The rise of liquid migration? Old and new patterns of migration after EU Enlargement

- First draft. Do not quote without permission - The rise of liquid migration? Old and new patterns of migration after EU Enlargement Godfried Engbersen (Engbersen@fsw.eur.nl) (Erasmus University Rotterdam) Izabela Grabowska-Lusinska (Centre of Migration Research, University of Warsaw Arjen Leerkes (Erasmus University Rotterdam) Paper to be presented at the Interdisciplinary Conference on Migration, Economic Change, Social Challenge. April 6 th -9 th, 2011 University College London 1

1 Introduction 1 The free movement of labour is one of the most tangible benefits of European integration. The EU enlargements of 2004 and 2007 has brought this coveted freedom to the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe (hereafter: CEE), by the successive lifting of restrictions to the majority of labour markets from the old EU member states. Hundreds of thousand of migrants from Poland, Romania and Bulgaria went to Western European countries as a consequence (Black et al. 2010). These migration flows were partly a continuation of migration paths that had already been established before 2004 (Garapich 2008). After the collapse of communism, several Western European countries concluded bilateral treaties with countries such as Poland, Bulgaria and Romania to enable temporary labour migration. Germany already concluded such a treaty with Poland in 1991, resulting in a quarter of a million Polish workers going to Germany for seasonal work in 2002. The UK concluded Seasonal Agricultural Workers Schemes (SAWS) with various CEE countries, so that tens of thousands of workers from Poland and other CEE countries could work temporarily in the UK (Castles 2006). The Netherlands also concluded such agreements. Moreover, considerable flows of irregular migration from Romania to Italy and Spain had already taken root by the eve of 2004 (Sandu 2006, Bleahu 2007). Yet, the new migrations from CEE countries concern also substantial new migrant groups that do not follow in the footsteps of earlier labour migrants. A striking development is the large number of Poles that have gone to work in the UK, so that Germany is no longer the dominant destination country. In addition, the United States has dropped from second to fifth place (Iglicka and Ziolek-Skrzypczak 2010) in terms of Poles destination choices. Ireland, Norway and Sweden, that similarly to the UK opened their labour market on May 2004 to A8 nationals, became popular destination countries. In the years following the enlargements, more European countries opened their labour markets to nationals from the new European member states and thus large groups of CEE labour migrants moved to these countries. The Netherlands is one such country (Iglicka and Ziolek-Skrzypczak 2010). In 1998, around 5000 work permits were issued in the Netherlands to labour migrants from 1 We thank Maria Ilies and Robbert van der Meij for their statistical support and for their comments on a pervious version of this paper. 2

CEE countries. Some ten years later, by a conservative estimate, 165,000 labour migrants from CEE states work regularly in the Netherlands. The vast majority of migrants hail from Poland, though there are also growing numbers of Bulgarians and Romanians (De Boom et al. 2010). However, the access of Romanians and Bulgarians to the labour markets of the old EU member states is restricted, as still require a work permit in order to work legally. Defining contemporary migration patterns from Central and Eastern Europe to Western Europe is a challenging question. Is it primarily a matter of temporary, circular labour migration, including mainly seasonal work? It is a matter of settlement migration? Or are there new migration patterns emerging as well? In earlier publications we introduced the concept of liquid migration (Engbersen et al., 2010; cf. also Okolski & Lusinska-Grabowska 2009; Engbersen & Snel, forthcoming). This concept, inspired by the work of Bauman (1999, 2003 and 20065), refers to the emergence of individualised migration patterns in which migrants try their luck in new and multiple countries of destination, benefiting from open borders and open labour markets. Liquid migration is also made possible by the individualisation of family relations in Central and Eastern Europe, so that migration patterns become less network-driven, with young migrants having fewer family responsibilities in the country of origin (Engbersen and Grabowska-Lusinska 2010). Since post-accession migration from Central and Eastern Europe to Western Europe is a relatively recent phenomenon, it is difficult to formulate any definitive statements about the nature of contemporary migration flows. It is nevertheless our firm belief that, after more than 6 years since the accession of the A8 and more than 3 years since the accession of the A2 to the EU, patterns of migration and settlement that allow for a tentative answer to the question concerning contemporary migration patterns from CEE countries, are emerging. To this end, in this paper we will be drawing on the initial findings of a Dutch study into the position of CEE migrants in Dutch society. We will additionally use several qualitative studies that have tried to typify contemporary labour migrant and migration flows from Poland to Western Europe. The central interest of this paper is how to classify and typify current migration patterns. To what extent and in what ways do they differ from traditional patterns? Are they unique in any sense? In the first part of the paper, we will build up our theoretical framework by discussing contemporary typologies of labour migrants from Poland to West European countries (mainly to England). From this discussion we construct a typology that 3

is build on two dimensions: the degree of attachment to the home country and the degree of attachment to the destination country. On the basis of these two dimensions we construct a conceptual scheme in which four ideal typical patterns of migration are distinguished. The second part of this paper presents the empirical findings of a Dutch study conducted in several cities (including Rotterdam and The Hague). In this part we analyse whether the two dimensions and the different patterns of migration are present in the Dutch data. We also analyse which type of labour migrants (in terms of age, ethnicity, gender, education, occupation, family composition) are related to the different patterns of migration. The final part will discuss whether we are witnessing new patterns of migration today, or whether these are just forms of older, well-known patterns of migration, but wrapped up in new economic, social and political conditions and circumstances. 2 Theoretical framework A serious impediment to obtaining insight into contemporary migration from CEE countries is the fact that many migrants do not appear in the population statistics of West European countries. Many labour migrants do not register with the local authorities (Bauere et al., 2007; De Boom et al., 2010), and they are often underrepresented in national labour force surveys. 2 This is the case, for instance, in the Netherlands and the UK (Salt and Miller 2006; Bauere et al., 2007; De Boom et al 2010). 3 A recent study on the incorporation of contemporary CEE labour migrants in the Netherlands showed that 39% of the 746 2 Non-registration has various reasons. First there is the temporary nature of labour migration, particularly seasonal work, meaning that migrants are not required to register. A second factor is that official registration is not relevant for many labour migrants staying longer than 6 months. They have found private accommodation through their employer or through own efforts. Self-employed workers also often fail to register. Additionally, there is a group that does reside legally in Western Europe, but that work illegally because they lack a work permit (this applies to many Romanians and Bulgarians). 3 The number of CEE migrants officially residing in the Netherlands was 65,000 in 2009 (based on the criterion of nationality). However, a large Group of CEE migrants is not registered in the official population statistics. Figures from the Employee Insurance Agency (UWV) show that, in December 2008, there were 87,000 employees from CEE countries working in the Netherlands who were not listed in the Municipal Personal Records Database (GBA). In addition, there were around 7000 employees of Polish-German nationality and approximately 7700 entrepreneurs from one of the CEE countries in the Netherlands who were not registered in the GBA. Accordingly, the number of CEE migrants in the Netherlands at the end of 2008 who were not listed in the GBA and there fore not included in the official population statistics of Statistics Netherlands is estimated at more than 100,000 (De Boom et al. 2010). 4

respondents were not officially registered and that almost 25% did not know whether they were registered or not (Weltevrede et al. 2009). To gain further insight into the nature of contemporary migration patterns, it is important to draw on other sources than the national population statistics or labour force surveys because they overemphasise the documented reality and have little to say about the undocumented reality of CEE labour migration (Grabowska-Lusinska, forthcoming). Furthermore, they give little information about the migration motives and strategies of labour migrants. An important source may be found in small-scale, qualitative studies, or ethnosurveys (sometimes combined with findings from population statistics or labour force surveys). These studies are often based on a limited number of interviews, and are characterised by typology construction. Developing typologies alongside data analysis is an effective means of sparking the theoretical imagination during the research process. A discussion of current typologies can clarify our thinking on post-accession migration, and can advocate possible lines of inquiry and theoretical developments (Layder 1998). The typologies that we shall briefly describe below are complementary and overlap each other. What they share is an attempt to map out today's diversity in migration patterns. They are a first essential step toward developing a new theory on migration patterns. A first relevant study is that by Düvell and Vogel (2006), in which they distinguish four types of migrants, on the basis of 15 intensive face-to-face interviews with Polish labour migrants. This typology is based on two underlying dimensions: intended duration of stay and family ties. They distinguish: 1 Migrants oriented on returning, who remain just briefly in the receiving countries and retain a strong focus on their own country. 2 Emigrants/immigrants that (wish to) settle in the host country permanently or long-term for various reasons (work, marriage or lifestyle), and that maintain strong links with the host society. This migration motive may surface only over the course of time. 3 Trans-national migrants with a strong bi-national orientation. These migrants are oriented on the country of origin as well as on the host society. This includes migrants that have worked for long periods in other countries in order to support family at home (including own children). 5

4 Global nomads that live and work in diverse countries and that have a very international, cosmopolitan orientation. These migrants are highly mobile, moving from one country to another; depending on the available work opportunities (cf. Bauman 1998). A second typology is offered by Eade, Drinkwater and Garapich (2006). This typology is mainly based on qualitative interviews with 50 Polish labour migrants selected through snowball sampling. The principal dimensions of their typology are perceived life chances and plans and migration strategies. They also distinguish four types: 1 Storks are circular migrants who mostly work in low-wage occupations (catering, construction industry, domestic service, agriculture). Many of them are seasonal migrants. 2. Hamsters are migrants who view their move as a one-off venture to accumulate enough capital to invest in Poland. 3. Searchers are migrants who deliberately wish to keep their options open. This group consists predominantly of young, individualistic and ambitious migrants (intentional unpredictability). 4. Stayers are migrants who have been living in the host sociey for some time and intend to remain there for good. A third typology is that by Grabowska-Lusinska & Okolski (2009). This typology is based on the migration strategies of distinct groups of labour migrants. Here, migration strategy is defined as a life orientation aimed at reaching certain goals. The empirical bases of this typology consist of several data sources: an ethno-survey in five local communities in Poland, the Polish Labour Force Survey, and a secondary analysis of small research projects throughout Europe. This typology, which builds further on the work by Duvell and Vogel (2006) and Eade et al. (2006), differentiates four types of migration strategies: 1. Seasonal circulation. This strategy applies to seasonal migrants working in agriculture, catering, gastronomy and construction. 6

2. Settling down. This strategy concerns migrants that settle permanently in the destination country (emigrants). In most cases this involves medium-skilled and skilled workers working in various sectors such as ICT, pharmaceutics, biotechnology, financial services. 3 Long-term residence. This strategy is characteristic for trans-national labour migrants that remain for long periods in a destination country, but that retain strong links to the home country (partly due to the presence of family there). Here too, it mainly concerns medium-skilled and skilled workers active in various sectors such as ICT, pharmaceutics, biotechnology and the financial sector. 4 Unpredictable intentions. This strategy applies to young singles or young couples, often well educated, that temporarily reside in another country while retaining all options of remaining, returning or moving to another country. This group has few family obligations in the home country, and concerns skilled and highly skilled migrants active in a wide range of sectors. A fourth typology has been defined by Trevena (forthcoming). Based on 28 face-to-face indepth interviews with Polish labour migrants in the UK, this typology is distinct from the others in that it exclusively pertains to highly skilled graduates. This typology shows that within a single category, large differences exist. These differences not only concern age and life stage, but also migration motives. Trevena distinguishes three types of migrants. Her typology is based on the migration motives of highly skilled labour migrants. 1 Target earners: aiming to accumulate large sums of money for the purpose of investing it in the home country. 2 Career seekers: seeking to develop their career abroad. 3 Drifters (majority of respondents): pursuing other goals than professional advancement or savings for investment; typical for the initial stages of migration. Their initial aim was to go somewhere else and have a look around, and not to work on developing a career; opting for low-skilled jobs (e.g. cleaning or bartending) therefore came as a natural choice. The four typologies described are an attempt to come to grips with the new reality of migration as it has developed since the collapse of communism in 1989 and especially since 7

the expansion of the EU in 2004 and 2007. These changes in migration patterns are not only of a quantitative nature, but also of a qualitative one (compare also Favell 2008). On the one hand, the classic patterns of seasonal migration and settlement migration are discernible. On the other hand new fragmented patterns of transnational and footloose migration seem to emerge (cf. Snel et al. 2006; Van Bochove et al 2010). These latter patterns of migration relate to migrants who are rooted in the home country as well as in the destination country, and to migrants who act rather independently because they are less bounded by family obligations or other commitments in the home country and destination country. Young and highly skilled migrants with a migratory habitus of intentional unpredictability are overrepresented within these migration patterns. It is interesting to note that that there is a clear family resemblance between these contemporary typologies and some classical typologies based on fieldwork done in developing countries (Chapman & Prothero 1983-1984) and Mexico-US (Massey et al. 1996). These earlier typologies also showed a plurality of migration patterns from very temporary migration to permanent settlement. There are also substantial differences between these classical typologies and the new ones. Some contemporary patterns of migration are more individualised and less network-driven than the forms of mobility described in earlier work on forms of mobility in Africa and Asia or in Massey s work on migration patterns between Mexico and the US. It is also obvious that the disappearance of borders in the enlarged EU and the free mobility of labour have facilitated a diversity of migration patterns. In contrast, the border control between the US and Mexico (especially after IRCA) 4 has seriously limited the opportunities of labour migrants to travel back and forth without constraints between these two countries. In this respect the contemporary European typologies of migration have more in common with the typology of Chapman & Prothero (1983-84) who have written primarily on reciprocal flows of people within Asian and African countries. The distinction they made between migration (durable or permanent change of residence) and forms of mobility (from commuting on a daily basis to circular migration for longer periods of time) is still useful for classifying East-West migration. The EU Enlargement has 4 In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act placed renewed emphasis on controlling the Mexico- US border. 8

significantly facilitated mobility patterns of commuting and circular migration across national borders. The different typologies of migration patterns after EU enlargement not only illustrate the consequences of changes in institutional contexts, they also show in our understanding that two basic dimensions are constructive for the different typologies. The first dimension is the degree to which migrants are attached to the destination country. This attachment can be either weak or strong, and it relates to administrative and financial registration as well as to socio-cultural and demographic factors, such as a command of the national language, contacts with the native population, and cohabiting with a partner and children (or not) in the destination country. The second dimension is the degree to which migrants remain attached to their home country. As with the first dimension, the nature of this attachment ranges from weak to strong, and it relates to socio-economic, socio-cultural and demographic factors. Indicators for the strength or weakness of migrants attachments to the home country are: economic investment plans, family ties and obligations, and a partner and children who still reside in the home country. By combining the two dimensions, of an attachment to the destination country (weak-strong) and an attachment to the home country (weak-strong), four combinations result. These four combinations are ideal types. Nevertheless, the continuity of the two dimensions enables a range of intermediate forms. The figure below is an attempt to place the typologies described above in four quadrants (see Figure 1). 9

Figure 1: Different patterns of labour migration and different types of Polish labour migrants after EU Enlargement Attachment to the home country Strong Temporary, circular & seasonal migration: storks & hamsters target earners Transnational migration (bi-national orientation): transmigrants, long-term residence migrants A B Weak Footloose migration global nomads, searchers & drifters Settlement migration settlement migrants, stayers C Weak W D Strong Attachment to the destination country Figure 1 has mainly a descriptive value; we should guard against a static and deterministic interpretation. We do not assume any one-sided causal relationship between specific attachments and specific migration patterns. Attachments to the destination and home country and migrants' aspirations and orientation are interdependent. It is also important to recognise how migrants' attachments and aspirations may change over the course of time. Figure 1 should therefore be viewed in a dynamic perspective as well. Migrants may move from one quadrant to another over the course of time. Aside from the issue of the underlying dimensions, however, there is also the issue of the determinants of the different patterns of migration. Which migrants of what characteristics wind up predominantly in which quadrant? It seems obvious to assume that low skilled migrants mainly end up in quadrant A and the better educated migrants in quadrants B and D. They manage to attain a stable position in the destination country, thanks to their human capital. This generally concerns relatively successful labour migrants. Quadrant C seems particularly applicable to the highly skilled whose specific competences 10

allow them to choose their work place, and to young migrants that can and want to keep their options open. In the remainder of this paper we shall investigate to what extent the typology above can be substantiated. We will draw on Dutch data gathered from the perspective of a destination country. These data enable us to investigate to what extent the migration patterns resurface in larger-scale quantitative research. 3 The Dutch study: preliminary analysis and results (to be concluded) The Dutch study investigates the incorporation of migrants from Poland, Bulgaria and Romenia in the Netherlands. The study has been conducted in nine Dutch municipalities. We have covered major cities such as Rotterdam (600,000 inhabitants) and The Hague (500,000 inhabitants), medium-sized ones, namely Breda (175,000 inhabitants), Dordrecht (120,000 inhabitants) and Westland (100,000 inhabitants), as well as small agrarian communities, namely Hillegom (20,000 inhabitants), Katwijk (60,000 inhabitants), Moerdijk (37,000 inhabitants) and Zundert (21,000 inhabitants). A total of 600 CEE migrants have been interviewed we the help of a questionnaire comprising 213 questions. Out of these, 363 interviews have been held in Rotterdam, The Hague, Breda, Moerdijk and Zundert. We have used structured face-to-face interviews with a few open questions which elaborate on the issues of (notably) housing, work integration in the Dutch society, future plans. The interviews have taken place in the mother tongue of the respondents, for the duration of between one and two hours. We have used interviewers with the same mother tongue as that of the respondents - international students or graduates from the Erasmus University Rotterdam. They selected their respondents through snowball sampling. At the end of each interview, the respondents were asked whether they knew of any fellow nationals who could be interviewed. We also emphasised on the diversification of sources from where the respondents are selected. The places frequented by CEE labour migrants are well known to our interviewers; however, we were careful not to overuse certain locations. For instance, the interviewees have been selected from Polish and Bulgarian shops, internet forums supermarkets in 11

neighbourhoods home to many Polish or Bulgarian nationals. Respondents were approached on the street by the interviewers upon hearing their mother tongue or by identifying their national car plates. A few respondents were found through the schools attended by their children. As Table 1 shows, we are dealing with a heterogeneous group that includes both highly educated and low educated respondents. The size of the Bulgarian group is proportionally large because we have devoted extra attention to this category for two reasons. Firstly, to investigate whether the concerns over unemployed Bulgarians relying on shelters for the homeless as well as over those working illegally, are justified. Secondly, to analyze the impact on the position of Bulgarians on the Dutch labour market, given the fact that together with Romanian nationals, this group still requires work permits in order to work in the Netherlands. (see Snel et al 2010). 5 5 A closer analysis reveals that the Bulgarian respondents are to an important extent native to three regions in Bulgaria, namely the capital city Sofia and two regions in the east of the country (Schumen and Varna). Schumen is a city of around 100,000 inhabitants in Bulgaria's interior. Varna, with 315,000 inhabitants the country's third city, is on the Black Sea coast. It is significant that the latter two regions are both Turkish speaking. Many Bulgarian labour migrants in the Netherlands therefore speak Turkish, giving them easy access to the Turkish community in the Netherlands (also compare Leerkes et al. 2007). 12

Table 1. Respondents according to home country, age, personal status, education and occupation Home country N =363 % Poland 38.6 Romania 19.8 Bulgaria 41.6 Age N=363 <30 50.4 31-40 31.3 41-50 13.9 50 + 4.4 Personal status N=319 Married 35.0 With partner, not married 26.4 Single 27.8 Divorced 8.5 Widow/widower 1.4 Other 0.8 Education N=360 None 0.3 Primary education 2.5 Secondary education 13.0 High school 55.0 Still studying 25.1 Other 2.5 Widow/widower 1.7 Other Occupation N=337 Highly skilled 13.3 Semi skilled workers 28.5 Low skilled 37.7 Agricultural workers 20,5 13

In the theoretical framework we brought together the results of various qualitative studies in Figure 1, on the assumption that there are two dimensions that underlie the different types of migrants: attachment to the destination country and attachment to the home country. Steps in the data analysis First step. Attachment to the Netherlands and to the home country was measured using factor analyses. We measured the degree of attachment to the destination country using the following variables: registration in the municipal personal records database (GBA), having a Dutch bank account number, having Dutch friends, command of the Dutch language, and contacts with Dutch people in leisure time and in the neighbourhood. As table 2 shows, this involves a factor with high factor loadings as well as high reliability. Table 2: Factor loadings of the factor attachment to the Netherlands 1 2 Registered in the municipal personal records 0,52 database (GBA) 0,71 Dutch bank account 0,62 0,61 Speaks Dutch 0,76 0,10 Contact with native Dutch 0,81-0,31 Contact native Dutch in neighborhood 0,65-0,16 Contact with native Dutch outside of work 0,78-0,30 Has Dutch friends 0,83-0,29 Eigenvalue first factor: 3.6; Eigenvalue second factor 1.2; The attachment to the home country was measured using the following variables: frequency of visits to the home country each year, duration of stays in the home country each year, return movements to visit family, remittances sent by home by a migrant, and the share of money the remittances add up to on an annual basis. 14

Table 3: Factor loadings of the factor attachment to home country 1 2 # visits to home country per year (logged) 0,45 0,76 # weeks in home country per year 0,56 0,65 Supports family 0,84-0,38 Money remitted per year (logged) 0,86-0,35 Own or rents housing in home country 0,38-0,21 Eigenvalue first factor: 2.16; Eigenvalue second factor 1.3 Second step. Missing values for the factors were imputed by regressing the factor on the indicators from which the factors are derived. Third step. Only the first (i.e. most important) factors were used in all subsequent analyses. One factor for attachment to the Netherlands; one factor for attachment to home country Fourth step. Using K-means clustering, four clusters were distinguished that correspond to the four cells in Figure 1. Table 4 Cluster centers for settlement migrants, footloose migrants, temporary workers and bi-nationals (N=363) Settlement migrants (24%) Footloose migrants (32%) Temporary workers (23%) Bi-nationals (21%) Attachment NL 1,05-0,58-0,91 0,43 Attachment home country -0,82-1,01 0,64 1,00 15

Result: attachment to home country and NL vary more or less independent of each other. In our sample, the four types seem to occur with more or less the same frequency. 6 6 In this figure we typified our respondents as stayers (settlement migrants), drifters (footloose migrants), storks (temporary migrants) and as bi-nationals. 16

Fifth step. Using four logistic regression analyses to predict cluster membership B p B p B p B p Sex (male=1) 0,55 0,04 0,32 0,27 0,02 0,94-1,08 0,00 Migration age -0,02 0,12 0,01 0,42 0,06 0,00-0,07 0,00 Length of stay in NL -0,04 (months) 0,00 0,00 0,87 0,02 0,00 0,01 0,13 Highly skilled -1,68 0,02-1,76 0,10 0,03 0,96 1,55 0,00 Semi skilled -0,67 0,05-0,21 0,55 0,73 0,03 0,22 0,57 Low skilled 0,06 0,83-0,09 0,79 0,30 0,37-0,11 0,76 Farm workers (ref) 0 0 0 0 Education high 0,12 0,77-1,41 0,00-0,14 0,78 1,90 0,00 Education middle -0,01 0,99-0,94 0,01 0,38 0,38 1,01 0,05 Education low (ref) 0 0 0 0 Poland -0,76 0,01 0,91 0,01 1,05 0,00-1,24 0,00 Romania -0,79 0,05 0,64 0,18 0,88 0,03-0,69 0,08 Bulgaria (ref) 0 0 0 0 Labor migration -0,08 0,80-0,05 0,89 0,90 0,02-0,58 0,07 Chain migration -0,14 0,58-0,07 0,81 0,27 0,32-0,14 0,63 Student migration -0,43 0,46-1,24 0,24 0,65 0,18 0,04 0,93 Social provisions migration -0,57 0,10-0,07 0,84-0,37 0,27 0,84 0,01 Intends to stay max 1 year 0,31 0,40 0,86 0,02-0,18 0,67-2,11 0,00 No clear intended time of 0,51 stay 0,12 0,06 0,87 0,25 0,44-0,69 0,03 Intends to stay 1-5 years -0,03 0,93 0,35 0,36 0,53 0,12-0,67 0,07 Intends to stay 5+ years 0 (ref) 0 0 0 Partner no kids 0,96 0,04-0,39 0,41 0,03 0,96-0,86 0,05 Single 0,48 0,21-0,35 0,34 0,05 0,89-0,46 0,19 Partner and kids (ref) 0 0 0 0 Constant 0,35 0,67-1,25 0,15-5,83 0,00 1,77 0,07 Results Settlement migrants ( stayers ) tend to be women who migrated when they were relatively young, stayers also tend to be highly skilled and work in highly skilled professions, they are less likely to be Polish, stayers intend to stay in the NL for 5 years or more. Stayers tend to have families of their own. 17

Footloose migrants ( searchers ) tend to be male, have not been in NL for a long time, have migrated when they were relatively young, tend to have a partner but no kids, tend to be from Bulgaria, tend to work in low-skilled professions but are not necessarily low skilled. Seem to prefer short stay or do not know yet how long to stay (but intended stay is not significant) Temporary migrants tend to be low skilled Poles who intend to stay for less than a year. They tend to work in agriculture. Bi-nationals tend have migrated when they were a bit older, they ve been in the NL for a while, often work in semi-skilled professions, they tend to be Polish or Romanian rather than Bulgarian, and they have migrated for work purposes. The effects of length of stay in the Netherlands are difficult to interpret in a cross sectional sample, it may indicate that: 1 Over time, migrants tend to become stayers or bi-nationals, i.e footloose migrants and temporary workers become stayers or binationals (differential integration process) 2 Migrants who migrated in the past are more likely to have been stayers or binationals, i.e. new migrants are more likely to be mobile migrants that keep their options open (historical development due to open borders in EU) 4 Preliminary conclusions The main aim of this article was to make sense of post accession migration from Central and Eastern Europe. To this end, we focussed on labour migration from Poland, Bulgaria and Romania to the Netherlands. In order to classify and understand current patterns of labour migration, we developed a heuristic conceptual framework inspired by several exploratory studies on East-West migration after the two Eastern enlargements of the EU. Our 18

conceptual framework has also been inspired by earlier typologies in which circulator and temporal forms of population movements were dominant. We assumed that the main dimensions behind these typologies are two-fold: attachment to the destination country and attachment to the home country. In order to test our conceptual model, we conducted an empirical study in large, middle sized and small cities in the Netherlands. Our analysis was based on interviews with 363 respondents. The first step in our analysis has been to analyse whether the two underlying dimensions and the four basic patterns of migration were traceable in our data. A factor analysis showed that we can indeed distinguish two factors that measures attachment to the destination and to the home country, and that these two factors are independent of each other. A second finding was the fact that the four patterns of migration are present in our data, and that different types of CEE migrants are related to these migration patterns. Low skilled migrants (f.e. seasonal migrants) predominantly end up in quadrant A, and the higher skilled with a strong bi-national orientation are above average located in quadrant B. This quadrant also accommodates people who are a bit older, and who work in semi-skilled professions, they tend to be Polish or Romanian. Highly skilled migrants aiming for a long stay in the Netherlands relate to quadrant D. They tend to be women who migrated when they were relatively young. Stayers also tend to work in highly skilled professions. They are less likely to be Polish. Stayers intend to stay in the Netherlands for 5 years or more and tend to have families of their own. Footloose migrants (searchers) who can be situated in quadrant C. tend to be recent migrants who migrated when they were relatively young. They have no kids, and tend to be from Bulgaria. Many of them are working in low-skilled professions but are not necessarily low skilled. They seem to prefer short stay or do not know yet how long to stay (but intended stay is not significant. We have uncovered in this paper a parallel existence of classical and new migration patterns (see Figure 2). The classical migration patterns of temporary migration and settlement migration that are typical for the quest workers migration and post colonial migration are represented by a diagonal line from A to D. The new liquid migration patterns are represented by a diagonal line from B tot C. Our results confirm the early Massey s et al (1986) findings that forms of mobility are not universal, but connected to specific institutional migration circumstances (cf. also Sassen 1999). The EU enlargements in 19

combination with (free) access to the national labour markets of Western European societies have created an internal European labour market that made possible a plurality of East-West migration patterns (Garapich 2008). Favell (2008) has argued that the EU Enlargements have encouraged an exploitative dual labour market for Eastern movers in the West. Our study partly confirms this view, especially for low skilled workers who are facing labour market restrictions (such as Bulgarian workers). But next to these migrant groups, we have also witnessed groups of skilled CEE labour migrants who were able to work on the primary labour market and who were capable of integrating into Dutch society. Figure 2: Different patterns of labour migration and different types of migrants after EU Enlargement Attachment to the home country Strong Temporary, circular & seasonal migration: storks & hamsters target earners Transnational migration (bi-national orientation): transmigrants, long-term residence migrants A B Weak Footloose migration global nomads, searchers & drifters Settlement migration settlement migrants, stayers New migration patterns C D W Weak Strong Attachment to the destination country Classical migration patterns Throughout the course of our analysis we became convinced that in order to make the postenlargement migration picture complete, we need to dig into two sides of the coin. This means having the perspective of both the home and the destination country. Although we know that migrants come from many destination countries throughout the EU, Poland is one of the most crucial of these. A further step would be to conduct a longitudinal, multi- 20

sided study (in Poland and the Netherlands) in order to systematically study the dynamics of migration flows and the ways in which attachments to the destination and home country influence the different patterns of migration. 21

References Black, Richard, Godfried Engbersen, Marek Okólski & Cristina PanŃîru (eds.) (2010) A Continent Moving West? EU Enlargement and Labour Migration from Central and Eastern Europe, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press Bleahu, Ana (2007) With calluses on your palms they don t bother you: Illegal Romanian migrants in Italy. Focaal. European Journal of Anthropology 49: 101-109 Castles, Stephen (2006) Guest workers in Europe: a resurrection. International Migration Review, Vol. 40 (4): 741-766 Chapman, Murray and R. Mansell Prothero (1983-1984) Themes on Circulation in the Third World. International Migration Review, 17(4): 597-632 De Boom, Jan, Afke Weltevrede, Erik Snel, Tim Konrad & Godfried Engbersen (2010) Dutch SOPEMI Report 2009. Migration and migration policies in the Netherlands 2009. Rotterdam: Risbo/Erasmus University Düvell F. and D. Vogel (2006) Polish Migrants: Tensions between Sociological Typologies and State Categories in: Anna Triandafyllidou (ed), Contemporary Polish Migration in Europe. Complex Patterns of Movement and Settlement. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, pp. 267-289. Eade J., Drinkwater S., Garapich M. (2006) Class and Ethnicity Polish Migrants in London, CRONEM. Guildford: University of Surrey. Engbersen and Arjen Leerkes (2010) Towards a Smarter and More Just Fortress Europe. Combining Temporary Labor Migration and Effective Policies of Return. In: Natasha A. Frost, Joshua D. Freilich & Todd R. Clear (eds.) Contemporary Issues in Criminal Justice Policy. Belmont: Wadsworth, pp. 211-220 22

Engbersen, Godfried, Marek Okólski, Richard Black & Cristina PanŃîru (2010) Introduction. Working out a way from East to West: EU enlargement and labour migration from Central and Eastern Europe. In: Richard Black, Godfried Engbersen, Marek Okólski & Cristina PanŃîru (eds.) (2010) A Continent Moving West? EU Enlargement and Labour Migration from Central and Eastern Europe, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 7-22 Engbersen, Godfried, Erik Snel & Jan de Boom (2010) A Van Full of Poles. Liquid Migration In Eastern and Central European Countries. In: Richard Black, Godfried Engbersen, Marek Okólski & Cristina PanŃîru (eds.) (2010) A Continent Moving West? EU Enlargement and Labour Migration from Central and Eastern Europe, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 115-140 Engbersen Godfried and Izabela Grabowska-Lusinska (2010) Long-lasting temporariness of foreign workers in European societies, paper presented at XVII ISA World Congress of Sociology, 11-17 July 2010, Gothenburg, Sweden. Engbersen, Godfried and Erik Snel Liquid migration (forthcoming) Dynamic and fluid patterns of post-accession migration flows. In: Birgit Glorius, Izabela Grabowska-Lusinska and Aimee Kuvik (eds) Mobility in Transition: Migration Patterns after EU Enlargement. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Pres Fassman, H. and Münz, R. (1994) European East-West Migration, 1945-1992. International Migration Review 28 (3): 520-538 Favell, Adrian (2008) The new face of East-West migration in Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 34 (5): 735-752 Garapich, Michal (2008) The migration industry and civil society: Polish immigrants in the United Kingdom before and after EU Enlargement. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 34 (5): 735-752 23

Grabowska, Izabela-Lusinska & Marek Okólski (2009), Emigracja Ostatnia? Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar Grabowska, Izabela-Lusinska (forthcoming) Anatomy of post-accession migration: methodological approach. How to measure liquidity and other patterns of post-accession migration flows? In: Birgit Glorius, Izabela Grabowska-Lusinska and Aimee Kuvik (eds) Mobility in Transition: Migration Patterns after EU Enlargement. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Pres Ivancheva, Mariya (2007) Strawberry fields forever? Bulgarian and Romanian student workers in the UK. Focaal. European Journal of Anthropology, 49:110-117 Layder D. (1998) Sociological practice. Linking theory and social research, London: Sage Publications. Leerkes, Arjen, Godfried Engbersen and Marion van San (2007) Shadow Places. Patterns of Spatial Concentration and Incorporation in the Netherlands, Urban Studies Vol. 44 (8): 1491-1516. Massey, Douglas S., Rafael Alarcon, Jorge Durand, and Hunberto Gonzalez (1987), Return to Aztlan: The Social Process of International Migration from Western Mexico. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press Salt J. and J. Millar (2006) Foreign labour in the United Kingdom: current pattern and trends. Labour Market Trends, Office for National Statistics, October. Sandu, D. (ed.) (2006) Living abroad on a temporary basis. The economic migration of Romanians: 1990-2006. Bucharest: Open Society Foundation Smith, M.P. and A. Favell (eds.) (2006) The human face of global mobility: international high skilled migrants in Europe. North America and the Asian Pacific. New Bruswick, NJ: Transaction Press 24

Trevena P. (forthcoming) Why do highly educated migrants go for low-skilled jobs? A case study of Polish graduates working in London. In: Birgit Glorius, Izabela Grabowska- Lusinska and Aimee Kuvik (eds) Mobility in Transition: Migration Patterns after EU Enlargement. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Pres Van Bochove, Marianne, Katja Rusinovic & Godfried Engbersen (2010) The Multiplicity of Citizenship: Transnational and Local Practices of Middle-Class Migrants. Global Networks 10(3): 344-364. Sassen, S. (1999) Guests and Aliens. New York: The New Press Snel, Erik, Godfried Engbersen and Arjen Leerkes (2006) Transnational Involvement and Social Integration. In: Global Networks. A Journal of Transnational Affairs, Vol. 6 (2): 285-308 Snel, Erik, Jack Burgers, Godfried Engbersen, Maria Ilies, Robbert van der Meij & Katja Rusinovic (2010) Arbeidsmigranten uit Bulgarije, Polen en Roemenië in Rotterdam. Sociale leefsituatie, arbeidspositie en toekomstperspectief. Den Haag: NICIS Weltevrede, A.M., J. de Boom, S. Rezai, L. Zuijderwijk en G. Engbersen (2009). Arbeidsmigranten uit Midden- en Oost-Europa. Een profielschets van recente arbeidsmigranten uit de MOE-landen. Rotterdam: Risbo Wallace, C. & D. Stola (eds.) (2001) Patterns of Migration in Central Europe. Houndmills and New York: Palgrave 25