Why eastern Europeans will not move en masse – and why EU-15 will need them

Date: 04/03/04

EUROPEAN Union countries have raised barriers to keep possible immigrants from new member states out, following scaremongering by the popular press, which warned of a huge invasion from the poorer neighbours joining the Union on 1 May. However, such moves are both needless and against the interests of the present member states.

Firstly, such a large-scale migration of new EU citizens to the Union's "old" countries is unlikely to take place. Secondly, the EU needs, paradoxically, more labour mobility if it is to increase its competitiveness. And finally, present member states need a fresh influx of workers to support their unsustainable pension and social security systems, against the backdrop of a declining population in the EU-15.

"Invasion" unlikely

Concerns expressed about a huge migration towards western Europe after the accession of ten new members are exaggerated. Those who predict it, on the basis of economic criteria (differences in income or purchasing power parity) fail to take into account important social elements, which limit the propensity to emigrate.

There is a low domestic mobility rate in the eight central and eastern European countries that are feared to be a breeding ground for migration. People from the countryside in Hungary would not move easily to Budapest to get a job or a better job - let alone to Madrid or London. One of the problems in these countries is that rapid development of certain sectors produces labour shortages in some localities while there are labour surpluses and unemployment in other regions. The main reason behind this low internal mobility is the fact that most people in eastern Europe own the apartment or house where they live. This is both because of habits in society and culture and huge rent costs. On the other hand, more than half of western Europe's population live in rented houses (with the exception of Ireland and Greece, where a majority of people own their house).

Housing affects mobility

Figures for Poland in 2002 show that in the biggest accession country almost 88% of people own their apartment or house. Housing affects mobility, with studies showing that ownership encourages stagnation. People's attachment to their owned homes through their lifetime is one of the reasons for low labour mobility.

Reports indicate that private renters tend to move more and a survey on mobility patterns in the Netherlands shows that employed renters are twice as likely to move as employed owners.

Therefore, no massive migration can be predicted on the basis of economic criteria alone.

The decision to migrate depends on a wider calculation of what specialists call "the transaction costs", which include costs for moving, the probability of finding a job in the destination country, the cost of finding a house, family considerations or taxes. Migration will only take place if personal gains are expected from the move.

In addition, the non-recognition of diplomas or qualifications of accession countries' nationals would inevitably mean some of them would have a better social status if they stayed in their country than if they emigrated to perform less valued, but better paid jobs in western Europe. The cultural and linguistic barriers in a Union with 20 official languages (22 after Bulgaria and Romania join) are also not to be underestimated. It would therefore be wrong to predict migration exclusively based on income difference.

Labour freedom important

A second important element is that by raising barriers to protect the local labour markets, member states' governments fail to encourage mobility and flexibility of employment. A fact often ignored or kept under wraps for political reasons by EU countries is that Europe needs more labour mobility.

The immigration issue has to be analyzed against the background of widespread concern about the present lack of such mobility, which should increase labour market flexibility to ensure competitiveness and permit adjustment within the Eurozone. Indeed, the EU can only fully exploit the benefits of its internal market and of the single currency through an increased mobility of its people - which has so far failed to happen.

"In order to achieve a "healthy" level of labour mobility and to exploit the job potential of the single European market, transnational mobility of European workers would have to be 2-3 times higher [than today]," according to a 2002 study by the European Trade Union Institute at the Commission's request.

The study recommends that mobility within the EU should be boosted by such programmes as Erasmus for students, Socrates or Leonardo exchange projects or by promoting job experiences abroad.

Compared with the US, Europe lags behind with respect to labour mobility. Most EU states suffer from severe imbalances between the demand for and supply of work and labour mobility may help reduce structural unemployment. Lack of it is one of the reasons the EU fares so badly - joblessness on the other side of the Atlantic is half that of Union levels.

However, increasing work mobility cannot be achieved without rising popular acceptance of higher immigration rates. By raising fences to keep potential immigrants out, member states' governments fail to consider the global picture and the imminent need for Europe to inject fresh blood into its labour market in the near future. Despite public anxiety about enlargement and the influx of migrants from the east that it could trigger, many member states will need immigrants in the future.

What is worrying is not that new EU citizens would come in great numbers to take jobs in the present member states, but that the freedom of movement of labour has, during recent years, persuaded too few people to migrate within the EU.

Author argues that internal migration post-enlargement must be encouraged, not vilified.