Südosteuropa 57 (2009), H . 4, S . 386-403
MIGRATION: AUSWIRKUNGEN AUF DIE SENDELäNDER
ISTVáN HORVáTH, REMUS GABRIEL ANGHEL
Migration and Its Consequences for Romania
Abstract. Romania has experienced significant migration since 1990, and this migration has had diversified effects on Romanian society . This article analyzes Romanian migration in the period after 1990, highlighting some of the most noticeable effects produced by international migration during this time . Romanian migration is characterized by a high degree of self- organization . It has had changing causes and patterns of organization in each of the distinct periods after 1990 . The first period, from 1990 to 1993, was characterized by migration to Germany with additional migration of Romanians to a host of other European countries . This first period was followed by a relatively stable period . After 1997, however, we argue that massive restructuring of the Romanian economy forced unemployed Romanians to migrate irregularly . After 2002, the pattern of Romanian migration altered yet again, because citizens of Romania were allowed to travel to EU countries without restrictions . Consequently, migra- tion levels increased massively . After 2007, Romanians benefited from EU accession . There were diverse consequences of this movement of migrants . These included a significant in-flow of remittances and measurable effects on the labor market that caused the reorganization of households and gender relations .
István Horváth, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Sociology Department, Babeş Bolyai University, and president of the Romanian Institute for Research on National Minorities, Cluj-Napoca, Romania . Remus Gabriel Anghel, PhD, is a researcher at the Romanian Institute for Research on Na- tional Minorities, Cluj-Napoca, Romania .
Introduction
Over the past sixty years Romania could be characterized as a country of emi- gration with an impressive record regarding the number of persons involved . Over the long term we could make a rough distinction between emigration during the communist era and emigration after the collapse of the communist regime in 1989 . During the communist era, emigration could be characterized by: a) migration was closely controlled by the authorities; b) migration was characteristically selective in ethnic terms – those emigrating were largely Jews and ethnic Germans; c) migration occurred both for economic as well as political Migration and Its Consequences for Romania 387
Table 1: Officially registered emigration from Romania, 1954-2006 . Year Emigrants Year Emigrants Year Emigrants 1957 2,464 1974 12,368 1991 44,160 1958 19,477 1975 10,701 1992 31,152 1959 12,462 1976 9,336 1993 18,446 1960 16,103 1977 17,810 1994 17,146 1961 25,527 1978 19,780 1995 25,675 1962 12,160 1979 17,084 1996 21,526 1963 13,571 1980 24,712 1997 19,945 1964 30,121 1981 20,886 1998 17,536 1965 11,278 1982 24,374 1999 12,594 1966 4,521 1983 26,300 2000 14,753 1967 1,684 1984 29,894 2001 9,921 1968 1,010 1985 27,249 2002 8,154 1969 3,614 1986 26,509 2003 10,673 1970 12,190 1987 29,168 2004 13,082 1971 5,090 1988 37,298 2005 10,938 1972 7,330 1989 41,363 2006 14,197 1973 11,719 1990 96,929 Sources: OECD, Trends in International Migration . Continuous Reporting System on Migration . Annual Report 1993 . Paris 1994; Institutul Naţional de Statistică, Anuarul demografic al României 2006 . Bucureşti 2006 . reasons; d) a period of migration was typically followed by a final relocation of the émigrés . After 1989, the nature of Romanian emigration changed considerably . Mi- gration after 1989 was characterized by the following aspects: a) the Romanian state lost control over population outflows; b) migration lost its previous ethnic selectivity characteristic – that is, people belonging to a considerable variety of social categories became out-migrants; c) motives and causes of migration were predominantly economic (stimulated by the worsening economic conditions combined with the population’s higher aspirations); d) a large variety of migra- tory movements appeared, such as seasonal migration, temporary migration, and long term emigration, that created complex transnational relationships, primarily between Romania and Western Europe . Emigration tends not to be characterized by any dominant pattern . Official figures on migration (at least starting with the 1990s) raise serious doubts, especially when attempting to as- sess the numbers of citizens that left Romania . Official figures also fail to reveal changes in the patterns of Romanian migration (see Table 1) . With official statistics underestimating the real migration figures, our ef- forts to assess trends and also approximate the scale of out-migration rely on various indications provided by scholars focusing on Romanian migration . 388 István Horváth, Remus Gabriel Anghel
Therefore, after 1989, we identify several markedly distinct phases of Romanian migration:1 (1) In the years 1990 to 1993, after the breakdown of the communist regime, with greater availability of Romanian passports and changes in the emigration regime, hundreds of thousands of citizens sought to relocate somewhere west- ward of Romania . Thus, Romanian citizens of German and Hungarian ethnic origin were in a privileged position, receiving support from their kin-states (ethnic migration) . Romanian émigrés have applied for asylum in very large numbers, mostly in Germany, Belgium and France . With no less than 350,000 applications submitted between 1990 and 1994 (three quarters of these in Ger- many), Romanian citizens represented the second largest group applying for asylum in Europe, after the citizens of the former Yugoslavia 2. (2) Between 1994 and 1996, EU countries opted for stricter entry policies . During these years, a fairly low level of westward migration was registered . However, labor migration (mostly short term) increased in comparison to the previous period . Nevertheless, these labor migrants were not so clearly directed toward Western Europe . Considerable numbers headed toward Hungary, Tur- key, and Israel, as well . Migration to these countries began in the years 1990 and 1991, reaching its peak in the mid 1990s . (3) Between 1997 and 2001, there was a considerable increase in westward migration . At the beginning of this period, migration took on a circular character, with home stays alternating with migratory episodes 3. Destination countries were seen as countries from which resources could be extracted, especially money earned, and not as countries of possible settlement4 . This form of mi- gration took on an irregular character . Entrance into, and also residence or
1 Sebastian Lăzăroiu, More “Out” Than “In” at the Crossroads between Europe and the Balkans . Migration Trends in Selected Applicant Countries . Volume IV – Romania . Vienna 2004; Martin Baldwin-Edwards, Migration Policies for a Romania within the European Union: Navigating Between Scylla and Charybdis, Mediterranean Migration Observatory Working Paper no . 7 . December 2005, 2, available at
Table 2: Main features of migration in the last two decades . Period Time horizon Emigrants’ Major countries Main characteristic for migration main goals of destination 1990-1993 Definitive Relocation Germany, Hun- Ethnic migration . gary, France, Asylum seeking Belgium 1994-1996 Temporary Labor Hungary, Israel, Labor migration emerges Circular migration Turkey 1997-2001 Circular migra- Labor Hungary, Italy, Labor migration, strongly tion Prospects for Spain, Ireland expands mostly irregular . long term legal Regularization programs residence are caught by Romanian migrants in Spain and Italy 2002-2006 Prospects for Long term Italy and Spain Continuing processes long terms legal residence of regularization involv- residence ing a large number of Romanians 2007- Possibility for Long term Spain, Italy, Labor migration contin- long term legal residence, other European ues, but at lower levels, residence and large Romanian destinations limited return migration formal labor communities in employment Italy and Spain especially
However, when reconstructing migration figures, one notices the following trend: prior to 2001 the maximum rates of departures (not of numbers of mi- grants) was estimated at about 7 ‰ of the total Romanian population . Starting with 2002, about 28 ‰ of the population between the ages of 15 and 64 was on the move 9. Data suggest that about 10 % of the resident Romanian adult popu- lation has participated in one or more episodes of temporary labor migration since 1990 10. In the period since 1977, as many as 430,000 Romanians have settled in Ger- many . Of these, about 288,000 arrived after 1990 .11 Data on entries and exits be- tween 1990 and 2007 suggest higher figures, reaching up to 320,000 more entries into Germany than exits from Germany . The number of applications for asylum was close to 263,000 between 1990 and 1995 . Many of these asylum-seekers eventually returned to Romania or migrated somewhere else in Europe . In Italy, the Romanian resident population numbered about 625,000 persons at the start of 2008 12. Research by Pittau et al . shows that up to 1,016,000 Romanians made
9 Ibid ., 24 . 10 Ibid ., 17 . 11 Bund der Vertriebenen (BdV), Info-Pool, Aussiedlerstatistik seit 1950, available at Changing Patterns in the Organization of Migration After the fall of communism in 1989, the different eriodsp of migration can be characterized by different patterns in the organization of migration . Although companies played significant roles in recruiting labor abroad during the early 1990s,18 migration during this period proved speculative . Those engaging in migration were often poorly informed . They also suffered from rather limited financial resources, as well as a lack of marketable skills and language compe- tencies . Typically there had not been any or little contact with the destination countries . In the 1990s, religious and ethnic minorities19 tended to be the two groups that most successfully mobilized various ties, connecting them to social and economic opportunities abroad . it/str2007/index .html> . 13 Franco Pittau / Antonio Ricci / Alessandro Silj (eds .), Romania: Immigrazioni e lavoro in Italia . Statistiche, problemi e prospettive . Caritas Italiana . Roma 2008; cf . Caritas Italiana, Romania . Immigrazione e lavoro in Italia . Statistiche, problemi e prospettive, presentazione del 12 giugno 2008, 3, available at After a short prelude of rather “unorganized” migration, “informal prear- rangements” and newly established networks formed by relatives and friends started to play a major role in structuring the Romanian migratory outflows to specific destinations . After the mid 1990s, migration based on these sorts of developed networks started to prevail; migrant networks of Romanians were documented in Italy,20 Spain,21 and France 22. Practices of prearranging migratory episodes remain largely informal, and are generally organized . They are generally organized hrought networks . Over time, however, formal institutions developed and they have played roles in organizing temporary labor migration . A state-founded and coordinated entity, the Office for Labor Force Migration (OLFM), was set up in 2000 . One of its tasks is the recruitment of members of the Romanian labor force willing to work abroad . Though some private firms participate in recruitment, the OLFM served as the major player in the field of formal international labor force recruitment .23 For example, in 2006 the OFLM mediated over 53,000 foreign jobs, suggesting an increase in the flow of workers by 137 % when compared to 2002 . In contrast, private firms mediated 14,742 jobs abroad for Romanians seeking work .24 Since the OFLM as a governmental agency also has responsibilities in terms 20 Remus Gabriel Anghel, Changing Statuses: Freedom of Movement, Locality and Trans- nationality of Irregular Romanian Migrants in Milan, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 34 (2008), no . 5, 787-802; Flavia Piperno / Pietro Cingolani, Migrazioni, legami transnazionali e sviluppo nei contesti locali . Il caso di Marginea e di Focşani, in: Traiectorii Migratorii . Între România şi Italia . Bucureşti 2006, 54-76 (Societatea Reală, 4); Ionela Vlase, Le genre dans la structuration du processus migratoire . Le cas d’une population rurale roumaine à Rome . Manuscript, PhD Thesis at the Université de Neuchâtel, 2008; Ana Bleahu, Romanian Migra- tion to Spain: Motivations, Networks and Strategies, in: Daniel Pop (ed .), New Patterns of Labour Migration in Central and Eastern Europe . Cluj Napoca 2005, 20-35; Monica Alexandru, Migranţi de migranţi . Minori neînsoţiţi în Italia, in: Traiectorii Migratorii . Între România şi Italia . Bucureşti 2006, 144-166 (Societatea Reală, 4) . 21 Monica Şerban / Vlad Grigoraş, Dogenii din Teleorman în ţară şi în străinătate, Sociologie Românească (2000), no . 2, 31-56, available at Changing Causes The first phase of Romania’s post-communist emigration history, from 1990 through 1993, could be characterized as complex especially with respect to mi- grants’ motives and incentives to leave . During the last years of the communist regime, frustration levels were high and tensions had been building .27 Large segments of the Romanian population planned to emigrate, but few succeeded . Liberalization of access to passports, as well a loosening of exit restrictions at the start of the 1990s represented a window of opportunity for prospective emigrants . This period was also marked by hesitant reforms, antidemocratic political violence, nationalist outbursts, and even violent social tensions all of which fueled a sense of uncertainty and thereby offered real motives for people from various segments of society to emigrate . Over time, Romania’s economic situation worsened . uringD the 1990s industry inherited from the communist era dismantled in a slow but steady process of Social Protection 57 (2007), no . 1, II . Migraţia Forţei de Muncă / Labour Migration, available at Table 3: Average number of persons employed in Romania, 1990-2006 (in thousands) . Year A B Year A B 1990 8,156 3,846 1999 4,761 1,991 1991 7,574 3,643 2000 4,623 1,873 1992 6,888 3,245 2001 4,619 1,901 1993 6,672 3,017 2002 4,568 1,891 1994 6,438 2,856 2003 4,591 1,848 1995 6,160 2,615 2004 4,469 1,741 1996 5,939 2,586 2005 4,559 1,672 1997 5,597 2,443 2006 4,667 1,632 1998 5,369 2,272 A – Average number of employees in the whole economy; B – Average number of employees in in- dustry .Source: Institutul Naţional de Statistică, Anuarul demografic al României 2006 . Bucureşti 2006 . deindustrialization 28. The demand for labor in the industrial sector diminished significantly (see Table 3) . The process of economic restructuring in general and deindustrialization in particular profoundly affected household incomes . ringDu the communist era a significant group of commuters developed . For the most part,these commuters were villagers working in industry . However, after1990, members of this group were among the first to lose their jobs in industry . These massive job losses proved especially burdensome for rural households .29 Therefore, it was former village commuters, who had lost their ability to provide for their households, who became the first major group of potential migrants . For most of the 1990s and into the beginning of the new millennium, Romanian migration emerged largely as a reaction to challenges faced by those affected by economic decline . Starting in 2002 and 2003, with the removal of visa requirements for Roma- nian citizens, a more complex system of causation emerged . First, the Roma- nian economy began to expand . Second, a variety of institutions assisting and facilitating migration developed . These institutions included interpersonal networks, transportation facilities, and information resources . It should also be mentioned that over the two decades of intensive migration, a considerable amount of knowledge regarding the migratory experience was accumulated and disseminated in Romanian society . This learning and dissemination of knowledge created a special decision-making context, where migration became 28 Idem, The Culture of Migration of Romanian Youth, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Stud- ies 34 (2008), no . 5, 771-786 . 29 Ibid .; Anghel, Changing Statuses: Freedom of Movement (above fn . 20); Pietro Cingo- lani, Prin forţe proprii . Vieţi transnaţionale alemigranţilor români în Italia, in: Remus Gabriel Anghel / István Horváth (eds .), Sociologia migraţiei . Teorii şi studii de caz româneşti . Iaşi 2009, 176-194 . Migration and Its Consequences for Romania 395 a reference behavior, orienting and motivating the choices of social actors 30. Data from a 2007 survey offer insights into the extent of networks, as well as the magnitude of the possible impact of migratory experience on Romanian society . The survey suggested that 19 % of Romanian households had or used to have a household member working abroad in the last two years .31 We could consequently assume that for the last several years, migration has generated powerful effects by shaping the migratory motivations of various segments of Romanian society 32. Migration and Its Consequences: Macroeconomic Impacts Perhaps the most important consequence of the Romanian emigration was not something that actually happened, but merely what did not occur during the transition to a market economy . As can be seen in Table 3, the capacity of the Romanian economy to create jobs and absorb the existing labor force dra- matically declined over most of the last two decades . In this context, migration represented almost the only possibility for many individuals to manage the risks of economic transition . Given such a circumstance, the “outsourcing” of Romanian labor represented a means to overcome the major social problems facing many households . To put it more succinctly, during the 1990s Romanian emigration emerged as a safety valve, venting the steam of rising social tensions related to the precipitous decline in jobs . Externalizing a part of the unemployed labor force through migration created a new source of household income and relieved pressures on local as well as central social budgets . Remittances transferred back home to Romania offered needed support for households facing the risks of economic transition . During the 1990s, the transfer of money to Romania from abroad was largely informal, moving through linkages such as bus and truck drivers, as well as those return- ing home and delivering money back to households . Over time, the Romanian banking system stabilized and offered more services . As migrants became increasingly successful in regularizing their stays abroad, their transfers were made largely through banking systems, a process which made such transfers unambiguously identifiable in exact statistical terms . As a consequence, we can pass from guesstimates regarding the volume of the transfers in the first years of migration to the more precise figures offered byhe t Romanian National Bank from recent years . 30 Douglas Massey et al ., Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal, Population and Development Review 19 (1993), 431-466 . 31 Gabriel Bădescu, First and Second Order Effects of Labor Migration on Politically Rel- evant Attitudes of Romanians . Manuscript, 2008 . 32 Horváth, The Culture of Migration of Romanian Youth (above fn . 28) . 396 István Horváth, Remus Gabriel Anghel Table 4: Approximate volume of remittances according to communiqués of the Romanian National Bank . Year Amount* Year Amount 1991 17 2000 0,861 1992 80 2001 1,031 1993 89 2002 1,612 1994 153 2003 2,028 1995 237 2004 3,100 1996 436 2005 3,900 1997 456 2006 5,530 1998 623 2007 7,200 1999 535 * Millions of Euro . Note: Compiled by the authors, based on the sources cited below 33. In cases where figures differed between sources, we used the higher figures . Remittances represent a significant percentage of Romania’s financial balances, reaching as high as 4 % of the GDP in 2006 34. A considerable part of the money sent back home is directed to rural households where it can be relied upon to in- crease overall standards of living . The utilization of remittances for investments in entrepreneurial activities appears rather atypical .35 The fact that remittances are merely used for consumption is indirectly reflected by macro-economic in- dicators, too . In particular, indicators related to household consumption reveal considerably more dynamism than gains in gross domestic product . As late as the mid-1990s and the beginning of the first decade of the 2000s, the bulk of Romanian emigrants were manual laborers with either low levels 33 Sources: Miruna Lebedescu / Raluca Ghinea, BNR: Românii din străinătate ar putea trimite de sărbători 1,2 miliarde de euro, Ziarul Financiar, 28 November 2007, 3; Vali Birzoi, Banii căpşunarilor, fără număr, Capital, 9 January 2008, available at 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Gross domestic product Household consumption Figure 1: Indices of gross domestic products and household consumption (2000 = 100 %) . Source: Institutul Naţional de Statistică, Anuarul demografic al României 2007 . Bucu reşti 2009, authors‘ compilation . of qualifications or no qualifications whatsoever . However, over time, a strata of highly qualified emigrants has emerged . This brain drain has different effects on differentonomic ec sectors . One of the most affected sectors in Romania is the healthcare system . Though Romania is among the EU countries exhibiting rather poor indicators regarding coverage by healthcare professionals, the country is one of the source countries for im- migrant healthcare professionals in countries like Hungary, Germany, Italy and France .36 The major result is not necessarily a further worsening of the level of healthcare delivery, but rather a relative decrease in the social strata of highly professionalized and specialized medical personnel . There was also a growing inequality of medical coverage between urban and rural areas . In 1996, there were 552 potential patients for one trained physician . This ratio improved a bit by 2003 to an overall ratio of one physician for every 463 Romanians . But it is important to keep in mind that these improvements were largely gained by urban populations . In rural areas the situation actually worsened . In 1996 one medical doctor served about 1,417 potential rural patients . By 2003, this figure rose to 1,736 patients for each trained physician 37. 36 Alocaţiunea Secretar de Stat Daniela Nicoleta Andreescu la masa rotundă organizată de Confederaţia Naţională a Sindicatelor Libere din România – Frăţia (CNSLR Frăţia) cu tema „Migraţia salariatelor din sistemul sanitar – încotro . . .?”, Bucureşti, December 2005; cf . Constantin Ciutacu, Migraţia forţei de muncă calificate din România – subiect actual, eironline [european industrial relations observatory on-line], 19 February 2007, available at Consequences of the migration of IT specialists cannot be judged so un- equivocally . While many IT specialists emigrated, this motivated universities and students to invest in further training in this field, resulting in an optimal brain drain, meaning that the brain drain induced development in the sending region 38. However the emigration of university graduates was not always a success story . Cases of brain waste, characterizedby highly qualified emigrants performing jobs requiring lower credentials are also documented 39. Students’ mobility proves a special case . On the one hand a considerable number of students of Romanian origin study abroad . On the other hand, a considerable number of foreign students study in Romania . A 2002 study shows that 16,332 Romanian students were studying in OECD countries, with a major- ity of them in Hungary 40. The OECD database shows that in 2006 almost 22,000 students from Romania were studying abroad .41 This is a minimum level, since the number of Romanian students studying in some major destination countries, such as the USA, was not included in the database . In 2006 in Romania, a total of 9,816 foreign students were registered, with 4,753 of those coming from the Republic of Moldova 42. This is a rather noteworthy pattern of migration, and on that is largely sponsored by the Romanian state . For the most part, a relatively small community of foreign residents in Roma- nia (53,606 in 2006)43 was involved in sectors requiring high investments in hu- man capital . Even if these processes of brain circulation are poorly documented, we can state with some degree of certainty that Romania lost valuable highly, qualified, that is, well educated and well trained sources of human capital via emigration after 1989 . After 2005 and 2006, as the Romanian economy began to expand at a more rapid rate, the large numbers of workers staying abroad began causing certain problems . Starting in 2004, some sectors of the Romanian economy, such as able at Microeconomic Impact Beyond its impact on social stability and macroeconomic indicators, migra- tion exerts nuanced effects on Romanian society’s economic dynamism and its behavior . In the first instance, migration provides a context for shaping new patterns of consumption as well as new needs with respect to living standards in both urban and rural areas .45 Remittances represent the major income sources for migrants’ households 46. In many villages and smaller cities with high migration rates, the economy tends to develop a dependency on migrants’ remittances47 . Substantial investments have gone into renovating or constructing houses in at least 50 % of migrants’ households . 30 % of migrants’ households purchased cars, and 75 % consumer electronics 48. 44 Monica Şerban / Alexandru Toth, Piaţa forţei de muncă în România şi imigraţia . Bu- cureşti 2007, available at Beyond significant risk of developing a dependency atternp of migration, there are also signs that migration experience is shaping entrepreneurial behaviors . Although remittances are spent mostly on household consumption, migrants exhibit signs of engaging more frequently in entrepreneurial activities, as com- pared to the overall Romanian population . Only 3 % of the Romanian popula- tion made entrepreneurial investments, whereas 10 % of migrants’ households invested in businesses 49. These entrepreneurial migrants tend to develop small businesses in trade, construction, and services . Investments go toward land ownership and real estate, buying apartments in the surrounding towns of their communities of origin 50. Furthermore, these entrepreneurial aspirations are often shaped in the context of Romanian ethnic business rooted in the migrants’ experience . In Italy, for example, about 16,000 Romanians are self employed .51 These self employed migrants mostly operate small businesses abroad, but some of them also hold investments in Romania .52 In some cases these emigrants mediate between foreign entrepreneurs (such as Italians attempting to invest in Romania) and Romanian business opportunities . However compared ot the risks of becoming economically dependent on migration, the overall effects of such activities are rather small . Data from different Romanian localities suggest higher earnings in localities with higher levels of emigration . In areas where migration has included a sizeable section of the labor force and where migration movement eased after 2002, local salaries may no longer meet the demands of the population . Other Effects One of the remarkable social effects of migration can be identified at the level of gender and family relations . Regarding gender relations it should be noted that over time an increasing number of women have become included in migration . In many cases women emerge as primary breadwinners of their households, thus affecting the gender relations in families . The participation of men and women in migration has resulted in fundamental changes in the manner families (especially families with children) are organized . A sizeable number of children’s parents are working abroad . In many such cases, parental roles are shifted and redistributed among members of the extended family . 49 Ibid . 50 See Stan, Patterns and Socio-economic Consequences (above fn . 4); Oţeanu, What Do Romanian Migrants Invest Their Money In? (above fn . 47); Anghel, Schimbare socială sau de zvoltare? (above fn . 46) . 51 Pittau et al ., Romania . Immigrazione e lavoro (above fn . 13) . 52 See Anghel, Schimbare socială sau dezvoltare? (above fn . 46) . Migration and Its Consequences for Romania 401 The whole process of migration has seriously affected the idea of the tradi- tional family . At the beginning, migration exhibited typical gender character- istics . Men migrated first, and they were followed by women after successfully integrating into foreign labor markets . Because migrants tend to live in societies with more equalized gender relations and because women migrants become in- dependent financially, gender relations tend to be enegotiatedr among migrants . Such renegotiations cause women to improve their positions relative to men .53 With the start of the 21st century, large numbers of women have joined men to go to work abroad . In such circumstances children often remain at home . In the 2006/2007 school year alone, 170,000 Romanian school children had at least one parent abroad . Another 35,000 school children had both parents abroad . About 55,000 school children had their mother working abroad . Close to 80,000 Romanian school children registered as having their father missing 54. Of course the officials rarely acknowledge that children are ftle behind, but there is a com- plex reconfiguration and relocation of family roleswithin the extended families . Children with parents abroad tend to exhibit a higher living standard in com- parison to other children, while also displaying a stronger tendency to travel abroad . Even though we may expect different school results given the reorga- nization of care and family control, there are actually no significant differences between the results of children coming from migrant and non-migrant families 55. The status of children poses a major dilemma for any social policy dealing with the problems of migration . Children whose parents are migrants are declared abandoned at times . This abandoned status could lead toward the creation of an official policy for dealing with these children more effectively . However, state agencies have been hesitant to declare these children left be- hind . Instead, authorities consider children in this category to be “at risk” and thus recommend closer monitoring . Furthermore, it is not clear whether, in the future, these children will follow their parents abroad . Accordingly, social intervention in Romania designed to improve the care for these children may have unclear results . In other cases family reunification occurs . Nowadays, a sizeable number of Romanian children attend primary and secondary schools in Western Europe . In Italy, for example, between 2001 and 2007, from 40 to 50 percent of residence 53 Vlase, Le genre dans la structuration du processus migratoire (above fn . 20); Monica Şerban, Romanians to Spain – The Road Towards Outside; paper presented at the Confer- ence “The Effects of International Labor Migration on Political Learning”, Cluj Napoca, 6-7 June 2008 . 54 Georgiana Toth / Alexandru Toth, Câţi copii au părinţi migranţi? in: Georgiana Toth / Alexandru Toth / Ovidiu Voicu / Mihaela Ştefănescu, Efectele migraţiei: Copiii rămaşi acasă . Bucureşti 2007, 13-39, 13, available at 56 Andrea Torre, Migrazioni femminili verso l’Italia: tre collettività a confronto . Roma, 2008 (CeSPI Working Papers, 41), available at Over the past eighteen years, Romanian migration has involved large numbers of people engaged in temporary migration or relocation to Western Europe . This migration shows a high degree of self-organization through migrant networks . Romanian migrants encountered quite a variety of institutional settings and regularization procedures at their destinations . As migrants have legalized their residences abroad, a process of settlement is be-coming visible in parts of Western Europe . Family reunions are becoming more important for holding families together across geographic distance, especially as migrants’ children begin attending schools in Western Europe . Even though migration strongly intensified over the recent years, there is no clear analysis of its effects on Romania . Researchas h been carried out intensively on the volume and destination of migration . Much is known about how many migrants there are, from which regions they come, and to which countries they migrate . However, less attention has been paid to the effects of migration on communities of origin, and on migrants’ incorporation into Western Europe . A series of effects are, however, discernable . Thesenclude i increases in household incomes and consumption as well as changes in migrants’ political orientations . Mass migration from rural and underdeveloped regions served as a way for dealing with social tensions generated by job losses and declines in household incomes . Furthermore, migration involves high levels of remittances that raise household incomes and consumption . Strong effects are expected to emerge in the area of education as young Romanians have started to attend West European primary and secondary schools . Return to Romania is not characteristic of migrants with their children in West European schools . Therefore, settlement in Westernurope E has been intensified over recent years . Because of Romania’s integration into the EU, the rights of Romanian migrants living and working in Western Europe have improved . This improved situation makes their return to Romania more unlikely . The scope and scale of the current economic crisis, however, as well as the expansion of the Romanian economy makes return a viable option for at least a segment of migrants .