The Multifunctional Role of Migrants in the Greek Countryside: Implications for the Rural Economy and Society

Transcription

1 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies Vol. 31, No. 1, January 2005, pp. 99/127 The Multifunctional Role of Migrants in the Greek Countryside: Implications for the Rural Economy and Society Charalambos Kasimis and Apostolos G. Papadopoulos Over recent years Southern European countries have experienced a massive arrival of migrants, becoming net migrant receivers and permanent destinations of migratory flows. For Greece immigration is a substantial new phenomenon, with flows originating primarily from Central and Eastern European countries. It is estimated that the migrant population has grown to approximately 10 per cent of the national and nearly 15 per cent of the economically active population. The extensive and uncontrolled entry of migrants into the country has increased especially rapidly the settlement and employment of this labour force in rural areas. This paper aims at examining the various aspects of the multifunctional roles migrants play in the rural economy and society of Greece, and the reactions of rural Greek people towards them. It draws on field research involving both qualitative and quantitative methods. Findings are presented around three axes: first, the implications of migrant employment for the operation of the farm and the farm household; second, the wider implications migrant employment has for local labour markets and the maintenance of the economic and social cohesion of rural societies; and third, the attitudes of local populations towards the migrants. Keywords: Migrants; Southern Europe; Rural Greece; Rural Development Introduction: Migration Towards Southern Europe In the postwar period, the countries of the European South were the main contributors to migration towards the industrial nations of Northern Europe. Charalambos Kasimis is Professor of Rural Sociology at the Agricultural University of Athens. Correspondence to: Professor Charalambos Kasimis, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Agricultural University of Athens, Iera Odos 75, Athens, Greece. kasimis@aua.gr. Apostolos G. Papadopoulos is Lecturer in Rural Sociology at the University of Ioannina. Correspondence to: Dr Apostolos G. Papadopoulos, Department of Farm Organisation and Management, University of Ioannina, George Seferis 2, Agrinio, Greece. appapado@cc.uoi.gr ISSN X print/issn online/05/ # 2005 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: /

2 100 C. Kasimis and A. G. Papadopoulos However, the oil crises of 1973 and 1980 caused an economic decline and a sharp fall in the demand for labour. This led to the introduction of restrictive migration policies and return migration. Over the past 15/20 years, the Southern European countries have changed their migration status to become migrant receivers and permanent migrant destinations. For the case of Greece the recent wave of mass migration originates primarily from Central and Eastern Europe, above all Albania. A number of factors explain the transformation of Southern Europe into a migrant receiver region and set up the framework for the construction of a South European model of migration (King 2000). Following the integration of South European countries into the EU and the rapid transformation of their economies, the economic and social distance between Southern and Northern Europe was narrowed. The expansion, on the other hand, of the tertiary sector (an economic development specific to Southern European countries) brought about a demand for flexible labour power, independent of trade union practices and legislation. Southern Europe thus constitutes a special case of European capitalism characterised by late industrialisation, large agricultural and tourist sectors, speculative urban development and an extensive family-based informal economy. Furthermore, the fluid nature of southern economies, based on tourism, commerce and shipping, often allowed the legal entry of migrants (as tourists and visitors) who then went on to stay illegally after their visas expired. Extended coastlines and easily-crossed borders further facilitated migrants entry. All these characteristics have set up the framework of the so-named Southern European model of migration (King 2000). Factors which differentiate this model from the Northern European model are: its broad illegality connected to the migration controls and restrictive policies imposed by EU countries; the multiplicity and heterogeneity of nationalities migrating towards Southern Europe; the asymmetry of their gender composition (being overwhelmingly male); the differentiation of the geographic, social and cultural origin of migrants; and finally the coexistence of migration with high unemployment and underemployment in the receiver countries. Spain, Italy and Greece, for example, though having the highest unemployment rates in Europe (over 10 per cent) continue to attract great numbers of migrants. Compared to the rest of Europe, in the South educated young persons have a poorer chance of getting a job. On the other hand, unemployment in Southern Europe affects less the middle-aged, low-skilled heads of households than in Northern Europe. This is due to the fact that certain groups of unemployed people are not in direct competition with migrants in the labour market. The good level of education of this young population and the strong family ties and support create high expectations and postpone the opportunity of a labour market placement that does not correspond to education and family status. Additionally, the restructuring of the economy and the increasing integration of women into the labour market have led to the creation of jobs of the kind often rejected by local populations (King 2000). Consequently, the aspiration for secure and decent jobs by the indigenous population has led to an unwillingness to accept less-well paid and demanding

3 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 101 jobs leaving open the space for the incoming migrants (King 2000; Labrianidis and Lyberaki 2001). In such an environment migrants cover the holes left in the labour market by the indigenous population. For Hoggart and Mendoza (1999) these holes are socially defined and regulated rather than economically prescribed. An explanation is provided within the framework of segmentation theory which suggests that the labour market is segregated into sectors with access to specific employment positions being defined by social positions of power, allocating employees to different segments on the basis of their ethnicity, gender and class (Bradley 1984; Peck 1996). Typical sectors are agriculture, construction, family handicrafts, tourism and domestic services. Within these sectors, migrants provide the labour for the marginal, least secure, low paying, and highly exploited jobs. Migrants in Rural Areas Evidence from Greece and other Southern European countries shows a rapid increase of migrant employment in agriculture and rural regions in the past 15 years. 1 Migrants have been arriving from the Balkan countries, Africa and Asia to provide labour in restructuring rural areas and in a rapidly specialising, seasonal agriculture. They are not, however, restricted to agriculture only; they are also engaged in nonagricultural economic activities in rural areas and in the overall support of aged populations, in the marginal, mountainous rural areas especially. In Greece, according to the Census of Population of 2001, the percentage of migrants living in rural areas was higher (18.6 per cent) than the respective percentage of the indigenous population (National Statistical Service of Greece 2003). Migrants have become the main contributors of wage labour in agriculture and by the turn of the decade accounted for almost 20 per cent of the total labour expended in the sector (Cavounidis and Hadjaki 2000; National Statistical Service of Greece 2001). Analogous trends are observable in the other Southern European countries, often with different phases of replacement and chain effects. In France migrants from Maghreb countries have replaced many of the Spaniards who, in looking for work, have left the Spanish rural labour market in the hands of Africans coming to join the agricultural labour market there, who in their turn are replaced now by Romanians and Bulgarians (Daly 2003; Hoggart and Mendoza 1999). In Italy migrant labour is said to have taken on a structural character in the labour market, differentiated by sector and region (Parini 2002; Pugliese 1993). Only in Portugal was migrant employment in farming restricted, due to the very strong co-operative networks among locals (Solé 1999); but it was recently reported that Portuguese large-scale agriculture now also relies heavily on cheap migrant labour (Malheiros 2002). A number of factors explain the increased use of migrant workers in rural Southern Europe. On the one hand, the restructuring of agriculture has created significant seasonal demands for labour which could not be satisfied because of the unfavourable demographic changes in rural areas (rural exodus and ageing of the population); on

4 102 C. Kasimis and A. G. Papadopoulos the other, the indigenous labour rarely has the necessary motivation and mobility for such work and is unwilling to work for low wages and under poor working conditions. Furthermore, over the past two decades the Southern European countryside has become an arena for the development of non-agricultural activities*/tourism, housing expansion, new consumption patterns connected to leisure and recreation, and the return of urban dwellers to their land of origin. This social and economic diversity has led to a multifunctional new rurality that has created increasing demands for flexible labour, facilitating thus the social, economic and demographic penetration of migrants (Kasimis and Stathakis 2003). Research on migration into rural areas has had a long tradition, although more in the USA than in Europe. Temporary migration from Mexico into the south-western United States and migrants living and employment conditions have attracted extensive interest from researchers (e.g. Friedland and Nelkin 1971; Goldfarb 1981). In Europe field research in rural areas has been limited, primarily because earlier migrations were directed from the underdeveloped rural South towards the urban areas of the industrial North. Thus, research has been mostly concentrated on the implications of rural exodus on the sending societies rather than on rural areas as receivers. With the exception of some earlier works (Berlan 1986), research on migrants in rural areas is difficult to find in European literature (Ageyman and Spooner 1997) and, when available, it is of indirect form (Castles et al. 1984; Cyrus 1994; Pugliese 1993; Solé 1999; Vaiou and Hadjimichalis 1997; Yonnet 1997). Only Spain seems to have attracted the interest of researchers in the past few years. Even here, however, research has not extensively investigated the implications of migrant employment on the rural economy and society of Spain; it has rather concentrated mostly on migrants themselves and migrant exploitation issues (Hoggart and Mendoza 1999; Mendoza 1998; Romero 1992). The importance of the study of migration in rural areas has been recognised by the EU in a report of its Social and Economic Committee (European Commission 2000). This report states that, although migrant labour in agriculture and rural regions has increased extensively, there is still insufficient quantitative and qualitative research; data are not being collated at EU level and no analyses are available in respect to specific groups. Migration Towards Greece In the 1950s and 1960s hundreds of thousands of Greeks, originating mostly from the rural regions, emigrated to Western Europe, the USA, Canada and Australia for economic and political reasons. However, following the oil crisis of 1973 and the adoption of restrictive migration policies by the European countries these migratory flows were severely reduced and return migration increased. At the start of the 1980s a new trend began. A small number of Asians, Africans and Poles arrived in Greece to find work in construction, agriculture and domestic services. Nevertheless, migration had still a limited scale. The collapse of the Central

5 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 103 and Eastern European regimes, however, turned migration towards the country into a much more massive phenomenon. According to the Census of Population of 2001 (National Statistical Service of Greece 2003) the foreign population living in Greece had reached 762,191 (47,000 being EU citizens), making up approximately 7 per cent of the total population of 10,964, The majority immigrant nationality (57.5 per cent) were Albanians; next came the Bulgarians, with 4.6 per cent of the total, and the Romanians with 3 per cent. 3 The proportion of male population was 54.5 per cent of the total immigrants but gender percentages differed according to country of origin. In the Albanian migrant population, for example, males made up 58.7 per cent of the total, while for the Bulgarians the situation was reversed, with females making 60 per cent of the total. At the two extremes were the Filipinos, with just over 90 per cent females, and the Pakistanis with 95 per cent males. The education levels of migrants were considered relatively good. Approximately one-tenth had higher education, one-half secondary, one-third primary, while onetenth had no education at all. Just over half of the migrants (51.4 per cent) were employed, with the majority of them employed in construction (24.5 per cent), services (20.5 per cent) and agriculture (17.5 per cent). Table 1 provides the details by nationality. In construction migrants make up one-third of the labour force of the sector, while in agriculture approximately one-fifth of the total labour days expended were provided by migrants. Table 1. Nationality of foreigners in Greece by sector of employment (percentage), 2001 Nationality Total (no.) Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Commerce, hotels, restaurants Other services Sector not declared Albanian 226, Bulgarian 23, Romanian 14, Former 36, USSR Polish 7, Pakistani 9, Indian 6, Filipino 4, Egyptian 4, Bangladeshi 4, Cypriot 5, USA 5, Australian 3, Canadian 2, EU15 15, Other 21, Total 391, Source : National Statistical Service of Greece (2003).

6 104 C. Kasimis and A. G. Papadopoulos What becomes evident, therefore, is that migrant labour has become a structural factor in the labour markets of all three sectors mentioned above. Developments in Migration Policy The Greek government was unprepared to receive such large numbers of migrants and has shown reluctance in introducing the necessary legal and institutional changes for the regularisation and integration of this population (Fakiolas 2003). The first regularisation programme to handle recent illegal migration into Greece was introduced in 1997 with Presidential Decrees 358/1997 and 359/1997 in implementation of Act 1975/1991 on the entry/exit, residence, employment, expulsion of foreigners and procedure for the recognition of the status of refugee for foreigners. 4 The decrees gave the opportunity to unregistered migrants who had lived for at least one year in the country to acquire the White Card of temporary residence. This required the submission of documents testifying to the applicant s good health, a clean court and police record, the Green Card of work permit (which did not exceed one year) and proof of having been socially insured for a total of 40 working days for the year No registration fees were charged at this stage. At the end of this procedure 371,641 migrants were registered, but only 201,882 were given the Green Card. It was estimated that fewer than half of the migrants living in the country were registered during this first regularisation programme. In 2001 Act 2910/2001 on the admission and residence of foreigners in Greece and the acquisition of Greek nationality through naturalisation gave migrants a second opportunity to legalise. Provided they could show that they had resided in the country for at least a year before the implementation of the law, migrants were given a six-month period to submit all the necessary documents to acquire the work permit that became the precondition for the residence permit. The two regularisation methods differed but the documents were similar to those required in the first regularisation programme for the acquisition of a work permit. The most important changes were the requirement of an official contract by the employer confirming the employment of the migrant for a specific period of time, the confirmation of social insurance for at least 200 working days 5 (this could also be paid by the migrants themselves) and the payment of 147 euros per person over the age of 14 years. Under the provisions of the new Act were also subjected all applicants of the 1997 regularisation programme whose permits had expired in the meantime. The same Act set the preconditions for future legal migration into the country giving the Organisation of Employment and Labour (OAED) the responsibility to prepare an annual report that would specify labour requirements at sectoral and regional level in order to define the quotas of temporary work permits. These job vacancies would be advertised in the sending countries by the embassies of the Greek state which would also have the responsibility to receive the applications of those interested in the jobs. However, the implementation of this procedure has not been introduced by the government as yet.

7 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 105 When the official date for this second regularisation programme expired in August 2001, it was reported that 351,110 migrants had submitted their documents for the acquisition of a work permit*/a precondition for the provision of the residence permit. However, bureaucracy and the lack of the necessary infrastructure created tremendous delays in processing the applications. This forced the government to give temporary residence to all applicants until the end of June 2003, subsequently extended to the end of October 2003 when, as stated by the government, all applications were expected to have been processed. Once more, however, promises were not fulfilled and thousands of migrants remain hostages of a legal and institutional structure which is too sluggish to respond. The enthusiasm shown by migrants upon the announcement of the Act has now vanished as a result of, on the one hand, the weakness of public administration to support the implementation of the Act and, on the other, the Act s philosophy of continuous checks and controls that make it difficult to implement. These weaknesses were identified and raised by many organisations and institutions directly or indirectly involved with migration and migrants. It is characteristic that the Greek Ombudsman in a report to the Minister of Interior warned of the implementation problems and asked for amendments that would make it work for the benefit of both migrants and the Greek public administration. The amendments to the Act introduced by the government (Government Gazette, 102/1/5/2002, Articles 19/25) have not addressed the problems connected with the one-year maximum duration of the work and residence permit, its yearly cost and the continuous changes in the documents required. 6 In order to surpass these difficulties migrants often have to either employ lawyers to handle their regularisation procedure or lose time and wages standing in endless queues. Attempts to control and manage migratory flows to the country have not been very effective also because the conditions creating these flows continue to exist in other parts of the world. The particular geographic position of Greece as the eastern gate to the EU and its relatively easily crossed borders, facilitated by its long coastlines, make illegal migratory flows, originating mostly now from Asian countries, difficult to handle. The situation has, however, greatly improved along the northern borders of the country following the formation in 1998 (Act 2622/98) of a special border control guard. Migrants in Rural Greece The arrival of migrants coincided with important developments for the future of Southern European agriculture and rural regions. As direct subsidies and tariff protection have started decreasing as a result of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform, EU enlargement and World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, large parts of the rural population of Southern European countries have felt threatened not only by cheap imports but also by innovative and technology-powered competitive agriculture.

8 106 C. Kasimis and A. G. Papadopoulos These developments have particular importance for the Greek, family-structured, agriculture that still holds an important position in both the economy and society of the country. 7 More specifically, after a period of substantial rise in agricultural incomes due to the support of the CAP, the first consequences of the fall in the competitiveness of Greek agriculture appeared as a result of a cutback in private investments, irrational management of EU funds, and ineffective structural policy (Demoussis 2003; Louloudis and Maraveyas 1997). The reform of the CAP and the readjustment of national agricultural policy created serious problems for agricultural incomes. The pressures for technological modernisation and the restructuring of agriculture towards intensive crops resulted simultaneously in the growth of off-farm employment of family members and in greater seasonal demands for labour (Kasimis et al. 2000; Zacopoulou 1999). This development was reinforced by the demographic deficiency of rural labour created by the massive rural exodus of the 1950s and 1960s and by the restructuring of rural areas. The expansion of other, non-agricultural activities like tourism, housing construction, the return of urban dwellers to their place of origin and the growth of new consumption patterns connected to leisure and recreation, have created a multifunctional rural environment that exerted pressures for types of labour not available from the indigenous population (Kasimis and Papadopoulos 2001). Such labour deficiencies are explained not only by demographic and structural factors but also by social factors connected with the rejection by the younger generation of low-status, unskilled and badly-paid jobs in rural areas. The improved level of education and standard of living as well as the spreading out of urban consumption patterns led to the creation of high expectations by the younger generation, who looked for jobs out of agriculture and out of rural areas too. Moreover, the integration of women into the labour market, the accompanying changes in family structures and the lack of adequate social infrastructures have resulted in increased demands for domestic support work (King 2000; Lazaridis and Psimmenos 2000). In short, in the last 15 years, demographic, structural and social factors have led to increased labour deficiencies which have substantial negative implications for the cost of production and the competitiveness of Greek agriculture. The arrival of migrants, seen in retrospect, has offered solutions to these pressing problems, generating, at the same time, new demands for labour and new job positions in agriculture and the countryside in general. In Greece, despite the scale and rapid expansion of the migratory phenomenon, the study of migration is limited and concentrated on urban rather than rural areas. Most of the studies are focused primarily on issues of employment and social integration in urban centres (Hatziprokopiou 2003; Iosifides 1997; Labrianidis and Lyberaki 2001; Psimmenos and Kassimati 2003) and, more particularly, on the economic and social implications of migrant employment on the domestic labour market (Fakiolas 2000; Lianos and Papakonstantinou 2003; Markova and Sarris 1997; Sarris and Zografakis 1999) and the problems of social integration (Michalopoulou et al. 1998; Psimmenos

9 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies ; Triandafyllidou 2000). Recently attention has been paid by a number of researchers to migration policy issues (Cavounidis 2001; Fakiolas 2003). Only Lianos et al. (1996) and Vaiou and Hadjimichalis (1997) have studied migration in rural areas. Vaiou and Hadjimichalis (1997) studied migrant labour in the context of their research on the development of Greek cities, regions and regional labour markets in three different years (1987, 1989, 1993) using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Lianos et al. (1996) examined the implications of migrant employment for the regional labour markets in two studies conducted in 1994: the first study was addressed to regional administrators and opinion leaders, and the second to farm households employing migrants. In their published work the researchers draw their material mostly from the first study, making only limited use of the material collected in the second. Both these studies, carried out in neighbouring regions of Northern Greece specialised in intensive agriculture, concluded that the employment of migrants covered seasonal labour needs, increased agricultural production, kept wages low, and also helped to keep agricultural product prices low. The Multifunctional Role of Migrants: Research Findings Methodology The rest of this paper aims at revealing the various aspects of the multifunctional role of migrants in the new rural environment of Greece. It draws from the findings of a research programme the purpose of which was the empirical, interdisciplinary investigation of the economic and social implications of the settlement and employment of migrant labour in rural Greece (Kasimis et al. 2002). The main hypothesis of this study has been that migrant workers addressed four structural developments in rural Greece: first, the longstanding shortages of labour in rural Greece that had resulted from the restructuring of its agricultural sector and rural economy; second, the demographic crisis experienced by the rural population as a result of the rural exodus connected with emigration in the period 1950/70; third, the social rejection by the younger generation of life and labour in rural areas; and fourth, the increased opportunities of the rural population for offfarm employment. The way migrant labour has incorporated itself into the rural regions of Greece has produced its own dynamics that surpass the simple operation of the labour market and rather correspond to the particular socio-economic conditions prevailing in many regions of rural Greece. The recognition of such a reality led to the selection of three paradigmatic rural regions, of a more or less equal population size (4,000 households in each): a region in Northern Greece, near the Albanian border, a second region in coastal Peloponnese, and a third on the island of Crete (Figure 1 locates these case-study areas).

10 108 C. Kasimis and A. G. Papadopoulos Marginal mountainous region: Municipalities of Konitsa and Mastorochoria (Prefecture of Ioannina) Intensive dynamic region: Municipality of Velo (Prefecture of Korinthos) Pluriactive island region: Municipalities of Kissamos and Inachorion (Prefecture of Chania) Figure 1. Location of the three study areas. The first region of Konitsa-Mastorochoria (prefecture of Ioannina) is an example of a mountainous marginal rural region located by the Albanian border that has been the main entrance of both legal and illegal Albanian migrants in Greece. The region has an elderly population, created by the massive rural exodus of the 1950s and 1960s, and limited productive activities concentrated in agriculture and stock breeding. Its marginality is not only the result of its geography and economy but is also the outcome of the socio-political climate that developed after the defeat of the Greek left in the civil war (1946/49) and the formation of communist Albania. Over the past few years the development of the mountainous communities as return sites for older Greeks and as wild areas of recreation for younger Greeks, the significant rebuilding of the region after the earthquake of 1996, and the increasing support needs of the aged population, have created increased demands for labour and have set the context for the reception of migrants. The second region of Velo (prefecture of Corinthia) is an example of a lowland rural region of intensive agriculture. The region has a long history of marketadjusted, export-driven agricultural development, while recent structural adjustments have created further seasonal demand for labour. Sultana grapes are the dominant crop occupying a large share of the cultivated land, while processing and commercial

11 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 109 companies are involved in the export of this dynamic product. The region is characterised by a good demographic composition, improved educational levels and opportunities for off-farm employment. The third region of Kissamos-Innachorion (prefecture of Chania) is an example of a pluriactive island environment combining both traditional (olive trees) and dynamic agricultural (greenhouses) and non-agricultural activities (small-scale tourism). The local population has a weak demographic composition but the economy has recently shown signs of non-agricultural development, particularly tourism. The latter has resulted in pluriactivity becoming a dominant characteristic in the region both at the household and individual level. These elements have created the need for a low-skilled, flexible labour force to cover demands in both agriculture and tourism. The study involved three research strategies in each region. First, a qualitative study of local/regional administrators and opinion leaders, with the use of semi-structured interviews, to register the characteristics of migration in the region and their opinions about the implications of migration for the local economy and society (total 58 interviews). Second, a survey of a representative sample of households aiming at the collection of information on the role of migrants and the implications of migrant employment for the operation of the farm, the family business and the overall support of the household. The survey registered, also, the opinions and attitudes of local populations towards the migrants and their evaluation of the prospects of their integration. The sampling method adopted was cluster sampling. In each region units of 100 households were formed and in each unit ten households were selected randomly. This procedure gave us a representative sample of 98 households in the marginal region, 96 in the dynamic and 99 in the pluriactive. This sample represented 2.5 per cent of the total number of households in each region and generated a total of 293 questionnaires. Third, a qualitative study of migrants, with the use of semi-structured interviews, aiming at the documentation of the social, economic and cultural experience of migration and the future strategies of migrants (total 65 interviews). The paper draws exclusively from the material of the first two studies concerning the indigenous population, collected from the household survey and the interviews with local/regional administrators and opinion leaders. No use is made here of the material concerning the migrants themselves. The presentation of the findings is done at four levels. First, we examine the implications of migrant employment upon the operation of the farm and the farm household. Then the wider implications migrants have upon the local labour markets and for the maintenance of the economic and social cohesion of rural societies are considered. Last, following the analysis of the related empirical material, the discussion moves to the attitudes of local populations towards migrants.

12 110 C. Kasimis and A. G. Papadopoulos Migrants Contribution to the Operation and Restructuring of the Farm Holdings Despite the overall decline of the relative scale of agriculture, at the national level, and the development of a multifunctional rural environment, the survey results showed that agriculture still played a central role in the economic and social life of the Greek countryside. It is characteristic that two-thirds of all households in the study regions operated a farm holding. The highest shares of farm-operating households were found in the pluriactive (82 per cent) and the dynamic region (75 per cent), and the lowest in the marginal region (40 per cent). 8 In this environment the employment of non-family labour has been very important for both farming and the countryside. The survey showed that 53 per cent of the total number of households and 66 per cent of the farm operating households employed non-family labour. Non-family labour contributed almost 25 per cent of the total size of labour spent on the farm, 90 per cent of which was migrant, male labour. 9 Three-quarters of this labour was of Albanian nationality. Migrants were employed to do a wide variety of jobs and more particularly the heaviest, most unhealthy and tiring jobs like crop harvesting, hoeing, pruning, loading, weeding out and manuring; tasks indigenous labour generally avoided. The size and role of migrant employment differed in accordance with the weight of the agricultural sector in each study region (Table 2). Corinthia, the region with the most dynamic agricultural sector, showed the highest proportion of migrant employment for both farm-operating households and total rural households. More specifically, in this region, the contribution of migrants was found primarily in agricultural production and the processing of agricultural products, and secondarily in the construction sector. In Chania, the region combining agricultural with nonagricultural activities, their contribution was present in all sectors covering labour needs, not only in agricultural production (seasonal in the case of traditional agriculture and permanent in the case of modern/intensive farming) but also in tourism, manufacturing and construction. Migrants contribution was particularly important in this region s more marginal parts, where it took the form of overall support to old households. Finally, in Ioannina, the mountainous region, migrants contribution was mainly associated with construction (in housing and public works) and the overall support of aged households. Table 2. Employment of migrants by rural and farm-operating households Ioannina Corinthia Chania Total Total number of rural households % Employing migrants Total number of farm-operating households % Employing migrants Source : Authors Household Survey.

13 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 111 Non-family/wage labour employed in agriculture expanded extensively in the 1990s. When we compare non-family/wage labour per farm for the same farms that employed wage labour both before the arrival of migrants (late 1980s) and in 2000, we discover that wage labour doubled from an average of 80 days per farm to 157. In the dynamic lowland region, the number of labour days increased from 65 to 166, in the pluriactive island region from 121 to 162 while, in the mountainous region, it remained unchanged at 38 days. This increase, confirmed by the Census of Agriculture in 2000, 10 is connected to the massive arrival of migrants, who provided a timely answer to the pressing labour needs of agriculture. The relationship between family and non-family labour on the farm was reversed when the latter took the form of permanent labour. More specifically, the share of family labour in the total labour expended on the farm dropped from 75 per cent in the farms employing seasonal wage labour to approximately 40 per cent in those employing permanent labour. The use of migrant labour was, in economic terms, more significant for the larger size farms rather than the small. As the size of the farm increased, so did the weight of migrant labour employed. In farms of 3/5 hectares migrants supplied 62 days work per farm, and for the size group 5/10 hectares they offered 163. The survival, modernisation and expansion of farm holdings in the three study regions owe much to the contribution of migrants. In the less-favoured mountainous regions in particular, migrants supported the preservation of farming activity and the survival of the farm household. In the case of intensive agricultural systems, concentrated in the plain areas, migrants have provided the basis for the modernisation, expansion and diversification of farming activity in line with market and farm labour developments. Let us elaborate on this. In the research it was found that the size and role of non-family/migrant labour was differentiated in the various categories of farm households. Three categories of farm households are distinguished here: professional farm households defined as those with one or more members employed full-time on the farm; pluriactive as those with members engaged in both farming and non-farming activities; and part-time as those with household members who have their main employment off the farm and who work part-time on the farm. Migrant labour employment was higher in professional and pluriactive farm households (72 and 64 per cent of these households respectively employed migrants), while only 43 per cent of the part-time farm households employed migrants. For professional farm households, migrants have played a major role in the expansion and modernisation of the holding, while for the pluriactive and part-time households they have facilitated off-farm employment of family members. For professional and pluriactive farms in particular, the employment of migrant labour had important implications for the family division of labour. The extensive participation of non-family labour in the farm work has contributed to the disengagement not only of the farmer from heavy manual work, but also the spouse and, to a significant degree, the rest of the family members. Through a

14 112 C. Kasimis and A. G. Papadopoulos multiple-response question addressed to the farm-operating household heads it was found that more than 50 per cent of male farm heads reduced their workload or withdrew from heavy farm work and devoted more time to their farm s organisation and management*/particularly those with large farms*/while their spouses (more than 40 per cent of them) either reduced their farm work, or ceased it altogether (20 per cent) to return exclusively to housework or to seek off-farm employment. Large entrepreneurial farms benefited the most from the arrival of migrants because they expanded their farm holding and/or increased their production. In the dynamic and pluriactive study regions respondents associated the extensive use of seasonal labour with the expansion and development of farm holdings. More particularly, 48 per cent of farm holdings employing migrant labour in the dynamic region and 26 per cent in the pluriactive region increased their size in the last decade. The growth in size of farm holdings was often combined with a restructuring towards dynamic crops and the intensification of agricultural production*/ developments facilitated by the availability of cheap migrant labour. In the dynamic region, for example, sultana grapes, a dynamic export-oriented crop well integrated into the European food market, have expanded extensively in the past 15 years creating a demand for extra farm labour. Such labour was needed in the production/ harvesting and standardisation/packaging stages. The fruit processing companies have relied heavily on migrant labour in the past few years and have developed a clear gender division of labour in the production chain: There are groups that pick up the grapes while their women are inside. That is, [migrant] men work outside [the factory] while their women work inside the packaging floor as packers. There are seven packaging companies employing 3,000 people, a large number of whom are migrants (representative of local fruit processing company, Corinthia). In the pluriactive region, migrants provided a solution for the vegetable-producing greenhouses that needed permanent labour to work under particularly hard and unhealthy conditions. The availability of migrants ensured the employment of permanent labour at low cost. The head of the regional department of rural development in Chania offers a good description of the situation: In the greenhouses the cost would have increased a lot if we employed locals. Their expansion is surely connected to the migrant labour force. At this very moment there is a tendency for expansion because of the availability of migrants. If they leave we are finished (agronomist, head of the Regional Department of Rural Development, Chania). In the restructuring process migrants provided the labour to bring into cultivation even formerly unexploited lands. Furthermore, the opportunity was given to small farmers, hobby farmers and/or to those who happened to inherit a farm holding but were already employed outside agriculture, to maintain and cultivate that holding. Such a development had implications for processes of land concentration and social

15 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 113 and economic differentiation in the Greek countryside. It accelerated the process of expansion for the already-large farmers, while at the same time it facilitated the maintenance of land in the hands of non-farmer land proprietors. Local small and medium farmers have argued that non-farmer land proprietors would have been forced to either sell or rent out their land to them if the migrants had not arrived. Additionally, migrants have contributed to restraining the trend towards land abandonment and depopulation in rural areas, a process closely related to demographic and socio-economic factors explained earlier in the paper. Locals describe these developments very characteristically: Today there is an ageing of the population, on the one hand, and not enough people, on the other. There are not enough active farmers... the locals and the younger people avoid manual jobs; they are looking for other jobs. If it wasn t for the migrants, I believe there would have been problems in harvesting, because there are many old people in the area and they cannot meet the labour needs (agronomist, Chania). In some areas migrants have developed their own employment strategies exploiting the opportunities available. In the regions of both Corinthia and Chania, they take on the cultivation of trees under a sharecropping system called missiaka according to which the owner and the cultivator split in two the costs and returns of production. The system of missiaka is often adopted by elderly households and non-farming land proprietors who own olive trees. The role and contribution of migrant labour are reflected in the generally positive opinion of farm holders about the implications of migrant employment for the operation of their farm. In all three regions, approximately 60 per cent of the respondents see only positive implications for the operation of their farm, 10 per cent see both positive and negative and 30 per cent see no implications at all. Negative implications are below 1 per cent. Older respondents showed a more positive attitude towards the migrants than younger respondents. When asked to clarify what exactly the positive implications were, the most popular answers given by farmers, in order of significance, were that migrants helped them preserve the farm (35 per cent), reduce the cost of labour (22 per cent) and find labour hands (21 per cent). In the dynamic lowland region further factors were mentioned: farm owners were able to enlarge their holding and devote more time to the management of their farm. In the pluriactive island region, it was underlined that production increased, farm-holders were allowed to be employed in off-farm activities and were able to secure better quality of production. Finally, in the marginal mountainous region, it was stressed that the presence of migrants made possible the maintenance of non-profitable agricultural activities. In brief, during the past decade migrants have significantly and variously supported farming in the Greek countryside. Hired to do arduous jobs at a low and/or irregular payment, they have played a central role in the survival, expansion and modernisation of farm holdings. The most benefited groups remain the

16 114 C. Kasimis and A. G. Papadopoulos entrepreneurial farm holders and the processing companies which, having acquired easy access to cheap labour, have expanded their operations. The Implications of Migrant Employment for Local Labour Markets Our research showed that the employment of migrant labour in all three study-areas has not substituted the local workforce; instead it has acted complementarily covering the labour deficits in the local economy. The special importance of agriculture in the rural areas, the shift of local labour towards more demanding and specialised tasks and the general demographic shortage of people of working age are factors explaining this. When survey respondents were asked in a multiple-response question why they employed migrants, the most popular answer was because only migrants could be found (59 per cent), followed by because Greeks do not work in the fields (40 per cent) and because they cost less (9 per cent). In other words local population considered the plugging of labour shortages rather than the reduction of the cost of labour as the most important contribution of migrants. Despite the overwhelming acknowledgement of the complementary role of migrants labour, their employment has caused limited problems to certain professional categories, mainly the replacement of indigenous unskilled and apprentice labour in the construction business that could not compete against the low level of wages paid to migrant workers in the sector. In these cases, nevertheless, it was noted that their substitution of indigenous labour was often followed by an upward mobility of Greek workers in the professional, labour hierarchy. In the agricultural sector, the problem was faced by a very small number of land workers and women (usually older in age), working in the fruit-processing industry who were driven out of the labour market as a result of the lower cost of migrant labour. This impression was mainly entertained in the interviews with representatives of the agro-industry in the dynamic lowland region. They stressed the fact that they searched for local Greek labour to employ without any success: The unemployment migrants [are supposed to] create is a myth. Greek [workers] are preferred. There is no way that a Greek will ask for a job and you will choose an Albanian. There is no difference any more in the wages; everything is the same. Put simply, Greeks do not want these jobs (female local entrepreneur, owner of a packaging company, Corinthia). Respondents in all study regions expressed similar views. Problems often stated with regard to migrant labour were those of low work quality and lack of work discipline. Albanians oblige you to be around. They are indifferent and irresponsible. When you leave they do a false work.... The quality of their labour is low. They do not know the work they do (farmer, head of the local Farmers Union, Corinthia).

17 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 115 These comments, nevertheless, were not made in all regions and do not dispute, by any means, migrants key contribution to the local economies and their hard work. In Chania, the pluriactive region, the quality of their work was not disputed at all. The developments described above have strengthened existing pressures for the professionalisation of agriculture, the integration of women into the non-agricultural labour market and the professionalisation of domestic work. To this end migrants have provided, at a low cost, the necessary labour for the modernisation of agriculture and an alternative farm and domestic labour pool which has allowed Greek family members to pursue their personal employment and career goals. For example, rural women liberated from farm work and/or domestic and other familial labour, have been given better prospects for their integration into the nonagricultural labour market. Often even their domestic work has been externalised to female migrants. In this way migrant workers seem to have supported a form of de-agriculturalisation and urbanisation of the Greek countryside accompanied by a diffusion of petty-bourgeois attitudes and practices to rural households. Two examples can be provided of this. The first concerns the expansion of domestic services provided to rural households by migrants*/something new compared to the longer-established experience of urban areas. The second concerns the development of what can be described as an employer attitude formulated on the part of some parts of the Greek rural population. Let us expand on these. In our research it was found that nearly 20 per cent of all households in the three study areas employ migrants specifically for domestic services. Domestic employment in rural areas, however, has a rather more extended form of all-round support of rural household maintenance, including gardening, cutting wood, transport of provisions, craft and caretaker s works, than of a strictly in-house support. The range of this employment is larger in the mountainous and the pluriactive region, where there is a more significant proportion of older households, and smaller in the dynamic region which has a comparatively younger population. In the pluriactive and the dynamic regions, where the farming activity is more significant compared to the mountainous regions, domestic employment of migrants was often combined with agricultural employment. Respondents in all three study areas acknowledge the important, multifunctional role of migrants for the maintenance of rural households. Every house has, and I put it in quotation marks, its Albanian.... Some [locals] have permanently employed Albanians. They may employ a couple. The man may work in the fields and the woman either in the fields, in some light tasks when there is work to do, or she may work in the house, taking care of the babies, the elderly or to clean the house, or to work in the garden (member of the Prefecture Council, Corinthia). The mass availability and the low cost of migrant labour have facilitated the spread of migrant employment across almost all categories of rural households leading,