The European dimension to the situation
of immigrants in the labor market
Martin Kahanec
DPP, CEU Budapest
June 27, 2011
Three themes
• The demographic context and the need for immigrants
• Migrants in Europe
• Immigration and integration policy perspectives
The demographic background
• Demographic change presents nearly all EU states
with formidable challenges:
–
–
–
–
Ageing populations
Scarcity of skilled labor
Dynamic loss in the economy (innovation deficits)
Financial risks in social security systems
• Financial and economic crisis adds to the difficulties:
– Rising risk aversion
– Economic decline
– Negative attitudes toward immigration and new Fortress Europe?
Demographic changes (2005-2020)
Population share aged 20-64 – Projection 2005/2020
De ve lopm e nt 2005 - 2020
Share of Total Population in 2020
0,5
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
0,52
0,54
0,56
0,58
0,6
0,62
0,64
0,66
- 0.06
- 0.04
- 0.02
0
0.02
0.04
Share of working age
population will decrease
across the EU
Poland
Romania
Slovakia

Scope of intra-EU
mobility in cushioning
demographic ageing
appears limited

Excess demand for
immigrants will increase
especially in EU-15
Slovenia
Cyprus
Greece
Italy
Malta
Portugal
Spain
Austria
Belgium
France
Germany
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Denmark
Finland
Sweden
Ireland
United Kingdom
Source: Eurostat, EuroPOP2004 (No migration variant), and IZA, AMS, Niras (2008), Geographic Mobility in the
European Union: Optimising its Social and Economic Benefits. Report to the European Commission
Ageing (2005-2020)
Old-Age Dependency Ratios – Projection 2005/2020
Old-Age Dependency Ratios in 2020
0,15
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,35
0,4
De ve lopm e nt 2005 - 2020
0,45
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
Share of old people
relative to working age
population will increase
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Romania

Inevitably, the share of
young mobile workers
will decrease

Hence, EU societies have
to cope with shrinking
innovation dynamics

Even growing intra-EU
mobility will not offset
ageing
Slovakia
Slovenia
Cyprus
Greece
Italy
Malta
Portugal
Spain
Austria
Belgium
France
Germany
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Denmark
Finland
Ireland
Sweden
United Kingdom
Source: Eurostat, EuroPOP2004 (No migration variant), calculations by IZA staff; IZA, AMS, Niras (2008),
Geographic Mobility in the European Union: Optimising its Social and Economic Benefits. Report to the EC
Chart 6 - Mobile EU-27 citizens by origin country, 2006 (Share of citizens living in another country
relative to the population of the country of citizenship)
Mobile EU-27 Citizens by Country of Origin (2006)
14.0
12.0
But mobility is low in the
EU anyway….
10.0
8.0
…so we need immigrants
from outside the EU
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
CY
LU
IE
PT
MT RO BG
FI
SK
BE
SI
LT
LV
PL
DE
NL
FR
DK
EE
SE
CZ
IT
UK
ES
EL
HU
% 13.3 9.6
8.2
7.4
7.2
2.9
2.7
2.6
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.1 1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6 0.4
5.3
Source: Eurostat, LFS, spring data.
3.4
Source: Eurostat, LFS, spring data for available countries; IZA Research Report No. 19 (2008).
AT
IZA Expert Survey on High-Skilled Labor Immigration
• A survey of 234 labor market experts from Europe
• 89.0% - the EU needs at least as many immigrants as it has now, and
57.7% - the EU needs more or many more immigrants
• Less conviction that the EU needs low-skilled immigration (60.7 and
27.3%)
• However, 96.7% - the EU needs at least as many high-skilled migrants,
and 80.3 % - the EU needs more or many more high-skilled migrants
• Sensitivity to the crisis? 84.5% report no effect of the crisis on their
evaluation of the long-term demand for immigrants
…so there is need for immigrants.
… do we have any?
Migrants in Europe
Foreign citizens
Other EU
Non-EU
Foreign-born
Other EU
Non-EU
EU15:
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy2
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
4.1
6.4
2.92
0.7
2.3
3.1
1.3
5.41
1.3
41.2
1.7
0.6
3.9
2.5
2.6
5.0
2.6
2.4
1.0
3.3
2.8
4.8
2.61
3.8
5.6
1.9
2.8
8.3
2.7
4.3
6.7
6.8
2.0
1.4
3.4
n.a.
1.7
8.81
2.2
37.9
2.8
1.8
4.5
5.5
3.5
8.7
6.7
4.6
1.8
7.8
n.a.
5.9
3.41
5.3
8.6
9.1
5.7
10.0
10.0
8.8
EU12:
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
(0.1)4
8.1
0.4
0.7
0.5
n.a.
n.a.
1.2
(0.1)
0.12
(0.2)
(0.2) 4
(0.1)
6.5
0.4
16.8
0.2
0.73
(0.6)
1.8
0.1
0.1
(0.1) 1
(0.2)
n.a.
8.1
1.3
0.64
1.3
1.14
(0.3) 4
1.75
0.2
n.a.
0.64
(0.7) 5
n.a.
11.0
0.6
13.6
0.4
9.6
3.8
3.0
0.3
(0.1) 1
(0.1)
4.6
Gross immigration, non-EU, % population
Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
Denmark
1.0
0.5
1.0
Finland
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.0
France
0.2
Germany
0.1
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
0.2
0.3
1.0
0.6
1.5
0.3
0.1
0.8
1.0
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.1
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
0.5
1.0
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.6
Portugal
Slovak Republic
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
1995
Spain
Sweden
2.0
Switzerland
0.8
United Kingdom
0.9
1.5
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
1.0
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.0
0.2
1995
2000
2005
2010
0.5
1995
2000
2005
2010
0.2
1995
2000
2005
2010
1995
2000
2005
2010
2000
2005
2010
Natives
High
Medium
Low
Immigrants
High
Medium
Low
Non-EU
immig.
High
Medium
Low
Natives
High
Medium
Low
Immigrants
High
Medium
Low
Non-EU
immig.
High
Medium
Low
AT
BE
CY
CZ
DK
EE
FI
FR
DE
EL
HU
IE
IT
13.18
27.82
59
25.95
39.68
34.37
20.72
43.02
36.27
9.49
20.6
69.9
26.75
28.63
44.62
22.16
27.79
50.05
26.32
33.53
40.16
19.53
42.81
37.65
20.18
25.14
54.68
13.28
54.95
31.77
11.11
38.87
50.02
20.85
45.73
33.41
8.43
60.44
31.13
14.18
39.46
46.36
22.94
49.46
27.59
32.54
35.67
31.78
12.39
34.14
53.47
33.86
27.89
38.25
33.04
16.74
50.22
21.8
33.74
44.46
18.06
57.47
24.47
17.36
41.73
40.91
13.72
47.74
38.54
22.09
29.38
48.53
39.79
26.58
33.64
11.72
49.8
38.48
9.82
48.87
41.31
22.28
49.76
27.96
27.13
39.45
33.42
22.6
26.37
51.03
30.41
33.76
35.82
32.71
16.59
50.7
18.18
41.99
39.83
19.64
55
25.37
.
.
.
11.71
52.39
35.9
20.69
29.58
49.73
.
.
.
.
.
.
LV
LT
LU
NL
PL
PT
SK
SI
ES
SE
UK
EU15
EU25
16.35
30.45
53.20
17.86
30.53
51.61
15.44
32.92
51.64
26.13
33.18
40.69
11.93
30.11
57.96
7.72
80.83
11.45
10.62
26.92
62.46
15.69
27.3
57.00
20.58
62.33
17.09
24.73
21.78
53.49
26.30
13.97
59.73
19.06
42.86
38.09
17.33
41.03
41.64
24.13
19.50
56.36
24.94
19.82
55.23
27.51
39.93
32.56
23.28
31.69
45.03
11.86
51.62
36.52
18.83
54.72
26.45
19.31
24.14
56.55
13.68
32.23
54.09
21.33
46.76
31.92
28.50
23.86
47.64
27.70
18.45
53.85
22.44
38.45
39.11
21.94
38.32
39.74
24.40
17.06
58.53
25.00
18.87
56.13
31.31
28.84
39.85
21.65
35.62
42.73
12.30
52.58
35.12
17.34
56.55
26.11
17.65
31.37
50.98
13.21
33.37
53.42
18.73
49.02
32.25
26.66
27.89
45.46
28.22
19.72
52.06
21.53
39.80
38.68
20.65
39.76
39.58
…so in CEE we have few immigrants (bad), but their numbers are
growing (good) and they are relatively skilled (also good).
…in the rest of Europe the situation varies: e.g. Ireland, Denmark and
the UK have substantial populations of skilled immigrants,
whereas Austria, Germany or the Netherlands attract less skilled
immigrants.
… what policies are needed?
Immigration and integration policy perspectives
The context of immigration policy
•
•
•
Bad demographics
Arguments that Europe needs immigrants, especially skilled ones, to
alleviate the demographic problems
Empirical evidence on the effects of immigration on host labor markets
– generally non-negative,
– perhaps local adversities,
– but many positive effects documented
•
Not many immigrants in CEE, larger numbers in EU15 (but their
integration a challenge)
•
Immigration and integration policies problematic (see MIPEX)
4.6
2.0
2.0
0.0
no policy is
necessary
2.6
closed borders
21.9
other selection
positive
selection on
education/skills
negative
selection on
education/skills
selection based
on language
skills
selection based
on migrants'
need (refugees
selection based
on the
existence of
selection based
on ancestry
job-dependent
immigration
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
open borders
percent
ESHSLI results: Preferable policy approach
72.8 74.8
31.8
13.2 16.6
… but this can only work if immigrants are integrated
… are they?
… how?
The risk of poverty
5
4
3
2
1
0
LU
BE
SE
CZ
NL
FI
AT
NO
FR
DK
IE
Non-EU
•
GR
CY
IT
UK
ES DE*
IS
PL
PT
EU
Mostly significantly higher than that of the natives
ESS, mimeo
The risk of social and labor market exclusion
EU ethnic minorities 2007-2010
EU ethnic minorities 2007-2010
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
2007
2010
30
20
20
10
10
0
2007
30
2010
0
No risk
•
•
Low risk
Medium
risk
High risk Very high
risk
Decreasing
Constant
Increasing
High and increasing
The situation has worsened between 2007 and 2010
IZA EOS 2007, 2010
The risk of social and labor market exclusion
Trend
Germ any
3
ex-Soviet
Union
2
ex-Yugoslav
Africans
Turks
1
1
3
5
Risk
•
All major immigrant groups at serious risk!
IZA EOS 2007, 2010
The risk of social and labor market exclusion
Italy
Trend
3
Moroccans
Albanians
Asians
2
Ukrainians
1
1
3
5
Risk
•
…same for Italy, and most EU15. Asians do relatively well in some
countries.
IZA EOS 2007, 2010
The risk of social and labor market exclusion
Hungary
Trend
3
Romanians
2
ex-Yugoslav
Roma
Slovaks
1
1
3
5
Risk
•
In CEE: Autochthonous ethnic minorities, but also immigrants at high
risk
IZA EOS 2007, 2010
The risk of exclusion from welfare (UB)
5
4
3
--- raw data
2
1
0
NO
FI
IS
PL
AT
UK
IT
GR
LU
FR
DK
Non-EU
SE
DE*
BE
PT
NL
ES
CY
IE
CZ
EU
25%
20%
15%
10%
--- controls for
characteristics
5%
0%
FI
DK
AT
FR
NO
LU
DE*
IT
GR
NL
BE
IS
UK
SE
PT
ES
PL
IE
CY
CZ
-5%
-10%
-15%
Non-EU
EU
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
controls for characteristics --and eligibility
0%
-10%
LU
DK
GR
UK
IT
CZ
IS
DE*
PL
AT
FI
FR
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
Non-EU
EU
PT
ES
BE
NO
CY
SE
IE
NL
Integration barriers
60
40
30
20
10
Minorities in general
Minorities at greates t ris k
th
er
O
In
st
itu
ti o
na
l
In
te
rn
al
is
cr
im
in
at
io
n
D
In
fo
rm
at
io
n
Ed
uc
at
io
n
La
ng
ua
ge
on
e
0
N
Percent
50
What do minorities want:
Areas integration policies most desired
Minorities in general
Po
l it
Minorities at greatest risk
th
er
O
At
ti t
ud
es
pa
rti
ci
pa
ti o
R
ep
n
re
se
nt
at
io
n
ul
tu
ra
l
li f
e
ty
C
M
ob
i li
ou
si
ng
Ed
uc
at
io
So
n
c.
in
su
ra
nc
e
H
ea
l th
ca
re
em
pl
Se
l f-
em
pl
•
Almost all minorities want to change their
situation (86% of all respondents, 98% of
minority respondents)
Mainly in paid employment, education, attitudes
and housing.
H
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Pa
id
Percent
•
Preferred policy principles
•
•
Equal treatment!
But some room for positive action
70
60
Percent
50
40
30
20
10
0
Equal tre atm e nt
Spe cific provis ions
All res pondents
Pos itive dis crim .
Minority res pondents
Othe r
Conclusions
• High need for (skilled) migrants in European labor markets
• But immigration policies often lacking and backfiring
• Very limited integration policy
• The debate often ill-informed and a paradigm shift needed –
access vs. abuse, win best brains vs. allow on “sacred soil”
• Missing an opportunity!
Martin Kahanec
Tel/Fax: +36 1 235 3097
Email: [email protected]
Department of Public Policy
Central European University
Nador utca 9
Budapest 1051
Hungary
www.publicpolicy.ceu.hu