International Migration and its Consequences on the Rural Families in Romania by ERSTE Foundation

2009â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2010

ERSTE Foundation Fellowship for Social Research Ensuring Income Security and Welfare in Old Age

International Migration and its Consequences on the Rural Families in Romania Agnes K. Nemenyi

THE EFFECTS OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION ON ROMANIAN RURAL FAMILIES dr. Ágnes Neményi, Associate professor Kinga Gál J., Research assistant University Babeş‐Bolyai Cluj‐Napoca, Romania Faculty of Sociology and Social Work, Department of Sociology CRRD (Center for Research and Documentation in Rural Sociology) anemenyi@socasis.ubbcluj.ro Study realized in collaboration with ERSTE Foundation In the period of 1 November 2008 ‐ 31 October 2009

Content I.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 3 MOTIVATION OF THE TOPIC ........................................................................................................................................ 3 THEORIES ABOUT INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION ........................................................................................................ 3 EFFECTS OF MIGRATION .............................................................................................................................................. 4 ROMANIAN STUDIES ABOUT MIGRATION ................................................................................................................... 5 Types of migration................................................................................................................................................... 6 Recruitment of migrant........................................................................................................................................... 6 Correlations of migration ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Groups of migrants.................................................................................................................................................. 7 Consequences of migration...................................................................................................................................... 8 CHILDREN REMAINED HOME (WWW.OSF.RO: EFECTELE MIGRAȚIEI: COPII RĂMAŞI ACASĂ) .................................. 8

II. OUR SAMPLE........................................................................................................................................................ 10 THE SAMPLE VILLAGES .............................................................................................................................................. 10 THE SAMPLE OF ASKED PERSON ................................................................................................................................ 14 THE WHOLE POPULATION IN OUR SAMPLE .................................................................................................................. 16 III. THE DESCRIPTION OF MIGRANTS............................................................................................................ 19 THE SITUATION OF THE MIGRANTS IN THE OWN FAMILIES ..................................................................................... 19 GENDER, AGE, OCCUPATION, COUNTRIES OF DESTINATION, TIME OF MIGRATION ............................................... 19 LEGALITY OF WORK ................................................................................................................................................... 23 HOW OBTAINED JOB ABROAD?.................................................................................................................................. 23 IV. FAMILY, HOUSEHOLD, ECONOMIC SITUATION, LAND, INCOMES, EXPENSES ..................... 24 AVERAGE FAMILY SIZE LEVEL IN OUR SAMPLE IS:.................................................................................................... 24 AVERAGE MIGRANTS NUMBER/FAMILY IS: ............................................................................................................... 24 SOURCES OF LIVING ................................................................................................................................................... 25 EXPENSES.................................................................................................................................................................... 25 FAMILY MEMBERS OVER 60 YEARS ............................................................................................................................ 27 V. OPINIONS ABOUT MIGRATION, FAMILY LIFE, FUTURE PLANS..................................................... 29 OPINIONS ABOUT MIGRATION .................................................................................................................................. 29 OPINIONS ABOUT FAMILY LIFE.................................................................................................................................. 31 VI. CULTURE, VALUE SYSTEM............................................................................................................................ 34 VII. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................................. 35 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................................. 36 ANNEXES..................................................................................................................................................................... 37 CASE STUDIES ABOUT MIGRATION ............................................................................................................................ 37 TABLES........................................................................................................................................................................ 39 ERSTE QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................................................................................... 71 MAPS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 82

I. INTRODUCTION Motivation of the topic The author of this study making rural researches for a long time, was confronted by the presence in last 15 years by a huge population movement of rural citizen to other countries, which was recognized as international migration for work, which importance and volume was growing year by year, when the population involved in this process became more and more important. This population move started with first visits to Western European countries, now is recognized as a movement in which are implied round 2,5 to 3 million people. This international migration for work had in the past and has in the present time important consequences on macro‐ and micro‐level of the Romanian society. In the macro level the most important effects are of economic character, but also there are important social aspects of the problem (brain drain, diminishing unemployment, diminishing population number, ageing of the population etc). On micro level we can speak about consequences on the individual, on the family and on the local community. So, international migration for work has effects for all segments of the Romanian society. Why was choosed the rural population? Because in last years between migrants the weight of rural population became more and more important, now they constitute the majority of international migrant population. The causes of this situation are linked by the lack of jobs in rural settlements, also missing of job possibilities in urban areas (collapse of heavy industry) and as direct effects linked by deterioration of life and poverty.

Theories about international migration The theories about international migration are very abundant, and they try to make different scientific explanations about the appearance of streams of movements, making detailed descriptions of the process, why some people start to move from one country and look for another one to obtain a job and to obtain better living conditions? To this question a main solution speaks about appearance of international migration flows in the modern times, when in one country or a group of countries the living conditions and job possibilities are better than in other countries and in this situation from the poor countries people are starting to move to richer or economically on higher level of countries. This described movement became a general low of migration, which was first time described in the scientific literature by E.G.Ravenstein in 1885.*/ From that time a lot of researchers made theoretical and empirical description of migration, which could be linked by economical or/and political motives. An important group of theories are those which make an analysis of causes of external migration and put in correlation the countries of population emission with countries of population reception. Everett Lee ** is one of those researchers who were

analyzing 4 factors in the decision of migration: factors of emitent place (or country), factors of receiver place, the factors linked by intervening opportunities and the factors of personal motives. Using the ideas of this theory, we can speak about positive factors helping migration, and negative factors which brake moves. In Romania the low level of living conditions (low level of wages) determined a lot of people after 1990 to look for jobs in other countries, where the standard of living is more times higher than at home. So, the living conditions in Romania were acting as push conditions, the better conditions in Western Europe (or US) were acting as pull conditions. These push‐pull conditions are working also in the present time, in the conditions of general economic world crisis. */ Ravenstein,Edward G.,1885 “The laws of migration”, in Journal of Statistical Society, vol. 48,pp.167‐227. **/ Lee,Everett,1966,”The Theory of Migration “, Demography, vol. 3,no 1, pp. 45‐47.

Effects of migration Discussing the effects of migration, the literature is distinguishing the effects on the receiver country (cheep labor force) and the effects on sending countries. In this study we decided to analyze the effects on sending country. Discussing the effects on rural families, first group of effects are economical, when the migrants are sending home remittances, which was for the year 2007 and 2008 of 6,5 thousand million euro each year, or could be much more amount of money. In the same time we can speak about negative consequences of migration on families, when the family cohesion could be diminished by the absence of one of spouses, or very important side effects on children, mainly if one or both parents were leaving temporary their own families. Some specialists speak about by a relation of dependency of families by high amount of money as remittances (Kearney, 1986). We do not accept this opinion, some people in some regions are in despair situation, and migration for work is a local solution in a difficult economic situation. Theoretically some effects are linked by growing the definitive emigration volume, but in our case consulting the data of definitive emigration from Romania to other countries there is no correspondence between the definitive emigrated population and the population who migrate temporary for work. As later we demonstrate, the population involved in migration for work is coming from rural areas and has no plans to remain in the country where they are working. Looking on the map of definitive emigration and the population structure, they are mainly from urban areas, has medium or higher education, and in some periods they are belonging to ethnical minority groups (Germans, Hungarians,). (see Migrația externă definitivă în anul 2008, INS, 2009. ).

Romanian studies about migration In the last fifteen years international labour migration of Romanian citizen has started. As different studies showed (see Locuirea Temporară în străinătate, Migrația economică a românilor: 1990‐2006, Coordonator prof. Dumitru Sandu, Bucureşti 2006, www.osf.ro). Before 1989 Romanian citizen could not hold a passport on day to day basis, they could only travel abroad once every two years and mainly in the former socialist countries (Eastern Block). This is one of the explanations for the sudden growth of migration flows in the 1990’s. After the fall of the communist regime the first trips undertaken were for touristical purposes, but these trips also served as a first step towards obtaining information regarding possible work opportunities. These first trips according to statistics were purely for touristical reasons, the future migrants found out where and what were employment possibilities. In the first period (1990‐1993) in some villages, 10% of the active local population had an international migrant experience. In that time 25% of the migrants were women. Later the proportion of women grew. It is interesting to see their strategy throughout that period: an important part of migrants had a job locally and during the summer holiday some started to work abroad, seasonally (mainly in Hungary, Romania’s Western neighbour). If they had an opportunity to work longer, they obtained unpaid leave, to finish the second job. The first international migrants came from ethnic minorities, Hungarians and Germans; they had stronger ties and relations with Western Europe. This also meant that the first migrants came mainly from Transylvania, because this is where these ethnic minorities live. All the researches recognized the heterogeneity of migrant groups; they were and are depending by economic level, occupation, professional career, education, life cycle, family conditions, wages, life strategies, mentality, and also the confluence of cultural patterns. In 2006 the results of a research about international migration were published in which are three distinguished periods of migration:

Period

Annual rate of migration

Main destinations

1990‐1995

Under 0,3%

Israel 18%, Turkey 10%, Italy 8%, Hungary 8%

1996‐2001

0,3– 0,7%

Italy 22%, Israel 17%, Hungary 9%, Spain 9%

2002‐2006

0,9 – 2,8%

Italy 50%, Spain 25%, Germany 5%

These data show the constant growth of migrant populations and sometimes concentration, sometimes dispersion of places of destination, but all of it has a logical explanation. In the first stage the main destinations were the neighbouring countries. Later in the second and third stage countries, such as Italy and Spain became the main 5

destination for migrants mainly because both Italian and Spanish are Latin based languages just like Romanian, so it was easier for the migrants to acquire a basic knowledge and command of these languages. After 2002 (liberalization in the Schengen space) the flows of temporary migration tripled.

Types of migration By the duration three types of migration can be identified: 1. Short‐term migration (weeks, months), this type was representing half of all movers. 2. Long‐term migration (years), these types was representing one third of all migrants 3. Definitive emigration, these who decided to change the living country. In short term migration participation is very high; some authors are speaking about pulsation between the new country and home. Here can be recognized the push‐ pull factors, the home is pushing them (no jobs, or wage, low wages etc); the new country is attracting them by higher wages. Also is important the educational level of the migrants, those with low education are taking part is seasonal agricultural works, others obtain legal contracts as babysitters or elder care at home with family or an institution. The family status is important; mainly the head of family accepts only short term (two‐three months) migration, but young single men and women accept longer time in migration.

Recruitment of migrant At the beginning of the 1990s the main channel of recruitment was via family and or local community networks. This had determined the places and destination countries. Now we are looking at redistribution and in the same time a dispersion of places and the professionalization of recruitment. Some companies started recruitment of population by some occupations, having better information about job possibilities in some countries and regions (for instance in service sector, babysitter, care of aged people in families and institutions, in Italy and UK). Analyzing the streams of migration, some places and countries have changed, but in the same time migrant experience was strengthening the future participation in migration. In 2003 the most important destination countries were: Germany 21%, Italy 17%, Hungary 15%, Spain 5%, Turkey 5%, Israel 4%, Greece 3%, France 2%, Yugoslavia 2%, Austria 1%, other countries 25%. Destinations are changing in time, depending on a lot of factors as efficiency of publicity in recruitment, the experience of permanent streams to some destinations, the presence of foreign companies in some regions of the country. At the beginning of the 1990s the streams from the Western regions of Romania (Banat, Transylvania and Crişana‐Maramureş) were oriented to Germany, Hungary. The streams from the South‐Eastern part (Moldova, Muntenia, Dobrogea) traveled to Poland and Turkey. In Moldova, Muntenia and Dobrogea the main activity was ambulatory trade abroad (described very well by the Bulgarian Julian Konstantinov in Patterns of reinterpretation of trade‐ tourism in the Balkans…). In the 6

Western part of the country the main activities were seasonal agricultural work in Hungary, or trade and import of second hand cars from Germany. New destinations came along when foreign companies entered in Romanian market first in the commercial/trading sector and later in the industrial sector too. Such as the case of Italian companies in Moldova, whose activity in the region influenced the growth of migration from this region to Italy by bringing along and providing information regarding their country. Another new destination is Spain, where some religious networks started in two counties (Teleorman and Cluj). The highest rates of migration (short‐term) are in Transylvania (11%), Banat (10%), Crişana‐Maramureş (9%), Muntenia (9%), Oltenia and Dobrogea (8%), Bucureşti (5%). During the same period other reasons for travel grew and developed (visits, parents going abroad to visit and help their children, studies, health care etc).

Correlations of migration 1. Higher rate of migration in villages with higher population. 2. Rate of migration is higher in villages closer to cities. 3. In more developed regions the streams of migration are higher (cumulative causes). 4. Presence of religious or ethnic minorities is influencing the growth of migration (German and Hungarian ethnic minorities). 5. Close to small size towns, which were depending by heavy industry (or mining), the collapse of industrial activity, people look for other job possibilities, mainly abroad. 6. The regions with highest migration rates were in the historical region of Transylvania, close to the Western border, where they obtain easier information. Another region with high migration rate is in Moldova, where poverty stimulated locals to look for new sources of income abroad. 7. An important explanation of the new streams of migration is linked by former migration experience (Transylvania, Banat). Some of the population in these regions by now has a migration history and experience of up to 10‐15 years.

Groups of migrants After 1989, 33% of the Romanian households had one or more migrants abroad; the rate of the migrants in the whole population was estimated to 12%. After 2002 (the liberalization of the Schengen area), the rate of migration tripled. For one legal migrant we can add 2,5‐3 illegal migrants. In the first period of migration 88% of migrants were men, now the gender equilibration is 51% (men) to 48% (women). The more mobile groups are young people, but there are also older groups between migrants. Between migrants the lowest educational level grew from 5% to 17%, also there was significant growth to the illegal (black) work rate from 43% to 53%, the job possibilities in agriculture grow from 11% to 19%.

Consequences of migration In the past few years some sociological studies tried to estimate the size and volume of migration. These refer to the real percentage of migrants, not statistics and according to which there are about 2,5‐3 million migrants. So the most important consequences are on the macro‐level in skill drain (the main economic branches are in construction and health sector). Earning money and higher income is an important reason of migration, where investments in own household is the first result (for the whole country there is an important amount of money, in 2008 were entering 6 thousand million euro).

Remittances from abroad to Romania, 2001‐20081

Incomes from work

Current transfers

Total remittances

(from other sectors) 2001 (million dollars)

108

922

1030

2002 (million euro)

140

1322

1462

2003 (million euro)

1829

1921

2004 (million euro)

2846

2932

2005 (million euro)

752

3523

4275

2006 (million euro)

889

4638

5527

2007 (million euro)

1146

5120

6266

2008 (million euro)

1093

5139

6232

Micro‐group consequences are on the families. New attitudes are accepted in family strategies (marriages are made later, demographic attitudes also change by fewer children or no children). In the families with children, the care and education of children is made by the grandparents. They are maintaining the household (agricultural activities in villages). Children are missing their own parents a long time. In migrants’ opinions the main results are financial benefits (54%), new future plans (53%), a new approach regarding local realities (49%), social critical thinking for some.

Children remained home (www.osf.ro: Efectele migrației: copii rămaşi acasă) Here we make a short description of a national research made in 2007 about children remained home. In this study there were analyzed those effects of international migration for work where one or both parents of minor children were missing for a long time from the family. The research was showing some effects on children, mainly the diminution of capacity of control of parents, effects on school results of children, effects on deviant behavior of children, effects of lack of affectivity of migrant parents on children 1

Sursa BNR, Source : L. Voinea, ( 2009), Sfarsitul economiei iluziei. Criza si a anticriza. O abordare heterodoxa. Ed.

Publică, Bucureşti, pp. 97.

(psychological side effects). The study made a demonstration in this matter, when the missing parents were determining lower school performances of children remained home. Also the psychological effects were influencing the appearance of deviant behavior (disturbances in socialization process, suicide, inadequate behavior, etc.). The worst was the situation of those migrant families with minor children where both parents were missing from home a longer time. It was a real opportunity for dissolution of some families, mainly in the case when one or both parents were missing from home (being in migration for months). Sample: 2037 school‐children from which 1600 children were a representative sample for the country, and 437 children where one or both parents were missing (being in international migration for work). The study made comparison of school performances of migrant and non‐migrant families’ children.

II. OUR SAMPLE Our sample is composed by a sample of villages choose from three different regions, counties and cultural background: county Satu Mare (village Petresti) with half German half Hungarian population, county Bistrița‐Năsăud (village Feldru) Romanian population, county Bacău (village Vladnic) Romanian and Chango (old Hungarian) population. The common feature of all villages is the high level of international migration for work.

The sample villages The first village of the sample was Petreşti (Petrifeld, Mezőpetri) in county of Satu‐ Mare.

In the census of 2002 were registrated 1683 inhabitants, 771 men, and 912 women in 509 households. The village is situated in the lowland with fertile land, 2000 ha. The distribution by age of the population was: 0 ‐ 14 years 299 (17,76%): 155 men , 144 women, 15 ‐ 59 years 1029 (61,14%): 514 men, 515 women,

60 years and more 305 (18,12 %):102 men, 203 women. The ethnical composition of the commune is Germans, Hungarians and Gipsy/Roma, belonging to the Romano‐Catholic Church. The second village of the sample was Feldru from county Bistrița‐Năsăud. Feldru is the commune center village. In the local mayors’ office evidence were 8779 persons. The population composition of the commune Feldru is: Feldru 6555 and the village Nepos 2224 inhabitants. In Feldru were 1716 households. In Feldru the distribution by age was: 0‐18 years 1106 (16,87%): 579 men, 527 women, 18 ‐ 65 years 4373 (66,71%): 2270 men, 2103 women, 65 years and more 1076 (16,41%): 526 men, 550 women.

In the local mayors’ office was taken in evidence the work country of migrants: Spain: 1550 men, 389 women Austria: 40 men, 10 women Ireland: 160 men, 40 women France and Italy: 20 men, 15 women SUA: 10 men, 0 women Total: 2239 migrants’: 1780 men, 459 women The third village of the sample was Vladnic (Lábnyik) from county Bacău. Vladnic is a small village from the villages which belong Parâncea commune. In Parâncea in the census of 2002 were registrated 3872 inhabitants, 1977 men, and 1895 women. In Vladnic were 230 households and 735 inhabitants. 12

The village is situated in the lowland with fertile land, 2000 ha. The distribution by age of the population was: 0 ‐ 14 years 882 (22,78%): 444 men , 438 women, 15 ‐ 59 years 2048 (52,89%): 1096 men, 952 women, 60 years and more 942 (24,33 %): 437 men, 505 women.

The main method for our research it was the face to face interviews with a standardized questionnaire, the second was the local observation. The first part of the questionnaire refers to the family and the second part to the 60 years old and over. The structure of the questionnaire is the following: I. Work abroad II. The family and the household III. Family, relations in household, future plans IV. Economies, land, household V. 60 years old and over, members of the household (see the whole questionnaire in annexes)

The sample of the population is composed by 201 rural families, where the choosed families, all have one or more members of the asked families migrant members. The sample population has the next segments:

Sample of asked persons, Sample of migrants in the same family, Sample of all family members,

Aged members of the migrant family. 13

The sample of asked person The gender of asked personʹs (%)

70,0

67,9

60,0 54,5 50,0

45,0

55,0

55,2

45,5

40,0

44,8 30,0

32,1

20,0 10,0 Women

0,0 Petreşti Man

Feldru

Women

Man Vladnic

All

The age of asked personʹs (%)

30,0 28,3 26,7 25,0

24,7

23,3 20,0 19,0

20,9

19,0

20,4 19,3

20,4

18,9

15,0

21,6 17,4

14,8 13,6

10,0

5,0

5,0 Petreşti

Feldru

Vladnic

5,7

All

3,0 1,9

0,0 21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

71-80

Marital status of asked personʹs (%)

6,5 72,1

All

2,0

19,4

78,3

5,0 Vladnic

16,7

68,2

5,7 Feldru

3,4 22,7 9,4 71,7

Petreşti

1,9

0,0

17,0

10,0

Single

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

Divorced

60,0

Married/relation

70,0

80,0

Widow 90,0

Main profession of asked personʹs (%)

Other

1,1

Pupil, student

1,9

Unemployed, householder

13,2

0,5 4,5

9,1

30,8

26,7

44,3

Social grant, childbirth liberty

1,0

3,8

Pensioner, illness pensioner Day-labourer

14,9

11,7

12,5

22,6

2,0

7,5

Unskilled worker not in agriculture sector Skill worker Handicraft, mechanic

11,4

25,0

8,0

Personnel in service or commerce

4,5

3,3

4,5

5,7

Skill agriculture or farm on own household 1,9

13,4

20,0

11,4

9,4

Executive person

3,0

1,7

2,3

5,7

1,0

2,3

Tech or maestro

6,0

3,3

1,1

17,0

1,0

1,7

1,1

Intellectual free-worker

2,3

11,3

Lead, entrepreneur

5,0

3,3

1,0

3,3 0%

20%

40% Petreşti

60% Feldru

Vladnic

80%

100%

All

Level of education of asked person (%) Petreşti

Feldru

Vladnic

All

2,5

5,0

2,0

5,0

2,3

100% 0,5

9,0

20,9

45,3

21,7

50,0

22,7

42,0

8,5

5,5

1,0

80% 1,7 18,3

6,8 5,7

hi ith

tin g

io na l

w sc ho ol

Tr ad e

hi gr gh ad -s ua ch tin oo g lw ith gr ad Te ua ch tin ni ca g ls ch oo l/c ol le ge

gh -s ch oo l

gr ad ua tin g

in g w

ith

gr ad ua t

et ic al

hi gh

ig hsc ho ol ith ou th

Th eo r

w sc ho ol

5,7

3,8

ad e

sc ho ol

cl as s 510

cl as s 14

ed N

ev er st ud i

45,3

17,0

3,8

13,2

5,7

Vo ca t

20%

2,3

5,7

ra du a

1,9

3,3

Po st g

40%

2,3

10,2

Fa cu lty

60%

The whole population in our sample The whole populationʹs gender (%)

60 52,9

50,2

50 47,1

54,7

49,8

49,2

45,3 50,8

40 30 20 10

Women

0 Petreşti

Feldru

Man Vladnic

Man

All

Women

The whole populationʹs age (%) 25,0 21,9 20,0

19,1

18,6 16,6

16,0 15,0 13,9 10,8

10,0

14,8

17,5 16,9

16,3

14,8 14,8

15,2

14,2 13,2 13,1 12,1

13,2 11,7

11,1

13,6 12,0 9,8

9,6

8,2 6,8

6,3

4,9

5,0 Petreşti

Feldru

Vladnic

4,7 3,9

All

2,2

1,1 0,6 0,5

0,0 0-10

11.-20

21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71-80

81-90

The whole populationʹs educational level (%) 100% 10,0

15,1

25,5

32,2

80%

2,2 0,4

28,1

60%

16,0

27,3

6,2

3,6

0,8

1,2

0,4

1,5

23,8

8,3

40%

0,6

0,7

6,8

0,9

4,9

0,9 4,3

5,8

10,2

20%

9,5 7,4

11,7

21,8

0,5

1,6

36,0 25,5

3,1

32,4

1,6 4,8

1,1 3,2

0,5

be tw

Fi ni sh ed

Petreşti

Feldru

Vladnic

All

Fi ni sh ed

D id

n’ tg o

sc ho pr ol of ee Fi es ni n si sh 1on Fi ed 4 al ni ye sc be sh ar ho tw ed s e o pr G l e w n ra of i 5th es du ou 10 si at on th ed ye al ig ar th hsc s eo s h ch G re o ra ol oo tic du w al ld ith at hi ip ed gh lo hi m gh -s vo a c -s ca ho c tio h ol o ,w na ol lh di ith pl ig h om hig sc ha sc ho ho ol ,w ol di ith pl h om G i g ra ha du sc at ho G e ra ol d du di ag pl at r i om c ed ul a tu te ra ch lh ni ig ca hlh sc ig ho hol sc ho ol or co lle U ge ni ve rs ity gr ad Po ua st te gr ad ua te de gr ee

The whole populationʹs main profession (%) Petreşti

Feldru

Vladnic

All

Other 1,1

Pupil, student

Maternity leave

Not qualified workers within the non-agricultural branch Qualified workers Mechanics, artificers, servicepersons

Employees in services and in the commerce

8,2

11,8

0,9

20,6

1,8

13,8

7,7

3,7

3,1

Administrative employees 0,0

9,6 2,9

2,0

8,2

0,0

0,9

5,3

0,6 1,3

1,6

0,6

2,1

2,6

2,3

1,5

Managers, entrepreneurs

7,4

4,7

9,0

3,1

Intellectual profession

1,8

0,8

15,6

2,1

Technician

0,8

4,8

5,8

2,1

0,8

13,2

14,3

Dataller

Qualified agricultural workers

0,3

1,6

Retired, social help

24,4

18,0

38,2

9,5

21,2

27,0

17,8

19,0

House worker

4,8

7,4

4,9

2,2

1,6

0,4

1,2 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

III. THE DESCRIPTION OF MIGRANTS In our sample (201 families) we found a total population of 770 persons from which the number of people in active migration are 382 persons, they represent 49,61% of all members of families. Between them 259 are men (67,8%), and 123 are women (32,2%)

The situation of the migrants in the own families 18,6% of migrants are heads of the household, 8,6% are spouse. They all represent 27,2% as parents, 59,2% represent children in the family. Between migrants we found 11,2% children, so in our sample of migrant families only 11,2 percent took in migration children.

Gender, age, occupation, countries of destination, time of migration

Gender Men 259 67,80% Women 123 32,20% Total 382 100,00% The gender of migrants (%) 80

70 70,2

67,7

67,8

64,4

30 35,6

32,3

29,8

32,2 20

Women

Man

0 Petreşti

Feldru

Vladnic

All

Age 17‐ 20 years 3,4% 21 ‐ 30 40,0% 31 ‐ 40 32,6% 41 ‐ 50 16,3% 51 ‐ 60 6,1% 61 ‐ 70 1,6% Total 100,00 76,0% of migrants has age above 40 years, 16,3% belong to middle age (41‐50 years), 7,7% are more than 50 years. Age of migrants (%)

50,0

48,4

45,0 40,0 31,7

30,0 25,0

23,9

20,0 15,0

40,0

32,1

32,6

15,9

22,9

17,1

16,3 11,2

10,0 5,0

39,7 36,4

35,0

3,7

3,4

1,2

0,0 Petreşti

0,8

Feldru 17-20

21-30

6,1 3,4 1,6

3,1 1,5

Vladnic 31-40

41-50

All 51-60

61-70

Occupation There are occupations registrated for home and in migration. At home skilled workers (22,8%), unskilled workers (13,1%) and worker in agriculture (10,5%) are with higher percent, but 19,2 % of the whole sample are unemployed, the highest rate was registrated in Feldru (33,5%). In migration manual works are the most important type of activities, but gender is an important issue from this point of view. Man are working mainly in construction (61,0%), in agriculture (14,7%) and in transportation (3,5%). Women are majority (41%) in care (children, aged persons and housekeeping), in tourism (20,5%), agriculture (13,9%) and in other service sector activities (9,0%). 20

The migrants occupation at home (%) 100% 2,6

2,9

1,6

80% 60%

6,6

10,5

6,8

22,8

13,1

4,2

0,5

19,2

0,6

12,2

0,8 1,2 2,3

3,1 0,6

40%

0,8

5,3

1,9

2,2

7,5 10,6

6,7 1,2

1,1

7,5

1,9

24,7 5,6

10,1

1,5 1,9

14,6 1,1

1,3

2,3

33,5 3,4

23,6

1,2 3,4

Le ad ,

In en te tre lle pr ct en ua eu lf re r ew Te Pe o ch rk Sk rs er or on ill ne m ag Ex a li ric es ec n ul tro ut se tu iv re rv e ic p or er e fa so or rm n co on m m ow er n ce H U ho ns an u ki di s lle cr eh af d ol t, w d or m ke ec ha rn ni ot Sk c in ill ag w ric or ke ul tu r re Pe se ns ct io D or ne ay So r, -la i lln ci b ou al es re gr s r an pe t, n U si ch ne on ild m er bi pl rth oy ed lib ,h er ty ou se ho Pu ld er pi l, st ud en t O th er

5,3

15,5

11,8 3,4

12,2 31,3

3,1

20%

13,7

6,9

2,1

All Vladnic Feldru Petreşti

Time of migration Because migrants are young people, 50,5% start move under 4 years, from less then two years 32,4%, between 2‐4 years 18,1%, five years 10,8%, six years ago 7,9%, seven years 6,6%, eight years 6,3%, nine years 3,2%, ten years 6,3%, more then ten years 8,4%. So, there is a temporary migration, but for a part of the migrants temporary moves for work became a mode of life.

Educational level 69,3% are on low level 13,6% are on medium level 6,0% has higher education

Countries of destination In our sample 17,7% move to Italy, 15,6% to Germany, 32,8% to Spain, 16,2% to Hungary and 6,9% to Ireland. Low percents are for other countries. The country of destination is depending by region and by the ethnical composition of the local population (Germans are traveling to Germany, Hungarians to Hungary). The high percent of Spain is linked by the region county Bistrița‐Năsăud (Village Feldru) where 73,9% of all migrants are working in this country, 16,8% in Ireland. The explanation of this situation is linked by the mechanisms of migration, in a village the population is 21

choosing those places of destination which became successful for first comers. The next migrants are following the new comers. Educational level of migrants (%)

70,0 60,3 60,0

Petreşti

51,2 48,4 42,7

50,0

Feldru

Vladnic

All

40,0 22,9 20,2 16,8

18,0

9,9 10,0

3,4

9,0 6,2 4,6

1,5 1,3

9,9 6,7 4,6

9,0

7,3

6,3

0,8

4,5 3,1 4,6 3,9

1,1 0,3

Tr ad e

A gr ar ia n

Fa cu lty

14 cl sc as ho s ol w ith ou 5th 10 ig cl Th has sc eo s ho re tic ol al gr ad hi gh ua sc tin ho g ol w ith gr ad ua tin V g oc at io A na gr lh ar ia ig n hsc sc ho ho ol ol w ith gr ad ua Te tin ch g ni ca ls ch oo l/c ol le ge

0,0

10,0 2,2 3,7 1,8 0,6 0,8 1,01,1

P os tg ra du at in g

20,0

fa cu lty

30,0

Countries of destination (%) 80,0

73,9

70,0

Pe tre şti 60,0 50,0

Fe ldru

Vladnic

57,5 47,2

40,0 27,6 27,5

30,0 20,0 10,0

16,8

7,0 0,6 0,6 1,1

1,2 1,1

4,6 0,6 0,7

8,0

6,3 0,6

0,7 1,2

0,7 1,9 0,6

0,6

2,8 0,6

0,7 0,6 0,7

2,1

0,7

1,4

0,7

It G aly er m an En y gl an d Fr an H ce un ga r C y ze ch Sp ai n Po rt ug a Ir l el an d A us tr ia C an ad a U SA D ub Be ai lg iu m Se rb i G a re ec e Is ra el S Tu lo rk ven m i en a is ta n Be lg iu m R us si a

0,0

Legality of work A majority of 58,5% are working legally, the legality of work is depending also by the level of permissivity of the receiver country, for instance in Germany 70% of migrants are engaged legally. Work legality (%) 100 90

4,4 7,8

18,9

7,7

7,6

14,6

18,1

22,3

15,7

55,3

55,4

58,5

Feldru

Vladnic

9,3

26,7

70 8,7

60 50 40 68,9 30 20 10 0 Petreşti

Permanently legal In general legal, sometimes illegal

All

Permanently illegal In general illegal, sometimes legal

How obtained job abroad? The family relations are in the top (44,3%), followed by friends (23,9%), individual (18,9%), from a person in the village (4,5%), from mass media (3,5%), and neighbouring (2,5%) . It is typical to obtain fast information in a village from a relative or a neighbour, because news is circulating easy. We choose the case of Feldru in our sample. This village has a webpage, so the news is as fast as possible.

IV. FAMILY, HOUSEHOLD, ECONOMIC SITUATION, LAND, INCOMES, EXPENSES As former data show (see A. Neményi, Ethno‐Socio‐Cultural Factors in Land use and Inheritance. The Case or Romania, p.78, in: Trends in Land Succession, Cluj, University Press 2009) between poverty , family size, access to land and international migration intensity there is a huge correlation, because in an other rural sample the more intense migration was present in such village, where there is higher the poverty, the families are composed by high number of members (more children), and also the access to land is restricted (there is small amount of agricultural land in the region ).In that region the weight of migrational flow was three times higher than in other regions of that sample. In the present sample all families has migrants, but between the sample villages there are also differences in the intensity of migration.

Average family size level in our sample is:

In Petresti is 3,56 persons /family (total family number 53, total family members number 189, number of migrants 90) In Feldru is 3,69 persons/family (total family number 88, total family members number 325, number of migrates 161) In Vladnic is 4,26 persons/family (total family number 60, total family members number 256, number of migrants 131)

As the data of the last Romanian census show*, the average number of households in rural area is 3,03, but there are important differences between the ethnic groups : for Romanians 3,01, for Hungarians 2,82. We mention, in our sample, in all villages the average number of households is higher then the average rural number of persons /households. But it is important to say again, this sample is composed by only migrant families, and the high number of persons in households can be responsible for acting for international migration. Studying the data with number of persons in the household, there is a low rate of one, two and three persons, and very high (28,36%) the rate of those families with more then 5 members (the highest in Vladnic 36,67%).

Average migrants number/family is:

In Petresti is 1,69 person/family (total family number 53, number of migrants 90) In Feldru is 1,82 person/family (total family number 88, number of migrants 161) In Vladnic is 2,18 person/family (total family number 60, number of migrants 131)

*/ Recensământul populației şi al locuințelor, 2002, vol I‐IV, INS, 2003.

So, there is a positive correlation between the family size and number of migrants, with the growing family size is higher the number of migrants. Another correlation is, between the amount of agricultural land existing in the family property and the migrational potential. Those families without land or less than half hectare of land are migrating easier than others. 10,77% of the sample has less then

half hectare of arable land, 21,54% has no land. The average size of land /household in our sample: In Petreşti 1,86 ha/household, in Feldru 2,78 ha/household, in Vladnic 1,93 ha/household. But, agriculture is not so attractive mainly for young rural people, is not offering a high status, or money, so in some regions, if migrational experience is developed, more and more people try the experience of working abroad.

Sources of living In a question we asked the families about sources of living. Between them one third (29,5%) constitute wages, the second source represent state pensions (21,8%), the third source are social security received for children (13,5%),the fourth source are agricultural pensions (7,7%) and sale of agricultural products (5,1%), the fifth source are social security (4,8%), and only 4,9 % of the resources are recognized as money from remittances. It is important to mention the weight of those (4,2%) without any resources. The highest percent with missing of money resources was in Feldru, where 8,9 % has nothing as resource for living (question nr 33). Sources of living (%) Petreşti

1,9

29,5

2,6

0,3

18,7 24,4

21,8

7,7

4,8

0,6

13,5

3,7

14,0 3,7 15,9 1,2

5,1

2,4

22,0

1,9

1,0

5,7

0,8 1,9 1,9 2,8

5,7 8,5

1,0

0,9

1,9 0,8

51,2

2,2

24,3

4,1

1,6

8,9

2,9

1,9

6,5

28,5

All

10,6

7,3

4,9

2,4

3,3 0,8

3,7

Pr of i ts

fro m

N ot hi Sa ng la ry , in w ve ag st e m Pr en of ts i ts ,e fro tc . m in te re St st at Ag e p Se ri c e ns l li ul ng io tu n ra fo l od p So e s ns ci an al io d n as ag s is ri c ta ul R nc tu en e ra ts lp ( r h od H ou el uc se p ts fro ,l an m d ch C et i ld hi c. re ld ) n a l lo (e ca x. tio W or n k ab ro Ill ne ad ss ) In p h en er In co i ta si on m nc e e fro In p e co m ns m da io e n yfro l a m bo w ur or in ki g ng ab ro ad

1,2

th er

4,2

Vladnic

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Feldru

Expenses Our data show as well as other sources, the most important expenses made by migrant families are linked by construction or reconstruction of own dwellings. In all villages’ migrant families houses has the highest quality. On the second place were acquisition of equipment for houses, 63,7% of our sample was recognizing such expenses. 12,1% of the sample population made acquisition of agricultural land, the highest rate was in Feldru, 18,1%. In the asked population 6‐7% spent money for buying agricultural machines, 4,5% spent money to start a business, 24,4% buying pc, and 41,8% to travel. 25

Between the consequences of migration an important may be the start of a business. In Feldru we experienced a case of a former migrant who started a business by constructing on own land a restaurant with motel after a 6 years migrational experience. Two brothers are involved in the business (one of them is working in the present time in Ireland with all family). In the everyday expenses there are some radical changes in the migrant families, appearing new types of money spending: 20% for life insurance, 25,9% has bank loan, 17,9% spent for investments, 52,2% spent for agriculture. Remained low expenses for education 26,9%, for culture 24,9 %, and was growing for pharmacies to 73%. Related to agricultural consumption 13,9% of the sample is not producing food, 30,8% producing a quarter of household necessity, 21,4% half, 14,9% three quarter and 18,9% all products for the household. All the households are well equipped: 89,1% have mobile‐phone, 39,8% cars, 92,5% refrigerator, 96% TV, 81,1% TV‐cable, 76,5% washing machine, 39,8% has a pc, and 25,9% has savings. To a hypothetical question, how plan to spend a higher amount of money, first answer was to offer them to poor people 90,5%, second answer was to give to own children 89,6%, third was to offer to the church 87,6%, the next was to own necessities 79,6%, 63,7% put in bank, 48,3% start a business and 17,4% wish to emigrate. The migrational potential was the highest in Vladnic 26,7%. Asked household equipment (%) 25,9

13,3

Personal computer

Petreşti

34,1

Feldru

Vladnic

All

26,4 39,8

10,0

Automatical washmashine

50,0

56,6 76,6

50,0

TV-cable or antenna

90,9

83,0 81,1 75,0

Video player

90,9

71,7 96,0 90,0

Colour television

92,5

80,0

Refrigerator

97,7 100,0

100,0 94,3

39,8

20,0

Car

38,6

64,2 89,1 88,3

Mobile phone

88,6 90,6 0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

90,0

100,0

110,0

Family members over 60 years In our sample, in the 201 households there are 82 persons with age over 60 years, this means 40,79% of the households. In the sample villages this means the presence of the aged generation and the traditional two or three generational family. Family members over 60 years gender (%)

70,0

60,0

63,6

60,0 44,4

50,0

52,4

40,0

55,6 47,6

40,0 30,0

36,4 20,0

10,0

Women

0,0 Petreşti

Man

Feldru Vladnic All

Man

Women

The age of family member over 60 year (%) 80,0

70,0

60-70

68,2 60,0

62,2

71-80 81-90

60,0

50,0

40,0 33,3

33,3 31,8

30,0

20,0

10,0

6,7

4,4 0,0

0,0 Petreşti

Feldru

Vladnic

All

The highest rate of aged population is in Feldru 51,13%, in Vladnic is 36,66%, in Petresti 28,30%. In the aged population (over 60 years) 47,6% are men, 52,4% are women, majority 63,4% has between 60 and 70 years, 32,9% has 71‐80 years, and 3,7% has more than 81 years.80,5% has a medical assurance. As sources of living 32,2% has a wage, so they are active, 21,8% has state pension, 24,1% has agricultural pension, 8,0% has no any source of living. Our questions were referring to the relations between this aged part of families to grandchildren. 25,6% of the aged population has daily relations with grandchildren, 9,8% weekly, but 36,6% meet rarely them. Another activity is linked by care of sick people of the family. In such activities take part daily 15,9%, weekly 11,0%. The most important activity is linked by housekeeping (79,3%) and agricultural activities (feed the animals 70,8%) and other agricultural activities (68,3%). In what measure do you employ... (%) 90,0

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Rarely

Never

79,3

80,0

67,1

70,0

60,0

59,8

50,0 40,2

40,0 36,6 30,0

20,0

10,0

0,0

34,1 29,3 26,8

25,6

25,6 19,5 9,8 2,4

take care or educate your grandchild

6,1

15,9 11,0 7,3

3,7 overseeing your grandchild

15,9 13,4 9,8 7,3

9,8 3,7

8,5 2,4

3,7 nursing the sick family members

helping about work around the house

8,5 3,7

6,1 2,4

feeding the domestic animals

help in agriculture

helping in household governance

V. OPINIONS ABOUT MIGRATION, FAMILY LIFE, FUTURE PLANS Opinions about migration By formulating some questions about migration could be found some attitudes about this process. It is good or bad to work abroad? To this question 71,1% answered good, 4,0% answered bad, and 24,9% said good and bad in the same time. This means, the majority of migrant families consider a good thing to migrate.

If som ebody w ork abroad, in your opinion is...(%) 90,0

81,8

80,0

75,0

71,1

70,0 60,0 49,1

50,0

45,3

40,0 30,0

24,9

21,7

20,0

14,8 5,7

10,0

3,4

3,3

4,0

0,0 Petreşti

Feldru Good

Vladnic No

All

Good and no

A next question was, what is good in international migration? 58,7% answered earning money, 8,0% higher living conditions, 7,5% see a better future, 6,5% see the better material situation of the family, 6,5% see better job possibility, 4,0% change of mentality, 3,5% job possibility, 2,5% life experience. Another question was: what is bad in migration? 74,9% , so majority answered far away from the family, 6,0% consider those remaining home are suffering, 4,5% see the destruction of family, 3,5% working a lot, 3,0% taking risks, 3,0% Romania is remaining without workers, 2,0% children are missing education, 1,5 % hard work conditions, 1,5 % foreigners are using them.

Why is good if somebody work abroad (%)

1,9

Accumulate life-experience

6,7 6,8

Change of mentality

3,3

4,0

3,3

Bring money in country (Romania) 3,8

A job possibility

1,0

3,4

3,3

3,4

Assure better job possibility

1,7

9,1

7,5

6,8

5,7

11,4 75,5

Earning money 10%

6,5

10,0

7,5

Better material situation of the family

2,0

11,4

1,9

Higher living conditions

3,5

1,7

3,8

Assure a better job Assure a better future

2,5

47,7

20%

30%

6,5

5,0

8,0

60,0

40%

Petreşti

5,0

50% Feldru

60% Vladnic

58,7 70%

80%

90%

100%

All

Why is bad if som ebody w ork abroad (%)

Working a lot

1,9

3,5

5,0

7,0

Those remaining home are suffering

3,5

10,0

6,0

Children are missing education

4,7

2,0

Hard w ork conditions

3,5

1,5

Taking risks

3,5

5,0

3,0

Romania is remaining w ithout w orkers

3,5

5,0

3,0

Foreigners are using them

1,9

The family destruction

3,8

1,2 4,7

92,5

They are far aw ay from home, from the family 0%

10%

1,7

20%

5,0 68,6

30%

1,5

40%

Petreşti

4,5

68,3 50%

Feldru

60% Vladnic

74,9

70%

80%

90%

100%

All

The next question was related to some sentences, where important was to choose one. Those working abroad are helping those remained home. This sentence was choosed by the majority 42,8%. Those working abroad have a better financial situation was the answer of 30,8%. Those working abroad change own thinking for 13,4%. Those working abroad divorce easier in the opinion of 10,4%. What kind of changes were taking place after migration in your family in the family partner relation? To this question 59,5% answered no any change, 26,0% better directions, 5,5% worst directions, no relation to 9,0%. The highest percent of worst directions were in Petresti 11,3%. What kind of changes were taking place after migration in your family in the life of children? Without changes were 49,8% of families, better conditions for 31,8%, worst conditions for 4,5%. The highest rate of worst conditions were in Petresti (7,5%). Changes for parents in good direction were mentioned by 24,4%, deterioration for 2,5%. Those working abroad... (%)

2,5 13,4 All

42,8 10,4 30,8 5,0 10,0 48,3

Vladnic

DA/DN

6,7

Change own thinking

30,0

Are helping those remained home 1,1

Divorce easier

13,6 Feldru

Have a better financial situation

30,7

15,9

38,6 1,9

17,0 56,6

Petreşti

5,7 18,9 0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

Opinions about family life How important is to you the family? 96,5% consider very important. This answer is an expression of traditional value system in all villages of the sample. How appreciate your relation with your spouse? Very good for 46,3%, good for 24,9%, less good for 2,0%, and not good for 1,5%. (25,4% don’t have). 31

In every family there are problems. In your family how often are? 10,9% have never, very rare 41,3%, and rare 41,8%, frequent 4,5%, very frequent 1,5%. If have, which are the cause? The most frequent answer was missing money for 33,5%, the attitude of children 18,8%, the home division of work for 18,8%, distance for 10,8 %, drinking alcohol for 8,0%, parents or parents in low for 5,7%, the spouse is not looking for the family 1,7%. Who is responsible in your opinion for the education of children? More the mother consider 20,9%, more the father 1,0%, both parents 77,6%, this last answer is an expression of new parent relations, where both are taking part in the education of children.

Another group of questions were asking about family life: In your opinion how is your life comparing to the last years? For 27,4% is the same, better for 35,3%, worst for 37,3%. In Feldru better conditions were for 45,5%, worst conditions for 28,4%. In Vladnic the answers were different, for 26,7% better, for 51,7% worst conditions. How are you appreciating your family harmony comparing to the last years? For 63,7% the same, better for 28,9%, worst for 7,5%.

Which are the next year's plans of the fam ily (%)

1,0

To by a new house 6,1

Life style change

5,3

2,0

To move in the city/tow n

9,0 1,5

4,0

To look for a second job

3,8

2,3

3,0

1,5 15,9 20%

3,2 9,0

24,2

4,0

Change our house w hit one better

9,1

12,0

2,7

39,4

Reconstruction of dw elling

3,6

11,4

2,0

Start a business

12,9

3,6

16,2

Travel abroad (tourism)

40% Petreşti

2,3

26,1

29,2

5,4

3,5

17,1

12,6

60% Feldru

0,6 5,8

16,2 15,2

2,0

Agricultural areas buying

0,0 5,4

10,6

7,1

I w hish to continued my study

1,8

0,8 7,6

12,1

Looking for a job

6,7

1,8

1,0

To move in another village

A new house construction

0,3

Vladnic

80%

100%

All

Did taking place any changes in your life? No for 61,2%, yes for 38,8%. If yes, which are the causes? There were enumerated some important events in the life, on the first place was death for 35,9%, child birth for 12,8%, wedding for 9,0%, sickness for 7,7%, loosing job for 6,4%, divorce for 5,1%, , new job for 5,1%, somebody left 3,8%, money from migration for 3,8%, growing earning 2,6%. Did something disturb your family life? Answered yes 23,9% of the families. Between the causes 14,6% were loose of job, and for 6,3% divorce. Which are the next years’ plans of the family? The answers show some priorities. On the first place was reconstruction of dwelling for 29,2%, looking for a job for 12,9%, construction of a house 12,6%, travel abroad (tourism) for 12,0%, to study for 9,1%, to change lifestyle for 6,7%, to look for a second job for 5,8%, to change the dwelling for 3,5%, to buy agricultural land for 3,2%, to start a business for 2,3%.

VI. CULTURE, VALUE SYSTEM

Between the questions were those referring to media consumption, having a sample composed of three different cultural regions, different ethnic groups, and cultural traditions. How often read newspapers? Answered never 35,3%, and rarely 29,4%, together are 64,7%. Daily are reading 19,9%, weekly 10,9% ,monthly 4,5%. Between the sample villages there are big differences: in Petresti are reading daily 39,6%, which means double of the other two villages. How often listen to the radio? Never 18,4%, daily 45,8%, the most popular media is radio in Vladnic with 53,3%. Weekly are using 15,4%. How often watch TV? Here the answers are very similar in the sample, 87,1% are using daily, plus 6,0% weekly, so 93,1% are using constantly TV. How often read a book? 26,9% never and 34,8% rarely, means, more then 60% do not read a book. How often use internet? 68,2% never, 13,9% use daily, 8,0% weekly, 1,5% monthly. Another group of questions were asking the importance of some things as family, friends, leisure, politics, work or religion. The most important in the answers was family (96,5%), second was religion (59,3%), third is work (54,2%), other things as friends (25,4%) or politics (4,5%) are not so important for rural families. In a list of 14 items there is a question linked by the most important problems of Romania today. In answers we present the list of them in line of importance: new jobs 84,6%, better roads 83,6%, stop corruption 77,1%, better health system 75,1%, better pension system 67,2%, diminution of criminality 66,7%, agriculture 64,2%, better education 61,7%, diminution of prices 60,2%, change of mentality 58,2%, justice 42,8%, construction of dwellings 42,8%, central institutions 36,8%, local institutions 36,8%.

VII. CONCLUSIONS As our data and other sources show, the volume of international migration for work is growing, in some Romanian regions (as Moldova) the rural population’s migrational potential is maintaining in the conditions of economic crisis of Western European countries. The migration can be explained by economic reasons; the economic decline in 2009 (in the period of gathering the information for this study) of the Romanian economy maintained the migrational potential of the rural population on a high level. As the results show, there are positive effects by remittances (economic help for the rural households and families) or by starting a business by a few persons. The opinions about migration are positive in the migrant families, as well as in the rural communities. Asking the local opinions, all asked persons expressed a positive opinion about migrants. In the same time there are several negative effects, because in 6 % of the opinions of families divorces were destroying the family and in another 5 % of families there recognized the asked persons the negative effects on children. It is very difficult to measure, which effects are the most important, the negative or the positive effects. As the family members recognized, some members of the family are missing parents or spouse, but they receive money in the same time. Our research was showing the elder family members’ positive role, because 80% of them are maintaining the household, some acting in agriculture, but the most important is their role in grandchildren support in the migrant families. The effects of migration are on three time levels: on short time level, on medium time level and on long time level. On medium and long time level, changes in thinking and may be by starting a business (by investing the earned money in migration) there are effects which can make some changes on family and local community level. Also it is important for those families which take with them children and they are involved in the educational system of the receiving country, the higher quality of this education and the consequences on the future of these children.

REFERENCES Ogden, Philip, 1984: Migration and Geographical Change, Queen Mary College University of London, Cambridge University Press. Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal. Population and Development Review, Volume 19, Number 3, September, 1993, pp. 431‐466. A migráció szociológiája, ed. E. Sik, 2001, Szociális és Családügyi Minisztérium, Budapest. Zolberg, Aristide, The Next Waves: Migration Theory for the Changing World. International Migration Review, Volume XXIII, Number 3, Fall 1989, pp‐403‐430. Massey, Douglas S., 1988: International Migration and Economic Development in Competitive Perspective. Population and Development Review 14: pp.383‐414. Stanciu, Mariana,2006: Implicații sociale ale fenomenului migrației internaționale, Sociologie Românească, nr 4, vol.IV, p.109‐120. Stark, Oded, 1991, The Migration of Labour, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge. Constantinescu, Monica, 2006: Efecte ale migrației internaționale asupra dezvoltării sociale. Cazul României. in: C.Zamfir,L.Stoica O noua provocare: Dezvoltarea sociala, pp 284‐299. Kearney, Michael, 1986: „From the Invisible Hand to Invisible Feet: Anthropological Studies of Migration and Development„, Annual Reviews of Anthropology, 15, pp. 331‐ 361. Neményi, Ágnes, 2009, Ethno‐Socio‐Cultural Factors in Land Use and Inheritance. The Case of Romania, in : Trends in Land Succession, editor A. Neményi, Cluj University Press, pp. 41‐96. Copii rămaşi acasă. (Children remained home), 2007, www.osf.ro Sandu, Dumitru, 2006, Locuirea temporară în străinătate‐migrația economică a românilor între 1990‐2006, Fundația pentru o Societate Deschisă şi Gallup Organisation, Bucureşti, www.osf.ro. Menni vagy maradni? Kedvezménytörvény és migrációs várakozások, 2oo3, ed. E. Sik, MTA Kisebbségkutató Intézet ‐ Nemzetközi Migrációs‐ és Menekültügyi Kutatóközpont. Kisebbségi lét és érvényesülés. A magyar lakosság munkaerőpiaci kihívásai a Kárpát medencében, 2oo3, ed. I. Fábri, Lucius Kiadó, Budapest. harest. Vándorlás és népességfogyás, 2oo5, ed. Tóth Pál Péter, Lucius Kiadó, Budapest. Statistical Yearbook 2oo8, INS, Bucureşti

Crăciun, Oana, 2007, Studiu privind preferințele de migrație ale românilor, 12 iulie, www.cotidianul.ro/select and Cotidianul 12 iulie 2007, p.9. Migrația externă definitive în anul 2008, INS, Bucureşti, 2009. Ravenstein, Edward, G. 1885, “The Laws of Migration “ in Journal of Statistical Society, vol. 48, pp. 167‐227. Recensământul populației şi al locuințelor, România, 2002, INS, vol I‐IV, 2003, Bucureşti. Lee, Everett, 1966, The Theory of Migration “, Demography, vol. 3, pp.45‐47. Migráció (Tanulmánygyűjtemény), 1998, ed. Sándor Illés, Tóth Pál Péter, vol. I, KSH Népességtudományi Kutató Intézet, Budapest. Iloaie, Madalina‐Maria, 2008: Migrația circulatorie internațională a românilor actuali, Investigație sociologică în localitatea Feldru, județul Bistrița Năsăud, Lucrare de licență, coordinator dr. Tr.Vedinaş, Universitatea Babeş‐Bolyai, Cluj‐Napoca, Facultatea de Sociologie şi asistență socială. Sociologia migrației, ed. R.G.Anghel, I. Horváth, Teorii şi studii de caz româneşti, 2009, Polirom L. Voinea, ( 2009), Sfârşitul economiei iluziei. Criza şi anticriza. O abordare heterodoxă. Ed. Publică, Bucureşti, pp. 97.

Annexes Case studies about migration 1. A family with 3 children (daughter 23 years old, a daughter 19 years old and a son 15 years old), where mother is 42 years old, she started to work in Italy 4 years ago. The father is older then her with 20 years. The women went to Rome first time with a women friend; other relatives used also this line of influence. In the former times at home, the woman was working in a local factory, obtaining a very low wage. So this low wage was influencing her to go to work abroad. At Rome she started to work as social worker, obtaining a job by the Foundation Caritas. First time she was taking care for an old woman, later for an old man. The man died, and she started to work in a fast food location, in the kitchen. When the mother went to Italy, the family remained without mother, three children with father. Then family was living together with grandmother (the mother of the father). The father had to take care for his own mother and the three minor children. The father was in a difficult situation because his mother was also needing care. He had two jobs. The mother was calling by phone the eldest daughter, and also she promised to return after three months. The 23 years old daughter started to study at the university. The mother was sending every month some money, mainly to help her eldest daughter. The oldest daughter was visiting her mother in Italy, after two years. In the next year the second daughter was visiting too the mother in Italy. The mother was helping the eldest daughter to finish her university studies. Children were suffering by missing their mother, they were crying every time, when they were discussing on phone. There are two points in the family relation: the relations of children with mother, and the relation between the spouses. In both relations there were a lot of difficulties. The man was waiting home his wife (she was coming home for Easter, staying two weeks), it was the time of family harmony. The father accepted this new situation and he was praying for his wife and for the whole family. All the family was adapted to the new situation and the children and spouses made everything to maintain the new family equilibrium.

2. A man from a village, the father of two children (a 20 years old student daughter and 18 years old son), and the wife was housekeeper. 8 years ago, when the wife had no job (so the man was the single money earner in the family), he started to work in Hungary. He obtained the job by a relative, who was working in Budapest, in construction. The man was changing several times his job. The wage is double compared to the level of home‐job wage. Every year he is going for some months (for two months) for seasonal work and the rest of time he is working home also seasonal work. In the village, those people who earn money in migration have a good recognition, a good image.

3. A family with 17 years daughter and 16 years son, the mother was working in a local shop, having a lot of financial problems, the mother decided to work in Hungary. She had in

Budapest a women friend, who accepted her to stay. She was looking for a job (on the local market in Budapest). After a month she rented a room where to stay alone. At home remained the husband and the two children. All the housekeeping works were made by the children. The father had a pensioned mother (staying separate). Nobody was preparing food, only on weekend the father started to cook. So some duties were of the children, some of the father. The mother was sending home every month money, sometimes food and clothes for children. The mother was changing several jobs, and returning home only by Easter. They were talking by phone and the mother was sending by bus‐drivers (from Budapest to home) pockets to children. Later the mother was divorcing from the father, and now both children are staying with the mother in Budapest. The father remained home alone.

4. Another family, where both parents has higher education, the father is engineer in construction, the mother the same, with three children. In 1992 the father went first time to Germany (helped by a relative from Hungary). When the father leaved home, the mother remained with three children (a son of 7, a daughter of 6, and a daughter of 4 years old) alone. As an engineer she made some work at home, but all the difficulties of the life remained on the mother. She could pay a person to help her in housekeeping work. The second trip of the father was in 1994 to Germany, where he obtained a job as engineer. After returning of the father home, the family started a business in construction with the earned money abroad. In the business were taking part the father, the mother and one of children (son).

5. A family from a village, with a son of 8 years old, and a daughter of 3 years old, where the mother is working in a kindergarden as educator, the father with medium level education, as carpenter, ( he is 35 years old, she is 32 ). They married five years ago. The mother had a wage, the father had no stable job, so started to work abroad in Germany. Every year the father is going for 2‐3 months to Germany. First time he went to Germany to learn farming; the trip was organized by the Foundation Caritas. In Germany they had the possibility to practice farming, first time to local families, later (12 years ago), and every year he is going to different farmers to make seasonal agricultural works. From ten years ago he started to buy in Germany second hand agricultural machines, and to sell them in Romania. In the period of the week he is working on the farm, at weekend he looks for machines, and spares (from newspapers). At home the family could buy a lot of equipment for own household (washing machine, car, and pc) and started to built a new dwelling. The life of the mother is difficult at home with minor children, but they stay in the same location with the parents of the father, and they help each other in the survival strategy. All the presented case studies show : for a lot of people working abroad is a seasonal type of work, but with a duration of long time ( years ), for all of them to earn money is very important, the amount of earned money is much higher then the local possibilities. Sometimes men, sometimes women accept to stay far away from the family, but they return to them periodically. In these long trips some families are destroyed. 38

Tables I. Data’s of asked people 1. Have you or anyone in your household work now or been working abroad? Place/ Variable Nr. of asked people

Petreşti Nr. % 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 60 100

All Nr. 201

% 100

2. Who work abroad from your household? Petreşti Nr. % 32 35,6 18 20,0 34 37,8 2 2,2 ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 1 1,1 2 2,2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 90 100

Place/ Variable Head of householder Spouse/Husband Child Step child Grandchild Parent Sister/Brother Daughter/Son in law Sister‐in‐law/Brother‐in‐law Uncle/Aunt Other Total

Feldru Nr. % 15 9,3 8 5,0 105 65,2 2 1,2 4 2,5 ‐ ‐ 1 0,6 16 9,9 2 1,2 1 0,6 7 4,3 161 100

Vladnic Nr. % 24 18,3 7 5,3 87 66,4 ‐ ‐ 2 1,5 ‐ ‐ 8 6,1 3 2,3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 131 100

All Nr. 71 33 226 4 6 1 10 21 2 1 7 382

% 18,6 8,6 59,2 1,0 1,6 0,3 2,6 5,5 0,5 0,3 1,8 100

3. The fact that from your household working or had working abroad brings some changes in the following things — yes Place/ Variable 1. In your house 2. In buying goods 3. In your job 4. In business (if have, or had) 5. In relation whit (your) children 6. In family life 7. In leisure 8. In your thinking 9. In your religion practice 10. In voting mode 11. In relation whit (your) neighbor, villager 12. In life strategy

Petreşti Nr. % 25 47,2 30 56,6 14 26,4 5 9,4 18 34,0 21 39,6 19 35,8 29 54,7 4 7,5 3 5,7 9 17,0 22 41,5

Feldru Nr. % 65 73,9 67 76,1 23 26,1 8 9,1 34 38,6 39 44,3 28 31,8 62 70,5 9 10,2 12 13,6 18 20,5 50 56,8

Vladnic Nr. % 39 65,0 37 51,7 15 25,0 5 8,3 14 23,3 21 35,0 21 35,0 32 53,3 8 3,3 9 15,0 12 20,0 25 41,7

All Nr. % 129 64,2 134 66,7 52 25,9 18 9,0 66 32,8 81 40,3 68 33,8 123 61,2 21 10,4 24 11,9 39 19,4 97 48,3

4. By who or what get the job abroad Place/ Variable Nobody Family member Kinship Friend Neighbor Villager Media Other way Total

Petreşti Nr. % 4 7,5 14 26,4 11 20,8 10 18,9 1 1,9 5 9,4 5 9,4 3 5,7 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 19 21,6 19 21,6 18 20,5 25 28,4 3 3,4 3 3,4 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 15 25,0 13 21,7 14 23,3 13 21,7 1 1,7 1 1,7 1 1,7 2 3,3 60 100

All Nr. % 38 18,9 46 22,9 43 21,4 48 23,9 5 2,5 9 4,5 7 3,5 5 2,5 201 100

5. In your opinion it is good or bad if somebody goes to work abroad? Place/ Variable Good No Good and no Total

Petreşti Nr. % 26 49,1 3 5,7 24 45,3 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 72 81,8 3 3,4 13 14,8 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 45 75,0 2 3,3 13 21,7 60 100

All Nr. 143 8 50 201

% 71,1 4,0 24,9 100

6. In your opinion why is good if somebody goes to work abroad? Petreşti Nr. % 40 75,5 3 5,7 4 7,5 1 1,9 2 3,8 ‐ ‐ 2 3,8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1,9 53 100

Place/ Variable 1. Earning money 2. Higher living conditions 3. Better material situation of the family 4. Assure a better future 5. Assure a better job 6. Assure better job possibility 7. A job possibility 8. Bring money in country (Romania) 9. change of mentality 10. Accumulate life‐experience Total

Feldru Nr. % 42 47,7 10 11,4 6 6,8 8 9,1 10 11,4 3 3,4 3 3,4 ‐ ‐ 6 6,8 ‐ ‐ 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 36 60,0 3 5,0 3 5,0 6 10,0 1 1,7 1 1,7 2 3,3 2 3,3 2 3,3 4 6,7 60 100

All Nr. % 118 58,7 16 8,0 13 6,5 15 7,5 13 6,5 4 2,0 7 3,5 2 1,0 8 4,0 5 2,5 201 100

7. In your opinion why is bad if somebody goes to work abroad? Place/ Variable 1. They are far away from home, from the family 2. The family destruction 3. Foreigners are using them 4. Romania is remaining without workers 5. Taking risks 6. Hard work conditions 7. Children are missing education 8. Those remaining home are suffering 9. Working a lot Total DA/DN

Petreşti Nr. % 49 92,5 2 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 53

3,8 1,9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,9 100

Feldru Nr. % 59 68,6 4 1 3 3 3 4 6 3 86 *+2

4,7 1,2 3,5 3,5 3,5 4,7 7,0 3,5 100

Vladnic Nr. % 41 68,3 3 1 3 3 ‐ ‐ 6 3 60

All Nr. % 149 74,9

5,0 9 1,7 3 5,0 6 5,0 6 ‐ 3 ‐ 4 10,0 12 5,0 7 100 199* *+2

4,5 1,5 3,0 3,0 1,5 2,0 6,0 3,5 100

8. In your opinion those who working abroad... Place/ Variable 1. Have a better financial situation 2. Divorce easier 3. Are helping those remained home 4. Change own thinking DA/DN Total

Petreşti Nr. % 10 18,9 3 5,7 30 56,6 9 17,0 1 1,9 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 34 38,6 14 15,9 27 30,7 12 13,6 1 1,1 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 18 30,0 4 6,7 29 48,3 6 10,0 3 5,0 60 100

All Nr. 62 21 86 27 5 201

% 30,8 10,4 42,8 13,4 2,5 100

9.A. — After a family member had working abroad what kind of changes brings in your family life — partner relation Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 0. Didn’t have that kind a relation 8 15,1 7 8,0 3 5,1 18 9,0 1. Get better 11 20,8 29 33,0 12 20,3 52 26,0 2. Didn’t change 28 52,8 50 56,8 41 69,5 119 59,5 3. Get worse 6 11,3 2 2,3 3 5,1 11 5,5 Total 53 100 88 100 59* 100 200* 100 DA/DN *+1 *+1 9.B. — After a family member had working abroad what kind of changes brings in your family life — In children life Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 0. Didn’t have that kind a relation 9 17,0 13 14,8 6 10,0 28 13,9 1. Get better 17 32,1 26 29,5 21 35,0 64 31,8 2. Didn’t change 23 43,4 46 52,3 31 51,7 100 49,8 3. Get worse 4 7,5 3 3,4 2 3,3 9 4,5 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100 9.C. — After a family member had working abroad what kind of changes brings in your family life — In other members life in your family (ex. Parent) Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 0. Didn’t have that kind a relation 4 7,5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 2,0 1. Get better 7 13,2 25 28,4 17 28,3 49 24,4 2. Didn’t change 37 69,8 63 71,6 43 71,7 143 71,1 3. Get worse 5 9,4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 2,5 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100 10.1. — In your opinion, which are the majors resolving problem of Romania — Create new jobs Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 1. Very important 35 66,0 78 88,6 57 95,0 170 84,6 2. Important 17 32,1 9 10,2 3 5,0 29 14,4 3. Less important 1 1,9 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 2 1,0 4. Don’t consider important ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100 10.2. — In your opinion, which are the majors resolving problem of Romania — Roads reparation Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 1. Very important 37 69,8 76 86,4 55 91,7 168 83,6 2. Important 16 30,2 10 11,4 5 8,3 31 15,4 3. Less important ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 1 0,5 4. Don’t consider important ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 1 0,5 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100

10.3. — In your opinion, which are the majors resolving problem of Romania — Construction of dwellings Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 1. Very important 13 24,5 37 42,0 36 60,0 86 42,8 2. Important 23 43,4 34 38,6 17 28,3 74 36,8 3. Less important 14 26,4 16 18,2 7 11,7 37 18,4 4. Don’t consider important 3 5,7 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 4 2,0 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100 10.4. — In your opinion, which are the majors resolving problem of Romania — Diminution of prices Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 1. Very important 23 43,4 60 68,2 38 63,3 121 60,2 2. Important 26 49,1 21 23,9 17 28,3 64 31,8 3. Less important 4 7,5 7 8,0 5 8,3 16 8,0 4. Don’t consider important ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100 10.5. — In your opinion, which are the majors resolving problem of Romania — Better education Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 1. Very important 22 41,5 62 70,5 40 66,7 124 61,7 2. Important 23 43,4 22 25,0 14 23,3 59 29,4 3. Less important 7 13,2 3 3,4 5 8,3 15 7,5 4. Don’t consider important 1 1,9 1 1,1 1 1,7 3 1,5 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100 10.6. — In your opinion, which are the majors resolving problem of Romania — The central institutions better function Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 1. Very important 11 20,8 36 40,9 27 66,7 74 36,8 2. Important 29 54,7 45 51,1 22 23,3 96 47,8 3. Less important 10 18,9 7 8,0 10 8,3 27 13,4 4. Don’t consider important 3 5,7 ‐ ‐ 1 1,7 4 2,0 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100 10.7. — In your opinion, which are the majors resolving problem of Romania — The local institutions better function Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 1. Very important 9 17,0 38 43,2 27 45,0 74 36,8 2. Important 31 58,5 39 44,3 22 36,7 92 45,8 3. Less important 11 20,8 11 12,5 10 16,7 32 15,9 4. Don’t consider important 2 3,8 ‐ ‐ 1 1,7 3 1,5 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100

10.8. — In your opinion, which are the majors resolving problem of Romania — Better health system Place/ Variable 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Less important 4. Don’t consider important Total

Petreşti Nr. % 36 67,9 16 30,2 1 1,9 ‐ ‐ 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 69 78,4 17 19,3 2 2,3 ‐ ‐ 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 46 76,7 12 20,0 2 3,3 ‐ ‐ 60 100

All Nr. % 151 75,1 45 22,4 5 2,5 ‐ ‐ 201 100

10.9. — In your opinion, which are the majors resolving problem of Romania — Better pension system Place/ Variable 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Less important 4. Don’t consider important Total

Petreşti Nr. % 31 58,5 19 35,8 3 5,7 ‐ ‐ 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 67 76,1 16 18,2 5 5,7 ‐ ‐ 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 37 61,7 16 26,7 6 10,0 1 1,7 60 100

All Nr. 135 51 14 1 201

% 67,2 25,4 7,0 0,5 100

10.10. — In your opinion, which are the majors resolving problem of Romania — Change of mentality Place/ Variable 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Less important 4. Don’t consider important Total

Petreşti Nr. % 19 35,8 29 54,7 4 7,5 1 1,9 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 63 71,6 15 17,0 9 10,2 1 1,1 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 35 58,3 21 35,0 3 5,0 1 1,7 60 100

All Nr. % 117 58,2 65 32,3 16 8,0 3 1,5 201 100

10.11. — In your opinion, which are the majors resolving problem of Romania — Better justice Place/ Variable 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Less important 4. Don’t consider important Total

Petreşti Nr. % 20 37,7 27 50,9 5 9,4 1 1,9 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 36 40,9 39 44,3 10 11,4 3 3,4 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 30 50,0 23 38,3 7 11,7 ‐ ‐ 60 100

All Nr. 86 89 22 4 201

% 42,8 44,3 10,9 2,0 100

10.12. — In your opinion, which are the majors resolving problem of Romania — Diminution of criminality Place/ Variable 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Less important 4. Don’t consider important Total

Petreşti Nr. % 27 50,9 25 47,2 1 1,9 ‐ ‐ 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 64 72,7 18 20,5 5 5,7 1 1,1 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 43 71,7 11 18,3 6 10,0 ‐ ‐ 60 100

All Nr. 134 54 12 1 201

% 66,7 26,9 6,0 0,5 100

10.13. —In your opinion, which are the majors resolving problem of Romania — Stop corruption Place/ Variable 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Less important 4. Don’t consider important Total

Petreşti Nr. % 35 66,0 15 28,3 3 5,7 ‐ ‐ 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 73 83,0 10 11,4 4 4,5 1 1,1 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 47 78,3 8 13,3 5 8,3 ‐ ‐ 60 100

All Nr. % 155 77,1 33 16,4 12 6,0 1 0,5 201 100

10.14. — In your opinion, which are the majors resolving problem of Romania — Better agriculture system Petreşti Nr. % 27 50,9 21 39,6 4 7,5 1 1,9 53 100

Place/ Variable 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Less important 4. Don’t consider important Total

Feldru Nr. % 66 75,0 20 22,7 2 2,3 ‐ ‐ 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 36 60,0 21 35,0 2 3,3 1 1,7 60 100

All Nr. % 129 64,2 62 30,8 8 4,0 2 1,0 201 100

Vladnic Nr. % 10 16,7 ‐ ‐ 47 78,3 3 5,0 60 100

All Nr. % 39 19,4 4 2,0 145 72,1 13 6,5 201 100

II. The family and the household 11. Marital status of asked person Place/ Variable Single Divorced Married/relation Widow Total

Petreşti Nr. % 9 17,0 1 1,9 38 71,7 5 9,4 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 20 22,7 3 3,4 60 68,2 5 5,7 88 100

12. The nationality/ethnicity of asked person Petreşti Feldru Vladnic Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Romanian 3 5,7 88 100 33 55,0 Hungarian 19 35,8 ‐ ‐ 3 5,0 Gipsy 7 13,2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Changho ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 18 30,0 Romanian‐Changho ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 3,3 Hungarian‐Changho ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 6,7 Swab 19 35,8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ German 5 9,4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 13. The religion of head of asked person Petreşti Feldru Vladnic Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Orthodox 2 3,8 75 85,2 1 1,7 Roman‐catholic 48 90,6 ‐ ‐ 58 96,7 Greek‐catholic ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ Reformed 3 5,7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Adventist ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1,7 Pentecostal ‐ ‐ 12 13,6 ‐ ‐ Total 53 100 88 100 60 100

All Nr. % 124 61,7 22 10,9 7 3,5 18 9,0 2 1,0 4 2,0 19 9,5 5 2,5 201 100

All Nr. 78 106 1 3 1 12 201

% 38,8 52,7 0,5 1,5 0,5 6,0 100

14.A. The asked person’s gender Place/ Variable Petreşti Nr. % Man 17 32,1 Women 36 67,9 Total 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 40 45,5 48 54,5 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 33 55,0 27 45,0 60 100

All Nr. 90 111 201

% 44,8 55,2 100

14.B. Age of asked person Place/ Variable

Asked people Total

Age 16‐20 21‐30 31‐40 41‐50 51‐60 61‐70 71‐80

Petreşti Nr. 4 10 10 11 13 4 1 53

% 7,6 19 19 20,9 24,7 7,6 1,9 100

Feldru Nr. 8 17 12 13 19 14 5 88

Vladnic

% 9,1 19,3 13,6 14,8 21,6 15,9 5,7 100

Nr. 1 14 16 17 3 9 ‐ 60

All

% 1,7 23,3 26,7 28,3 5,0 15,0 ‐ 100

Nr. 13 41 38 41 35 27 6 201

% 6,5 20,4 18,9 20,4 17,4 13,4 3,0 100

14.C. Main profession of asked person Place/ Variable Lead, entrepreneur Intellectual free‐worker Tech or maestro Executive person Personnel in service or commerce Skill agriculture or farm on own household Handicraft, mechanic Skill worker Unskilled worker not in agriculture sector Day‐labourer Pensioner, illness pensioner Social grant, childbirth liberty Unemployed, householder Pupil, student Other Total

Petreşti Nr. % ‐ ‐ 6 11,3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 5,7 1 1,9 3 5 9 4 12 2 7 1 ‐ 53

5,7 9,4 17,0 7,5 22,6 3,8 13,2 1,9 ‐ 100

14.D. The highest level of education of asked person Petreşti Place/ Variable Nr. % Never studied 1 1,9 1‐4 class 2 3,8 5‐10 class 9 17,0 Trade school without high‐school 24 45,3 graduating Theoretical high school with graduating 7 13,2 Trade school with high‐school graduating 3 5,7 Vocational high‐school with graduating 2 3,8 Technical school/college 2 3,8 Faculty 3 5,7 Post graduating ‐ ‐ Total 53 100

Feldru Nr. % ‐ ‐ 2 2,3 1 1,1 2 2,3 2 2,3 7 8,0 4 10 1 ‐ 11 ‐ 39 8 1 88

4,5 11,4 1,1 ‐ 12,5 ‐ 44,3 9,1 1,1 100

Feldru Nr. % ‐ ‐ 5 5,7 20 22,7 37 42,0 9 2 5 2 6 2 88

10,2 2,3 5,7 2,3 6,8 2,3 100

Vladnic All Nr. % Nr. % 2 3,3 2 1,0 2 3,3 10 5,0 1 1,7 2 1,0 ‐ ‐ 2 1,0 1 1,7 6 3,0 15 25,0 23 11,4 2 12 2 ‐ 7 ‐ 16 ‐ ‐ 60

3,3 20,0 3,3 ‐ 11,7 ‐ 26,7 ‐ ‐ 100

9 27 12 4 30 2 62 9 1 201

4,5 13,4 6,0 2,0 14,9 1,0 30,8 4,5 0,5 100

Vladnic All Nr. % Nr. % ‐ ‐ 1 0,5 11 18,3 18 9,0 13 21,7 42 20,9 30 50,0 91 45,3 1 ‐ 3 2 ‐ 60

1,7 ‐ 5,0 3,3 ‐ 100

17 5 10 4 11 2 201

8,5 2,5 5,0 2,0 5,5 1,0 100

The whole population in our sample The gender of all members of asked household’s Petreşti Feldru Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Man 89 47,1 162 49,8 Women 100 52,9 163 50,2 Total 189 100 325 100

Vladnic Nr. % 140 54,7 116 45,3 256 100

All Nr. % 391 50,8 379 49,2 770 100

The level of education of all members of asked household’s Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Didn’t go to school 14 7,4 22 6,8 41 16,0 77 10,0 Finished between 1‐4 years 22 11,7 33 10,2 61 23,8 116 15,1 Finished between 5‐10 years 41 21,8 83 25,5 72 28,1 196 25,5 Finished professional school without high‐ 61 32,4 117 36,0 70 27,3 248 32,2 school diploma Finished professional school with high‐school 11 5,8 5 1,5 1 0,4 17 2,2 diploma Graduated theoretical high‐school, with high‐ 18 9,5 27 8,3 3 1,2 48 6,2 school diploma Graduated vocational high‐school, with high‐ 9 4,8 16 4,9 3 1,2 28 3,6 school diploma Graduated agricultural high‐school 3 1,6 2 0,6 1 0,4 6 0,8 Graduated technical high‐school or college 2 1,1 3 0,9 ‐ ‐ 5 0,7 University graduate 6 3,2 14 4,3 4 1,6 24 3,1 Postgraduate degree 1 0,5 3 0,9 ‐ ‐ 4 0,5 Total 188* 100 325 100 256 100 769* 100 DA/DN +*1 *+1 The main profession of all members of asked household’s Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Managers, entrepreneurs ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 1,2 3 0,4 Intellectual profession 10 5,3 3 0,9 4 1,6 17 2,2 Technician 4 2,1 2 0,6 4 1,6 10 1,3 Administrative employees ‐ ‐ 5 1,5 ‐ ‐ 5 0,6 Employees in services and in the commerce 4 2,1 10 3,1 6 2,3 20 2,6 Qualified agricultural workers (in outside or 4 2,1 19 5,8 40 15,6 63 8,2 inside the own household) Mechanics, artificers, servicepersons 7 3,7 10 3,1 5 2,0 22 2,9 Qualified workers 26 13,8 25 7,7 23 9,0 74 9,6 Not qualified workers within the non‐ 39 20,6 6 1,8 12 4,7 57 7,4 agricultural branch Dataller 9 4,8 3 0,9 2 0,8 14 1,8 Retired, social help 27 14,3 43 13,2 21 8,2 91 11,8 Maternity leave 3 1,6 1 0,3 2 0,8 6 0,8 House worker 18 9,5 124 38,2 46 18,0 188 24,4 Pupil, student 36 19,0 58 17,8 69 27,0 163 21,2 Other 2 1,1 16 4,9 19 7,4 37 4,8 Total 189 100 325 100 256 100 770 100

The relation of (all) members of asked household’s whit head of householder Petreşti Feldru Vladnic Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Head of householder 53 28,0 86 26,5 61 23,8 Wife/Husband 42 22,2 73 22,5 47 18,4 Parent/Parent‐in‐law 7 3,7 18 5,5 6 2,3 Child 79 41,8 112 34,5 114 44,5 Step child/Raised 1 0,5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Grandchild 3 1,6 26 8,0 16 6,3 Brother/Sister 1 0,5 ‐ ‐ 2 0,8 Grandparent 1 0,5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Son/Daughter‐in‐law 2 1,1 10 3,1 6 2,3 Sister/Brother‐in‐law ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 1,2 Other kinship ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 0,4 Total 189 100 325 100 256 100

All Nr. % 200 26,0 162 21,0 31 4,0 305 39,6 1 0,1 45 5,8 3 0,4 1 0,1 18 2,3 3 0,4 1 0,1 770 100

Age of asked person Place/ Variable

Petreşti

Age 0‐10 11‐20 21‐30 31‐40 41‐50 51‐60 61‐70 71‐80 81‐90

Asked people Total Don’t answer/ don’t know

Nr. 15 34 35 27 26 31 9 4 2 183* +*6

Feldru

% 8,2 18,6 19,1 14,8 14,2 16,9 4,9 2,2 1,1 100

Nr. 35 38 53 36 43 57 39 22 2 325

Vladnic

% 10,8 11,7 16,3 11,1 13,2 17,5 12,0 6,8 0,6 100

Nr. 56 41 39 38 31 16 25 10 ‐ 256

All

% 21,9 16,0 15,2 14,8 12,1 6,3 9,8 3,9 ‐ 100

Nr. 106 113 127 101 100 104 73 36 4 764* *+6

% 13,9 14,8 16,6 13,2 13,1 13,6 9,6 4,7 0,5 100

15A. The gender of children who don’t live in household Place/ Variable Man Women Total

Petreşti Nr. % 22 57,9 16 42,1 38 100

Feldru Nr. % 83 48,5 88 51,5 171 100

Vladnic Nr. % 63 50,8 61 49,2 124 100

All Nr. % 168 50,5 165 49,5 333 100

15B. Year of birth of children who don’t live in household Place/ Variable

Children who don’t live in household Total Don’t answer/Don’t know

Petreşti

Age 15‐20 21‐30 31‐40 41‐50 51‐60 61‐70

Nr. 2 15 13 2 2 ‐ 34* +*4

% 5,9 44,1 38,2 5,9 5,9 ‐ 100

Feldru Nr. 6 78 59 20 2 2 167* *+4

% 3,6 46,7 35,3 12,0 1,2 1,2 100

Vladnic Nr. 2 38 59 23 2 ‐ 124

% 1,6 30,6 47,6 18,5 1,6 ‐ 100

All Nr. 10 131 131 45 6 2 325* *+8

% 3,1 40,3 40,3 13,8 1,8 0,6 100

15C. Main profession of children who don’t live in household Place/ Variable Lead, entrepreneur Intellectual free‐worker Tech or maestro Executive person Personnel in service or commerce Skill agriculture or farm on own household Handicraft, mechanic Skill worker Unskilled worker not in agriculture sector Day‐labourer Pensioner, illness pensioner Social grant, childbirth liberty Unemployed, householder Pupil, student Other Total Don’t answer/Don’t know

Petreşti Nr. % 2 5,6 4 11,1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 2,8 ‐ ‐ 1 2,8 11 30,6 5 13,9 3 8,3 ‐ ‐ 4 11,1 3 8,3 2 5,6 ‐ ‐ 36* 100 +*2

Feldru Nr. % 10 5,9 6 3,5 1 0,6 4 2,4 21 12,4 16 9,4 8 4,7 41 24,1 11 6,5 2 1,2 1 0,6 4 2,4 41 24,1 3 1,8 1 0,6 170* 100 *+1

Vladnic Nr. % 3 2,4 4 3,2 4 3,2 1 0,8 10 8,1 8 6,5 7 5,6 34 27,4 22 17,7 8 6,5 2 1,6 ‐ ‐ 19 15,3 1 0,8 1 0,8 124 100

All Nr. 15 14 5 5 32 24 16 86 38 13 3 8 63 6 2 330* *+3

% 4,5 4,2 1,5 1,5 9,7 7,3 4,8 26,1 11,5 3,9 0,9 2,4 19,1 1,8 0,6 100

15D. The highest level of education of children who don’t live in household Place/ Variable 1‐4 class 5‐10 class Trade school without high‐school graduating Agrarian school Trade school with high‐school graduating Vocational high‐school with graduating Theoretical high school with graduating Technical school/college Faculty Post graduating Total

Petreşti Nr. % 2 5,3 2 5,3 9 23,7

6 9 4 ‐ 5 1 38

Feldru Nr. % ‐ ‐ 8 4,7 78 45,6 1 13 18 29 3 19 2 171

15,8 23,7 10,5 ‐ 13,2 2,6 100

0,6 7,6 10,5 17,0 1,8 11,1 1,2 100

Vladnic Nr. % 1 0,8 21 16,9 83 66,9 ‐ 10 3 1 1 4 ‐ 124

‐ 8,1 2,4 0,8 0,8 3,2 ‐ 100

All Nr. % 3 0,9 31 9,3 170 51,1 1 29 30 34 4 28 3 333

0,3 8,7 9,0 10,2 1,2 8,4 0,9 100

III. Family, relations in household, future plans 16. In your opinion how is your life comparing to the last years? Place/ Variable Same Better Worst Total

Petreşti Nr. % 19 35,8 15 28,3 19 35,8 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 23 26,1 40 45,5 25 28,4 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 13 21,7 16 26,7 31 51,7 60 100

All Nr. 55 71 75 201

% 27,4 35,3 37,3 100

All Nr. 128 58 15 201

% 63,7 28,9 7,5 100

17. How are you appreciating your family harmony comparing to the last years? Place/ Variable Same Better Worst Total

Petreşti Nr. % 40 75,5 12 22,6 1 1,9 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 58 65,9 25 28,4 5 5,7 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 30 50,0 21 35,0 9 15,0 60 100

18. Did taking place any changes in your life? Petreşti Place/ Variable Nr. % No 28 52,8 Yes 25 47,2 Total 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 55 62,5 33 37,5 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 40 66,7 20 33,3 60 100

All Nr. 123 78 201

% 61,2 38,8 100

18.1. If yes, which are the causes? Place/ Variable 1. A family member deceases 2. Divorce 3. Somebody in our household gone 4. Somebody in our household lost the job 5. A family member illness 6. A big money income 7. A new job 8. Income from work abroad 9. Another familial cause 10. Locality (or citizenship) change 11. Wedding 12. Retirement 13. Child birth 14. Another cause Total

Petreşti Nr. % 10 40,0 3 12,0 1 4,0 2 8,0 1 4,0 ‐ ‐ 3 12,0 1 4,0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 12,0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 4,0 25 100

Feldru Nr. % 12 36,4 1 3,0 1 3,0 ‐ ‐ 2 6,1 1 3,0 1 3,0 2 6,1 2 6,1 1 3,0 1 3,0 ‐ ‐ 8 24,2 1 3,0 33 100

Vladnic All Nr. % Nr. % 6 30,0 28 35,9 ‐ ‐ 4 5,1 1 5,0 3 3,8 3 15,0 5 6,4 3 15,0 6 7,7 1 5,0 2 2,6 ‐ ‐ 4 5,1 ‐ ‐ 3 3,8 ‐ ‐ 2 2,6 ‐ ‐ 1 1,3 3 15,0 7 9,0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 10,3 10 12,8 1 5,0 3 3,8 20 100 78 100

19. Did something disturb your family harmony? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Yes 22 41,5 14 15,9 12 20,0 48 76,1 No 31 58,5 74 84,1 48 80,0 153 23,9 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100 19.1. If yes, which are the causes? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 1. A family member deceases 9 40,9 6 42,9 5 41,7 20 41,7 2. Divorce 2 9,1 1 7,1 ‐ ‐ 3 6,3 3. Somebody in our household gone ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0,0 4. Somebody in our household lost the job 3 13,6 1 7,1 3 25,0 7 14,6 5. A big money income ‐ ‐ 1 7,1 ‐ ‐ 1 2,1 6. A new job 2 9,1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 4,2 7. Income from work abroad 1 4,5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 2,1 8. Another familial cause 1 4,5 3 21,4 2 16,7 6 12,5 10. Wedding ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0,0 9. Locality (or citizenship) change ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0,0 11. Another cause 2 9,1 1 7,1 2 16,7 5 10,4 12. Retirement 1 4,5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 2,1 13. Child birth 1 4,5 1 7,1 ‐ ‐ 2 4,2 Total 22 100 14 100 12 100 48 100

20. Which are the next years’ plans of the family? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % A new house construction 3 3,0 21 15,9 19 17,1 43 12,6 2. Change our house whit one better 4 4,0 2 1,5 6 5,4 12 3,5 3. Reconstruction of dwelling 39 39,4 32 24,2 29 26,1 100 29,2 4. Start a business 2 2,0 3 2,3 3 2,7 8 2,3 5. Travel abroad (tourism) 16 16,2 15 11,4 10 9,0 41 12,0 6. Agricultural areas buying 2 2,0 5 3,8 4 3,6 11 3,2 7. I whish to continued my study 7 7,1 20 15,2 4 3,6 31 9,1 Looking for a job 12 12,1 14 10,6 18 16,2 44 12,9 9. To look for a second job 4 4,0 10 7,6 6 5,4 20 5,8 10. To move in another village 1 1,0 1 0,8 ‐ 0,0 2 0,6 11. To move in the city/town 2 2,0 2 1,5 2 1,8 6 1,8 12. Life style change 6 6,1 7 5,3 10 9,0 23 6,7 13. To by a new house 1 1,0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 0,3 Total 100 100 100 100 Don’t answer/Didn’t know 4 10 14 21.1. — How often read newspaper? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 0. Never 10 18,9 37 42,0 24 40,0 71 35,3 1. Daily 21 39,6 12 13,6 7 11,7 40 19,9 2. Weekly 7 13,2 9 10,2 6 10,0 22 10,9 3. Monthly 1 1,9 3 3,4 5 8,3 9 4,5 4. Rarely 14 26,4 27 30,7 18 30,0 59 29,4 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100 21.2. — How often listen to the radio? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 0. Never 9 17,0 19 21,6 9 15,0 37 18,4 1. Daily 25 47,2 35 39,8 32 53,3 92 45,8 2. Weekly 7 13,2 14 15,9 10 16,7 31 15,4 3. Monthly 2 3,8 2 2,3 1 1,7 5 2,5 4. Rarely 10 18,9 18 20,5 8 13,3 36 17,9 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100 21.3. — How often watch TV? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 0. Never ‐ ‐ 3 3,4 1 1,7 4 2,0 1. Daily 49 92,5 70 79,5 56 93,3 175 87,1 2. Weekly 2 3,8 8 9,1 2 3,3 12 6,0 3. Monthly 1 1,9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 0,5 4. Rarely 1 1,9 7 8,0 1 1,7 9 4,5 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100

21.4. —How often read a book? Place/ Variable 0. Never 1. Daily 2. Weekly 3. Monthly 4. Rarely Total

Petreşti Nr. % 15 28,3 2 3,8 7 13,2 6 11,3 23 43,4 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 17 19,3 14 15,9 21 23,9 7 8,0 29 33,0 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 22 36,7 4 6,7 15 25,0 1 1,7 18 30,0 60 100

All Nr. % 54 26,9 20 10,0 43 21,4 14 7,0 70 34,8 201 100

21.5. — How often use the internet? Place/ Variable 0. Never 1. Daily 2. Weekly 3. Monthly 4. Rarely Total

Nr. 31 9 8 1 4 53

Petreşti % 58,5 17,0 15,1 1,9 7,5 100

Nr. 57 16 7 ‐ 8 88

Feldru % 64,8 18,2 8,0 ‐ 9,1 100

Nr. 49 3 1 2 5 60

Vladnic % 81,7 5,0 1,7 3,3 8,3 100

Nr. 137 28 16 3 17 201

All % 68,2 13,9 8,0 1,5 8,5 100

21.6. — How often go on an excursion? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 0. Never 18 34,0 42 47,7 31 51,7 91 45,3 1. Daily 1 1,9 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 2 1,0 2. Weekly ‐ ‐ 3 3,4 3 5,0 6 3,0 3. Monthly 2 3,8 6 6,8 3 5,0 11 5,5 4. Rarely 32 60,4 36 40,9 23 38,3 91 45,3 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100 22.1. — How important is to you the family? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 1. Very important 50 94,3 85 96,6 59 98,3 194 96,5 2. Important 3 5,7 3 3,4 1 1,7 7 3,5 3. Less important ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4. Not important ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100 22.2. — How important are to you the friends? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 1. Very important 11 20,8 25 28,4 15 25,0 51 25,4 2. Important 28 52,8 47 53,4 26 43,3 101 50,2 3. Less important 12 22,6 16 18,2 18 30,0 46 22,9 4. Not important 2 3,8 ‐ ‐ 1 1,7 3 1,5 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100

22.3. — How important is to you the leisure? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 1. Very important 4 7,5 19 21,6 16 26,7 39 19,4 2. Important 33 62,3 49 55,7 30 50,0 112 55,7 3. Less important 12 22,6 17 19,3 12 20,0 41 20,4 4. Not important 4 7,5 3 3,4 2 3,3 9 4,5 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100 22.4. — How important is to you the politics? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 1. Very important 2 3,8 4 4,5 3 5,0 9 4,5 2. Important 5 9,4 12 13,6 6 10,0 23 11,4 3. Less important 13 24,5 25 28,4 13 21,7 51 25,4 4. Not important 33 62,3 47 53,4 38 63,3 118 58,7 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100 22.5. — How important is to you the work? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 1. Very important 14 26,4 59 67,0 36 60,0 109 54,2 2. Important 37 69,8 26 29,5 19 31,7 82 40,8 3. Less important 1 1,9 2 2,3 2 3,3 5 2,5 4. Not important 1 1,9 1 1,1 3 5,0 5 2,5 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100 22.6. — How important is to you the religion? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 1. Very important 20 37,7 62 70,5 37 61,7 119 59,2 2. Important 29 54,7 21 23,9 19 31,7 69 34,3 3. Less important 3 5,7 5 5,7 4 6,7 12 6,0 4. Not important 1 1,9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 0,5 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100 23. How you appreciate your relation whit your spouse? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 0. don’t have that kind the relation 16 30,2 22 25,0 13 21,7 51 25,4 1. very good 18 34,0 45 51,1 30 50,0 93 46,3 2. good 19 35,8 17 19,3 14 23,3 50 24,9 3. less good ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 3 5,0 4 2,0 4. not good ‐ ‐ 3 3,4 ‐ ‐ 3 1,5 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100

24. In every family are problems. In your family how often are? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 0. Never ‐ ‐ 15 17,0 7 11,7 22 10,9 1. Very rare 21 39,6 43 48,9 19 31,7 83 41,3 2. Rare 30 56,6 25 28,4 29 48,3 84 41,8 3. Frequent 1 1,9 4 4,5 4 6,7 9 4,5 4. Very frequent 1 1,9 1 1,1 1 1,7 3 1,5 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100 24.1. If have, from which are the cause? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 1. Missing money 17 32,1 24 33,3 18 30,0 59 33,5 2. The attitude of children 10 18,9 11 15,3 12 20,0 33 18,8 3. Parents or parents in low 5 9,4 4 5,6 1 1,7 10 5,7 4. Drinking alcohol 4 7,5 5 6,9 5 8,3 14 8,0 5. The spouse is not looking for the family 3 5,7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 1,7 6. The spouse don’t give the money home ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1,7 1 0,6 7. Distance 10 18,9 5 6,9 4 6,7 19 10,8 8. Violence ‐ ‐ 1 1,4 ‐ ‐ 1 0,6 9. False the spouse ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10. The home division of work 4 7,5 21 29,2 8 13,3 33 18,8 11. The thinking mode is different ‐ ‐ 1 1,4 2 3,3 3 1,7 Total 53 100 72* 100 51* 100 176* 100 Don’t answer/Didn’t know *+16 *+9 *+25 25. In your opinion, in one family who is responsible in your opinion for the education of children? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 1. More the mother 10 18,9 19 21,6 13 21,7 42 20,9 2. More the father 1 1,9 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 2 1,0 3. Both parents 42 79,2 67 76,1 47 78,3 156 77,6 4. The grandparents ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5. Other ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 1 0,5 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100

IV. Economies, land, household 26. 1. — In the last 3 years did you spent money for— House buying? Petreşti Feldru Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % 0. No 50 94,3 74 84,1 1. A bare 1 1,9 3 3,4 2. A lot 1 1,9 5 5,7 3. Very much 1 1,9 6 6,8 Total 53 100 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 50 83,3 ‐ ‐ 7 11,7 3 5,0 60 100

All Nr. 174 4 13 10 201

% 86,6 2,0 6,5 5,0 100

26. 2. — In the last 3 years did you spent money for – House construction? Place/ Variable 0. No 1. A bare 2. A lot 3. Very much Total

Petreşti Nr. % 43 81,1 2 3,8 5 9,4 3 5,7 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 53 60,2 4 4,5 19 21,6 12 13,6 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 44 73,3 ‐ ‐ 13 21,7 3 5,0 60 100

All Nr. 140 6 37 18 201

% 69,7 3,0 18,4 9,0 100

26. 3. — In the last 3 years did you spent money for – House reparation? Place/ Variable 0. No 1. A bare 2. A lot 3. Very much Total

Petreşti Nr. % 13 24,5 17 32,1 16 30,2 7 13,2 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 23 26,1 25 28,4 26 29,5 14 15,9 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 26 43,3 11 18,3 19 31,7 4 6,7 60 100

All Nr. 62 53 61 25 201

% 69,7 3,0 18,4 9,0 100

26. 4. — In the last 3 years did you spent money for – Car buying? Place/ Variable 0. No 1. A bare 2. A lot 3. Very much Total

Petreşti Nr. % 31 58,5 5 9,4 15 28,3 2 3,8 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 62 70,5 3 3,4 16 18,2 7 8,0 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 49 81,7 1 1,7 6 10,0 4 6,7 60 100

All Nr. 142 9 37 13 201

% 70,6 4,5 18,4 6,5 100

26. 5. — In the last 3 years did you spent money for – Land buying (for house construction)? Place/ Variable 0. No 1. A bare 2. A lot 3. Very much Total

Petreşti Nr. % 53 100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 72 81,8 3 3,4 6 6,8 7 8,0 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 52 86,7 2 3,3 3 5,0 3 5,0 60 100

All Nr. 177 5 9 10 201

% 88,1 2,5 4,5 5,0 100

26. 6. — In the last 3 years did you spent money for – Agricultural areas buying? Place/ Variable 0. No 1. A bare 2. A lot 3. Very much Total

Petreşti Nr. % 51 96,2 ‐ ‐ 2 3,8 ‐ ‐ 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 72 81,8 4 4,5 11 12,5 1 1,1 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 52 86,7 2 3,3 4 6,7 2 3,3 60 100

All Nr. % 175 87,1 6 3,0 17 8,5 3 1,5 201 100

26. 7. — In the last 3 years did you spent money for – Agricultural areas cultivation? Place/ Variable 0. No 1. A bare 2. A lot 3. Very much Total

Petreşti Nr. % 21 39,6 20 37,7 11 20,8 1 1,9 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 30 34,1 28 31,8 27 30,7 3 3,4 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 16 26,7 11 18,3 23 38,3 10 16,7 60 100

All Nr. 67 59 61 14 201

% 33,3 29,4 30,3 7,0 100

26. 8. — In the last 3 years did you spent money for – Agricultural machine buying? Place/ Variable 0. No 1. A bare 2. A lot 3. Very much Total

Petreşti Nr. % 51 96,2 2 3,8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 81 92,0 2 2,3 4 4,5 1 1,1 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 56 93,3 2 3,3 2 3,3 ‐ ‐ 60 100

All Nr. % 188 93,5 6 3,0 6 3,0 1 0,5 201 100

26. 9. — In the last 3 years did you spent money for – Business founding? Place/ Variable 0. No 1. A bare 2. A lot 3. Very much Total

Petreşti Nr. % 52 98,1 1 1,9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 83 94,3 3 3,4 2 2,3 ‐ ‐ 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 57 95,0 ‐ ‐ 3 5,0 ‐ ‐ 60 100

All Nr. % 192 95,5 4 2,0 5 2,5 ‐ ‐ 201 100

26. 10. — In the last 3 years did you spent money for – Buying household appliances? Place/ Variable 0. No 1. A bare 2. A lot 3. Very much Total

Petreşti Nr. % 28 52,8 16 30,2 8 15,1 1 1,9 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 27 30,7 32 36,4 26 29,5 3 3,4 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 18 30,0 31 51,7 10 16,7 1 1,7 60 100

All Nr. 73 79 44 5 201

Vladnic Nr. % 36 60,0 13 21,7 9 15,0 2 3,3 60 100

All

% 36,3 39,3 21,9 2,5 100

26. 11. — In the last 3 years did you spent money for – leisure? Place/ Variable 0. No 1. A bare 2. A lot 3. Very much Total

Petreşti Nr. % 30 56,6 15 28,3 8 15,1 ‐ ‐ 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 51 58,0 18 20,5 15 17,0 4 4,5 88 100

Nr. 117 46 32 6 201

% 58,2 22,9 15,9 3,0 100

26. 12. — In the last 3 years did you spent money for – computer buying or reparation? Place/ Variable 0. No 1. A bare 2. A lot 3. Very much Total

Petreşti Nr. % 37 69,8 11 20,8 5 9,4 ‐ ‐ 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 64 72,7 15 17,0 9 10,2 ‐ ‐ 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 51 85,0 5 8,3 4 6,7 ‐ ‐ 60 100

All Nr. 152 31 18 ‐ 201

Vladnic Nr. % 58 96,7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 3,3 60 100

All Nr. % 192 95,5 1 0,5 6 3,0 2 1,0 201 100

% 75,6 15,4 9,0 ‐ 100

26. 13. — In the last 3 years did you spent money for – other? Place/ Variable 0. No 1. A bare 2. A lot 3. Very much Total

Petreşti Nr. % 47 88,7 1 1,9 5 9,4 ‐ ‐ 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 87 98,9 ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 88 100

27. If you get a higher amount of money, how plan to spend? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. 1. I will start some business 15 28,3 51 58,0 31 51,7 97 48,3 2. I will satisfied the own necessities 41 77,4 67 76,1 52 86,7 160 79,6 (dwelling, car, etc.) 3. I will put in bank 28 52,8 66 75,0 34 56,7 128 63,7 4. I give to own children/grandchildren 42 79,2 79 89,8 59 98,3 180 89,6 5. I offer to the poor people 42 79,2 85 96,6 55 91,7 182 90,5 6. I offer to the church 39 73,6 80 90,9 57 95,0 176 87,6 7. I wish to emigrate 7 13,2 12 13,6 16 26,7 35 17,4 28. 1. — What expenses did your household have in last month in total for — foods? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Not any 1 1,9 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 2 1,0 1‐50 ‐ ‐ 8 9,1 ‐ ‐ 8 4,0 51‐100 10 18,9 9 10,2 2 3,3 21 10,4 101‐200 9 17,0 15 17,0 10 16,7 34 16,9 201‐300 12 22,6 15 17,0 15 25,0 42 20,9 301‐400 6 11,3 11 12,5 5 8,3 22 10,9 401‐500 3 5,7 8 9,1 8 13,3 19 9,5 501‐600 3 5,7 8 9,1 4 6,7 15 7,5 601‐700 3 5,7 1 1,1 3 5,0 7 3,5 701‐800 3 5,7 4 4,5 3 5,0 10 5,0 801‐900 ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 3 5,0 4 2,0 901‐1000 1 1,9 2 2,3 1 1,7 4 2,0 1001‐1100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 5,0 3 1,5 1101‐1200 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1,7 1 0,5 1401‐1500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1,7 1 0,5 1501‐1600 ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 1 0,5 1901‐2000 1 1,9 2 2,3 1 1,7 4 2,0 Over 2001 1 1,9 2 2,3 ‐ ‐ 3 1,5 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100 28. 2. — What expenses did your household have in last month in total for — drinks? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Not any 34 64,2 70 79,5 27 45,0 131 65,2 1‐50 13 24,5 6 6,8 14 23,3 33 16,4 51‐100 4 7,5 5 5,7 14 23,3 23 11,4 101‐200 2 3,8 4 4,5 1 1,7 7 3,5 201‐300 ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 3 5,0 4 2,0 301‐400 ‐ ‐ 2 2,3 ‐ ‐ 2 1,0 401‐500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1,7 1 0,5 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100

28. 3. — What expenses did your household have in last month in total for — cigarettes? Place/ Variable Not any 1‐50 51‐100 101‐200 201‐300 301‐400 401‐500 701‐800 1101‐1200 Total

Petreşti Nr. % 23 43,4 ‐ ‐ 12 22,6 7 13,2 8 15,1 1 1,9 1 1,9 1 1,9 ‐ ‐ 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 61 69,3 6 6,8 5 5,7 10 11,4 5 5,7 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 41 68,3 6 10,0 2 3,3 5 8,3 3 5,0 2 3,3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1,7 60 100

All Nr. % 125 62,2 12 6,0 19 9,5 22 10,9 16 8,0 4 2,0 1 0,5 1 0,5 1 0,5 201 100

28. 4. — What expenses did your household have in last month in total for – cleaning solutions? Place/ Variable Not any 1‐50 51‐100 101‐200 201‐300 301‐400 401‐500 501‐600 Don’t answer/Didn’t know Total

Petreşti Nr. % 6 11,3 25 47,2 12 22,6 7 13,2 2 3,8 ‐ ‐ 1 1,9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 4 4,5 38 43,2 27 30,7 12 13,6 3 3,4 1 1,1 1 1,1 1 1,1 1 1,1 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 4 6,7 16 26,7 15 25,0 21 35,0 3 5,0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1,7 ‐ ‐ 60 100

All Nr. 14 79 54 40 8 1 2 2 1 201

% 7,0 39,3 26,9 19,9 4,0 0,5 1,0 1,0 0,5 100

28. 5. — What expenses did your household have in last month in total for — cosmetics? Place/ Variable Not any 1‐50 51‐100 101‐200 201‐300 301‐400 501‐600 Don’t answer/Didn’t know Total

Petreşti Nr. % 21 39,6 18 34,0 5 9,4 7 13,2 2 3,8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 25 28,4 33 37,5 12 13,6 13 14,8 1 1,1 2 2,3 1 1,1 1 1,1 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 14 23,3 23 38,3 16 26,7 5 8,3 1 1,7 ‐ ‐ 1 1,7 ‐ ‐ 60 100

All Nr. 60 74 33 25 4 2 2 1 201

% 29,9 36,8 16,4 12,4 2,0 1,0 1,0 0,5 100

28. 7. — What expenses did your household have in last month in total for — education (incl. private assistance)? Place/ Variable Not any 1‐50 51‐100 101‐200 201‐300 301‐400 401‐500 601‐700 Total

Petreşti Nr. % 34 64,2 5 9,4 6 11,3 6 11,3 1 1,9 1 1,9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 71 80,7 6 6,8 4 4,5 4 4,5 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 1 1,1 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 42 70,0 10 16,7 3 5,0 4 6,7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1,7 ‐ ‐ 60 100

All Nr. % 147 73,1 21 10,4 13 6,5 14 7,0 2 1,0 1 0,5 2 1,0 1 0,5 201 100

8. 6. — What expenses did your household have in last month in total for — expenses related to the house (gas, lighting, water etc.)? Place/ Variable Not any 1‐50 51‐100 101‐200 201‐300 301‐400 401‐500 501‐600 601‐700 701‐800 801‐900 901‐1000 1401‐1500 1901‐2000 Total

Petreşti Nr. % ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6 11,3 8 15,1 13 24,5 10 18,9 6 11,3 5 9,4 3 5,7 ‐ ‐ 1 1,9 ‐ ‐ 1 1,9 ‐ ‐ 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 2 2,3 2 2,3 3 3,4 13 14,8 25 28,4 10 11,4 16 18,2 12 13,6 1 1,1 1 1,1 2 2,3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 2 3,3 ‐ ‐ 6 10,0 23 38,3 11 18,3 2 3,3 3 5,0 7 11,7 2 3,3 2 3,3 ‐ ‐ 2 3,3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 60 100

All Nr. 4 2 15 44 49 22 25 24 6 3 3 2 1 1 201

% 2,0 1,0 7,5 21,9 24,4 10,9 12,4 11,9 3,0 1,5 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,5 100

28. 8. — What expenses did your household have in last month in total for — culture (book, theater, newspaper)? Place/ Variable Not any 1‐50 51‐100 101‐200 Total

Petreşti Nr. % 29 54,7 9 17,0 15 28,3 ‐ ‐ 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 74 84,1 9 10,2 3 3,4 2 2,3 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 48 80,0 11 18,3 1 1,7 ‐ ‐ 60 100

All Nr. 151 29 19 2 201

% 75,1 14,4 9,5 1,0 100

28. 9. — What expenses did your household have in last month in total for — health: hospitalization, medication etc.? Place/ Variable Not any 1‐50 51‐100 101‐200 201‐300 301‐400 401‐500 501‐600 Over 2001 Total

Petreşti Nr. % 15 28,3 3 5,7 16 30,2 13 24,5 4 7,5 1 1,9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1,9 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 26 29,5 15 17,0 18 20,5 17 19,3 9 10,2 2 2,3 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 13 21,7 12 20,0 14 23,3 11 18,3 5 8,3 3 5,0 1 1,7 1 1,7 ‐ ‐ 60 100

All Nr. % 54 26,9 30 14,9 48 23,9 41 20,4 18 9,0 6 3,0 2 1,0 1 0,5 1 0,5 201 100

28. 10. — What expenses did your household have in last month in total for —cloths? Place/ Variable Not any 1‐50 51‐100 101‐200 201‐300 301‐400 401‐500 501‐600 601‐700 701‐800 801‐900 Over 2001 Total

Petreşti Nr. % 20 37,7 2 3,8 9 17,0 16 30,2 1 1,9 1 1,9 2 3,8 2 3,8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 36 40,9 15 17,0 8 9,1 8 9,1 8 9,1 3 3,4 4 4,5 2 2,3 2 2,3 2 2,3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 19 31,7 9 15,0 9 15,0 9 15,0 4 6,7 4 6,7 3 5,0 1 1,7 ‐ ‐ 1 1,7 1 1,7 60 100

All Nr. % 75 37,3 26 12,9 26 12,9 33 16,4 13 6,5 8 4,0 9 4,5 5 2,5 2 1,0 2 1,0 1 0,5 1 0,5 201 100

28. 11. — What expenses did your household have in last month in total for — furniture? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Not any 51 96,2 84 95,5 49 81,7 184 91,5 1‐50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 6,7 4 2,0 51‐100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1,7 1 0,5 101‐200 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 5,0 3 1,5 201‐300 1 1,9 ‐ ‐ 1 1,7 2 1,0 301‐400 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1,7 1 0,5 401‐500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1,7 1 0,5 501‐600 ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 1 0,5 801‐900 ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 1 0,5 901‐1000 1 1,9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 0,5 1501‐1600 ‐ ‐ 2 2,3 ‐ ‐ 2 1,0 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100 28. 12. — What expenses did your household have in last month in total for — buying household appliances? Place/ Variable Not any 1‐50 51‐100 101‐200 201‐300 601‐700 701‐800 801‐900 1101‐1200 1401‐1500 Over 2001 Total

Petreşti Nr. % 47 88,7 ‐ ‐ 2 3,8 2 3,8 1 1,9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1,9 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 81 92,0 ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 1 1,1 2 2,3 ‐ ‐ 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 50 83,3 3 5,0 2 3,3 1 1,7 2 3,3 1 1,7 1 1,7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 60 100

All Nr. % 178 88,6 3 1,5 5 2,5 3 1,5 4 2,0 2 1,0 1 0,5 1 0,5 1 0,5 2 1,0 1 0,5 201 100

28. 13. — What expenses did your household have in last month in total for — life assurance? Place/ Variable Not any 1‐50 51‐100 101‐200 201‐300 301‐400 401‐500 601‐700 701‐800 1501‐1600 Total

Petreşti Nr. % 37 69,8 ‐ ‐ 11 20,8 1 1,9 ‐ ‐ 1 1,9 1 1,9 2 3,8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 75 85,2 4 4,5 3 3,4 2 2,3 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 1 1,1 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 48 80,0 7 11,7 3 5,0 ‐ ‐ 1 1,7 ‐ ‐ 1 1,7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 60 100

All Nr. % 160 79,6 11 5,5 17 8,5 3 1,5 2 1,0 1 0,5 3 1,5 2 1,0 1 0,5 1 0,5 201 100

28. 14. — What expenses did your household have in last month in total for — membership fees, rates? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Not any 36 67,9 66 75,0 47 78,3 149 74,1 1‐50 ‐ ‐ 12 13,6 10 16,7 22 10,9 51‐100 4 7,5 2 2,3 ‐ ‐ 6 3,0 101‐200 5 9,4 2 2,3 ‐ ‐ 7 3,5 201‐300 1 1,9 1 1,1 1 1,7 3 1,5 301‐400 3 5,7 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 4 2,0 401‐500 1 1,9 1 1,1 1 1,7 3 1,5 501‐600 2 3,8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 1,0 601‐700 1 1,9 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 2 1,0 701‐800 ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 1 1,7 2 1,0 1601‐1700 ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 1 0,5 Total 53 100 88 100 60 100 201 100

28. 15. — What expenses did your household have in last month in total for — investment of any kind (constructions etc.)? Place/ Variable Not any 1‐50 51‐100 101‐200 201‐300 301‐400 401‐500 501‐600 601‐700 901‐1000 1101‐1200 1301‐1400 1401‐1500 1901‐2000 Over 2001 Total

Petreşti Nr. % 45 84,9 ‐ ‐ 1 1,9 ‐ ‐ 3 5,7 1 1,9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1,9 1 1,9 ‐ ‐ 1 1,9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 74 84,1 ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 2,3 1 1,1 2 2,3 ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 1 1,1 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 5,7 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 46 76,7 3 5,0 ‐ ‐ 3 5,0 1 1,7 1 1,7 ‐ 2 3,3 1 1,7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1,7 2 3,3 60 100

All Nr. 165 3 2 3 4 4 1 4 1 2 2 1 1 1 7 201

% 82,1 1,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,0 0,5 2,0 0,5 1,0 1,0 0,5 0,5 0,5 3,5 100

28. 16. — What expenses did your household have in last month in total for — agricultural production? Place/ Variable Not any 1‐50 51‐100 101‐200 201‐300 301‐400 401‐500 501‐600 601‐700 701‐800 801‐900 901‐1000 1001‐1100 1501‐1600 1901‐2000 Over 2001 Total

Petreşti Nr. % 26 49,1 ‐ ‐ 7 13,2 5 9,4 7 13,2 1 1,9 2 3,8 1 1,9 ‐ ‐ 1 1,9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1,9 2 3,8 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 54 61,4 8 9,1 6 6,8 5 5,7 8 9,1 2 2,3 ‐ ‐ 3 3,4 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 18 30,0 7 11,7 2 3,3 9 15,0 5 8,3 5 8,3 5 8,3 3 5,0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 5,0 2 3,3 ‐ ‐ 1 1,7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 60 100

All Nr. % 98 48,8 15 7,5 15 7,5 19 9,5 20 10,0 8 4,0 7 3,5 7 3,5 1 0,5 1 0,5 3 1,5 2 1,0 1 0,5 1 0,5 1 0,5 2 1,0 201 100

28. 17. — What expenses did your household have in last month in total for — other? Place/ Variable Not any 51‐100 101‐200 201‐300 404‐500 Total

Petreşti Nr. % 52 98,1 1 1,9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 83 94,3 1 1,1 3 3,4 ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 57 95,0 ‐ ‐ 2 3,3 1 1,7 ‐ ‐ 60 100

All Nr. % 192 95,9 2 1,0 5 2,5 1 0,5 1 0,5 201 100

29‐30. Do you own or rent the following types of land at the moment? How many hectares do you work and how many hectares do you leave not‐worked? 29.1. ‐ Descriptive Statistics ‐ Petresti Own arable areas Rent arable areas Rent out own arable areas Own fruit (orchard) Rent fruit (orchard) Rent out the own fruit Own pasture, meadow Rent pasture, meadow Rent out own pasture, meadow Own forest Rent forest Rent out the own forest Own other agr. area Rent other agr. area

Nr. 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53

Minimum ha 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

Maximum ha 10,00 0,00 20,00 0,70 0,00 0,00 2,70 0,00 0,00 12,00 0,00 0,00 10,00 0,00

Mean Std. Deviation ha 1,1943 2,21867 0,0000 0,00000 1,4621 3,05945 0,0251 0,11796 0,0000 0,00000 0,0000 0,00000 0,0821 0,39724 0,0000 0,00000 0,0000 0,00000 0,3585 1,72746 0,0000 0,00000 0,0000 0,00000 0,2047 1,37485 0,0000 0,00000

Rent out own other agr. area Worked arable areas Not worked arable areas Worked orchards Not worked orchards Worked pasture, meadow Not worked pasture, meadow Worked forest Not worked forest Worked other agr. areas Not worked other agr. areas

53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53

0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

0,00 20,00 3,00 0,13 0,70 2,70 0,50 12,00 0,40 10,00 0,00

0,0000 2,5313 0,0764 0,0025 0,0226 0,0698 0,0094 0,2830 0,0075 0,2047 0,0000

0,00000 3,66894 0,42388 0,01786 0,11708 0,39301 0,06868 1,65099 0,05494 1,37485 0,00000

Minimum ha 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

Maximum ha 10,00 0,50 1,50 4,00 0,00 0,00 12,00 0,00 0,70 5,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 6,00 4,00 0,60 12,00 5,00 5,00 1,20 0,00 0,00

Mean Std. Deviation ha 1,0366 1,58950 0,0057 0,53300 0,0184 0,16105 0,3019 0,72785 0,0000 0,00000 0,0000 0,00000 1,2394 1,93877 0,0000 0,00000 0,0109 0,07940 0,4175 0,68330 0,0000 0,00000 0,1150 0,10721 0,0000 0,00000 0,0000 0,00000 0,0000 0,00000 0,7353 0,87771 0,1936 0,71908 0,2754 0,72843 0,0250 0,10086 0,9890 1,82358 0,2305 0,85105 0,3691 0,68088 0,0374 0,17122 0,0000 0,00000 0,0000 0,00000

Minimum ha 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

Maximum ha 8,00 2,00 4,00 0,50 0,00 0,00 2,50 0,00 2,00

Mean ha 1,4537 0,1400 0,0950 0,0423 0,0000 0,0000 0,1858 0,0000 0,0333

29.2 ‐ Descriptive Statistics ‐ Feldru Own arable areas Rent arable areas Rent out own arable areas Own fruit (orchard) Rent fruit (orchard) Rent out the own fruit Own pasture, meadow Rent pasture, meadow Rent out own pasture, meadow Own forest Rent forest Rent out the own forest Own other agr. area Rent other agr. area Rent out own other agr. area Worked arable areas Not worked arable areas Worked orchards Not worked orchards Worked pasture, meadow Not worked pasture, meadow Worked forest Not worked forest Worked other agr. areas Not worked other agr. areas

Nr. 82 88 87 83 88 87 82 88 87 80 88 87 88 88 88 81 88 83 88 82 88 81 87 88 88

29.3. ‐ Descriptive Statistics ‐ Vladnic Own arable areas Rent arable areas Rent out own arable areas Own fruit (orchard) Rent fruit (orchard) Rent out the own fruit Own pasture, meadow Rent pasture, meadow Rent out own pasture, meadow

Nr. 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

Std. Deviation 1,55459 0,36878 0,53912 0,10963 0,00000 0,00000 0,45604 0,00000 0,25820

Own forest Rent forest Rent out the own forest Own other agr. area Rent other agr. area Rent out own other agr. area Worked arable areas Not worked arable areas Worked orchards Not worked orchards Worked pasture, meadow Not worked pasture, meadow Worked forest Not worked forest Worked other agr. areas Not worked other agr. areas

60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

2,50 0,00 0,00 0,50 0,00 0,00 8,00 2,50 0,40 0,00 2,50 0,50 2,50 0,00 1,50 0,00

0,1635 0,0000 0,0000 0,0873 0,0000 0,0000 1,5470 0,0767 0,0340 0,0000 0,1858 0,0083 0,1385 0,0000 0,1173 0,0000

0,43200 0,00000 0,00000 0,15071 0,00000 0,00000 1,49779 0,35849 0,09180 0,00000 0,45604 0,06455 0,39517 0,00000 0,23692 0,00000

30.1 – Own the following types of land at the moment (Total asked household) Place/ Variable Arable areas Fruit (orchard) Pasture, meadow Forest Other areas Total asked household/total ha

Petreşti Nr. ha 53 63,30 53 1,33 53 4,35 53 19,00 53 10,85 53 98,83

Feldru Nr. ha 82 85,00 83 25,06 82 101,63 80 33,4 88 0,00 88 245,09

Vladnic Nr. ha 60 87,22 60 2,54 60 11,15 60 9,81 60 5,24 60 115,96

All Nr. ha 195 235,52 196 28,93 195 117,13 193 62,21 201 16,09 201 459,88

30.2. –Total land owner (all types of land) Place/ Variable don’t own area own area under 0,50 ha own area 0,50 ‐ 1ha own area 1 – 2 ha own area 2 – 3 ha own area 3 – 4 ha own area 4 – 5 ha own area ower 5 ha Total asked household Da/Dn

Petreşti Nr. % 17 32,08 15 28,30 4 7,55 6 11,32 3 5,66 1 1,89 0 0,00 7 13,21 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 13 15,85 4 4,88 13 15,85 10 12,20 12 14,63 7 8,54 9 10,98 14 17,07 82* 100 *+6

Vladnic Nr. % 12 20,00 2 3,33 14 23,33 12 20,00 6 10,00 5 8,33 5 8,33 4 6,67 60 100

All Nr. 42 21 31 28 21 13 14 25 195* *+6

% 21,54 10,77 15,90 14,36 10,77 6,67 7,18 12,82 100

31. In the last month, what quantity did you have products ‐ produce yourself ‐ for own consumption? Place/ Variable 0. Nothing, we buy everything 1. We produced for own consumption 25% 2. We produced for own consumption 50% 3. We produced for own consumption 75% 4. We produced almost everything Total

Petreşti Nr. % 10 18,9 13 24,5 13 24,5 5 9,4 12 22,6 53 100

Feldru Nr. % 13 14,8 29 33,0 20 22,7 11 12,5 15 17,0 88 100

Vladnic Nr. % 5 8,3 20 33,3 10 16,7 14 23,3 11 18,3 60 100

All Nr. % 28 13,9 62 30,8 43 21,4 30 14,9 38 18,9 201 100

32. Does your household own the following goods? Petreşti Place/ Variable Nr. % Mobile phone 48 90,6 Car 34 64,2 Refrigerator 50 94,3 Colour television 53 100 Video player 38 71,7 TV‐cable or antenna 44 83,0 Automatical washmashine 30 56,6 Personal computer 14 26,4

Feldru Nr. % 78 88,6 34 38,6 88 100,0 86 97,7 80 90,9 80 90,9 44 50,0 30 34,1

Vladnic Nr. % 53 88,3 12 20,0 48 80,0 54 90,0 45 75,0 30 50,0 6 10,0 8 13,3

All Nr. 179 80 186 193 163 154 80 52

% 89,1 39,8 92,5 96,0 81,1 76,6 39,8 25,9

33. What sources of income did your household have in last month totally? Petreşti Feldru Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nothing ‐ ‐ 11 8,9 Salary, wage 42 51,2 30 24,4 Profits from investments, etc. 2 2,4 2 1,6 Profits from interest 1 1,2 ‐ ‐ State pension 18 22 35 28,5 Agricultural pension 6 7,3 1 0,8 Social assistance 1 1,2 7 5,7 Selling foods and agricultural products 7 8,5 5 4,1 Rents (house, land etc.) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Child allocation 3 3,7 13 10,6 Help from children (ex. Work abroad) ‐ ‐ 7 5,7 Illness pension ‐ ‐ 6 4,9 Inheritance pension ‐ ‐ 4 3,3 Income from day‐labouring ‐ ‐ 1 0,8 Income from working abroad ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Other 2 2,4 1 0,8 Total 82 100 123 100

Vladnic Nr. % 2 1,9 20 18,7 4 3,7 ‐ ‐ 15 14,0 17 15,9 7 6,5 4 3,7 2 1,9 26 24,3 2 1,9 1 0,9 2 1,9 2 1,9 3 2,8 ‐ ‐ 107 100

All Nr. % 13 4,2 92 29,5 8 2,6 1 0,3 68 21,8 24 7,7 15 4,8 16 5,1 2 0,6 42 13,5 9 2,9 7 2,2 6 1,9 3 1,0 3 1,0 3 1,0 312 100

V. Family members over 60 years old 34. Marital status of asked person Place/ Variable Single Divorced Married/relation Widow Total

Petreşti Nr. % 3 20,0 ‐ ‐ 5 33,3 7 46,7 15 100

35. The asked person’s gender Place/ Variable Petreşti Nr. % Man 6 40,0 Women 9 60,0 Total 15 100

Feldru Nr. % 1 2,2 ‐ ‐ 29 64,4 15 33,3 45 100

Feldru Nr. % 25 55,6 20 44,4 45 100

Vladnic Nr. % ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 14 63,6 8 36,4 22 100

Vladnic Nr. % 8 36,4 14 63,6 22 100

All Nr. 4 ‐ 48 30 82

% 4,9 ‐ 58,5 36,6 100

All Nr. 39 43 82

% 47,6 52,4 100

36. Year of birth of asked person Place/ Variable

Asked people (60 years and more) Total

Petreşti

Age 60‐70 71‐80 81‐90

Nr. 9 5 1 15

Feldru

% 60,0 33,3 6,7 100

Nr. 28 15 2 45

Vladnic

% 62,2 33,3 4,4 100

Nr. 15 7 ‐ 22

All

% 68,2 31,8 ‐ 100

Nr. 52 27 3 82

% 63,4 32,9 3,7 100

37. The nationality/ethnicity of asked person Petreşti Nr. % 2 13,3 3 20,0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10 66,7 15 100

Place/ Variable Romanian Hungarian Ceangău Hungarian‐Ceangău Romanian‐Ceangău Swab Total

Feldru Nr. % 45 100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 45 100

Vladnic Nr. % 9 40,9 ‐ ‐ 8 36,4 2 9,1 3 13,5 ‐ ‐ 22 100

All Nr. % 56 68,3 3 3,7 8 9,8 2 2,4 3 3,7 10 12,2 82 100

38. The religion of asked person Place/ Variable Orthodox Roman‐catholic Greek‐catholic Pentecostals Total

Petreşti Nr. % ‐ ‐ 15 100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 15 100

Feldru Nr. % 39 86,7 ‐ ‐ 1 2,2 5 11,1 45 100

Vladnic Nr. % ‐ ‐ 22 100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 22 100

All Nr. % 39 47,6 37 45,1 1 1,2 5 6,1 82 100

39. Do you have medical assurance? Place/ Variable Yes No Total

Petreşti Nr. % 13 86,7 2 13,3 15 100

Feldru Nr. % 32 71,1 13 28,9 45 100

Vladnic Nr. % 21 95,5 1 4,5 22 100

All Nr. % 66 80,5 16 19,5 82 100

40. What sources of income did you have in the last month? Place/ Variable 0. Nothing 1. Salary, wage 2. State pension 3. Agricultural pension 4. Illness pension 5. Inheritance pension 4. Social assistance 5. Child support 6. Selling foods and agricultural products 7. Rents (house, land etc.) 8. Profits from investments, interest etc. 9. Profits from interest Total Don’t answer/Didn’t know

Petreşti Nr. % ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 12 54,5 8 36,4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 9,1 ‐ ‐ 22 100

Feldru Nr. % 7 16,3 28 65,1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 2,3 2 4,7 3 3,4 1 2,3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 2,3 43* 100 *+2

Vladnic Nr. % ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7 31,8 13 59,1 ‐ ‐ 1 4,5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 4,5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 22 100

All Nr. % 7 8,0 28 32,2 19 21,8 21 24,1 1 1,1 3 3,4 3 3,4 1 1,1 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 2 2,3 1 1,1 87 100

41.1. — In what measure do you employ in — take care or educate your grandchild? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 0. Never 4 26,7 11 24,4 6 27,3 21 25,6 1. Daily 5 33,3 13 28,9 3 13,6 21 25,6 2. Weekly 1 6,7 4 8,9 3 13,6 8 9,8 3. Monthly 1 6,7 1 2,2 ‐ ‐ 2 2,4 4. Rarely 4 26,7 16 35,6 10 45,5 30 36,6 Total 15 100 45 100 22 100 82 100

41.2. — In what measure do you employ in — overseeing your grandchild? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 0. Never 4 26,7 14 31,1 6 27,3 1. Daily 4 26,7 13 28,9 5 22,7 2. Weekly 1 6,7 3 6,7 1 4,5 3. Monthly 2 13,3 1 2,2 ‐ ‐ 4. Rarely 4 26,7 14 31,1 10 45,5 Total 15 100 45 100 22 100

All Nr. % 24 29,3 22 26,8 5 6,1 3 3,7 28 34,1 82 100

41.3. — In what measure do you employ in — nursing the sick family members? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 0. Never 11 73,3 14 31,1 8 36,4 1. Daily ‐ ‐ 8 17,8 5 22,7 2. Weekly ‐ ‐ 4 8,9 5 22,7 3. Monthly 1 6,7 3 6,7 2 9,1 4. Rarely 3 20,0 16 35,6 2 9,1 Total 15 100 45 100 22 100

All Nr. 33 13 9 6 21 82

% 40,2 15,9 11,0 7,3 25,6 100

41.4. — In what measure do you employ in — helping about work around the house? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 0. Never 3 20,0 4 8,9 1 4,5 8 9,8 1. Daily 11 73,3 36 80,0 18 81,8 65 79,3 2. Weekly ‐ ‐ 2 4,4 1 4,5 3 3,7 3. Monthly ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4. Rarely 1 6,7 3 6,7 2 9,1 6 7,3 Total 15 100 45 100 22 100 82 100

41.5. — In what measure do you employ in — feeding the domestic animals? Petreşti Feldru Vladnic Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 0. Never 4 26,7 11 24,4 1 4,5 1. Daily 9 60,0 27 60,0 19 86,4 2. Weekly ‐ ‐ 1 2,2 2 9,1 3. Monthly ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4. Rarely 2 13,3 6 13,3 ‐ ‐ Total 15 100 45 100 22 100

All Nr. 16 55 3 ‐ 8 82

% 19,5 67,1 3,7 ‐ 9,8 100

41.5. — In what measure do you employ in — help in agriculture? Place/ Variable 0. Never 1. Daily 2. Weekly 3. Monthly 4. Rarely Total

Petreşti Nr. % 4 26,7 7 46,7 1 6,7 ‐ ‐ 3 20,0 15 100

Feldru Nr. % 7 15,6 27 60,0 3 6,7 ‐ ‐ 8 17,8 45 100

Vladnic Nr. % 2 9,1 15 68,2 3 13,6 2 9,1 ‐ ‐ 22 100

All Nr. % 13 15,9 49 59,8 7 8,5 2 2,4 11 13,4 82 100

41.6. — In what measure do you employ in — helping in household governance? Place/ Variable 0. Never 1. Daily 2. Weekly 3. Monthly 4. Rarely Total

Petreşti Nr. % 3 20,0 11 73,3 ‐ ‐ 1 6,7 ‐ ‐ 15 100

Feldru Nr. % 3 6,7 35 77,8 1 2,2 1 2,2 5 11,1 45 100

Vladnic Nr. % 1 4,5 19 86,4 1 4,5 1 4,5 ‐ ‐ 22 100

All

Feldru Nr. % 109 67,7 52 32,3 161 100

Vladnic Nr. % 92 70,2 39 29,8 131 100

Nr.

% 8,5 79,3 2,4 3,7 6,1 100

7 65 2 3 5 82

Data’s of people who work abroad 42. A. — The gender of migrants Place/ Variable Man Women Total

Petreşti Nr. % 58 64,4 32 35,6 90 100

All Nr. % 259 67,8 123 32,2 382 100

42.B. – Age of migrants Place/ Variable

Petreşti

Age

Asked people

Total Don’t answer/don’t know

Nr.

Feldru

Nr.

Vladnic

Nr.

All

Nr.

17‐20

3,4

3,7

3,1

3,4

21‐30

36,4

48,4

32,1

152

40,0

31‐40

23,9

31,7

39,7

124

32,6

41‐50

15,9

11,2

22,9

16,3

51‐60

17,1

3,7

1,5

6,1

61‐70

3 88*

3,4 100

1,2

0,8

161

100

131

100

6 380*

100

*+2

1,6

42.C. – Main profession of migrants (at home) Place/ Variable Lead, entrepreneur Intellectual free‐worker Tech or maestro Executive person Personnel in service or commerce Skill agriculture or farm on own household Handicraft, mechanic

Petreşti Nr. % 2 2,2 6 6,7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1,1 3 3,4 5 5,6

Feldru Nr. % 5 3,1 1 0,6 2 1,2 3 1,9 17 10,6 19 11,8 12 7,5

Vladnic All Nr. % Nr. % 3 2,3 10 2,6 4 3,1 11 2,9 4 3,1 6 1,6 ‐ ‐ 3 0,8 7 5,3 25 6,6 18 13,7 40 10,5 9 6,9 26 6,8

Skill worker Unskilled worker not in agriculture sector Day‐labourer Pensioner, illness pensioner Social grant, childbirth liberty Unemployed, householder Pupil, student Other Total Don’t answer/don’t know

21 22 9 13 1 3 3 ‐ 89* *+1

23,6 24,7 10,1 14,6 1,1 3,4 3,4 ‐ 100

25 12 3 2 1 54 3 2 161

15,5 7,5 1,9 1,2 0,6 33,5 1,9 1,2 100

41 16 7 1 ‐ 16 2 3 131

31,3 12,2 5,3 0,8 ‐ 12,2 1,5 2,3 100

87 50 19 16 2 73 8 5 381* *+1

22,8 13,1 5,0 4,2 0,5 19,2 2,1 1,3 100

42.D. – The highest level of migrants Petreşti Nr. % 3 3,4 18 20,2 38 42,7 8 9,0 6 6,7 8 9,0 2 2,2 1 1,1 4 4,5 1 1,1 89* 100 *+1

Place/ Variable 1‐4 class 5‐10 class Trade school without high‐school graduating Theoretical high school with graduating Agrarian school Vocational high‐school with graduating Technical school/college Faculty Agrarian faculty Post graduating Total Don’t answer/don’t know

Feldru Nr. % ‐ ‐ 16 9,9 78 48,4 10 6,2 16 9,9 29 18,0 1 0,6 6 3,7 5 3,1 ‐ ‐ 161 100

Vladnic All Nr. % Nr. % 2 1,5 5 1,3 30 22,9 64 16,8 79 60,3 195 51,2 6 4,6 24 6,3 6 4,6 28 7,3 1 0,8 38 10,0 1 0,8 4 1,0 ‐ ‐ 7 1,8 6 4,6 15 3,9 ‐ ‐ 1 0,3 131 100 381* 100 *+1

42.E. – In which country did work Place/ Variable Italy Germany England France Hungary Czech Spain Portugal Ireland Austria Canada USA Dubai Belgium Serbia Greece Israel Slovenia Turkmenistan Belgium Russia Total

Don’t answer/don’t know

Petreşti Nr. % 1 1,1 50 57,5 1 1,1 4 4,6 24 27,6 7 8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 87* 100

*+3

Feldru Nr. % 1 0,6 1 0,6 2 1,2 1 0,6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 119 73,9 1 0,6 27 16,8 2 1,2 1 0,6 3 1,9 1 0,6 1 0,6 1 0,6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 161 100

Vladnic Nr. % 67 47,2 10 7,0 ‐ ‐ 1 0,7 39 27,5 ‐ ‐ 9 6,3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 0,7 1 0,7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 2,8 1 0,7 1 0,7 3 2,1 1 0,7 1 0,7 2 1,4 1 0,7 142 100

All Nr. 69 61 3 6 63 7 128 1 27 3 2 3 1 5 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 390*

*+3

% 17,7 15,6 0,8 1,5 16,2 1,8 32,8 0,3 6,9 0,8 0,5 0,8 0,3 1,3 0,5 0,3 0,8 0,3 0,3 0,5 0,3 100

42.F. – How long work abroad (in month) Petreşti Feldru Vladnic Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % 1 – 12 39 44,2 16 9,9 21 16,0 13 – 24 17 19,3 14 8,7 16 12,2 25 – 36 10 11,3 10 6,2 14 10,7 37 – 48 1 1,1 21 13,0 13 9,9 49 – 60 3 3,4 22 13,7 16 12,2 61 – 72 2 2,3 15 9,3 13 9,9 73 – 84 4 4,5 13 8,1 8 6,1 85 – 96 1 1,1 22 13,7 1 0,8 97 – 108 1 1,1 8 5,0 3 2,3 109‐120 1 1,1 14 8,7 9 6,9 121‐132 ‐ ‐ 3 1,8 1 0,8 133‐144 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ 5 3,8 145‐156 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 0,8 157‐168 ‐ ‐ 2 1,2 1 0,8 169‐180 ‐ ‐ 1 0,6 1 0,8 181‐192 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 1,5 193‐204 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 0,8 205‐216 2 2,3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 217‐228 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 229‐240 3 3,4 ‐ ‐ 1 0,8 265‐276 1 1,1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 277‐288 2 2,3 ‐ ‐ 1 0,8 289‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 2,3 Total 88* 100 161 100 131 100 Don’t answer/don’t know *+2 42.G. – Work ‐ in what kind of sector Petreşti Feldru Vladnic Place/ Variable Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Logging, forestry 2 2,2 1 0,6 6 4,6 Construction 24 26,7 75 46,6 61 46,9 Transporting 3 3,3 4 2,5 2 1,5 Medical insurance 3 3,3 1 0,6 1 0,8 Care (child, old man, house) 6 6,7 19 11,8 25 19,2 Tourism 2 2,2 23 14,3 9 6,9 Agriculture 18 20,0 23 14,3 14 10,8 Day‐labourer 6 6,7 2 1,2 ‐ ‐ Intellectual profession ‐ ‐ ‐ 0,0 5 3,8 Commerce, service 8 8,9 6 3,7 4 3,1 IT 1 1,1 ‐ 0,0 ‐ ‐ Automotive industry Textile industry Other industry Don’t work Other Total

5 2 10 ‐ ‐ 90

5,6 2,2 11,1 ‐ ‐ 100

2 ‐ ‐ 3 2 161

1,2 0,0 0,0 1,9 1,2 100

2 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 130*

1,5 ‐ 0,8 ‐ ‐ 100

All Nr. 76 47 34 35 41 30 25 24 12 24 4 6 1 3 2 2 1 2 ‐ 4 1 3 3 380* *+2

% 20,0 12,4 8,9 9,2 10,8 7,9 6,6 6,3 3,2 6,3 1,1 1,6 0,3 0,8 0,5 0,5 0,3 0,5 ‐ 1,1 0, 0,8 0,8 100

All Nr. 9 160 9 5 50 34 55 8 5 18 1

% 2,4 42,0 2,4 1,3 13,1 8,9 14,4 2,1 1,3 4,7 0,3

9 2 11 3 2 381

2,4 0,5 2,9 1,0 0,5 100

Don’t answer/don’t know 42.H. –Work legality

Petreşti Nr. % 62 68,9 17 18,9 7 7,8 4 4,4 90 100

Place/ Variable Permanently legal Permanently illegal In general legal, sometimes illegal In general illegal, sometimes legal Total Don’t answer/ don’t know

43. – Number of family member’s in one household Petreşti Place/ Variable

Nr.

*+1

Feldru Nr. % 89 55,3 14 8,7 43 26,7 15 9,3 161 100

Feldru

Nr.

Vladnic Nr. % 72 55,4 29 22,3 19 14,6 10 7,7 130* 100 *+1

*+1

All Nr. 223 60 69 29 381* *+1

Vladnic

Nr.

% 58,5 15,7 18,1 7,6 100

All

Nr.

3,77

4,55

10,00

5,97

15,09

19,32

10,00

15,42

37,74

28,41

21,67

28,86

20,75

22,73

20,00

21,39

13,21

14,77

11,67

13,43

3,77

3,41

13,33

6,47

5,66

2,27

5,00

3,98

‐

2,27

1,67

1,49

‐

5,00

1,49

‐

2,27

‐

1,00

‐

12 Total asked household

‐

1,67

0,50

100

201

100

Petreşti

Feldru

Vladnic

ERSTE Foundation and Babeş‐Bolyai University Cluj Napoca, Rural Sociology Research and Documentation Centre

ERSTE Questionnaire

THE EFFECTS OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION ON ROMANIAN RURAL FAMILIES

Study realized in collaboration with ERSTE Foundation In the period of 1 November 2008 ‐ 31 October 2009 The questionnaire must be filled by those people, who have one or more migrant member of their household. The asked person might be: the spouse, parent, and children who are over 17 years. The asked people were choosed coincidence. Since you fall in this sample, please answer a few questions concerning your person. The answers are volunteer and without name. The data’s will be confidential and use only for statistical purposes!

Thank you! Data for verification

Name of questioner

Nr. of household

I. Work abroad

1. Have you or anyone from your household working or had working abroad? 1. Yes 0. No Æ Stop the interview 99‐DA/DN (Don’t answer/Don’t know)

IF YES:

2. Who work abroad from your household? 0. Head of householder 3. Sister/Brother 6. Daughter/Son in law 1. Husband/Spouse 4. Parent 7.Other:__________ 2. Child 5. Sister/Brother‐in‐law 3. The fact that from your household working or had working abroad brings some changes in the following things: (Circle the answer!) 1. In your house 2. In buying goods 3. In your job 4. In business (if have, or had) 5. In relation whit (your) children 6. In family life 7. In leisure time spending 8. In your thinking 9. In your religion practice 10. In voting mode 11. In relation whit (your) neighbor, villager 12. In life strategy

0 ‐ No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 ‐ Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

99‐ DA/DN 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99

4. By who or what get the job abroad? 1. nobody 5. neighbor 2. family member 6. villager 3. kinship 7. media (TV, radio, newspaper) 4. friend 8. other way: __________ 5. In your opinion it is good or bad if somebody goes to work abroad? 1. Good

2. Bad

3. Good and bad

6. In your opinion why is good if somebody goes to work abroad? (Sort the following sentences by importance: 1‐the best... 10‐ less good!) 1. Earning money 2. Higher living conditions 3. Better material situation of the family 4. Assure a better future 5. Assure a better job 6. Assure better job possibility 7. A job possibility 8. Bring money in country (Rumania) 9. change of mentality 10. Accumulate life‐experience

7. In your opinion why is bad if somebody goes to work abroad? (Sort the following sentences by importance: 1‐ worst... 9‐ less bad!)

1. They are far away from home, from the family 2. The family destruction 3. Foreigners are using them 4. Romania is remaining without workers 5. Taking risks 6. Hard work conditions 7. Children are missing education 8. Those remaining home are suffering 9. Working a lot 8. In your opinion those who working abroad ... ( is possible only one choice!) 1. Have a better financial situation 2. Divorce easier 3. Are helping those remained home 4. Change own thinking 99. DA/DN

9. What kind of changes were taking place after migration in your family? (Sign the answer!)

1. Get better

In partner relation In children life In other members life in your family (ex. Parent)

2. Didn’t change

3. Get worse

0. Didn’t have that kind a relation

10. In your opinion, which are the majors resolving problem of Romania (Sign the answer!)

1. Very important

1. Create new jobs 2. Roads reparation 3. Construction of dwellings 4. Diminution of prices 5. Better education 6. The central institutions better function 7. The local institutions better function 8. Better health system 9. Better pension system 10. Change of mentality 11. Better justice 12. Diminution of criminality 13. Stop corruption 14. Better agriculture system

2. Important

3. Less important

4. Don’t consider important

II. The family and the household (Please answer a few questions concerning your person in order for these to be used only for statistical purposes!)

11. What is your marital status? (Circle the right answer!) 1‐ single 2‐divorced

3‐ married or in civil partnership 4‐widow 99‐ DA/DN

12. What is your nationality/ethnicity? 1‐Romanian 3‐Roma/Gypsy 2‐Hungarian 4‐Ceangău 13. What is your confession? 1‐Roman‐catholic 3‐Reformed 5‐Orthodox 2‐Greek‐catholic 4‐Unitarian 6‐ Other: __________ 14. Please tell us about the members of your household! A.

B. AGE

GENDER

C. MAIN PROFESSION

5‐Other: ________ 99‐DA/DN

99‐ DA/DN

D. LEVEL OF EDUCATION

E. RELATIONSHIP

1. managers, entrepreneurs 1. Didn’t go to school 2. intellectual professions 2. Finished between 1 and 4 years 3. technicians 3. Finished between 5 and 10 4. administrative employees classes 5. employees in services and in the 4. Finished professional school, commerce (without high‐school diploma) 6. qualified agricultural workers 5. Finished professional school, (in or outside the own (with high‐school diploma) household) 6. Vocational high school, with 7. mechanics, artificers, high‐school diploma servicepersons 7. Graduated theoretical high 8. qualified workers school, with high‐school 9. not qualified workers within the diploma non‐agricultural branch 8. Graduated agricultural high‐ 10. day‐laborer in agriculture school 11. military 9. Graduated technical high‐school 12. unemployed, retired, house‐ or college worker 10. University graduate 13. retired, ill pensioner 11. Post gradual degree 14. kindergartens, pupil, student 99. DN/NA 15. social grant for nursery 16. others 99. DN/NA

0. head of householder 1. husband /wife 2. parents /parents in‐ law 3. child 4. step child/raised temporarily 5. nephew / niece 6. brother / sister 7. grandfather / grandmother 8. son/daughter in‐law 9. sister/brother in‐law 10. uncle /aunt 11. other relative 12. no relative 99. DN/NA

WITH THE

1‐male 2‐ female

P0 interviewee

P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7

INTERVIEWEE

15. Do you have children who do not live with you in this household? A.

B. AGE

GENDER

1‐male 2‐ female

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7

C. MAIN PROFESSION 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

managers, entrepreneurs intellectual professions technicians administrative employees employees in services and in the commerce qualified agricultural workers (in or outside the own household) 7. mechanics, artificers, servicepersons 8. qualified workers 9. not qualified workers within the non‐agricultural branch 10. day‐laborer in agriculture 11. military 12. unemployed, retired, house‐worker 13. retired, ill pensioner 14. kindergartens, pupil, student 15. social grant for nursery 16. others 99. DN/NA

D. LEVEL OF EDUCATION 1. 2. 3. 4.

Didn’t go to school Finished between 1 and 4 years Finished between 5 and 10 classes Finished professional school, (without high‐school diploma) 5. Finished professional school, (with high‐school diploma) 6. Vocational high school, with high‐ school diploma 7. Graduated theoretical high school, with high‐school diploma 8. Graduated agricultural high‐ school 9. Graduated technical high‐school or college 10. University graduate 11. Post gradual degree 99. DN/NA

III. Family, relations in household, future plans

16. In your opinion how is your life comparing to the last years? (Circle the answer!) 0. Same 1. Better 2. Worst 17. How are you appreciating your family harmony comparing to the last years? 0. Same 1. Better 2. Worst 18. Did taking place any changes in your life? 1. Yes 0. No 99. DA/DN

IF YES: (If NO, look forward for question 19) 18.1. If yes, which are the causes? (One answer possible!) 9. Another familial cause 1. A family member deceases 2. Divorce 3. Somebody in our household gone 4. Somebody in our household lost the job 5. A family member illness 6. A big money income 7. A new job 8. Income from work abroad

10. Locality (or citizenship) change 11Wedding 12. Retirement 13. Child birth 14. Another cause: ____________ 99. DA/DN

19. Did something disturb your family harmony? 1. Yes 0. No 99. DA/DN IF YES: (If NO, look forward for question 20) 19.1. If yes, which are the causes? (One answer possible!) 8. Another familial cause 1. A family member deceases 9. Locality (or citizenship) change 10. Wedding 11. Another cause:____________ 12. Retirement 13. Child birth 99. DA/DN

2. Divorce 3. Somebody in our household gone 4. Somebody in our household lost the job 5. A big money income 6. A new job 7. Income from work abroad

20. Which are the next years’ plans of the family? (Several answer possible!) 8. Looking for a job 1. A new house construction 9. To look for a second job 10. To move in another village 11. To move in the city/town 12. Life style change 99. DA/DN

2. Change our house whit one better 3. Reconstruction of dwelling 4. Start a business 5. Travel abroad (tourism) 6. Agricultural areas buying 7. I whish to continued my study

21. How often …? (Sign the answer!)

1. read newspaper 2. listening radio 3. watch TV 4. read a book 5. use the internet 6. go on an excursion

1. Daily

2. Weekly

3. Monthly

4. Rarely

0. Never

22. How important is to you.…? (Sign the answer!) 1. family 2. friends 3. leisure 4. politics 5. work 6. religion

1. Very important

2. Important

3. Less important

4. Not important

23. How you appreciate your relation whit your spouse? (Sign the answer!)

0. Don’t have that kind of relation 1. Very good 2. Good

3. Less Good

4. Not good

24. In every family there are problems. In your family how often are? 0. Never 1. Very rare 2. Rare 3. Frequent 4. Very frequent 24.1. If have, from which are the cause? (Sign the answer! One answer possible) 1. Missing money 7. Distance 8. Violence 2. The attitude of children 9. False the spouse 3. Parents or parents in low 10. The home division of work 4. Drinking alcohol 11. The thinking mode is different 5. The spouse is not looking for the family 6. The spouse don’t give the money home

25. In your opinion, in one family who is responsible in your opinion for the education of children? (Sign the answer!) 1. More the mother 2. More the father 3. Both parents 4. Grandparents 5. Other person:

IV. Economies, land, household

26. In last 3 years did you spent money for the following? (Circle the answer!)

Expenses House buying House construction House reparation Car buying Land buying (for house construction) Agricultural areas buying Agricultural areas cultivation Agricultural machine buying Business founding Buying household appliances Leisure Computer buying or reparation Other: ________

0. No

1. A bare

2. A lot

3. Very much

27. If you get a higher amount of money, how plan to spend? (Circle the answer!)

0‐ No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. I will start some business 2. I will satisfied the own necessities (dwelling, car, etc.) 3. I will put in bank 4. I give to own children/grandchildren 5. I offer to the poor people 6. I offer to the church 7. I wish to emigrate

1 ‐Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

28. What expenses did your household have in last month in total?

Approximate RON (answer amount of possibility) 0. didn’t spent money

Expenses 1. Foods 2. Drinks 3. Cigarettes 4. Cleaning solutions 5. Cosmetics 6. Expenses related to the house (gas, lighting, water etc.) 7. Education (incl. private assistance) 8. Culture (book, theater, newspaper) 9. Health: hospitalization, medication etc. 10. Cloths 11. Furniture 12. Buying household appliances 13. Life assurance 14. Membership fees, rates 15. Investment of any kind (constructions etc.) 16. Agricultural production 17. Other: _______

nothing 1. 1‐50 2. 51‐100 3. 101‐200 4. 201‐300 5. 301‐400 6. 401‐500 7. 501‐600 8. 601‐700 9. 701‐800 10. 801‐900 11. 901‐1000 12. 1001‐1100 13. 1101‐1200 14. 1201‐1300 15. 1301‐1400 16. 1401‐1500 17. 1501‐1600 18. 1601‐1700 19. 1701‐1800 20. 1801‐1900 21. 1901‐2000 22. over 2001

29. Do you own or rent the following types of land at the moment? 1. Arable areas 2. Fruit, orchard 3. Pasture, meadow 4. Forest 5. Other:_______

We own (ha)

We rent(ha)

We rent out (ha)

30. How many hectares do you work and how many hectares do you leave not‐worked? 1. Arable areas 2. Fruit, orchard 3. Pasture, meadow 4. Forest 5. Other:_______

Worked

Not‐worked

31. In the last month, what quantity did you have products - produce yourself - for own consumption? (Circle the right answer!) 0. Nothing, we buy everything 1. We produced for own consumption 25% 2. We produced for own consumption 50% 3. We produced for own consumption 75% 4. We produced almost everything 32. Does your household own the following goods? (Circle the right answer!) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Consumer goods Mobile phone Car Refrigerator Colour television Video player TV‐cable or antenna Automatical washmashine Personal computer

0‐ Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 ‐No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

33. What sources of income did your household have in last month totally? (Several answer possible!) 0. Nothing 8. Rents (house, land etc.) 1. Salary, wage 9. Child allocation 2. Profits from investments, etc. 10. Help from children (ex. Work abroad) 3. Profits from interest 11. Illness pension 12. Inheritance pension 4. State pension 13. Income from day‐labouring 5. Agricultural pension 14. Income from working abroad 6. Social assistance 15. Other: ____________ 7. Selling foods and agricultural products 79

V. Must be filled by all 60 years old and over, members of the household 34. What is your marital status? (Circle the answer!) 1‐single 3‐married or living in civil partnership 2‐divorced 4‐widowed 35. Gender (Circle the answer!) 1 – Male 2‐ Female 36. Year of birth:

99‐DN/NA

37. What is your nationality/ethnicity?

1‐Romanian 3‐Rom/Gypsy 2‐Hungarian 4‐Ceangău 38. What is your confession?

5‐Other: ________ 99‐DN/NA

5‐Ortodox 6‐ Other: __________

1‐ Roman‐Catholic 2‐ Greek‐Catholic

3‐Reformed 4‐Unitarian

99‐ DA/DN

39. Do you have medical assurance? 1. Yes 0. No 99. DA/DN 40. What sources of income did you have in last month? (Several answer possible!) Source of income RON 1. State pension 2. Agricultural pension 3. Social assistance 4. Selling foods and agricultural products 5. Rents (house, land etc.) 6. Profits from investments, interest etc. 7. Child support 8. Others: ____________ 41. In what measure do you employ in the following... ?(Sign the right frequencies!) 1. Daily 2. Weekly 3. Monthly 4. Rarely Duties Take care or educate your grandchild Overseeing your grandchild Nursing the sick family members Helping about work around the house Feeding the domestic animals Help in agriculture Helping in household governance

0. Never

42. Please answer a few questions related to the work you or another member of your household has done abroad: A. GENDER 1‐male 2‐ female

P0 interviewee P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6

B. AGE

C. MAIN PROFESSION (AT HOME)

D. LEVEL OF EDUCATION

E. RELATIONSHIP

F. IN WHAT

G. TOTAL

(AT HOME)

WITH THE

COUNTRIES

NUMBER

managers, entrepreneurs intellectual professions technicians administrative employees employees in services and in the commerce 6. qualified agricultural workers (in or outside the own household) 7. mechanics, artificers, servicepersons 8. qualified workers 9. not qualified workers within the non‐agricultural branch 10. day‐labourer in agriculture 11. military 12. unemployed, retired, house‐ worker 13. retired, ill pensioner 14. kindergartens, pupil, student 15. social grant for nursery 16. others 99. DN/NA

1. Didn’t go to school 2. Finished between 1 and 4 years 3. Finished between 5 and 10 classes 4. Finished professional school, (without high‐school diploma) 5. Finished professional school, (with high‐school diploma) 6. Vocational high school, with high‐school diploma 7. Graduated theoretical high school, with high‐school diploma 8. Graduated agricultural high‐ school 9. Graduated technical high‐ school or college 10. University graduate 11. Post gradual degree 99. DN/NA

INTERVIEWEE

DID WORK?

0. head of householder 1. husband /wife 2. parents /parents in‐law 3. child 4. step child/raised temporarily 5. nephew / niece 6. brother / sister 7. grandfather / grandmother 8. son/daughter in‐ law 9. sister/brother in‐ law 10. uncle /aunt 11. other relative 12. no relative 99. DN/NA

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. Italia 2. Spain 3. Portugal 4. Germany 5. England 6. France 7. Hungary 8. Czech Republic 9. Ireland 10. Austria 11. Yugoslavia 12. Canada 13. USA 14. Dubai 15. Belgium 16. Serbia 17. Greece 18. Israel 19. Slovenia 20. Turkmenistan 21. Other 99. DN/DA (Several answer possible!)

MONTHS SPENT ANROAD?

(months number) 99. NŞ/NR

H. FIELDS OF WORK?

I. LEGALLY OR ILLEGALLY?

1. Legally all the time 2. Illegally all the time 3. Legally most of the time, sometimes illegally 4. Illegally most of the time, sometimes legally 99. DN/NA

1. Forest industry 2. Constructions 3. Transport 4. Health 5. Carrying 6. Tourism, hotel industry 7. Agriculture 8. Commerce 9. Other industry 10. Didn’t work 11. Automotive industry 12. IT 13. Textile industry 14. Day‐labourer 15. Intellectual profession 16. Other 99. NŞ/NR (Several answer possible!)

Maps International migration in 2008, rate on 10.000 inhabitant’s2

External migration of the population, in 2008. Emigration.3

2 3

Migrația externă definitive în anul 2008, INS, Bucureşti, 2009 Migrația externă definitive în anul 2008, INS, Bucureşti, 2009