MIGRATION IN THE BALKANS

by

Theodore P. Lianos*

Department of EconomicsATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS

May 9, 2005Athens

*Professor, Department of Economics, AUEBAthens :76, Patission Str., Athens, 104 34Email : tplianos@aueb.gr

MIGRATION IN THE BALKANS

Introduction

This paper presents the recent labor migration flows in the Balkan Countries among these countries and from these countries to others. It also reports some preliminary finding from a survey in Bosnia-Herzegovina regarding some effects of migration of the professional status of migrants, their qualifications, their incomes earned, their remittances back home and the use of these remittances.

The Effects of Migration

Migration has many effects on the economy of the country of origin.

On the positive side one may mention the following :

i) Reduction of social pressures if the rate of unemployment is high. If part of the unemployed labor force migrates social tension may subside and thus the general economic and political environment may improve.

ii) Migration may be a means by which part of the labor force may acquire new techniques and general knowledge which may be useful for them and for the economy upon their return.

iii) Remittances to the country of origin normally follow migration flows and these monetary funds can be very substantial. In addition to the obvious positive effects on the receiving families, remittances may ease the foreign exchange constraint which many countries face.

On the negative side one may mention the following : i) Migration may result in a substantial loss of young and dynamic labor

fore, since a considerable proportion of migrant will stay in the country of destination and never return for good to the country of origin.

ii) The human capital (learning new production techniques new languages, etc.) that migrants acquire in the country of destination may be very small. Many migrant are employed in Agriculture, in Construction and in Services (Hotels, restaurants, etc.) where no additional human capital is acquired. The opposite may also happen, namely migrants are often misemployed and they may lose part of their human capital instead of acquiring new.

iii) Remittances may also have negative effects in at least two ways. First, remittances may be used mainly for consumption and not for productive purposes. This may have the effects of creating inflationary pressures and increasing imports. Second remittances may create negative work incentives, in the sense that as long as remittances are flowing in, there is

2

less pressure for work in the labor market. It addition, one may mention that a substantial flow of remittances may appreciate the domestic currency and thus reduce export increase imports.

From this brief description of the possible positive and negative effects of migration, it appears that in theory no general conclusion can be drawn regarding the effects of migration on the long run growth of the sending economy. Probably, the net effect may depend on how migration and remittances are combined with the other factors that enhance or limit the prospects of growth. It seems, therefore, that the effects of migration may differ by country, depending on the prospects of growth, the institutional framework and government policies.

Growth Rates of Balkan Countries

The growth rates of GDP of the Balcan countries for the period 1990-2003 are presented on Table 1. The obvious characteristics of these growth rates is their erratic behaviour. For all countries the growth rates differ greatly from year to year. This is due to two main factors. First, to the disorganization of the economic structure that followed the fall of communist regimes and the need for the reconstruction of these economics within a new, largerly unknown to them, institutional framework. Second, to the internal conflicts that followed the fall of the old regimes.

However, during the last five years these economies seem to have achieved a normal way of economic functioning, and their rates of growth appear to vary within reasonable limits. For the seven countries appearing on Table 1, the (unweighted) average growth rate in each of the last three years at approximately 4%.

The growth prospects of these countries may differ. One would expect that Bulgaria and Romania, which will soon become member of the European Union, and Croatia, a little later, will be, ceteris paribus, in a better position to exploit the possibilities that will be opened to them and grow at a steady and high rate. Of course, it is not implied that all Balkan countries will growth at the same rate or that the existing regional imbalances will disappear. In fact, it is possible that regional imbalances may become more pronounced as some countries or regions may become poles of attraction at the cost of others. However, it is expected that the entire area will benefit when the general economic environment of the Balkan region improves as a result of growth of some, if not all, countries in the area.

3

Table 1Growth Rates of GDP of Balkan Countries

Year Albania BosniaHerzegovina

Bulgaria Croatia FYROM Romania Serbia Montenegro

19901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003

-9.9-28.0 -7.2 9.6 8.3 13.3 9.1 -10.3 12.7 8.9 7.7 7.9 4.8 5.9

-12.1-26.1-26.9 6.5 32.9 54.2 36.6 15.4 9.5 5.4 4.5 3.7 3.2

-9.1-10.4 -7.3 -1.5 1.8 2.9 -9.4 -5.6 4.0 2.3 5.4 4.1 4.8 4.8

-21.1 -11.7 -8.0 5.9 6.8 5.9 6.8 2.5 -0.9 2.9 3.8 5.2 4.7

-6.2 -6.6-14.7 -1.8 -1.1 1.2 1.4 3.4 4.3 4.5 -4.5 0.9 3.1

-5.6-12.9 -8.8 1.5 3.9 7.1 3.9 -6.0 -4.8 -1.2 2.1 5.7 4.9 4.7

-11.6-27.9-30.8 2.5 6.1 5.8 7.4 2.5-23.7 6.4 5.5 3.8 1.0

Note : Growth Rates are estimated on GDP values in 1990 pricesSource: United Nations Database.

4

Migration in the Balkan Countries

In analysing migration flows among the Balkan countries and also between the

Balkans and other countries one is faced with rather serious problems regarding the

availability and nature of statistical data. First, in most cases it is not clear whether an

individual reported as migrant is a long term mover, a temporary mover, a seasonal

worker, someone on the move to another destination, a returning migrant, a member

of a family already in country with no intention to work, a student who may or may

not be partially employed, a refugee, member of the staff of a foreign company in the

country, etc. Second, the available data are fragmentary in the sense of being

available for some years for some countries and for different years for other countries.

Third, the method for collecting of migration data, i.e. the definitions and the sources,

may differ by country. Fourth, the accuracy of the data differ by country. For

example, the number of emigrants from country i to country j in a certain year is often

very different from the number of immigrants to country j from country i in the same

year. Obviously, the reporting systems of the various countries do not have the same

reliability. Fifth and very important for the Balkan area, the reported data usually

refer to legal migrants based, for example, on residence or work permits. However,

the extent of illegal migration is very large, at least for some countries and for some

years, and therefore the estimates presented on the following tables are

underestimates.

In examining statistical data, in general and migration data, in particular, for

the Balkan countries one should bear in mind the fall of the communist and socialist

regime in the beginning of the 1990’s and the civil conflicts during the 90’s. It is

therefore preferable to concentrate on migration flows after 1996 because the more

recent flows correspond closer to what is termed economic migration.

The problems mentioned above do not render the available data useless. By

combining migration flows and stocks for various years and countries some

conclusions can be derived regarding the main labor mobility tendencies in the Balkan

countries.

5

(i). Migration in the Balkan Area

There are no systematically collected and complete data on migration flows in

the Balkan countries. However by combining data for outflows, for inflows and for

stocks for various years and for various countries from various sources, it is possible

to draw information and conclusions about the volume of migration flows, and the

main origins and destinations of migrants in the Balkan countries.

The Balkan countries. (i.e. Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia,

FYROMacedonia, Romania and Serbia-Montenegro) have a total population of 52

million (2003), 42% of which (i.e. 22 million) is Romanian. It is interesting to note

that the total population of the area is declining. In the period 2000-2003 it has

declined from 54.8 mil. to 52 mil., that is by 5.2% in three years. The level of income

in these countries is relatively low. The per-capita gross national income of these

countries is below 15% of that of the European Union (EU-15). This immediately

suggests two opposite forces regarding migration in the medium and longer term. On

the one hand, the relatively low level of incomes (in combination with the proximity)

is a strong push force for migrating, but on the other the volume of potential migrant

flows should be small given the population size.

Table 2 shows the net migration rates for the years 2000-2003 and also for the

period 1989-2002. It appears that the Balkan area has lost approximated two and a

half million people after the collapse of the communist regimes. During the last four

years 2000-2003, the net migration rates differ among countries. Albania and

Bulgaria have negative and high rates. The net migration rates of Bosnia-

Herzegovina and Croatia are declining very quickly between 2000 and 2003

indicating that these migration flows are related to internal conflict of the earlier

years, and as the situation settles the migration flows will diminish or even disappear.

6

Table 2

Migration, Population and Income in the Balkan Area

Net-Migration Rates, 2000-2003

Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 Net Migration Between 1989-2002Ths Percent

Population Ths2000 2003

GDP Per Capita (d)Current $, 2003

Albania -10.36 -3.69 -1.46 -1.39 -709 -22.3 3113 3169 1915Bosnia-

Herzegovina 25.92 8.91 2.97 0.32 n.a n.a. 3977 4140 1613

Bulgaria -5.06 -4.9 -4.74 -4.58 -689 -7.7 8170 7824 2533Croatia 5.42 13.37 9.72 1.61 -314 -6.6 4446 4456 6398

FYROM -5.66 -1.54 -1.49 -1.46 -46 -2.4 2026 2049 2225Romania -0.17 +0.02 -0.07 -0.54 -663 -2.9 22435 22200 2550Serbia-

Montenegro -1.9(a) -3.38 -1.38 -182 -1.7 10637 8104 1843

Total -2603 54804 51962

Note: Migrants per 1000 population

When more than figures are given for one year, we choose the figure for the largest series.

(a) From UN, Int Migration Report 2003 (c) For the period 1991-2001 (d) UN Dept of Economics + Social Affair.

Source:

7

(ii). Migration Among the Balkan Countries

In the Balkan area, Greece is the only country that, after 1990, has become an

important destination for migrants from Albania, primarily, and to a much lesser

extent from Bulgaria and Romania. According to the 2001 Census1 of population, the

stock of migrants that has been accumulated over the decade of 1990 in Greece is 762

ths people and includes 438 ths Albanians, 35 ths Bulgarians and 22 ths Romanians. It

is estimated that 12,5% of the Albanian labor force and 14% of the Albanian

population are in Greece. The stock of all immigrants to Greece correspond to 9.5%

of its labor force and to 7.5 of its population. By any standards, these percentage are

high for both countries. Due to proximity and common borders, immigration to

Greece involves, to a substantial extent, seasonal and circular movements the size of

which cannot be measured.

The other migration flows within the Balkan area are very small and should

not have any economic significance for the sending or receiving countries (See

Appendix Table 1). The flows among Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia-

Montenegro are, in all likelihood, the results of the civil conflict in Former

Yugoslavia and are not expected to last. The practically non existing migration flows

should not be surprising, given that these countries are not much different

economically and that there are much better opportunities for economic improvement

in the surrounding countries of the EU.

(iii) Migration from the Balkan Countries

It has already been mentioned that the existing statistical data on migration

flows from and to the Balkan countries are fragmentary with missing values by

country and year and by substantial differences by source. However, some basic

trends can be seen from the available data. From Tables 3,4 and 5 of the Appendix, it

appears that Germany is the most preferred country as a place of destination for

migrants from the Balkan countries. This seems natural given the past huge flows of

1 The census is taken in March 21, that is before the seasonal demand for labor reaches a pick. The peak season for seasonal employment in Tourism, Construction and Agriculture is late spring and summer. Thus the Census count is probably an underestimation of the average stock of migrants over the year.

8

migration from Former Yugoslavia to (West) Germany and the contacts that have

been established in the meantime between those that have migrated and stayed in

Germany and their relatives and friends in the new countries of Former Yugoslavia. In

the present period (after 1990) some new countries appear to have become places of

destination of substantial immigration from the Balkan countries. As mentioned

above Greece has (according to the 2001 Census of Population) a stock of 438 ths

Albanians 35 ths Bulgarians and 22 ths Romanians. Italy has also become a country

of destination with 107,5ths immigrants from Albania, 66.2 ths from Romania, 41.5

ths from Serbia-Montenegro and 15.9 ths from the Former Yugoslavian Republic of

Macedonia, for the 1997-2001 period. Smaller but still significant migration flows are

directed to Austria and Hungary. During the period 1997-2001, Austria has received

35.5 ths immigrants from Serbia-Montenegro 18.9 ths from Croatia and 17.1 ths from

Bosnia. Hungary has received 36.3 ths immigrants from Romania and 7.6 ths from

Serbia and Montenegro. These are the gross out-migration flows. The net migration

flows are, of course, smaller and vary by country as can be seen from tables 3, 4 and 5

of the Appendix.

Despite the fragmentary nature and the rather low quality statistical data, the

following conclusion can be drawn. There are two counties from which substantial

migration flows emanate i.e. Albania and Romania. The flows from Albania are

directed mainly to Greece and Italy whereas the flows from Romania are directed

mainly to Italy, Germany, Hungary and Austria. These are flows that have been

developed since 1990. There are important differences between these two countries.

Albania is a small country with the second lowest per capita income in the area and an

unemployment rate of 17%, and experiences no substantial return migration, at least

there are no indications pointing to a return flow. Romania is the most populous

country in the area with an unemployment rate of 8% and good prospects of growth,

as it is expected to be a member of the European Union in 2007 (its growth rate in

2003 is 4,5%). Looking at the same statistics from the point of view of the receiving

countries, it appears that Greece, Italy and Germany are the main destinations for

migrants from the Balkan countries whereas Austria and Hungary are becoming

significant poles of attraction.

9

(iv) Summary and Conclusion

Despite the lack of adequate data, some general conclusions can be drawn

regarding migration within the Balkan countries and also migration flows to and from

these countries. Regarding the within the Balkans labor movement, Greece is clearly

the only country receiving significant numbers of immigrants from Albania, which is

the major emigration country, from Bulgaria and from Romania. It is hard to make a

judgment for Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina as it is difficult to know to what extent

the in and out flows of migrants represent economic mobility and to what extent they

represent residual effects of the civil conflict. Regarding the out of the Balkans labor

mobility the main receiving countries are Italy, Germany Austria and Hungary, with

Italy receiving mainly Albanian and secondarily Romanian emigrants.

It is difficult to make predictions, within reasonably narrow ranges, regarding

future migration flows in the Balkan area. However some comments may be made.

First the rates of growth of the economies of the Balkan countries will probably differ

substantially. Romania and Bulgaria, which will soon become members of the

European Union, and Croatia a little later, have good chances for relatively high rates

of economic growth. These three countries taken together have a population of

approximately 34.5 million which corresponds to 66% of the population of the Balkan

area (excluding the population of Greece). It is likely that growth in the whole Balkan

area will be based on modern labor saving technologies, given the need for

international competitiveness. Therefore, although economic growth may not

necessarily be accompanied by substantial reductions in the volume of

unemployment one certainly does expect an increase in employment opportunities.

On the other hand, independently of how well these countries do in terms of growth,

the income differences in comparison with the other European countries will remain

large for a long period. All things considered, it is reasonable to assume that even if

the present trends continue in the short-run, one may expect that in the medium and

longer the Balkan countries will not be sizeable pools of emigration flows.

10

Some Preliminary Results form a Bosnia – Herzegovina Survey

It is useful at this point to present some preliminary results from a Bosnia –Herzegovina Survey on Migration and Remittances. Table 3 show the mobility across sectors of employment of 862 individuals before migration and after their return. According to this table 166 individuals were employed in Agriculture before migration. After their return 41 of them are employed in Agriculture again, 125 are employed in other sectors and 33 who were employed in other sectors before migration, are now employed in Agriculture. Thus, overall, Agriculture has lost 192 (=166-74) individuals. Similar calculations can be made for the other sectors. In general, Agriculture, Manufacturing and Construction show the more substantial losses in this sample and Hotels and Restaurants, and Public Administration show gains. The largest difference is in the category “other” which has twice as much employment after return.

Table 4 which shows the changes in Professional status can be read in a similar fashion. What is important here is that craft worker and related jobs are increasing after return whereas the category “unskilled workers” is reported by a substantially lower number. However it is to be noted that more people are reporting that they are unemployment after their return than before they left.

Table 5 show the acquisition of additional qualification while abroad as reported by migrants that have return home. According to this table the majority of migrants has reported learning a new language, but only one third has learned new skills on the job.

11

Table 3Sector of Employment Before and After Migration

Before After1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Total

1. Agriculture2. Fishing3. Mining4. Manufacturing5. Electricity, Gas, Water6. Construction7. Trade, Repairs8. Hotels+Restaurants9.Transportk Comm.10.Financial Services11. Real Estate12. Public Adm.13. Eduction14.Health, Social Work15. Other Services16. Private House bold 17. Extra-Territorial Org.18. Other

Total

41001406203000010007

74

010001000000000000

2

103003000000000000

7

8015.7246340010111016

105

000070000001000004

12

1400925322101020010014

110

20112117221001110013

45

1005121212100011008

44

30040220230000000010

44

100000000701000000

9

010000010110000001

5

10110521150171210012

50

100100100000300005

11

1000001000000100000

12

000001002000012001

7

200301000001100101

10

000000000000000001

1

900640951117112073012074

314

1662121352313045375818130917840167

862

Note : Pearson’s X2 statistic is X2=2575.6 with 272 df. and it is significant at 1%.

12

Table 4Professional Status Before and After Migration

Before1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Total

1.Senior Official Manager2. Professional3. Technician4. Clerk5..Service or Sales Worker6. Stilled Agric. Worker7. Craft worker and Related8.Plant or Machine Operator9.Unskilled Worker10. Armed Forces11. Student12. Unemployed13. Other

10

4401

1

1

6

0

0163

2

55362

1

2

6

1

0172

1

32210

0

0

2

0

1233

1

86282

0

1

1

0

0313

32421

0

4

3

6

0124

2001

4

2

0

2

0002

6157

2

50

6

2

00126

0513

1

1

15

8

0053

4233

5

3

4

52

00611

0000

0

0

0

0

0000

0000

0

0

0

0

0110

1

47910

1

16

5

41

13329

6575

1

8

7

18

001025

15

95576455

16

88

55

130

2128571

37 88 38 54 50 13 97 42 93 0 2 139 92 745Note : Pearson’s X2 statistic is X2=1233.5 with 132 df. and it is significant at 1%.

Table 5Additional Qualifications

Type of Qualification NumberYES NO Percent of Yes

New LanguageMastering a new ProfessionNew Skills on the jobNew Skills (with exams)Enhancement of Education

464122292 4014

446788618870896

51%13.4%32,1% 4,4% 1,5%

Additional Qualification 634 276 69.7

The distribution of average monthly incomes earned is presented on Table 6. Two separate distributions are shown, one for migrants who sent money back home and one for migrant who did not. Both distribution are skewed to the left. The mean values are 1069 USD for the first and 688 USD for the second.

13

Table 6Distributions of Average Monthly Income Earned (USD)

IncomeUSD

Migrants Sending Money

Migrant Not Sending Money

Number Recent Number Recent0-500

500-10001001-15001501-20002001-25002501-30003001-35003501-40004001-45004501-70007001-7500

1111701995019712331

19.630.035.28.83.41.20.20.40.50.50.2

1747457219313-1-

50.721.616.66.12.60.90.30.9-

0.3-

Sum 566 100 343 100

14

The distribution of average remittances is shown on Table 7. It is also skewed to the left. The mean value of this distribution is 328 USD. From the average values of incomes and remittances it is estimated that approximately 30% of income earned is remitted.

Table 7

Distribution of Aggregate amount of Remittances during last trip abroad

Amount (USD) Number Percent

<100 257 45.1

1000 – 2000 45 8.0

2000 – 3000 44 7.8

3000 – 4000 28 4.9

4000 – 6000 43 7.6

6000 – 8000 60 10.6

8000 – 10000 38 6.7

1000 – 20000 27 4.8

20000 – 30000 12 2.1

30000 – 60000 6 1.1

>60000 6 1.1

Sum 566 100

Finally it is interesting to see how remittances are use. According to Table 8, approximately thirty percent of migrant reported that remittances were used for food and clothing, twenty-two percent for the education of children and twenty-eight percent for a general category “savings” which probably means later use for one of the other items of the table.

15

Table 8

Uses of Remittances

Remittances Where Used for Number Percent

Savings 156 27.8

Investment in Business 20 3.6

Education of children 125 22.3

Food and Clothing 170 30.3

Medical Expenses 8 1.4

Education 6 1.1

Buying Property 9 1.6

Home Repair 39 7.0

Wedding, Celebration, Funeral - -

Buying Land 10 1.8

Buying a Car 2 0.4

Starting a new Business 3 0.5

Charity 2 0.4

Other 11 2.0

Sum 561 100

16

Appendix Table 1

Intra-Balkan Migration Flows

ToFrom

Albania Bosnia + Herzegovina

Bulgaria Croatia FYROM Greece Romania Serbia + Montenegro

Albania 9 215 3Bosnia +

Herzegovina118832 251 - Ø

Bulgaria 15 69 11Croatia*

1996+97+98- 2747 - - 55

4741 19

610Ø 3517

FYROM*1996+1998

6 20 3 30342

- 1 23

Ø 388

Greece 2 153 115Romania*

1996+97+9883

Ø 4956

3326

3-

822 - 339

2000-2003 2 Ø 2 2 Ø 557 55Serbia +

Montenegro10478 1333 140 103

Source: UN Statistics Division Demographic Database, Statistical Office of the Republic Macedonia, Central Bureau of Statistics of Croatia, National Commission for Statistics of Romania. For Romania 2000-2003, the data were supplied by D. Gheorghiou SOPEMS correspondent.

Note: * Indicates the country reporting emigrant and immigrant figures. In cells where there are two numbers, the number below shows the reverse flow. For example, according to Romanian estimates, during the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 49 people in total have moved from Romania to Bulgaria whereas 56 people in total have moved from Bulgaria to Romania.

17

Appendix Table 2.

Migration Flows 1997-2003(Ths)

YearsCountries

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Albania

Bosnia +Herzegovina Bulgaria Out 64.0 54.0 66.0 In Net 0.8 4.2 -0.3 Croatia Out 18.5 7.6 14.3 6.0 7.5 11.8 6.5 In 52.3 51.8 32.9 29.4 24.4 20.4 18.5 Net 33.8 44.2 18.6 23.4 16.9 8.6 11.9 Fyrom Out 0.2 0.5 0.1 In 0.6 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.3 Net Greece Out In Net 12.2 33.9 32.1 Romania Out 19.9 17.5 12.6 14.8 9.9 8.2 16.0 In 8.4 11.3 10.5 12.4 11.0 6.6 3.9 Net -13.3 -5.6 -2.1 -2.4 1.1 -1.6 -12.1Serbia + Montenegro Out 12.69 164.4 In 117.4 214.2 Net -9.5 49.8

Note: Net Migration figures do not necessarily equal the difference between Out and In flows. Some signs do not agree with those of Table 1 e.g. Serbia and Montenegro. Empty cells mean non available data.

Source: Central Bureau of Statistics Republic of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro Statistical Office, International Labour Office, Eurostat, Population Statistics 2004

18

Appendix Tables 3

Intra-Migration by Country of Immigration and Emigration 2002

ToFrom

CZ DK DE EL ES FR IE IT CY HU NL AT PT SI SK FI SE UK

Albania IM 40 20 1500 110 10 50 EM

Bosnia+Herzeg IM 80 210 10570 480 10 120 60 1130

Bulgaria IM 730 150 13230 360 440 120 50 170

Croatia IM 150 30 12990 170 10 210 150

EM 10 1450 10 20 20 1110 160 10 10FYROM

IM 200 110 3950 170 30 10 150Greece

IM 60 260 15910 4420 1080 10 70 60Romania

IM 80 610 4440 20 5360 180 10 150 390 EM 100 - 1310 60 170 230 120 1320 20 900 70 290 10 120 40 50

Serbia+Monten IM 320 180 25770 260 900 10 140 220 2070

Source: Eurostat, Population Statistics 2004, Tables F-12 and F-13Note: IM and EM indicate that the reporting country is the Immigration and Emigration country respectively.

19

Appendix Table 4

Migration Inflows – Outflows (Ths), 1997-2002

AUT CAN CZEH FRANCE GERM HUNG ITALY NOR SWEDEN SWITZ USAAlbania

107.5Bosnia+Herzegovina To 17.1 48.8 6.3 73.8 From 15.2 8.4 0.6 242.5 1.6Bulgaria

0.5Croatia To 18.9 60.7 From 14.7 74.9Fyrom To 4.1 15.9 From 1.6 12.8Greece To 84.0 1.3 From 99.2 0.3Romania To 7.6 0.2 5.4 93.7 36.3 66.2 From 4.8 77.2 2.1Serbia+Mon To 35.5 0.8 4.0 240.2 7.6 41.5 8.3 38.0 From 24.1 284.5 7.1Source: OECD, Trends in International Migration, various years.

20

Appendix Table 5

GERMANY FRANCE UK ITALY GREECE EU-15 CAN-USA REST OF WORLD TOTAL

Croatia

1196+97+98

Emigration to 812 16 8 72 1 1209 199 34742 36150

Immigration from 8167 153 29 301 2 11873 1286 135564 148723

FYROM

1996+1998

Emigration to 14 - - - 1 33 2 460 495

Immigration from 24 5 4 4 11 61 64 2421 2546

ROMANIA

2000+2003

Emigration to 6313 1843 390 6938 557 19743 15849 11612 47204

Immigration from 889 374 37 354 113 2100 1229 28226 31555

Source: D. Gheorghiou

21