Analysing policy implementations and the effects of emigration in Central and Eastern European countries, especially focusing on Hungarian re-migration policies.
Labour migration (brain drain) is causing serious demographic and labour market problems worldwide in many countries. The enlargements of the European Union in 2004 and 2007 significantly accelerated in this process in the Central and Eastern European countries (CEE), as the labour market of the more developed Western and Northern European countries has gradually been opened up to people in the new member states. As a result of the free flow of labour, millions of people migrated, which is now also affecting the Hungarian population. The main destinations of Hungarian emigration are Germany, Great Britain and neighbouring Austria (Black 2010). The phenomenon is becoming more and more complex and commonly perceived as a problem (Black 2010). Migration processes, in addition to this, are detrimental to rural areas, for which it is particularly important to keep or withdraw those who are key players in the development of the futures era.
According to Özden and Schiff (2006) ’brain drain’ was initially considered to be difficult to counterbalance; as a necessary process for the post-socialist member states. With increasing migration, however, they became more interested in preventing and reversing a process that seriously affected their society and economies by actively implementing policy plans with different territorial scale and their implementation. These processes can relate to similar European and non-European initiatives. The purpose of this essay is to provide an overview of the political interventions that are trying to stop or slow the migration of European countries and regions. Firstly, I will review the main spatial characteristics of European migration processes, and then briefly present the concept of re-migration and the types of migration policies that concerned. After that, I will analyse what initiatives and policy measures deal with withdrawing and reintegrating migrants. The analysis is based on literature on migration, and on CEE migration policies and regional and local research practices.
According to Brettel and Hollifield (2015) migration is a complex process, which, concisely defining means population movement that can take place within a country or in other countries, meaning geographical change in a brief sense. It is important to highlight the migration potentials and to look at essential factors why citizens decide or plan to leave their country. The studies of recent years now look at the terms of migration differently and created new models, which in many cases are different from the earlier neoclassical theories. One of the most important principles is that households or some of its members migrate abroad to provide better living conditions for themselves and their families. Over the last decades, we can see that the obstacles of crossing borders are loosened. These factors are very varied; for instance, travel or communication. The travel time shortened, physical distances can easily be overcome, and the financial aspects of travel are also greatly reduced. Perhaps even more important to mention that easy border crossing reduces the feeling of leaving ‘home’, most European migrants can return at any time. The crossing of physical, cultural and social boundaries for today’s migrants does not mean total secession or total assimilation. Migrants can create a way of life that keeps their connection to the emitting environment while also creating bonds to the host environment (Brettel, Hollifield J2015). A powerful labour migration process since the change of regime around Europe has also signalled these trends in transnational migration. These changes can be experienced at both the level of behaviours and mentalities. Research findings also draw attention to the fact that we are faced with an extremely complex phenomenon that deserves attention both from the emitter and the recipient countries, reflects on the strengths/weaknesses of the various kinds of borders, as well as the changing nature of spaces (Hardwick 2015). When examining European borders, it is important to understand that a significant part of them is an unnatural, politically defined ‘formation’ formed by the two world wars of the twentieth century. They are multi-dimensional; affecting both physical entities and people’s thinking, these borders can be regarded as a spatial mapping of power relations (Newman 2011).
Analysing the migration trends, it is evident that migrants mostly mobilize from the East to the West in Europe. Mainly, in order to solve individual financial problems, large masses migrate from the less developed regions of Europe to major economic centres in Western Europe (Brettel and Hollifield 2015). In the post-socialist countries, the agglomerations of the capital and the dynamically developing industrial districts remained a ‘population-rich’ area, but they could not absorb the migratory population of the declining regions. Furthermore, migrants from post-socialist countries moved not only to the developed regions of Western Europe but also to Southern Europe, as a result, for instance, Spain and Italy became a popular destination for Romanian and Bulgarian guest workers. On the other hand, some parts of Northern Europe attracted large masses, where highly skilled workers, such as doctors, also participated in the process (Castro-Martín and Cortina 2015). The problem of migration is a serious challenge in the Eastern part of Europe, as then out of the 15 largest regions are in the EU Member State that joined in 2004. However, the wave of CEE migrants did not appear in the oldest member states of the EU at the same time. After the 2004 enlargement, many of the EU countries only opened up completely their labour markets to newcomers after a transitional period (Castro-Martín and Cortina 2015). After initial ‘fears’, the former structure of migration has transformed. Prior to 2004, the main target area for migrants in CEE was Germany and Austria (more than two-thirds of migrants), while after the enlargement this role was taken over by Britain. In 2015, Polish migrants are the highest in the UK’s labour market, followed by the Lithuanians, Latvians and Slovakians. The proportion of Hungarians is the fifth highest (Warrell 2017). The current international economic trends strengthen the migration from the region, which can generate additional impacts not only for the sending but also for the host countries. In CEE, the characteristics of return migration vary considerably from one county to another. The returning Hungarian migrants do not always re-engage with their abilities for the domestic labour market. The proportion of returnees is high in the unemployment rate, however, they are often higher educated and/or entrepreneurship among them is higher than the ones who stayed. As a result of the ‘economic crisis’, although the proportion of Hungarians who move permanently abroad is growing, most of them return when achieved their financial goals (Lados and Hegedűs 2017).
Within the study of migration, the scientific research of re-migration has not been as significant as migration and started only in the 1960s and became apparent in the 1980s. Sociologists, economists and also geographers were interested in the phenomenon. According to the United Nations (2017), migrants who have been immigrants for shorter or longer period of time in another country and are planning to stay in their motherland for at least of year. The effects of returning migration are analysed in a variety of ways in the studies. Özden and Schiff (2006) stress that remigration has a variety of impacts, and the interpreted positive effects include the labour market utilization of material, intellectual and social capital gained abroad, as well as contributing to modernization through innovation. Negative impacts can also occur, for instance, re-migrants often find it difficult to reintegrate into the society and economy of their homeland. This may even cause unemployability for returning migrants. Their wealth, ‘success story’ may create envy among the others. These factors can lead to a circular migration, which can be reflected in the emigration of newer groups or the repeated migration of returning migrants (Lados and Hegedűs 2017).
Lowell (2001) argues that six types of policy responses to international migration can be distinguished by their goals and their means to achieve them. Based on the initials of the elements that make up the model, “6R” defines the following types: “return of migrants to their source country” – emigrants as a permanent programme whose key element is to facilitate reintegration, as without this, the return is often temporary, as the negative experiences in the society that cause emigration again. “Restriction of international mobility” – which is mainly used by developing countries, as, for example, the EU’s single market regulation prohibits such measures. “Recruitment of international migrants” – that focusing mainly on attracting qualified workforce and used primarily by developed countries. “Reparation for loss of human capital” – which was only a theoretical opportunity in the 1970s. In this context, the more developed countries would have financially compensated the countries affected by the ‘brain drain’. Furthermore, “resourcing expatriates” – involving people abroad to achieve the country’s economic and political goals, for instance, creating information networks, databases, and diaspora participants in foreign lobbying. Lastly, the “retention” – the essence of which is to keep potential immigrants in the region or in the country without constraint, for example by improving working conditions, income relations and career opportunities. Regarding re-migration policies, it is worth distinguishing between measures aimed at migrants (as people already left) or potential migrants (who are planning to leave).
There are many initiatives to address the problem of brain drain around the world. As the problem appeared later in Europe than in Latin America or Asia, the action in Europe is ‘younger’. There are diverse target aims and groups, and it is still difficult to measure their impact today. In terms of the CEE countries’ territorial scale, initiatives are distinguished between national policies and ‘good practices’ with a smaller scope. In the following, I will look at national policies as they have a global impact on the return migration activities in Europe. Among the main objectives, most of the initiatives for a country alone focus on the attraction of the workforce. Within this, there are frequent initiatives focusing on the specific part of the labour market (e.g. researchers, healthcare workers). For instance, the Hungarian “Lendület Program” [Momentum Programme] (MTA 2009-2018), the “Gyere haza, fiatal!” [Come home, youth!] in 2015, and the Polish “Homing Plus” (FNP 2013) initiatives. The policy measures for the mass migration wave that started after 2004 can only be evaluated as the first ‘experimental’ phase. In Hungary, for example, they started planning at least about 4-5 years after the enlargement, although unfavourable migration processes started to occur much sooner (Lados and Hegedűs 2017). Looking at the above-mentioned projects, it is common that local and regional good practices do not define either age groups or levels of qualification for their target groups, but if they do so, the focus is on young and well-trained labour. The impact of the measures is reduced by the fact that in many cases there is a strong mistrust of politicians in the migrants’ homeland; emigrants feel that migration projects primarily serve the campaign goals and, when presenting opportunities, the politicians paint a better picture in order to convince migrants. Bureaucracy, complicated administration, also disparages many people from returning home (Özden and Schiff 2006). Smoliner, et al. (2012) argues that although homeowners have many skills that are useful and valuable for the domestic economy (e.g. language skills, corporate culture, entrepreneurship, etc.), most companies do not, or only partially, build on these. Despite these facts, since the majority of national policies in the region have been created in recent years, and most of them are still being implemented, I found it difficult to evaluate their long-term effects or results.
Based on the results of the foreign experience and the research on returning projects (such as Re-Turn project 2012), several useful proposals can be drawn up that can be organized around issues of re-migration, reintegration and re-employment. For instance, Carling, et. al. (2015) argues that information flow plays a particularly important role in order to ensure fast and efficient communication between emigrants and their home country. Similarly, websites specifically targeting re-migrants can be used to gather information, opportunities and other relevant facts. In addition, recognition of their skills and qualifications newly gained abroad would make it easier to return home, as it improves the chance of settling down. Greatly facilitated management could also help migrants benefit from useful training for the labour market and social reintegration. The issue of re-employment, of course, cannot be separated from the general economic situation, but with some measures, it is possible to make the process simpler, so it may become more attractive for emigrants to return, and it would be one less reason to migrate for those who are planning. Flexible operation of support systems and adaptation to current needs are also essential. Promoting self-employment would contribute to the more efficient use of the resources and knowledge of returners. Finally, it is necessary to have available training opportunities in the labour market at a local and regional level, which can lead to significant time and cost savings (Carling et.al. 2015).
The phenomenon of re-migration across the globe is a multi-national initiative in the sending countries that serve the social and economic development. In Europe, however, there are fewer national policies compare to other continents. In Central and Eastern Europe, these are only slightly outdated since 2004, despite the increasing emigration to the workforce, these projects cannot be considered as comprehensive, significantly financed programmes. Most of the existing national policies are part of the ‘seduction to home’, ‘re-employment’ and ‘reintegration’, although the type of ‘retention’ is becoming more and more important, for instance in Hungary (Lados and Hegedűs 2017). Since the majority of national policies have been planned in recent years, and most of them are still under evaluation, their effectiveness is still difficult to measure. Based on this research, I stress that in Central and Eastern European countries, such as in Hungary, more comprehensive initiatives (such as in education, research, healthcare) need to be implemented at a national level in a complex way. Within the economic, labour market and legal framework of the European Union, CEE member states cannot be expected to dramatically catch up on wages, quality of life and the employment situations. For this reason, national policies could be a temporary solution in terms of for the most affected regions by brain drain and labour migration. The problem of mistrust of official decision-makers can be remedied not by the involvement of the government, but by a stronger involvement of local and regional levels. Finally, it is worth highlighting that those initiatives are promising greater success, which has well-defined goals and target groups and has limited responsibilities, therefore, the strategies should be taken care of not be too general and not to become a complex institutional network.
2018-11-11-1541950070