source: 2002 census of population and housing, National Institute of Statistics (NIS), own computations
(DS).
26
Table A 4.Temporary emigration rate by historical region and locality type (‰)
Locality type Historical region Total
emigration rate
Transilvania
Maramues
Dobrogea
emigrants
Muntenia
Bucuresti
Moldova
Crisana-
Oltenia
Banat
Village type ‰ %
traditional 10.4 2.4 4.8 3.4 4.7 4.5 12.3 1.0 5.8 2.4
isolated 12.7 2.5 4.2 3.1 4.6 18.4 6.5 0.9 7.1 2.7
with religious
40.2 8.9 5.0 36.3 16.9 30.9 14.2 1.1 25.6 20.9
minorities
with
4.5 21.8 12.8 7.1 19.2 3.7
Hungarians
modern 21.1 8.2 4.6 8.6 13.9 12.0 5.9 2.3 8.9 4.7
of in-migration 27.5 6.4 6.7 5.3 16.6 16.8 15.1 4.3 13.9 6.5
small town 25.6 8.1 6.9 12.1 23.0 41.6 18.5 3.7 20.0 15.0
medium size
38.7 12.2 10.3 14.5 29.2 25.2 18.6 22.2 15.5
city
large city 30.3 9.7 12.3 15.5 22.0 20.0 17.6 8.0 16.5 28.5
Total ‰ 27.9 7.2 6.9 13.0 21.4 24.7 16.3 7.4 16.7
% 35.8 8.5 4.4 3.5 25.4 13.3 4.6 4.5 100
Data source: 2002 census of population and housing, National Institute of Statistics (NIS), own computations
(DS). Number of emigrants considered for computations 359352. A number of 1958 emigrants are missed
into the crosstab due to the fact that village classification does not cover some villages.
27
Annex 2 : Institutions and publications related to international migration*
Institutions
Ministerul Muncii, Solidarităţii sociale şi Familiei [The Ministry of Work, Social

Solidarity and Family],http://www.mmssf.ro
Oficiul pentru Migraţia Forţei de Muncă [Office for the Migration of the Labour force]
http://www.omfm.ro
Departamentul pentru Muncă în Străinătate [Department for Labour Abroad]
Ministerul Afacerilor Externe [Ministry of Foreign Affairs],http://www.mae.ro
Ministerul Afacerilor Interne [Ministry of the Interior],http://www.mai.ro
Poliţia de Frontieră [Frontier Police] ,

Organizaţia Internaţională pentru Migraţie, Bucureşti [International Organization for
Migration Mission Bucharest],http://www.oim.ro/index.php
Publications
Chelcea, Liviu. (2002). “The Culture of Shortage during State-Socialism: Consumption

Practices in a Romanian Village in the 1980s”. Cultural Studies, 16 (1), 16-43.
Ciobanu, Ruxandra O. (2004). «Migraţia internaţională şi schimbarea comunitară ca
strategie de viaţă » [International Migration as Life Strategy and Community
Change]. Sociologie Românească II (2), 124-141.
Diminescu, Dana. (1999). «Faire une saison Pour une anthropologie des migrations
roumaines en France. Le cas du pays d'Oas». Migrations Etudes 91.
Diminescu, Dana. (2001). «L’installation dans la mobilite: les savoir-faire
migratoires des Roumains». Migrations Societe 13 (74), 107-116.
Diminescu, Dana. (1996). «Deplasările oşenilor în străinatate, un nou model de
migraţie». Revista de Cercetări Sociale 2, 16-33.
Diminescu, Dana, dir. (2003). Visibles mais peu nombreux. Les circulations migratoires
roumaines. Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.
Fox, John E. “Identity Formation in Migration. The Case of Transylvanian Guest
Workers”. Department of Sociology, University of California Los Angeles.
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/kokkalis/GSW1/GSW1/05%20Fox.pdf
Grigoraş, Vlad. (2001). «Strategii de mobilitate în Sâncrai-Hunedoara» [Mobility
Strategies in Sâncrai-Hunedoara]. Sociologie Românească 1-4, 232-250.
http://www.sociologieromaneasca.ro/2001/articole/sr2001.1-4.a12.pdf
Lăzăroiu, Sebastian. (2000). «Trafic de femei – o perspectivă sociologică». [Trafficking
in Women. A Sociological Perspective]. Sociologie Românească 2, 57-83.
http://www.sociologieromaneasca.ro/2000/articole/sr2000.2-a3.pdf
*
Cosmin Radu
28
Lăzăroiu, Sebastian. (2002). Migraţia circulatorie a forţei de muncă din România.

Consecinţe asupra integrării europene. [The circulatory migration of the
Romanian work force. Consequences on European integration]. Bucharest.
http://www.osf.ro/ro/initiative.pdf.
Lăzăroiu, Sebastian et al. (2003). Migration Trends in Selected Applicants Countries.
Volume IV – Romania, More ‘Out’ than ‘In’ at the Crossroads between Europe
and the Balkans. International Organization for Migration, Vienna.
Nedelcu, Mihaela Florina. (2000). «Instrumentalizarea spaţiilor virtuale. Noi strategii de
reproducere şi conversie a capitalurilor în situaţie migratorie». [Instrumenting
Virtual Spaces. New Strategies of Reproduction and Conversion of Capitals in a
Migration Context]. Sociologie Românească 2, 83-101.
Potot, Swanie. (2000). «Mobilites en Europe. Etudes de deux reseaux migratoires
roumains». Sociologie Românească 2, 101-121.
Potot, Swanie. (2003). Circulation et reseaux de migrants roumains: une contribution a
l’etude des nouvelles mobilites en Europe. These de doctorat. Universite de Nice.
http://tel.ccsd.cnrs.fr/documents/archives0/00/00/34/80/index_fr.html
Potot, Swanie. (2002). "Les migrants transnationaux : une nouvelle figure sociale en
Roumanie”. Revue d'Etudes Comparatives Est-Ouest 1.
Potot, Swanie. (2001). "Migrations et construction identitaire: le cas des Roumains en
France". In Bertheleu, H. (ed.) Identifications Ethniques. Rapport de pouvoir,
Compromis, Territoire. Paris: L'harmattan, 155-170.
Radu, Cosmin. (2001). «De la Crângeni-Teleorman spre Spania: antreprenoriat,
adventism şi migraţie circulatorie» [From Crângeni-Teleorman to Spain:
Entrepreneurship, Adventism, and Circular Migration]. Sociologie Românească
1-4, 215-232.
http://www.sociologieromaneasca.ro/2001/articole/sr2001.1-4.a11.pdf
Sandu, Dumitru. (1978). «Comunitatea locală – unitate de diferenţiere a migraţiei» [The
Local Community as Unit of Differentiation for Migration]. Viitorul Social VII
(4).
Sandu, Dumitru. (1979). «Premise pentru o teorie a fluxurilor de migraţie» [Premises for
a Theory of Migration Flows]. Viitorul Social VIII (4).
Sandu, Dumitru. (1984). Fluxurile de migraţie din România [The Migration Flows in
Romania]. Bucureşti: Editura Republicii Socialiste România.
Sandu. D. (1995). Sociologia tranziţiei. Valori şi tipuri sociale în România [The
Sociology of Transition. Social Types and Values in Romania]. Bucureşti: Staff.
Sandu, Dumitru. (1996). «Restructurarea migraţiei interne în România» [Restructuring of
In-Migration in Romania]. Academica 9.
Sandu, Dumitru, De Jong, Gordon. (1996). „Migration in Market and Democracy
Transition: Migration Intention and Behavior in Romania”. Population Research
and Policy Review 15.
Sandu, Dumitru. (1998). «Migraţia internă sub şocul tranziţiei» [In-Migration under the
Impact of Transition]. Populaţie şi Societate 2 (8).
Sandu, Dumitru. (1999). Spaţiul social al tranziţiei [The Social Space of Transition]. Iaşi:
Polirom.
Sandu, Dumitru. (2000). «Migraţia circulatorie ca strategie de viaţă» [Circular Migration
29
as Life Strategy]. Sociologie Românească 2, 5-31.

http://www.sociologieromaneasca.ro/eng/aeee-pdf/sr-rs.aeee.2000.4.pdf
Sandu, Dumitru. (2000). «Migraţia transnaţională a românilor din perspectiva unui
recensământ comunitar» [The Romanian Transnational Migration from the
Perspective of a Community Census]. Sociologie Românească 3-4, 5-50.
http://www.sociologieromaneasca.ro/2000/articole/sr2000.3+4-a1.pdf
Sandu, Dumitru. (2001). «Les engeux des reseux migratoires dans l’espace social de la
transition – le cas roumain». Communication soutonue a la Maison des Sciences
de l’Homme, Paris, le 4e avril.
Sandu, Dumitru. “Emerging Transnational Migration from Romanian
Villages”. (in print in Current Sociology)
Oxford College Hospitality Scheme.
Sandu, Dumitru. (2003). «Sociabilitatea în spaţiul dezvoltării. Încredere, toleranţă şi
reţele sociale» [Sociability in the Space of Development. Trust, Tolerance, and
Social Networks]. Iaşi: Polirom.
Sandu, Dumitru. (2004). “Cultură şi experienţă de migraţie în satele României” [Culture
and Migration Experience in Romanian Villages]. Paper given to the Annual
Conference of the Romanian Sociological Association “Social Romania. The
Road of Change and European Integration”, Cluj, 7-8th May.
Şerban, Monica, Grigoraş, Vlad. (2000). «Dogenii din Teleorman în ţară şi în străinătate.
Un studiu asupra migraţiei circulatorii în Spania» [Dogens from Teleorman in
Romania and Abroad. A Study on circular Migration to Spain]. Sociologie
Românească 2, 31-57.
http://www.sociologieromaneasca.ro/eng/aeee-pdf/sr-rs.aeee.2000.5.pdf
Voiculescu, Cerasela. “Temporary Migration of Transylvanian Roma to Hungary”.
Proceedings of the International Seminar “New Patterns of Labour Migration in
Central and Eastern Europe”, Cluj Napoca, Romania, 15-19 July 2004.
(forthcoming)
Wallace, Claire, Stola, Dariusz, eds. (2000). Patterns of Migration in Central Europe.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Wallace, Claire et al. (1999). “Investing in Social Capital: The Case of Small-Scale,
Cross-Border Traders in Post-Communist Central Europe”. Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 23, 751-771.
30
References
Berg, E. (2000). “Border Crossing in Manifest Perceptions and Actual Needs”. In van der
Velde, M., Van Houtum H. (eds.) Borders, Regions and People. European Research
in Regional Science 10. London: Pion Ltd., 137-165.
Chelcea, L. (2002). “Informal Credit, Money and Time in the Romanian Countryside”.
Paper given to the Fourth Nordic Conference on the Anthropology of Postsocialism,
http://www.anthrobase.com/txt/C/Chelcea_L_01.htm
Chelcea, L. (2002). “The Culture of Shortage during State Socialism: consumption
Practices in a Romanian Village in the 1980s”. Cultural Studies 16 (1), 16-43.
Ciobotea, R. “Graniţa sfidării”. Evenimentul Zilei, 13 iulie 2004.
Evenimentul Zilei. «Pod de zahăr între România şi Ungaria». 28 iunie 2004.
Hammar, Tomas; Brochann, Grete; Tamas, Kristof; Faist, Thomas. 1997. International
Migration, Immobility and Development. Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Oxford,
New York: Berg.
Horvath, I. (2002). “Facilitating Conflict Transformation: Implementation of the
Recommendations of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities to
Romania, 1993-2001”. CORE Working Paper 8, Hamburg.
Juhasz, J. (1995). «International Migration in Hungary». Innovation: The European
Journal of SocialSciences 8 (2), 201-220.
Kohlbacher, J., Reeger, U. (1999). “’Polonia’ in Vienna: Polish Labour Migration during
the 1990s”. In Crampton, G. (ed.) Regional Unemployment, Job Matching and
Migration. European Research inRegional Science 9. London: Pion Ltd., 111-142.
Kornai, J. (1992). The Socialist System. The Political Economy of Communism. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Lăzăroiu, S. (2002). «Migraţia circulatorie a forţei de muncă din România. Consecinţe
asupra integrării europene».[“The circulatory migration of the Romanian work
force. Consequences on European integration”]. Bucharest.
http://www.osf.ro/ro/initiative.pdf.
Lăzăroiu, S. et al. (2003). «Migration Trends in Selected Applicants Countries. Volume IV
– Romania ‘Out’ than ‘In’ at the Crossroads between Europe and the Balkans”.
International Organization for Migration, Vienna.
Massey, Douglas S.; Arango, Joaquin; Hugo, Graeme; Kouaouci, Ali; Taylor, J. Edward.
Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal. in Population and
Development Review 19, No. 3, September 1993.
Massey, Douglas; Arango, Joaquin; Hugo, Graeme; Kouaouci, Ali; Pellegrino, A. and
Taylor, J. Edward. 1999. Worlds in Motion: Understanding International Migration
at the End of the Millennium. Oxford: Clarendon.
Miat, S. “Lacăt pe graniţa cu sârbii”. Evenimentul Zilei, 2 iulie 2004.
Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor, comunicat de presă, 26-12-2003.
31
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, press release, 29-06-2004.

Petrovici, G. “Adio bişniţă”. Evenimentul Zilei, 29 iunie 2004.
Prundea, M. «Cetăţeni de mâna a doua». Evenimentul Zilei, 7 mai 2004.
Sampson, S. (1986). “The Informal Sector in Eastern Europe”. Telos, 66, 44-66.
Sandu, Dumitru. (2000). Migratia transnationala a romanilor din perspectiva unui
recensamant comunitar. (Romanian Transnational Migration from the Perspective
of a Community Census). in Romanian Sociological Review. No. 3 – 4.
Sandu, Dumitru. (2004) „Cultura si experienta de migratie in satele Romaniei” (Culture and
migration experience in Romanian villages), Sociologie Romaneasca, 3,
Schierup, C-U. (1990). Migration, Socialism and the International Division of Labour: The
Yugoslavian Experience. Avebury: Aldershot.
Sik, E. (1988). “Reciprocal Exchange of Labour in Hungary”. In Pahl RE. (ed.) On Work.
Historical,Comparative, and Theoretical Approaches. Oxford, New York: Basil
Blackwell.
Sik, E., Wellman, B. (1999). “Network Capital in Capitalist, Communist, and
Postcommunist Countries”. In Wellman, B. (ed.) Networks in the Global Village.
Life in Contemporary Communities. Boulder, Oxford: Westview Press.
Stewart, M. (2002). “The Hungarian Status Law: A New European Form of Transnational
Politics?”. WPTC - 02-09. www.transcomm.co.uk
The Office of Labour Force Migration, press release, 18-08-2004.
Thuen, T. (1999). “The Significance of Borders in the East European Transition”.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 23 (4), 738-751.
Trocan, S. «Ungurii vin la la cumăpărături în România». Evenimentul Zilei, 2 iunie 2004.
Voiculescu, C. «Temporary Migration of Transylvanian Roma to Hungary». In
Proceedings of the International Seminar “New Patterns of Labour Migration in
Central And Eastern Europe”,Cluj Napoca, Romania, 15-19 July 2004
(forthcoming).
Wallace, C. (1997). “Spending, Saving or Investing Social Capital : the Case of Shuttle
Traders in Post-Communist Central Europe”. Paper given to the conference “Cities
in Transition”. Humboldt University, Berlin, July 19-22.
Wallace, C., Stola, D. (2000). “Introduction: Patterns of Migration in Central Europe”. In
Wallace, C., Stola, D. (eds.) Patterns of Migration in Central Europe. Palgrave
Macmillan.
32
Notes
1
Government’s Decision no. 1320/2001, Art. 2, quoted in Lăzăroiu et al. (2003).
2
The Office of Labour Force Migration, press release, 18-08-2004.
3
Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor, comunicat de presă, 26-12-2003.
4
. This section is based on field research carried out in January 2002 (International Organization of
Migration, Bucharest) and July 2004 (University of Bucharest).
5
Woman from the village of Balta Verde, Mehedinţi county, July 2004.
6
Woman from the village of Balta Verde, Mehedinţi county, July 2004.
7
At least in February 2002, when we carried out the first field trip in the region
8
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, press release, 29-06-2004.
5 Ciobotea, R. “Graniţa sfidării”. Evenimentul Zilei, 13 iulie 2004.
10
Miat, S. “Lacăt pe graniţa cu sârbii”. Evenimentul Zilei, 2 iulie 2004.
11
Petrovici, G. “Adio bişniţă”. Evenimentul Zilei, 29 iunie 2004.
12
The elaboration of this section is partly supported by fieldwork carried out in the counties of
Mureş (University of Bucharest, September 2001) and Harghita (International Organization for Migration,
Mission Bucharest, February 2002).
13
The World Association of Hungarians, quoted in Stewart (2002).
14
“With reference to Romanians, the lifting of travel restrictions at the end of 1989 in Romania led
to a fourty-fold increase of the number of Romanians travelling to Hungary in 1990 as compared to 1989”
(Juhasz 1995).
15
Hungarian Ministry of Interior, quoted in Juhasz (1995).
16
Ibid.
17
“Within this buffer zone, we are considering small scale cross-border traders who come mainly
from the East and South. They were identified in our previous research as responsible for some of the rapid
escalation in mobility within the region” (Wallace, Chmouliar and Sidorenko 1995, 1996, quoted in Wallace
1997).
18
Basically, autonomy, as proposed by the Romanian Magyar Democratic Union in 1993, has three
dimensions: personal, local government and regional.
19
Prundea, M. «Cetăţeni de mâna a doua». Evenimentul Zilei, 7 mai 2004.
20
Ibid.
21
Evenimentul Zilei. «Pod de zahăr între România şi Ungaria». 28 iunie 2004.
22
Ibid.
23
Trocan, S. «Ungurii vin la la cumăpărături în România». Evenimentul Zilei, 2 iunie 2004.
24
Bucharest University research projects, 2000; 2002, IOM, 2002;
25
Coslada is a town in the suburbs of Madrid, a location for an important Romanian migrants
community
26 4 5
‚ , , Cities from Romania
27
Data presented in Claudia Clavijo, Mariano Aguirre(eds.),Politicas sociales y estado de bienestar
en Espagna: Las migraciones, Informe 2002, Fundacion Hogar del Empleado, Madrid, 2002
28
Data from Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, http://dgei.mir.es/
29
D. Sandu – Sociabilitatea în spaţiul dezvoltării, Polirom, Bucureşti, 2003, p: 205,
30
Ibid. (p: 205)
31
Ibid. (p: 211 – 214)
32
In this case is more appropriate to discuss about „region daughter communities”, the origin area
not being a community but more a region (micro – region).
33
Data extracted from the report D. Mihail, D. Diminescu, V. Lazea – Dezvoltarea rurală şi reforma
agriculturii româneşti, Centrul Român pentru Politici Economice, 2004
34
The fieldwork was part of a more complex research conducted entitled ”The research of
circulatory migration at the community level” in 2001 – 2002 by a team coordinated by prof. dr. Dumitru
Sandu, Dana Diminescu, Sebastian Lăzăroiu şi Louis Ulrich. The community studies ware conducted in eight
rural comunities by eight students and a Ph.D. from the Universitaty of Bucharest, The Sociology and Social
Assistance Faculty. The fieldwork in Jebel was conducted by Oana Ciobanu and Alexandra Mihai, who also
wrote the rapport together.
33
35
Romania is divided in several cultural areas (Sandu 1999) – cultural areas being a structure made
of homogeneous counties under the aspect of seven dichotomic variables: level of rural development, level of
urban development, the percentage of orthodox population, the percentage of (agricultural) land, the historical
region of belonging (Sandu 1999:143).
34

RomanianMigrationAbroad PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

RomanianMigrationAbroad PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Study for www.migrationonline.

cz, Multicultural Center Prague, November 2004

A Country Report on Romanian Migration Abroad: Stocks and

Dynamics of the Romanian migration system *

The great shift into internal migration

Figure 1. The share of residential streams of internal migration, 1968-2002

The deconcentration of emigration

Temporary emigration as the new pillar of the migration system

very high, over 30 ‰ BOTOSANI

SALAJ BISTRITA-NASAUD IASI

Figure 2. Temporary emigration rates by county, 2002 census

% religious minorities.1992 0.30

education stock , 1992 0.08

% 0-17 years old pop 0.07

village size 0.03

housing stock develop., 1992 -0.01

plain location of the village -0.06

Figure 3. Predictors of temporary emigration from villages, 2002

high level (between 30

Relations within the migration system

Table 1. Main categories of factors that favoured external circular migration of

On the migration system by the structure of migration intentions

Table 2.The structure of the migration intentions by residence (%)

Table 2. Predictors of the intention to migrate

Formal and informal institutions*

Border crossing after 1990: diversification and informalization of work contexts

The Romanian-Serbian border as the subject of recent political redefinition

Migration towards Hungary*12

Movement of people and goods before 1990

Movement of people and goods during transition

Romanian-Hungarian Treaty and, Hungarian Status Law: impacts on migration

Migration towards Spain*

Box 1. The very first migrant – story from Coslada25

Box 2: Story of a young migrant

The existence of a migration “reservoir” in the country of origin, the possibility of

Migration from Jebel-Timis to Germany - a village case study*

Social capital appears as a ubiquitous concept concerning migration theories when

Annex 1: Dynamics and structure of internal and external migration*

Table A 2.Permanent emigration by destination country, 1990- 2003

Table A 3.Temporary emigration rate by county and rural/urban residence (‰)

Annex 2 : Institutions and publications related to international migration*

Ministerul Muncii, Solidarităţii sociale şi Familiei [The Ministry of Work, Social

Departamentul pentru Muncă în Străinătate [Department for Labour Abroad]

Ministerul Afacerilor Externe [Ministry of Foreign Affairs],http://www.mae.ro

Ministerul Afacerilor Interne [Ministry of the Interior],http://www.mai.ro

Poliţia de Frontieră [Frontier Police] ,

Chelcea, Liviu. (2002). “The Culture of Shortage during State-Socialism: Consumption

Lăzăroiu, Sebastian. (2002). Migraţia circulatorie a forţei de muncă din România.

as Life Strategy]. Sociologie Românească 2, 5-31.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, press release, 29-06-2004.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi