IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wii/rpaper/rr378.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Surveying Romanian Migrants in Italy Before and After the EU Accession: Migration Plans, Labour Market Features and Social Inclusion

Author

Listed:
  • Isilda Mara

    (The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw)

Abstract

This report describes the migration patterns of Romanian migrants in Italy before and after the accession of Romania into the European Union (EU). The findings and the main results presented throughout the report were collected by carrying out a survey in three main cities of Italy Milan, Turin and Rome which are recognized as the main destination regions of Romanians who have migrated to Italy since free visa liberalization in May 2004. The report focuses on four broad areas the profile and migration plans of migrants, regional differences and basic characteristics; labour market patterns during the migration experience, including income and remittances; social inclusion of migrants and access to social security and the health system; and, self-assessment of the migration experience and results of moving to Italy. The survey demonstrated that the mobility of migrants during the free visa regime was initially labour supply driven, whereas more recently, it has been labour demand that moved the migrant from his/her country of origin. However, the survey points out that almost half of Romanian migrants in Italy have indefinite migration plans. The remainder of the migrants express a preference for permanent migration, followed by long-term migration, while a preference for short-term migration is the least popular. The accession of Romania to the EU was accompanied by a flow of migrants with a higher preference for permanent and long-term migration, especially among those who arrived immediately after January 2007. Half of the migrants who had defined migration plans indicated that their current migration preferences, compared to the ones they had upon arrival, have shifted towards permanent migration. This is particularly true among women. As concerns remigration, or return to Romania, the survey reveals that migrants who are more likely to return to the country of origin or move to another country are those living in Rome while migrants who prefer to remain permanently are those living in Turin. As for labour market patterns and regional differences, four-fifths of migrants are employed, with the highest share of those working full-time found in Rome, followed by Turin and Milan. Unemployment among Romanian migrants seems to be the highest in Milan and the lowest in Turin. A significant proportion of migrant women have jobs in the categories ‘Sales and services elementary job’, ‘Personal care and related workers’ and ‘Housekeeping and restaurant services’. Men mostly work as ‘Extraction and building trades workers’, ‘Drivers and mobile plant operators’ and ‘Metal, machinery and related trades workers’. A non-negligible share of migrants work without a fixed contract which makes their employment position more vulnerable and open to exploitation. In addition, the survey shows that occupational switches occurred within all categories of occupational skill levels. In particular, there has been a trend towards jobs distinguished as medium and low skilled. Moreover, a comparison between education level and occupational skill level shows that highly skilled migrants, especially men, are employed in jobs below their level of educational achievement. A concern often expressed is that migrants who have access to health and social security services are more encouraged to enter or stay in a country. However, the survey rejected this hypothesis and suggests that neither receiving social security benefits nor the availability of accessing healthcare drives migrants’ decision to enter and remain in the destination country. Access to healthcare, however, appears to have some potential effect on migration plans. We find that the longer migrants plan to stay in the country, the higher the percentage of them who have access to a general practitioner/doctor and the higher the number of them whose migration decision is affected by access to such services. Accordingly, it emerges that the length of stay in the destination country matters and it confirms that there is a correlation between the duration of stay and the effect on migration plans attributed to access to social security and health services, even though such cases represent less than one-fifth of migrants. Self-assessment of the migration experience and outcomes from moving to Italy demonstrated that overall most of Romanian migrants are happy with their migration experience in Italy. The self-assessment indicated ‘making more money’, ‘finding a better job’ and ‘learning a new language’ as the main positive outcomes from the migration experience. In contrast, ‘insecurity about the future’, ‘discrimination’, ‘negative impact on family relationships’ and ‘doing work under the level of qualification’ are listed among the main negative outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Isilda Mara, 2012. "Surveying Romanian Migrants in Italy Before and After the EU Accession: Migration Plans, Labour Market Features and Social Inclusion," wiiw Research Reports 378, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
  • Handle: RePEc:wii:rpaper:rr:378
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://wiiw.ac.at/surveying-romanian-migrants-in-italy-before-and-after-the-eu-accession-migration-plans-labour-market-features-and-social-inclusion-dlp-2629.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Isilda Mara & Michael Landesmann, 2013. "Do I stay because I am happy or am I happy because I stay? Life satisfaction in migration, and the decision to stay permanently, return and out-migrate," Norface Discussion Paper Series 2013008, Norface Research Programme on Migration, Department of Economics, University College London.
    2. Daniela Andrén & Monica Roman, 2016. "Should I Stay or Should I Go? Romanian Migrants During Transition and Enlargements," Springer Books, in: Martin Kahanec & Klaus F. Zimmermann (ed.), Labor Migration, EU Enlargement, and the Great Recession, pages 247-269, Springer.
    3. Anghel, Remus Gabriel & Botezat, Alina & Cosciug, Anatolie & Manafi, Ioana & Roman, Monica, 2016. "International migration, return migration, and their effects. A comprehensive review on the Romanian case," MPRA Paper 75528, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Dec 2016.
    4. Hanna Orsolya Vincze & Delia Cristina Balaban, 2022. "Between Conflict and Solidarity: Pandemic Media Coverage of Romanian Intra-EU Labour Migrants," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(2), pages 265-275.
    5. Cristian INCALTARAU & Daniel JURAVLE, 2014. "The Attractiveness Of The Eu States. What Does Migration Indicate?," EURINT, Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, vol. 1, pages 141-157.
    6. Michael Landesmann & Sandra M. Leitner & Isilda Mara, 2015. "Should I Stay, Should I Go Back or Should I Move Further? Contrasting Answers under Diverse Migration Regimes," wiiw Working Papers 111, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    data collection; migration; regions; employment; earnings; health; education; welfare; Romanian migrants;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C8 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs
    • I - Health, Education, and Welfare
    • J11 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Demographic Trends, Macroeconomic Effects, and Forecasts
    • J21 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Labor Force and Employment, Size, and Structure
    • J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity
    • J31 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Wage Level and Structure; Wage Differentials
    • J6 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Mobility, Unemployment, Vacancies, and Immigrant Workers
    • R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics
    • Y - Miscellaneous Categories
    • Z - Other Special Topics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wii:rpaper:rr:378. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Customer service (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wiiwwat.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.