Destination Selection Among Romanian Migrants in Times of Crisis: an Origin Integrated Approach
Volume: XI Issue: 2, Pages: 145-192
Centre for Migration Studies (CESMIG), University of Bucharest, 9 Schitu Magureanu, 10181 Bucharest, Romania
The article is targeted to an understanding of transnational fields of Romanian migration from the point of view destination selection as measured by migration selectivity at different levels. Why some people from certain communities and regions of Romania go to certain countries? Are there any changes in these choices as related to the global crisis? These are the two basic questions of the study. The answer is given in terms of multilevel selectivity of migration abroad. Characteristics of personal status (age, human capital, gender, ethnicity), residence community (levels and types of local human development) and regions (urban and development regions) are especially analyzed by census data from 2011.
The seven major transnational fields of Romanian migration – towards Italy, Spain (plus Greece and Cyprus), France (plus Belgium and Portugal), Germany (plus Austria), United Kingdom (plus Ireland, USA and Canada), Nordic European countries and Hungary – are described by their regional origin in Romania and one or multi-countries destinations.
Multiple regression models are used to explain, at individual and community level, why choosing one or another destination. The complexity of studied phenomenon oblige to using multiple frames of reference for comparisons – recent international migrants versus nonmigrants of working age, internal and external temporary migrants, NUTS3 or NUTS2 regional units of analysis.
The dynamics of the seven migration fields and their causal profile are reconstituted also in time by developing a kind of migration archeology function of the periods long time emigrants abroad left the country.
Keywords: transnational migration fields, destination choice, multilevel-selectivity of migration, urban regions, local human development
Bakewell, O., De Haas, H., and Kubal, A. (2012). “Migration systems, pioneer migrants and the role of agency”. Journal of critical realism 11(4): 413-437.
Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Penguin UK.
De Jong, G. F., Abad, R. G., Arnold, F., Carino, B. V., Fawcett, J. T., and Gardner, R. W. (1983). “International and internal migration decision making: a value-expectancy based analytical framework of intentions to move from a rural Philippine province”. International Migration Review 17(3): 470-484.
De Jong, G. F., and Fawcett, J. T. (1981). “Motivations for migration: an assessment and a value-expectancy research model”. In De Jong, G. F. and Gardner, R.W. (eds). Migration Decision Making. Multidisciplinary Approaches to Microlevel Studies in Developed and Developing Countries. New York, Oxford, Toronto, Sydney, Paris, Frankfurt: Pergamon Press, pp. 13-58.
Emery, M., and Flora, C. (2006). “Spiraling-up: Mapping community transformation with community capitals framework”. Community Development 37(1): 19-35.
EUROSTAT. (2010). European Regional and Urban Statistics-Reference Guide. Luxembourg: European Commission.
Faist, T. (2006). The transnational social spaces of migration. Working Papers- Center on Migration, Citizenship and Development 10.
Faist, T., and Fauser, M. (2011). “The migration–development nexus: Toward a transnational perspective”. In Faist T., Fauser M., Kivisto P. (eds). The Migration-Development Nexus. Migration, Diasporas and Citizenship Series. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Faist, T., and Özveren, E. (2004). Transnational social spaces: agents, networks, and institutions. Ashgate : Burlington, VT.
Gottdiener, M. (1994). The social production of urban space. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Ionescu-Heroiu, M., Burduja, S., Sandu, D. et. al. (2014). Romania–Competitive cities. Reshaping economic geography of Romania. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
Ionescu-Heroiu, M., et al. (2014). Identification of project selection models for the regional operational program 2014-2020 The World Bank.
Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liaw, K.-L., and Frey, W. H. (1998). “Destination choices of the 1985-90 young adult immigrants to the United States: importance of race, educational attainment, and labour market forces”. International Journal of Population Geography 4(1): 49-61.
Light, D., and Young, C. (2009). “European Union enlargement, post-accession migration and imaginative geographies of the ‘New Europe’: Media discourses in Romania and the United Kingdom”. Journal of Cultural Geography 26(3): 281-303.
Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., and Pellegrino, A. (1999). Worlds in Motion: Understanding International Migration at the End of the Millennium: Understanding International Migration at the End of the Millennium. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Okólski, M., and Salt, J. (2014). “Polish emigration to the UK after 2004; why did so many come?”. Central and Eastern European Migration Review 3(2): 11-37.
Sandu, D. (2000). “Migraţia transnaţională a românilor din perspectiva unui recensământ comunitar”. Sociologie Românească (3-4): 5-52.
Sandu, D. (2005). “Emerging transnational migration from Romanian villages. Current Sociology” 53(4): 555-582.
Sandu, D. (2007). “Community Selectivity of Temporarry Emigration from Romania”. Romanian Journal of Population Studies (1-2): 11-45.
Sandu, D. (2010). Lumile sociale ale migraţiei româneşti în străinătate. Iaşi: Polirom
Sandu, D. (2014). “Romanian migration as multiregional building of transnational fields”. In Croitoru, A., Sandu, D., & Tudor, E. (Eds). The Europeanisation of Everyday Life: Cross-Border Practices and Transnational Identifications Among EU and Third-Country Citizens. EUCROSS.
Sandu, D. (2015). The Social Space of Transition. A Sociological Approach on Romania. Madrid, London, New York: Niram Art Publishing.
Sandu, D., and De Jong, G. F. (1996). “Migration in market and democracy transition: Migration intentions and behavior in Romania”. Population Research and Policy Review 15(5-6): 437-457.
Schutz, A., and Embree, L. (2011). Collected Papers V. Phenomenology and the Social Sciences. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer Verlag.
Sørensen, N. N. (2012). “Revisiting the migration–development nexus: From social networks and remittances to markets for migration control”. International Migration 50(3): 61-76.
Spörlein, C. (2015). “Destination Choices of Recent Pan–American Migrants: Opportunities, Costs, and Migrant Selectivity”. International Migration Review 49(2): 523-552.
Stouffer, S. A. (1960). “Intervening opportunities and competing migrants”. Journal of regional science 2(1): 1-26.
Tabor, A. S., Milfont, T. L., and Ward, C. (2015). “International Migration Decision-Making and Destination Selection Among Skilled Migrants”. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology 9(01): 28-41.
Tesliuc, E., Grigoras, V., Stanculescu , M., (Eds). Sandu, D., Corad, B., Iamandi-Cioinaru, C., Man, T., Marin, M., Moldovan, C., Nicolau, G. (2016). Atlasul zonelor rurale marginalizate si al dezvoltarii umane locale din Romania. The World Bank.
WB. (2009). World Development Report 2009 (W. Bank Ed.): World Bank Washington DC.
WB. (2014). Strategia integrată de dezvoltare urbană pentru Polul de Crestere Ploieşti 2014-2020 W. B. Group (Ed.)
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wimmer, A., and Schiller, N. G. (2002). “Methodological nationalism and beyond: nation–state building, migration and the social sciences”. Global networks 2(4): 301-334.