01 062521 Rovolis (to_d)
30/3/06
9:03 am
Page 99
ETHNIC CHARACTERISTICS AND GEOGRAPHICAL
DISTRIBUTION OF IMMIGRANTS IN GREECE
★
Antonis Rovolis and Alexandra Tragaki
Harokopio University of Athens, Greece
Abstract
This paper examines the geographical dimension of
immigration in Greece. More particularly, this study
presents the distinctive economic, demographic and
settlement features of the different groups of immigrants in the Greek prefectures. The majority of
immigrant workers in Greece come from the Balkan
countries, the most populous ethnic group being the
Albanians who account for almost 60 percent of the
total immigrant population. There are significant
disparities between different ethnic groups regarding
their educational level and occupational characteristics. The profile of the average immigrant worker in
Greece is young, from an ex-communist country;
men migrate mainly for economic reasons while
women migrate mostly for family reasons; women
often have a higher level of education than men. There
are also significant differences as far as the spatial distri-
bution of the various ethnic groups is concerned.
Some groups, such as the Philippinos, Georgians, or
the Poles, show high geographical concentration,
while other ethnic groups, for instance the Albanians,
follow, more or less, the spatial distribution of the
Greek population. One of the most interesting
findings of this research is that settlement patterns
are mostly dictated by geography: immigrants from
neighbouring countries tend to have similar preferences or installation criteria. This is the case for immigrants from Eastern European countries. In contrast,
Albanians seem to follow their own settlement
pattern.
Introduction
(Carella and Pace, 2001; Cavounidis, 2002; Lianos
and Papakonstantinou, 2003), the characteristics of
immigrants and their settlement patterns
(Cavounidis and Hadjaki, 2000; Lianos, 2001;
Siadima, 2001) as well as the impact of their
presence on the country’s economic and social life
(Labrianidis and Lyberaki, 2001; Labrianidis et al.,
2004; Kasimis and Papadopoulos, 2005). Compared
to the other countries of Southern Europe, the
nationality composition of foreigners living in
Greece reveals some interesting particularities: the
bulk of the immigrant population (about 75 percent)
originates from the ex-communist countries, mainly
from the neighbouring Balkan states (65 percent),
while practically 6 out of 10 immigrants come from
one country, Albania. Due to the predominance of
one country of origin, most of the previously
mentioned studies either examine migrants as a
The dramatic events in Central and Eastern Europe
(CEE) have not only affected the social and political
continuity in the respective countries but also
entailed remarkable changes all over Europe. New
migratory routes have been traced and new
destinations have been formed since the onset of the
transition. The distinction between emigration and
immigration regions has been revised. Southern
Europe is a typical case of a region transformed
from an emigration to a migrant-receiving area.
This new migration scene has had a significant
impact upon Greece as well.
There is a steadily growing literature about
Greece turning into a country of destination
(Baldwin-Edwards, 1997; King et al., 2000; King,
2002), the explanatory factors behind this novelty
European Urban and Regional Studies 13(2): 99–111
10.1177/0969776406062521
KEY WORDS ★ Greece ★ regional migration ★
settlement patterns
Copyright © 2006 SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi, www.sagepublications.com
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
01 062521 Rovolis (to_d)
30/3/06
9:03 am
100
Page 100
EUROPEAN URBAN AND REGIONAL STUDIES 13(2)
whole or focus on the Albanians (Lianos and
Papakonstantinou, 2003); examining their
employment, demographic and behavioural
characteristics. However, ethnic disparities are
worth mentioning: geographic distribution,
gender composition, education level and sectors
where employed vary significantly in their
nationalities.
This paper intends to provide a complementary
analysis to those studies. It will present a breakdown
of different immigrant groups in Greece,
highlighting their distinctive economic,
demographic and settlement features. Additionally,
it will offer a more detailed geographic method of
analysis which will go down to NUTS-III level.
This approach aims to offer a clearer picture of
migrants’ ethnic and spatial distribution across the
country. In the following parts of this paper, we
present the main characteristics of foreigners in
respect to five great areas of origin (Europe, Asia,
America, Africa and Oceania). The next section
provides an in-depth analysis of the immigrant
workers. The discussion is then narrowed down to
the 10 major countries of origin which currently
form the immigrant working population in Greece.
The presentation of immigrant population and its
spatial distribution is thereafter completed with a
cluster analysis which aims to identify migrant
groups with similar settlement patterns.
The immigrants’ profile
For decades, Greece has been a traditional labourexporting country, with diaspora being one of the
most striking aspects of her history. The reversal of
migratory balance occurred in the 1970s, with the
first waves of ‘repatriates’. The beginning of
immigration to Greece coincides with the borderopening in Eastern Europe and the adoption of
restrictive policies in the traditional destination
countries of Western Europe. Political trends,
economic and social developments as well as
demography and geography have contributed to this
major and ‘unexpected’1 change of status. Gradually,
as Greece was turning into a net receiver, the
migration issue was emerging.
The most recent and reliable information about
the number of immigrants and their ethnic
characteristics is based on the 2001 census
estimates. According to this source, there are
762,191 non-nationals living in Greece, coming
from no fewer than 195 different countries.
However, the relative size of each nationality is very
different; only five countries of origin count for
about 70 percent of all immigrants, while 10
countries represent more than 80 percent of them.
Contrary to the experience of other European
countries, the mass of non-nationals comes from a
restricted number of countries – with bare, if any,
historic or cultural links.2 Immigrants in Greece
tend to be young (their median age is 28.8), mostly
men; the vast majority of them come from
ex-communist countries, especially the Balkans;
men migrate mainly for economic reasons while
women migrate mostly for family reasons;
women often have a higher level of education than
men. Gender asymmetry is a characteristic of
immigrant population worth exploring more closely.
The foreign population mostly consists of males,
120 men to 100 women. However, gender
asymmetry becomes more significant among
immigrant workers, where the ratio goes up to
224:100.
Major migrant inflows originate from Europe:
more than 8 out of 10 non-nationals are Europeans
(EU citizens included), mostly from Eastern and
South-Eastern countries (Table 1). They migrated
to Greece mainly in quest of work and to a lesser
extent of family reunification (Table 2). Overall,
there are 114 men for 100 women, though this ratio
doubles if calculated on the working population.
Sex ratio varies significantly across different
subgroups: it fluctuates from 133:100 for immigrant
population originating from the Balkans to only
60:100 for those coming from CEE. Europeans are
mostly occupied in construction, services,
agriculture and commerce; their spatial distribution
presents low variance as they are scattered all over
Greece. All the same, Europeans constitute an
especially heterogeneous population group: there
are substantial differences among EU-15 citizens,
people from the Balkans or Eastern Europeans in
respect to social, economic, educational and
demographic aspects.
Asians represent 9 percent of the foreign
population and 10.6 percent of working foreigners.
Asians migrate to Greece mainly for work, but also
as asylum-seekers and refugees (especially Iraqis
European Urban and Regional Studies 2006 13(2)
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
01 062521 Rovolis (to_d)
30/3/06
ROVOLIS
9:03 am
Page 101
& TRAGAKI: ETHNIC CHARACTERISTICS AND GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
101
Table 1 Foreigners in Greece (2001)
Number of
foreigners
As %
foreigners
Sex ratioa
Working
foreigners
As % of
working foreigners
Sex ratio
EUROPE
South-eastern
Central & Eastern
EU-15
Rest of Europeb
ASIA
AMERICA
AFRICA
OCEANIA
640,997
500,280
74,682
46,869
19,166
68,361
27,293
15,620
9,060
84.1
65.6
9.8
6.1
2.5
9.0
3.6
2.0
1.2
114.1
133.4
60.0
66.9
86.3
206.6
87.5
198.5
86.8
328,356
266,823
39,455
15,972
6,106
41,351
8,729
9,056
3,284
83.8
68.1
10.1
4.1
1.6
10.6
2.2
2.3
0.8
211.8
267.2
78.8
95.8
154.3
388.2
133.1
421.0
130.6
Albania
Bulgaria
Georgia
Romania
India & Pakistan
Russia
Ukraine
Poland
Egypt
Philippines
438,036
35,104
22,875
21,994
18,346
17,535
13,616
12,831
7,448
6,478
57.5
4.6
3.0
2.9
2.5
2.3
1.8
1.7
1.0
0.8
142.2
65.5
75.5
130.4
1791.3
59.6
32.5
84.5
324.4
30.9
226,301
23,147
11,181
14,808
15,300
7,855
8,356
7,855
4,823
4,948
57.8
5.9
2.9
3.8
3.9
2.0
2.1
2.0
1.2
1.3
317.8
79.0
100.2
223.1
3753.9
84.4
34.9
149.0
1465.9
28.0
TOTAL
762,191c
100.0
119.9
391,674
100.0
223.9
Notes:
a The sex ratio refers to the number of males corresponding to 100 females.
b Mainly referring to Cypriots.
c The numbers do not sum up to the total due to 860 persons who have not sufficiently defined their country of origin.
Source: 2001 Population Census and own calculations.
and Turks). Gender asymmetry in this case is very
high, since there are twice as many men as women
(Table 1). The educational level of Asians is lower
than the average and is characterized by high
illiteracy rates (Table 3). They principally work in
manufacturing, domestic work, commerce,
construction and agriculture. They have high
concentration indexes as they are gathered in
specific regions of the country: they are mostly
found in the north-eastern prefectures of Evros,
Xanthi and Rodopi as well as in the highly
industrialized prefecture of Viotia, in Central
Greece.
Africans account for hardly more than 2 percent
of all foreigners living in Greece. Egypt, Nigeria,
Ethiopia and South Africa are the main African
countries of origin. Africans have entered the
country primarily as workers, but there is also a
high share of students among them (Table 2). Men
significantly outnumber women (with the exception
of Ethiopians), especially if one focuses on the
working population of Africans (Table 1). They are
principally occupied in commerce, domestic work
and construction. They are mostly concentrated in
Evros and Attica.
Foreigners from America and Oceania form a
separate subgroup of foreign population with
certain similarities. They are, in their majority,
repatriates who have come back to the homeland
with their families (Table 1). Their geographic
distribution indicates that, upon their return, they
settled back in their places of origin, especially
islands or mountainous areas.3 Focusing on
Americans, they represent about 3.6 percent of all
foreigners but only 2 percent of workers. They
mainly originate from North America, especially
from the USA. There are more women than men;
less than one-third of Americans participate in the
European Urban and Regional Studies 2006 13(2)
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
01 062521 Rovolis (to_d)
30/3/06
9:03 am
102
Page 102
EUROPEAN URBAN AND REGIONAL STUDIES 13(2)
Table 2 Main reasons for installation in Greece
Work
(%)
Repatriation
(%)
Family
reunification
(%)
Studies
(%)
Asylum seekers
– refugees
(%)
Other
(%)
EUROPE
ASIA
AMERICA
AFRICA
OCEANIA
55.1
63.1
21.4
59.3
14.4
4.5
7.9
42.8
4.8
57.9
14.0
6.7
12.8
8.1
9.8
2.8
2.4
1.0
6.2
0.5
0.8
9.5
0.0
3.7
0.0
22.8
10.5
22.0
17.9
17.3
Albania
Bulgaria
Georgia
Romania
India & Pakistan
Russia
Ukraine
Poland
Egypt
Philippines
54.9
78.4
48.4
75.8
92.3
44.5
74.3
61.9
66.6
81.4
2.7
1.1
22.5
2.0
0.2
25.1
3.9
2.0
3.3
0.5
16.0
7.5
11.6
6.2
2.0
11.9
8.4
10.2
8.1
3.5
1.9
1.3
1.2
1.0
0.3
1.2
1.5
1.0
1.7
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.0
6.8
3.0
0.6
0.0
14.8
0.2
0.2
24.3
11.2
16.2
4.4
2.2
16.8
11.9
10.2
20.2
13.8
TOTAL
54.2
6.8
13.1
2.7
1.3
21.5
Source: 2001 Population Census and own calculations.
labour force, being mostly occupied in services,
commerce and hotels; their educational level is high
as approximately 20 percent of them have obtained a
university degree (Table 3). They are mostly found
in the Ionian and Aegean islands as well as in the
mountainous regions of Kastoria, Evritania and
Arkadia. Foreigners from Oceania are limited to
only 1.2 percent of the non-national population; the
majority of them consist of repatriates and their
families. As in the case of repatriates from America,
only a small number of them work, mostly in
commerce, hotels and services.
Heterogeneity becomes even more revealing if
one focuses on specific ethnic minorities. Disparities
concern the share of each migrant group in the total
foreign population, its demographic composition
and characteristics as well as the reasons for
settlement in Greece. The predominance of one
single country of origin constitutes a distinctive
feature of Greece. About 58 percent of all nonnationals come from neighbouring Albania,
equating the notion of the immigrant worker to that
of the ‘Albanian’. Additionally, Albanians were the
first to enter the country once the borders opened
up. The second and third most important countries
of origin are also situated in the Balkans: Bulgaria
and Romania account for about 5 percent and 3
percent respectively of all foreigners. Overall, 7 out
of 10 immigrant workers come from South-Eastern
Europe.
Though gender asymmetry for immigrant
populations is common to all host countries in
Southern Europe (Solé, 2004), since more males
migrate than females, some striking cases emerge
once the ethnic level is taken into consideration.
Indians, Pakistanis and Egyptians have amazingly
high gender ratios, no less than 37.5 working men
for one single woman from India and Pakistan,
definitely due to cultural and societal characteristics
in those countries. At the other end of the
spectrum, the female population prevails among
Philippinos and Ukrainians; the men-to-women
ratio is limited to 3:10. Migrant populations from
Russia, Bulgaria and Georgia are mostly female as
well; most of those women are employed as
domestic workers.
Most of the migrants have entered the country
to work; at least, this is what they declared when
asked about the main reason for settling down in
Greece (Table 2). Despite being very important,
European Urban and Regional Studies 2006 13(2)
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
01 062521 Rovolis (to_d)
30/3/06
ROVOLIS
9:03 am
Page 103
& TRAGAKI: ETHNIC CHARACTERISTICS AND GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
103
Table 3 Foreigners by level of education and area of origin
Tertiary
level
(%)
Secondary
level
(%)
Primary
level
(%)
Primary
students
(%)
Can read
and write
(%)
Illiterates
(%)
EUROPE
South-eastern
Central & Eastern
EU-15
Rest of Europe
ASIA
AMERICA
AFRICA
OCEANIA
9.3
5.7
18.7
26.1
26.4
9.3
19.7
18.1
12.4
31.7
28.9
39.6
39.9
56.2
31.5
34.1
39.7
33.1
39.2
43.5
27.7
21.6
12.6
40.3
32.0
25.2
40.1
8.0
8.8
6.1
5.2
2.0
3.6
6.0
3.6
5.2
2.4
2.6
2.1
1.5
0.8
5.5
2.7
3.2
4.6
9.3
10.5
5.8
5.7
2.1
9.8
5.4
10.1
4.6
Ukraine
Russia
Egypt
Georgia
Philippines
Bulgaria
Poland
Romania
Albania
India & Pakistan
26.3
19.7
19.1
17.0
10.9
10.4
10.2
6.9
5.0
1.9
42.9
34.9
35.9
31.7
52.8
34.6
53.4
52.9
27.0
23.7
22.1
29.4
25.4
33.7
24.2
42.0
22.6
30.5
44.5
54.1
4.5
6.8
2.7
7.7
3.1
4.2
5.1
2.5
9.6
0.6
1.0
2.6
4.3
3.2
1.9
3.4
0.8
1.9
2.6
7.1
3.2
6.4
12.5
6.6
7.1
5.4
8.0
5.3
11.2
12.6
9.9
32.0
38.7
7.4
2.8
9.2
TOTAL
Source: 2001 Population Census and own calculations.
work, however, is not the only reason of entry into
the country. One out of four arrivals from Russia
and Georgia refers to repatriated Greeks who left
the country during the Civil War, immediately after
the Second World War, or more recently, during the
1967–74 dictatorship. Family reunification is the
second most important ‘pull-factor’ among
Albanians, and mainly concerns persons from the
Greek minority who migrated from the southern
parts of Albania. High shares of asylum-seekers and
refugees are found among the Poles (14.8 percent)
and Romanians (6.8 percent).
Ukrainians and Russians seem to be the better
educated of all non-nationals: 26.3 percent of the
first and 19.7 percent of the latter are university
graduates (Table 3). In contrast, Albanians, Indians
and Pakistanis appear to be the least educated: about
half of them have only attained primary education
while illiteracy levels are higher than 10 percent.
The shares of non-national students in primary
education is positively related to family reunification
(Russia, Georgia, Poland) but also to the duration of
presence in the country (i.e. Albania).
Different ethnicities, different settlement
patterns
Significant differences are detected in terms of
educational level, economic sector and employment
once ethnicity is taken into account but especially as
far as regional concentration is concerned. The rest
of this paper analyses the regional aspect of
immigration. It addresses questions such as: Where
do immigrants settle? What are the regional
patterns of specific ethnicities? What are the
differences and similarities among different ethnic
groups? This section examines the role of
immigrants’ personal characteristics – such as
country of origin, reason for entry, educational level
and duration of stay – but also the role played by
European Urban and Regional Studies 2006 13(2)
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
01 062521 Rovolis (to_d)
30/3/06
9:03 am
104
Page 104
EUROPEAN URBAN AND REGIONAL STUDIES 13(2)
Adjusted Geographic Concentration Index
0.60
0.54
0.50
0.50
0.47
0.46
0.40
0.33
0.32
0.30
0.30
0.28
0.24
0.20
0.15
0.10
ALBANIA
INDIA &
PAKISTAN
RUSSIA
BULGARIA
UKRAINE
ROMANIA
EGYPT
POLAND
GEORGIA
PHILIPPINES
0.00
Figure 1 Geographic concentration of selected ethnicities, Greece (2001)
Source: 2001 Population Census and own calculations.
the specific features of the region of destination.
The study is based on regional data at NUTS-III
level coming from the 2001 population census.
In the rest of this paper a distinction is made
between the total number of foreigners and working
immigrants. The analysis centres on a specific
subgroup of immigrant population, the foreign
workers, put under the label of ‘economic
immigrants’. They compose the core of the
‘immigrant population’, usually under an illegal
status, and account for the majority of foreign
workers residing in Greece. The above typology also
allows the distinction between non-EU and EU-15
citizens, due to the free movement and residence
rights of the latter. Foreigners from North America,
Australia and Cyprus are also excluded from the
subnational analysis due to the above mentioned links
with the host country and their specific features,
barely similar to those of the economic immigrants.
Where do immigrants settle?
A first issue to be examined is the extent to which
foreign and native populations follow the same
settlement patterns. A synthetic indicator of the
relative concentration of migrants, proposed by the
OECD (2003), is the Adjusted Geographic
Concentration Index (AGC);4 it measures the
difference between the spatial distribution of
immigrant workers and the distribution of the
native labour force. The index ranges from 0 to 1;
the higher the value the greater the immigrant
concentration.
Figure 1 illustrates the value of the AGC for
selected ethnic minorities. Some of them tend to be
more concentrated in certain regions, with their
degree of concentration varying significantly: from
0.15 for Albanians (the migrant group most
dispersed across the country) to 0.54 for Philippinos
(the most concentrated ethnic group).
These differences may be related to the size of
each ethnic group. It would be expected that the
higher the size of an ethnicity, the greater the spatial
dispersion and, consequently, the lower the value of
geographical concentration. Figure 2 presents the
relationship between the size of each ethnicity (as a
percentage of foreign population) and its
concentration (as reported by the AGC). The
assumption of negative relationship between
population size and concentration, though not fully
confirmed, seems to be valid for ethnicities with low
shares in foreign population, like the Philippines,
European Urban and Regional Studies 2006 13(2)
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
01 062521 Rovolis (to_d)
30/3/06
Adjusted Geographic Concentration Index
ROVOLIS
9:03 am
Page 105
& TRAGAKI: ETHNIC CHARACTERISTICS AND GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
105
0.60
Philippines
Poland
0.50
Georgia
Egypt
0.40
Ukraine
Romania
Bulgaria
Russia
0.30
India &
Pakistan
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
1
2
3
4
5
%
Figure 2 Size and concentration of selected ethnicities, Greece (2001)
Source: 2001 Population Census and own calculations.
Egyptians and Poles. Bulgarians and Ukrainians,
however, show the same degree of concentration
though the share of the first is double that of the
latter.
The coefficient of variation (CV) and the
Herfindahl-Hirschman index (H-HI)5 – the most
commonly used measures of dispersion and
geographic concentration – provide further
supportive elements concerning the significant
differences in settlement patterns among
nationalities. Table 4 shows the values of CV and H
for selected ethnic minorities. All 10 nationalities
demonstrate high variability in their regional
distribution, as depicted by the high levels of CV,
with values consistently greater than 50. Moreover,
all ethnic minorities are far from being equally
distributed across the country; their high H values
indicate high levels of concentration. Geographical,
social and economic characteristics can be easily
detected behind this regional concentration.
However, concentration is especially high for
immigrants originating from particular countries,
such as India and Pakistan (0.20), the Philippines
(0.14) and Egypt (0.08). Workers from those
countries are assembled in a limited number of
prefectures unlike immigrants from the Balkans
who are more or less scattered all over Greece. The
majority of Philippinos have settled in the greater
Athens area; a high share of Egyptians have settled
in Evros; most Indians and Pakistanis live and work
in three prefectures in Central Greece, namely Rest
Table 4 Coefficient of variation and Herfindahl-Hirschman
Index
CV
H-HI
EUROPE
AMERICA
OCEANIA
AFRICA
ASIA
56.0
126.4
155.9
160.9
197.0
0.025
0.050
0.066
0.069
0.094
Albania
Russia
Ukraine
Bulgaria
Georgia
Poland
Romania
Egypt
Philippines
India & Pakistan
Others
58.4
88.6
94.1
138.0
154.1
157.6
165.0
180.4
255.1
309.8
84.5
0.026
0.034
0.036
0.056
0.065
0.067
0.072
0.082
0.144
0.204
0.033
58.7
0.026
TOTAL
Source: 2001 Population Census and own calculations.
European Urban and Regional Studies 2006 13(2)
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
01 062521 Rovolis (to_d)
30/3/06
9:03 am
106
Page 106
EUROPEAN URBAN AND REGIONAL STUDIES 13(2)
of Attika, Viotia and Evia. An additional element of
interest is that national groups from the former
USSR – Russians, Ukrainians and Georgians – do
not follow the same settlement patterns: Ukrainians
are mostly found in Attika and in the southern parts
of the country, while Russians and Georgians are
concentrated in northern Greece. The Athens
Major Area is home to 8 out of 10 Poles, and it is
here that one of the very few minority schools is
found.
The above results are confirmed by the location
quotient (QL), which identifies countries with high
and low ethnicity concentration. Figure 3 presents
the geographical distribution of Albanian
immigrants in the Greek prefectures and Figure 4
gives their respective location quotients. Similarly,
Figures 5–6 present the geographical distribution
and location quotients for the immigrants from
Georgia. Even a cursory examination of the spatial
patterns of these two groups of immigrants shows
that different group of immigrants have totally
different patterns of spatial distribution. In the
example of Albanians, Figure 3 shows that the
absolute numbers of immigrants of this particular
ethnic group follow more or less the distribution of
the Greek population, while the location quotients
(Figure 4) show that relatively more Albanians can
be found in the areas of Greece near to the border
with Albania.
In contrast, Georgian immigrants, both in terms
of absolute numbers (Figure 5) and location
quotients (Figure 6) follow a different spatial
pattern; mainly locating in Athens and northern
Greece.
From a different perspective, it would be
interesting to examine the effect of different waves
on geographic concentration (Table 5). It seems that
‘old’ immigrants such as the Philippinos, Poles and
Egyptians present higher concentration values.
Additionally, they are attracted by one specific
region, namely the Athens Major Area. ‘New’
immigrants (such as Romanians, Ukrainians and
Russians) follow a different settlement pattern,
mostly dictated by economic factors: they settle
close to industrial and agricultural poles offering
low-skilled job opportunities.
Albanians
30,429–72,048
6,306–30,429
3,576–6,306
1,432–3,576
94–1,432
Figure 3 Total number of Albanian immigrants
European Urban and Regional Studies 2006 13(2)
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
01 062521 Rovolis (to_d)
30/3/06
ROVOLIS
9:03 am
Page 107
& TRAGAKI: ETHNIC CHARACTERISTICS AND GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
QL Albanians
1.39946–1.60064
1.17514–1.39945
0.91392–1.17513
0.60532–0.91391
0.21993–0.60531
Figure 4 QL of Albanian immigrants
Georgians
1,777–5,024
679–1,777
233–679
67–233
0–67
Figure 5 Total number of Georgian immigrants
European Urban and Regional Studies 2006 13(2)
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
107
01 062521 Rovolis (to_d)
30/3/06
108
9:03 am
Page 108
EUROPEAN URBAN AND REGIONAL STUDIES 13(2)
QL Georgians
4.60654–6.02455
2.59840–4.60653
0.89056–2.59839
0.36361–0.89055
0.00000–0.36360
Figure 6 QL of Georgian immigrants
Differences and similarities among migrant
groups
This section aims to identify migrant groups with
similar geographic distribution. Cluster analysis has
been applied on the spatial distribution of 11
different migrant groups (variables). The technique
chosen is the hierarchical clustering and that of the
furthest neighbour, as it is less affected by outliers.
The measure of similarity adopted is the square
Euclidean distance, recommended for standardized
data.
The procedure and results of cluster analysis are
illustrated by the dendrogram (Figure 7). From the
dendrogram it is obvious that similarities in
settlement patterns among migrant groups are
mostly dictated by geography: neighbouring
countries tend to have similar preferences or
installation criteria. Georgians are grouped together
with Russians; Poles with Ukrainians; Indians with
Pakistanis; and Bulgarians with Romanians. The
first-in, Philippinos and Egyptians form a separate
group and are ultimately grouped together with
Table 5 ‘Old’ and ‘New’ immigrants: duration of presence
in Greece
1 year
(%)
1-5 years
(%)
More than
5 years
(%)
Philippines
Poland
Egypt
Albania
India & Pakistan
Georgia
Bulgaria
Russia
Romania
Ukraine
3.9
12.1
11.3
8.3
11.3
16.4
17.6
22.9
19.5
19.0
19.1
33.2
38.6
43.9
60.0
56.9
59.1
54.2
63.9
69.6
77.0
54.7
50.2
47.9
28.7
26.6
23.4
22.9
16.6
11.4
TOTAL
12.2
46.8
41.0
Source: 2001 Population Census and own calculations.
European Urban and Regional Studies 2006 13(2)
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
01 062521 Rovolis (to_d)
30/3/06
ROVOLIS
9:03 am
Page 109
& TRAGAKI: ETHNIC CHARACTERISTICS AND GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
Dendrogram
Furthest Neighbour Method, Squared Euclidean
Distance
80
60
40
20
EGY
PHIL
POL
UKR
RUS
GEO
ROM
BUL
IND
PAK
ALB
0
Figure 7 Cluster analysis
Poles and Ukrainians. Albanians follow their own
settlement pattern mainly due to their volume.
other countries of Southern Europe, which have
recently experienced an influx of immigrants. Such
an analysis can possibly identify patterns of
migration of certain ethnic groups, for instance
Albanians, across different host countries.
Conclusion
The main objective of this paper has been to
provide a complementary analysis of migration in
Greece, highlighting the different characteristics of
specific ethnic minorities and to associate them to
their geographical distribution. Significant
differences have been detected along the lines of
ethnicities in terms of migrants’ personal
characteristics such as country of origin, reason for
entry, educational level and duration of stay. The
regional distribution of migrant groups differs
significantly, confirming their different preferences
and job opportunities.
There are, however, many aspects of the recent
migration phenomenon in Greece that have not
been investigated deeply enough in this paper.
Further research is needed in the analysis of the
causal factors of the geographical distribution of
immigrant workers in Greece. One possible
approach is the use of regression analysis. If such an
approach is employed, the spatial nature of the data
makes it necessary to address problems such as
spatial dependence or spatial autocorrelation.
Another potential extension of the descriptive
analysis presented here is a comparative study of
Appendix
Geographic concentration
The Adjusted Geographic Concentration (AGC)
index proposed here is a slightly modified version of
the AGC proposed by the OECD (2003). It
measures the difference between the geographic
distribution of an ethnicity and that of the native
population. The calculation is based on the
following formula:
N
GC = ∑ mi ,n − pi
i =1
where mi,n is the share of immigrant worker of
nationality n in prefecture i, pi is the share of labour
force in prefecture I and N is the number of
prefectures (in Greece N = 52). This index tends to
underestimate the geographic concentration in large
regions. This drawback can be corrected if GC is
expressed as a share of its maximum value. The
index reaches its maximum when all foreigner
European Urban and Regional Studies 2006 13(2)
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
109
01 062521 Rovolis (to_d)
30/3/06
9:03 am
110
Page 110
EUROPEAN URBAN AND REGIONAL STUDIES 13(2)
workers are concentrated in the region with the
lowest labour-force participation:
GCMAX =
∑
i ≠ min
pi +1 − pi = 2(1 − pi )
1
⁄N when immigrants are equally distributed to all 52
regions.
The above measures of concentration are
calculated for each of the 13 selected nationalities.
The AGC is then expressed as:
Location quotient (QL)
GC
AGC =
GCMAX
The AGC lies between 0 and 1; 0 indicating no
concentration while 1 indicates maximum
concentration.
The QL compares the local presence of immigrant
workers to the national level as indicated by the
following formula:
Ani
QL =
Ai
AnT
AT
Coefficient of variation (CV)
The CV provides a relative measure of data
dispersion compared to the mean. For all the ethnic
minorities examined, the coefficient of variation
expresses the standard deviation as a percentage of
the mean number of immigrants, in each
prefecture.
N
∑ (xi − x)2
i =1
s
CV = =
x
N
x
where, xi is the number of immigrant workers of a
specific ethnicity in prefecture i, x̄ and s are
respectively the mean and the standard deviation of
immigrant workers and N is the number of
prefectures.
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (H-HI)
where Ani is the number of immigrants of
nationality n in the prefecture i, Ai the total number
of immigrant workers in prefecture i, AnT the total
number of immigrants of nationality n in the
country and AT the total number of immigrants in
the country.
If QL >1, this indicates a relative concentration
of immigrant workers of nationality n in the
prefecture i, compared to the country as a whole.
If QL = 1, the prefecture has a share of
immigrant workers of nationality n in accordance
with national standards.
If QL < 1, this reveals a lower share of
immigrant workers of nationality n than is generally
found.
Acknowledgement
This research was partially funded by the European
Social Fund and National Resources (EPEAEK)
Programme, Pythagoras II.
The H-HI is the sum of squares of the percentages
of the immigrant workers in a prefecture.
⎛
⎞
xi
⎜
⎟
H-HI = ∑
⎜
xi ⎟
∑
i =1
⎝
⎠
i
2
Notes
n
1
The index H-HI varies from 1, in case of perfect
concentration of all immigrants in one prefecture, to
The Greek state was not prepared to receive such an
influx of migrants. Until the first regularization process
in 1998, there had been no concrete migration policy
besides entry controls and massive expulsions of illegal
migrants.
European Urban and Regional Studies 2006 13(2)
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
01 062521 Rovolis (to_d)
30/3/06
ROVOLIS
2
3
4
5
9:03 am
Page 111
& TRAGAKI: ETHNIC CHARACTERISTICS AND GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
No other country in Southern Europe has been as
influenced by massive migration flows from CEE.
Immigrants from those countries make up only a minor
component of migrant populations in Spain and Portugal;
in Italy they form an important component but then
again far from that observed in Greece (OECD, 2000;
Cavounidis, 2002). The majority of foreigners in Spain
and Portugal originate from North America (as well as
Peru, Argentina, Brazil) and ex-colonies in Africa (Cape
Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Angola and Mozambique).
During the 1950s and 1960s large flows of Greek
migrants were directed to North America and Australia.
Isolated islands and mountainous and remote areas of
Macedonia, in northern Greece, and the southern
peninsula of the country, known as the Peloponnesus,
were the main areas of origin.
For more details see the Appendix.
The definitions and expressions of the indexes are
presented in the Appendix.
References
Baldwin-Edwards, M. (1997) ‘The Emerging European
Immigration Regime: Some Reflections on Implications
for Southern Europe’, Journal of Common Market
Studies 35 (4): 497–519.
Carella, M. and Pace, R. (2001) ‘Some Migration
Dynamics Specific to Southern Europe: South–North
and East–West Axis’ International Migration 39 (4):
63–99.
Cavounidis, J. (2002) ‘Migration in Southern Europe and
the Case of Greece’, International Migration 40 (1):
45–70.
Cavounidis, J. and Hadjaki, L. (2000) Migrant Applicants
for the Card of Temporary Residence: Nationality.
Gender and Placement [in Greek]. Athens: National
Institute of Labour.
Kasimis, C. and Papadopoulos, A. (2005) ‘The
Multifunctional Role of Migrants in the Greek
Countryside: Implications for the Rural Economy and
Society’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31 (1):
99–127.
King, R. (2002) ‘Towards a New Map of European
Migration’, International Journal of Population
Geography 8: 89–106.
King, R., Lazaridis, G. and Tsardanidis, C. (eds) (2000)
Eldorado or Fortress? Migration in Southern Europe.
London: Macmillan.
Labrianidis, L. and Lyberaki, A. (2001) Albanian
Immigrants in Thessaloniki: Paths of Prosperity and
Overviews of their Public Image [in Greek].
Thessaloniki: Paratiritis.
Labrianidis, L., Lyberaki, A., Tinios, P. and
Hatziprokopiou, P. (2004) ‘Inflow of Migrants and
Outflow of Investment: Aspects of Interdependence
Between Greece and the Balkans’, Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies 30 (6): 1183–208.
Lianos, T. (2001) ‘Illegal Migrants to Greece and Their
Choice of Destination’, International Migration 39 (2):
4–28.
Lianos, T. and Papakonstantinou, P. (2003) Modern
Migration in Greece: Economic Research [in Greek].
Athens: KEPE.
OECD (2000) ‘Foreign Workers from Central and Eastern
European Countries in Some OECD Countries: Status
and Social Protection’, seminar on Recent
Developments in Migration and the Labour Market in
Central and Eastern Europe in the Context of the EU
Enlargement (Mar.), Bratislava.
OECD (2003) Trends in International Migration. SOPEMI.
Siadima, M. (2001) ‘Immigration in Greece During the
1990’s: an Overview’, unpublished MA dissertation,
King’s College London.
Solé, C.(2004) ‘Immigration Policies in Southern Europe’,
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 30 (6): 1209–21.
Correspondence to:
Dr Antonis Rovolis, Department of Geography,
Harokopio University of Athens, El. Venizelou 176
61, Athens, Greece. [email: [email protected]]
European Urban and Regional Studies 2006 13(2)
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
111