Profiling of returning migrants

Identification of the areas most affected by emigration and return migration in Albania: Profiling of returning migrants

This material was prepared in the framework of the project “Support to the implementation of the Albanian National Strategy on Migration�. This project is funded by the European Union and the Italian Government and implemented by IOM and the Government of Albania.

2

Identification of the areas most affected by emigration and return migration in Albania: Profiling of returning migrants

December 2008

3

Opinions expressed in this publication do not reflect the official opinion of the European Union, Italian Government and International Organization for Migration (IOM).

IOM is not responsible for the use of the information included in this material.

IOM is committed to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society. As an intergovernmental body, IOM acts with its partners in the international community to: assist in meeting the operational challenges of migration; advance understanding of migration issues; encourage social and economic development through migration; and uphold the human dignity and well-being of migrants.

Publisher: International Organization on Migration (IOM) Rr. Brigada VIII, Vila Nr. 3 Tiranë, Shqipëri Tel:+355 42 257 836/7 Fax: +355 42 257 835 Email: iomtirana@iom.int Internet: http://www.albania.iom.int © 2009 International Organization for Migration, Albania ______________________ All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

4

Acknowledgements In 2007, the Institute of Public Opinion Studies (ISOP) undertook an initiative to examine the phenomenon of Albanian migration, in particular some of its core processes: internal, international, and return migration. This project was made possible by an ongoing partnership with several organizations and a series of consultations with experts in the field. Our special thanks go to the staff of the International Organization for Migration involved in the implementation of the project “Support to the implementation of the Albanian National Strategy on Migration� for their instrumental guidance and insightful feedback throughout the process. Their input was vital through every phase of the research: from conceptualization and research question formulation, to generation of findings and recommendations. We would also like to thank in particular Ms Fiona Todhri, for her invaluable support in planning and implementing this study.

This study would not have been accomplished without the support and special expertise of the experts from the Institute of Statistics (INSTAT), Dr. Ines Nurja, Director, Ledia Thomo, Aida Guxho, Ervin Shameti, and Lantona Sado.

The staff of the Institute of Public Opinion Studies is also grateful to the team of interviewers who spent endless hours interviewing and gathering information across the country. Finally, this study is dedicated to the countless individuals and their families who shared their migratory experiences with us. Their stories are powerful and a guiding compass in the preparation of this report.

Sincerely, Edmond Dragoti, Ph.D. Denada Hoxha, M.A., Doctoral Candidate

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction................................................................................................................9 I.1. Migration: Key Concepts and Definitions...........................................................9 I.2. Tracing the Flows of Migration..........................................................................10

II. Aims of the Study......................................................................................................10

III. Methodology.............................................................................................................11 IV. Findings Emerging from Desk Research..................................................................13 IV . 1. Internal Migration in Albania.........................................................................13 IV. 2. Albanian International Migration....................................................................14

IV.2.1. Albanian Migration Before 1945...........................................................14

IV.2.2. Migration during Socialism....................................................................15

IV. 2.3. Contemporary Albanian Migration (1990 and Beyond).......................16

IV.3. Return Migration.......................................................................................18

IV.4. Conclusions Emerging from Desk Research.............................................20 V. Findings Emerging from the Household Survey.......................................................20 V.1. Internal Migration..............................................................................................20

V.1.1. Internal Migration across Prefectures......................................................20

V.1.2. Trends in Internal Migration over the Years...........................................21

V.1.3. Migration before 1990.............................................................................21 V.2. International Migration......................................................................................22

V.2.1. Destination Countries..............................................................................22

V.2.2. Reasons for Leaving (Push Factors)........................................................23

V.2.3. Distribution of Push Factors across Dstination Countries.......................23

V.2.4. Reasons for Choosing Destination Countries (Pull Factors)...................24

V.2.5. Distribution of Pull Factors by Destination Countries............................24

V.2.6. Pull Factors across Different Age Groups...............................................25

V.2.7. Ways of Departure to Destination Countries...........................................25

V.2.8. Sources of Help during Migration Process..............................................26

V.2.9. Regular and Irregular Status in Destination Countries............................26

V.2.10. Ways of Obtaining Migration................................................................27

V.2.11. Ways of Obtaining Migration and Status in Destination Countries.......27

V.2.12. Average Duration of International Migration........................................27

V.2.13. Forms of Exploitation............................................................................28

V.2.14. Perceptions of Exploitation and Country of Destination.......................28

V.2.15. Perceptions of Exploitation and Gender................................................29

V.2.16. Level of Education and Perceptions of Exploitation in Host Countries..29

V.2.17. Remittances and their Frequency during Migration..............................29

V.2.18. Perceived Importance of Remittances...................................................30

V.3. Return Migration........................................................................................30 6

V.3.1. Perceptions about Temporary Stay in the Country of Origin..................30 V.3.2. Perceptions about Long-Term Migration Abroad....................................31 V.3.3.Perceptions on Return Migration..............................................................32 V.3.4. Considering Permanent Return................................................................32 V.3.5. Factors that Influence Permanent Return.................................................33 V.3.6. Difficulties Experienced Upon Return.....................................................34 V.3.7. Assistance Received and Forms of Return...............................................34 V.3.8. Types of Assistance Received and Types of Return................................34 V.3.9. Relationship between Time Spent away from Home and Aspirations to Return..............................................................................35 V.3.10. Perceptions about Policies that Facilitate Return and Reintegration.....35 V.4. Summary of Findings .......................................................................................36 V.4.1. Geographical Distributions of Internal, International, and Return Migration...............................................................................36 V.4.2. Profiles across Internal, International, and Return Migratory Experiences..........................................................37

VI. Recommendations Emerging from Findings............................................................39 VII. References................................................................................................................42 VIII. Appendixes............................................................................................................44

7

8

I. Introduction I.1. Migration: Key Concepts and Definitions International migration is a multidimensional phenomenon that has diverse economic, social and environmental implications for both destination and source countries. Similarly, internal migration affects patterns of population distribution within the country. Both international and internal migration impact regional growth and sustainable development within and across the countries involved in these processes.

Migration remains a complex phenomenon that has affected Albania for many decades. Several studies have been undertaken to examine the pervasiveness of international migration in the aftermath of the fall of communism in early 1990s. It has been estimated (Van der Pol, 1992) that between 1989 and March of 1992, 220,000 Albanians left the country and this estimate increased to 300,000 by the end of 1992. According to INSTAT (2004), 700,000 Albanians left the country during 19892001 and in 2005, the number of emigrants increased to 864,485, representing 27.5% of the total population (World Bank, 2005).

This report attempts to provide a brief overview of the recent dynamics of Albanian migration, focusing primarily on the last two decades. More specifically, the report attempts to uncover the characteristics of three aspects of Albanian migration: internal, international, and return migration.

Before attempting to summarize existing literature, we offer some definitions of migration (internal, international, return) and highlight some of the methods commonly used to measure population movements within and across borders.

The term internal migration is used to describe the process of movement of individuals relocating from one area (a province, district or municipality) to another within one country (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, UNESCO). Another definition of internal migration is offered by the International Organization Migration (IOM) in its 2007 Migration Glossary, a publication of key terms and concepts frequently used in migration literature. According to this document, internal migration is viewed as “individuals’ movement from one region to another with the intention to settle in a new location. Internal migration may be temporary or permanent.

Internal migrants are mobile within the borders of their country of origin (for example rural-urban migration)” (IOM, 2007, p.35). Throughout this report, internal migration among other key concepts is conceptualized according to IOM’s standards.

An international migrant is defined as any person who changes his or her country of residence (United Nations Recommendations on Statistics of International Migration, UN RSIM). Furthermore, when taking the duration of migration into account, two subsets of this definition emerge. Firstly, a “longterm migrant” moves to a country other than that of his or her usual residence for a period of at least one year (12 months). Thus, the country of destination effectively becomes his or her new country of residence. From the perspective of the country of departure, the person will be a long-term emigrant and from the country of arrival, the person will be a long-term immigrant. Conversely, a “short-term migrant” is a person ”who moves to a country for a period of at least 3 months but less than a year (12 months) except in cases where the movement to that country is for purposes of recreation, holidays, visits to friends and relatives, business, medical treatment or religious pilgrimage” (UN RSIM, 1998, p.18). Throughout this study, international migration is also viewed according to the IOM Migration Glossary (IOM, 2007). According to this document, international migration refers to individuals’ movement from their country of origin, or their common place of residence, to another destination and this relocation involves crossing of international boundaries. Furthermore, international migration can be temporary or permanent (p.36).

9

The construct of return migration refers to an emigrant’s move back to the country of origin, after residing for a minimum of one year in another country. Furthermore, return migration pertains to both regular and irregular migrants and includes voluntary and forced return in the country of origin (Hulst, Laczko, & Barthel, 2003). A similar definition is found in the IOM Migration Glossary (IOM, 2007) which views return migration as a person’s return to his or her country of origin, or usual place of residence, after residing for at least one year in another country. Return migration also includes voluntary return (p. 62). When focusing on return migration, the concept of re-integration becomes very important in understanding the manifest and underlying realities of this phenomenon.

Reintegration is commonly understood as a complex phenomenon comprised of individual, social, economic, cultural, and subjective factors.

These definitions offer key features that should be taken into account when examining the state of migration in Albania. This study is anchored on several characteristics of Albanian migration such as onset, duration, and trajectories of population movements over the years.

I.2. Tracing the Flows of Migration One way of looking at influences of migration on a country’s demographic indices is to examine population changes over the years. There are several sources yielding different types of information about population changes. Population registers, compiled to record the resident population at commune and municipality level, allow a track of migration flows. The main limitation of this information source, is its reliability. In the case of Albania, the system is not computerized and it therefore does not reflect rapid population changes that occurred in-between reporting periods from the commune/municipality level to the central system. Other sources of information are administrative records, population censuses, and surveys. For example, Albania’s National Institute of Statistics (INSTAT) spearheaded the 2001 census in Albania and data emerging from this endeavor is often used as a source of information in this report. When it comes to internal migration, the Living Standards Measurement Surveys (LSMSs) assesses the prevalence of this phenomenon. A recent LSMS was conducted by INSTAT in 2005 using data from three regions of Albania: North (including prefectures of Shkoder, Kukes, Diber), Central/Coastal (prefectures of Tirana, Durres, Lezhe, Fier, Elbasan) and South (prefectures of Berat, Gjirokaster, Korce, and Vlora). Information gathered at regional level is helpful in identifying trends and patterns, similarities and differences in within and between regions. Household surveys gather information about the presence and the impact of migration at household level. Despite its limitations (identification and accessibility, subjectivity, recall bias, underreporting, etc), household survey offer ample information describing the magnitude of migration at macro and micro levels.

Several studies have been undertaken to examine the depth and the magnitude of internal and international migration in Albania (IOM, 2007; Vullnetari, 2007; Carletto et al., 2004). More recently, research has focused on the impact of international migration, such as socio-cultural changes in societal levels, remittances, psychological impact of migration among children and youth, and the return of migrants in their country of origin (IOM 2006; IOM 2007; ETF, 2007). Other studies have focused on profiling returnees and the impact of repatriation on their families and the larger context (IOM, 2006). These studies have highlighted a shift in perceptions of migration among Albanians, who view migration not only as a survival strategy but also as a source of opportunity and development. This shift also explains the increased interest in examining the phenomenon of return migration in Albania.

II. Aims of the Study The overall objective of the study was to depict the characteristics of international and internal migration in Albania and identify the areas most affected by these phenomena. Furthermore, the study sought to identify push and pull factors that led to decisions to migrate and return, among respondents in the sample. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used to gather information on the 10

profiles of internal, international, and return migration. The demographic profile was considered a vital component of the study because it offers rich data about the characteristics of individuals who pursue different forms of migration, including age, education, marital status, geographic location, remittances, and perceptions about migration including return. The tendency to re-emigrate was also assessed. Findings emerging from desk research and field-based components of the study are used to draw conclusions and draft recommendations about strategies and interventions that can facilitate return migration processes.

III. Methodology This study was based on a two-fold goal. First, to identify and review relevant literature accumulated on the topic of Albanian migration. Secondly, to answer some research questions deriving from the desk research phase, through a household survey approach. The field-based portion of the study sought to outline a profile of the returned migrants and identify key characteristics of this cluster of migration, such as reasons for return, migration experiences, and reintegration opportunities upon return.

The combination of desk research and household survey methodologies allows triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data, offering a better understanding of Albanian migration and allowing the generation of conclusions and recommendations from findings.

In addition to its advantages, the selected methodology for this study has its own limitations. For example, both surveys and focus groups were conducted concurrently and the researchers did not have the opportunity to examine findings from one approach (i.e. household surveys) before finalizing the protocol for the other (i.e. the focus group). Another limitation pertains to the nature of the household survey, it provides rich information about the prevalence of a phenomenon (i.e. distribution of internal/ international migration across regions) but it does not explore in depth the underlying reasons that lead to processes of migration. In other words, the information gathered is descriptive in nature and does not offer opportunities to draw causal or correlation inferences.

Despite the limitations, the combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches offers opportunities to overcome the challenges arising from using one methodology alone. Furthermore, in addition to the field research (i.e. household surveys and focus groups); the study included a strong component of literature review that preceded the data collection phase.

The desk research phase of the study attempted to identify relevant literature on Albanian migration and developed a database of reports and studies already existing on the phenomenon. Desk research activities consisted of identifying and gathering relevant reports and materials generated by Albanian governmental entities (i.e. Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs), public institutions (e.g. INSTAT) and international agencies (e.g. International Organization for Migration, World Bank, United Nations Development Programme).

The field-based section of the study used a household survey approach to gather information on three major phenomena: internal migration, international migration, and return migration. The survey used a comprehensive questionnaire comprised of four modules: (1) demographics, (2) internal migration, (3) international migration and (4) return migration. Additionally, a focus group approach was used to understand the experiences among return migrants and to develop an in-depth profile of return migration.

The sampling phase of the survey used two parameters: primary selection units (PSUs), and households within those units, respectively (Table 1). Primary selection units were selected based on the demographic indices of each prefecture (n=12) and they were adjusted to be approximately equal in terms of number of households. Selection of these units reflected rural-urban ratios, gender, and age characteristics of each prefecture that they represented.

11

After identification of primary selection units, the study proceeded to identify households within these units. This process was based on random selection with 10 households representing each PSU. Inclusion criteria for this study consisted of selecting households where the head of the family and other family members had migrated abroad and/or recently returned home.

Table 1: Selection of Primary Selection Units (PSUs) Across Prefectures Urban Total Prefectures

Berat Diber Durres Elbasan Fier Gjirokaster Korce Kukes Lezhe Shkoder Tirane Vlore

Percentage

5.48% 4.61% 9.51% 10.87% 11.83% 3.30% 8.14% 2.56% 5.00% 7.82% 24.32% 6.57%

Number of PSUs

8 6 13 15 17 5 11 4 7 11 34 9

Percentage

2.28% 0.87% 5.46% 4.01% 3.89% 1.38% 3.32% 0.58% 1.6% 3.08% 17.74% 3.84%

Number of PSUs

4 3 7 6 6 2 4 2 3 4 25 5

Rural Percentage

3.21% 3.74% 4.04% 6.87% 7.94% 1.91% 4.82% 1.98% 3.40% 4.73% 6.58% 2.74%

Number of PSUs

4 3 6 9 11 3 7 2 5 7 9 4

Interviews were conducted with the head of household and when that person was absent (i.e. living abroad) then interviews were conducted with other family members. Questions about international, internal, and return migration were put to all members of the household participating in the study.

Selection of participants in the study was based on random sampling, specifically, the random route household selection method, allowing for a homogenous representation of all PSUs in the country.

This sampling method reflected the following criteria: geographic location (mountainous, coastal, central, and Tirana); age (adult individuals); gender, family income, (low/middle/upper class) and social status.

Twenty-six trained interviewers from the Institute of Public Opinion Studies (ISOP) administered questionnaires. Four supervisors monitored the fieldwork of the project that took place over four weeks. Interviewers met with supervisors upon completion of interviews, to discuss issues arising from the interview. Discussions and debriefings were provided as needed.

The overall sample of the study consisted of 1,400 households yielding a total number of 2417 respondents. The respondents were the head of household or, when that person was absent (i.e. living abroad), then the respondent was another family member. Initially, family members were interviewed about experiences of migration among their relatives and neighbors but this source of information was removed from the analysis given the large sample that was obtained from head of households and immediate family members alone. The analysis phase of the study was based on 1,400 households with a 5% margin of error allowing placement of 95% confidence intervals around the obtained estimates from data analyses. Data was entered, cleaned, and analyzed using a statistical software package, (SPSS, version 15.00).

The field phase of the study took place over a two-month period (February-April 2008) and data entry was completed by May 2008. The preparation of this report started in late summer of 2008 and this document has undergone several revisions upon consultations with local experts in the field of Albanian migration.

The following sections reflect findings that emerged from the desk research and household surveys, respectively.

12

IV. Findings Emerging from Desk Research IV. 1. Internal Migration in Albania During the second half of the 1990s, Albania experienced internal population movements contributing to overall demographic changes in the country. Carletto et al. (2004) define internal mobility based on the movements of the head of household. Their 2004 study concluded that two thirds of household heads were living in their municipality of birth. Whereas 22% of their sample of heads of household reported moving to a new municipality before 1990, with a smaller percentage (12%) moving after 1990.

Other research gathered on internal migration, considers those individuals who have changed their prefecture of residency during 1989-2001 (INSTAT, 2004). Long-term internal migration (birth-2000) is more difficult to examine because of insufficient information, such as migrants’ biographical data.

Studies on internal migration have shown that the majority of the population is young, with 46% of internal migrants being under 30yo. Only 6% of internal migrants belong to the retired age group (INSTAT, 2004). When it comes to gender, 54% of individuals migrating within the country are female; although this statistic changes across age (more females migrate at an earlier age, compared to their male counterparts).

Some of the reasons to explain this trend pertain to the availability employment possibilities for young females in urban areas and gender-based tradition such as the lack of prospects for property inheritance in rural areas, etc. (INSTAT, 2004). However, gender distributions in internal migration can also be attributed to the fact that females tend to prefer short-term and internal migration, whereas their male counterparts choose long-term, and multiple migrations ranging from internal to international. This recent migration trend makes it harder to capture the true population of males in studies that examine internal migration in Albania.

Family-based migration is another characteristic of internal migration in Albania. According to INSTAT (2004), in 2001 10% of children between ages 0 and 4 lived in a prefecture different from that in which they lived in 1989. This phenomenon has largely affected children in rural and remote areas of the country.

When examining internal migration in Albania, it is important to examine several factors such as demographics and employment status. Despite the fact that the majority of internal migrants (84%) is relatively young (15yo-64yo), only 60% of this population works (INSTAT, 2004). Furthermore, unemployment rates are higher among females (41%) than males (23%). Women who manage to obtain jobs after migrating to a new area within the country belong to two age subgroups: (15-19yo) and (40-49yo). The former find jobs that do not require formal training and skills, whereas the latter group is comprised of women who have formal and advanced training.

An estimated 900,000 internal migrations occurred in 1991, as the country underwent significant changes while transitioning from a socialist to a democratic system (INSTAT, 2004). According to a household registration conducted in 2001, the population in rural areas decreased by 13%. Prior to this, the rural population was characterized by increasing levels (20%). According to INSTAT (2004), internal migration can be examined via two dimensions: space and time. The former pertains to migration occurring within and/or across regions, prefectures, and districts. The latter refers to internal migration occurring from date of birth until 2000, from 1989 to 2001, and 2000 until 2001.

When this temporal dimension is taken into account, it can be noted that short-term (2000-2001) and mid-term forms of internal migration (1989-2001) are interrelated.

According to population and household registration that took place in 2000, 5.7% of the population (182,600) relocated from one region to another between 1989 and 2001. Destinations of migration 13

were central regions (prefectures of Durres and Tirana) and coastal regions (prefectures of Vlore, Fier, and Lezhe). The Northeast and Southeast regions were minimally affected by internal population movements. For example, during the period 1989-2001, internal migration in Central Albania was 44 times higher than in the Northeastern region and 13 times higher than in Southeastern regions (INSTAT, 2004).

Four trends can be identified with inter-regional population movement:

(1) Individuals leaving north and northeastern regions (prefectures of Kukes and Dibra)

and moving to central regions.

(2) Individuals from various parts of the country (prefectures of Berat, Korce, Elbasan,

Gjirokaster,

Shkoder) moving toward the center of the country.

(3) Individuals from secondary coast regions (prefectures of Fier, Vlore, Lezhe) moving

toward the central regions.

(4) Individuals from various central parts of the country migrating to secondary coastal

regions. (INSTAT: 2004).

Some internal migration is attributable to poverty and lack of opportunities for economic growth in source areas. For example, 40% of families in Kukes (Northeastern region) received social welfare, whereas the national average of the welfare index was 12% (INSTAT, 2000).

Tirana ranks first as a host prefecture followed by Durres, Fier, and Vlora. According to population registration conducted in 2001, 72% of individuals migrated internally to Tirana and Durres (INSTAT, 2004). The population in these two prefectures increased by 41% and 12%, respectively. Furthermore, in 2001 30% of the entire population lived in these two regions, as opposed to 23% in 1989.

This complex and often unregulated and chaotic internal migration has been characterized by low levels of integration between host and newcomer communities, disequilibrium in infrastructure (water, electricity, roads), and education and health care systems. Additionally, more research is needed better to understand the impact of internal migration upon source communities and the influences of internal migration on family subsystems, particularly, spousal, parental, and sibling subsystems.

As opposed to international remittances, little is known about the phenomenon of internal remittances.

Findings of research have shown that internal remittances are minimal, (Castaldo & Reilly, 2007 as cited in Vullnetari, 2007). One interpretation of these findings is that internal migrants are commonly employed in low-paying jobs, leaving little scope for remittance. Alternatively, low levels of remittance may be explained by the fact that Albanian internal migration tends to be more permanent and involves the entire family unit rather than the individual.

IV. 2. Albanian International Migration IV.2.1. Albanian Migration Before 1945 Albanian migration pre-1945s is characterized by influxes of population movement within and across the borders. Barjaba et al. (1992) provide a comprehensive analysis of migration based on books and accounts accumulated from scientific scholarly work, as well as journals and personal reflections of travelers who visited the country. Migration prior to 1945 was characterized by economic factors (i.e. individuals migrating as seasonal workers, traders, religious missionaries) and political factors (individuals recruited and those who joined the armed forces in different wars across the Balkan region). Vullnetari (2007) provides a thorough review of early mass migrations of Albanians primarily in Italy (i.e. Sicily and Southern Italy in 1444-1468) and Greece (islands of Eubea, Hydra, and adjacent inland territories) during the 14th and 15th centuries. Some of the factors leading to massive 14

population movements pertain to the Ottoman rule and resistance against its occupation. This resistance resulted in Albanians leaving their country and settling North (Dalmatian coast) and South (Greece).

Additionally, poverty, low standards of living in rural areas, exploitation of farmers, a heavy taxation system, almost non-existent health care and education systems, wars, and the prolonged Ottoman occupation, all collectively explain the massive migration waves during these years (Vullnetari, 2007). During 1468-1506, an estimated 200,000 Albanians fled the country, representing one quarter of the entire population at that time (Barjaba et al., 2002; Vullnetari, 2007).

Opponents of Ottoman rule and political activists feared persecution and oppression during the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of 20th century. The result was a significant number of migrants fleeing the country and seeking refuge and exile in neighboring countries, as well as in other parts of Western Europe, the United States of America, Argentina, and Australia.

Changing borders, as the result of the treaties of the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) also caused forced migration, resulting in internal displacement of individuals from South to Coastal regions (Durham, 2001) and crossing borders and establishing new settlements in Turkey (the case of Chameria) and North America. Internal population movement occurred within regions and coastal cities attracted people from surrounding areas. Two dimensions characterized internal migration: rural-rural and rural-urban movements (Vullnetari, 2007; Carletto et al., 2004; Tirta, 1999). Tirta (1999) noted that the Southern and Southeastern parts of Albania were most affected by migration, although statistics from the North were scarce and hard to obtain. An estimated 100,000 Albanians emigrated abroad between 1923 and 1925. This figure corresponds to 13% of the entire population in 1945 (UNDP Albania, 2000.) According to INSTAT (2004), 110,000 Albanians left the country from 1923 to 1939, primarily for reasons of economic and political instability. Furthermore, 19,000 Albanians left the country during 1940-1945 due to their opposition to the rule of the communist party.

In summary, migration of Albanians prior to 1945 was complex and influenced by an interplay of political and economic factors. Massive waves of migration led to a significant shrinkage of the population and established some of the ongoing features of the current migration situation in Albania, such as multiple migration paths and internal population movements. Understanding the early Albanian migration phenomenon can aid our understanding of the antecedents of recent migration and potentially explain and predict the current trajectory of Albanian migration.

IV.2.2. Migration during Socialism Following World War II, Albania underwent significant political changes and remained a communist and later a socialist country for over four decades. Between 1945 and 1990, international migration was banned and internal population movement was rigidly controlled and planned. Rural-rural migration remained pervasive during the first five years, reflecting agrarian reform of the time and urban population growth emerged only in 1950-1955 (Berxholli, 2000). This increase in urban population was attributed to rural-urban migration and new administrative changes, resulting from industries emerging in the new urban areas (UNDP Albania, 2000).

During the 1960s, there was a plateau of rural-urban demographic shifts, attributed to new reforms undertaken by the authorities in an attempt to retain rural populations by launching minimal urbanization policies. The attempts to equilibrate the quality of life in urban and rural areas failed as socio-economic indicators remained worse in rural areas. Nevertheless, the authorities managed to stall rural-urban migration in 1960s and internal movements were highly regulated and occurred only within regions (intra-regional migration). In her comprehensive review of Albanian migration, Vullnetari (2007) noted that the majority of internal migrants were young individuals (19-30yo), male, skilled, and semi-skilled. Censuses taken between 1979 and 1989 reveal a tendency for women to migrate into urban areas, seeking the better education and employment that was only available there.

15

As mentioned earlier, international movement during the socialist era was banned. However, the borders with Former Yugoslavia and Greece were somewhat permeable during the early and mid 1950s and 1960s. Those who managed safely to cross the borders were temporarily sent to refugee camps in Greece, Italy, or Former Yugoslavia and later moved to final destinations in Western Europe (i.e. France, Belgium) or Northern America (U.S.A). As the Albanian authorities monitored borders more closely, crossing became more dangerous and difficult and the incidence more sporadic. Those caught, were accused of betraying their homeland, and received punishment ranging from internal exile, to lifetime imprisonment.

IV. 2.3. Contemporary Albanian Migration (1990 and Beyond) The most recent migratory wave began in 1990 and remains a dynamic and complex process. It should be noted that there is ample literature available on this topic, due to myriad of studies that have been undertaken. Conversely, as mentioned earlier, literature on Albanian migration prior to the 1990s remains scarce and limits full exploration of the phenomenon. Pastore (1992) organizes the major emigration moments in contemporary Albanian emigration into four stages: (1) the stage of protestmigration (1990), (2) the stage of uncontrollable migration (1991-1992), (3) the stage of “sensible migration” (1993-1996) and (4) the stage of flight migration (1997), (as cited in Carletto et al., 2004).

Several studies have been undertaken to examine the pervasiveness of Albanian international migration in the aftermath of the fall of communism in early 90s. It has been estimated (Van der Pol, 1992) that between 1989 and March of 1992 that 220,000 Albanians left the country and this number had increased to 300,000 by the end of 1992. Another estimate, offered by INSTAT, suggests that 250,000 Albanians lived abroad during this timeframe; this statistic does not include seasonal workers working in Greece (as cited by INSTAT, 2004).

This first wave of migration slowed during stabilization of the political and economic situation (19921995), characterized by a decrease in unemployment (12%) and inflation rates (<10%) and increasing GDP growth rates (from -7.2% to 9% in 1993-1996) (Carletto et al., 2004). However, this economic growth and stability was short-lived and the fall of pyramid “saving” schemes in 1996 paved the way to another migration wave. It should be noted that the “saving” schemes vaguely resembled a credit system, largely sustained by international remittances. Albanians who tried to leave in the aftermath of the fall of the schemes and the subsequent civil unrest were repatriated and Greek and Italian border controls were significantly reinforced.

Different sources offer varying estimates of the number of Albanian emigrants during these years.

Albanian immigrants with a residence (and work) permit in Italy were estimated at 164,000 in 2001 (Bonifazi & Sabatoni as cited in Carletto et al., 2004). Albanians in Greece were estimated at between 800,000 and 1 million (OECD, 2002), based upon the number of applications for legal residence and those who obtained work permits (858,000 in 2001) (Carletto, et al., 2004).

Similarly, the Return and Readmission Report (IOM, 2006) identifies and describes flows and patterns in Albanian migration, acknowledging that between 1946-1991 international migration was almost non-existent. The first migration flow took place in 1991-1992 when 24,000 Albanians fled to Italy and emigrants represented 9-11% of the total population by 1995. The second flow (1997-1998) coincided with the fall of the pyramid schemes and civil unrest, causing another migration wave of Albanians to EU countries (30,000 migrants in Italy; 40,000 in Greece). However, the majority of migrants during this migration wave were repatriated (HLWG, 2003 as cited in IOM, 2006, chapter 1). After this wave of repatriation, Italian and Greek border controls were significantly reinforced. The economy recovered rapidly after the fall of the pyramid schemes and again, this recovery is primarily attributed to the remittances of emigrants living and working abroad. Remittances have played an important role in the recovery of Albania’s economy after the fall of the “pyramid schemes” and beyond. According to a report compiled by IOM (2006), the value of remittances is three times as high as foreign net direct 16

investments and nearly twice as much as the developmental aid received by Albania’s government.

The third migration wave (1998-1999) occurred during the Kosovo crisis that led to many Kosovars seeking refuge in Albania. An estimated influx of 500,000 Kosovars again changed Albania’s demographic landscape although this was a temporary state of disequilibrium. After a brief stay in Albania, many Kosovars sought refuge in other countries in Western Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia. Albanians also attempted to migrate presenting themselves as Kosovars.

Albanian migration during this time is considered “invisible” (IOM, 2006; Vullnetari 2007) because the Albanian authorities were less involved in tracking the effects of this wave of migration.

In subsequent years (2006 and beyond) migration became more difficult for Albanians (enforcement of boundary crossing rules and regulations) and the last flow of international migration pertains to Albanians moving from initial destination countries (i.e. Italy, Greece) to other countries, predominantly the United Kingdom, United States, and Canada. In a recent Migration Profile Report (IOM, 2007) the countries of Greece and Italy are identified as primary destination countries (434,810 migrants in 2003 and 348,813 migrants in 2006, respectively). Other countries that rank high are the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Germany.

Additionally, Albania’s international migration can be examined by the core push and pull factors that characterize the phenomenon. In his 2004 article, Barjaba identifies unemployment and poverty as the primary push factors influencing decisions and migratory experiences. Other push factors offered by the existing literature include poor living conditions, lack of individual safety and political safety (De Sotto et al., 2002; Hope for the future 2006). Conversely, hope for a better future and prospects in host countries are key pull factors influencing international migratory experiences. The prospects sought range from education, employment, to overall quality of living for the individual migrant and his or her family (King & Vullnetari, 2003; Barjaba, 2004).

Remittances represent a central feature of Albanian international migration. Studies focusing on remittances are based on several sources such as the National Bank of Albania and several formal and informal outlets such as banks, Western Union, family friends, and relatives (IOM, 2006, World Bank, 2005; Vullnetari, 2007, Gedeshi et al., 2003). It is estimated that between 1992 and 2003 remittances ranged from US$ 200 million to US$ 800 million annually (IOM 2005), although there is a widespread belief that these figures are underestimates. Estimates that are more accurate are hard to obtain. During the early ‘90s, remittances were monetary and in-kind, with the latter comprising items such as clothing, furniture, and appliances. However, during the past decade remittances have been mostly monetary. When examining the trend of remittances, an increase can be noted during 1992-1996, a decline in 1997 during the fall of the pyramid schemes and again an increase afterwards, reaching an estimated US$ 1 billion in 2004 and representing 10% to 20% of the country’s overall GDP (Vullnetari, 2007). Largely, these estimates surpass foreign investments, international aid, revenues generated from export and other similar indices. Overall, remittances have played a crucial role in Albania’s economy, in particular preventing and reducing the poverty.

A very interesting finding comes from King et al. (2006) study who revealed gender differences in remittances among senders and recipients. Their findings suggested that male partners of the migrant family send the majority of remittances and the male head of the household in Albania receives them.

This finding can be partially explained by the Albanian tradition in which the woman, who gets married, merges her income with her husband’s, who ultimately manages the household’s income (as cited in Vullnetari, 2007). However, this finding should be interpreted with caution and could be sample specific since participants in this study were Albanians from the North, who migrated in the United Kingdom.

Recipient families and individuals use remittances for a variety of purposes. Some remittances are used to improve the home, renovating, and remodeling. Other remittances are used for traditional and religious rituals, education and covering various expenses (i.e. emergencies, medical treatment) 17

(Balliu, 2007; King & Vullnetari, 2003). Some studies suggest that there are differences in remittance use between urban and rural households, with the former emphasizing education over house renovation and the latter using remittances to pay off debt and for savings and investment. In her comprehensive report, Vullnetari (2007) describes the trajectory of remittance use through several phases. During the first phase, the money covers core expenses and is used to improve living conditions. In the following phase, money is invested in other ways, such as building a new home close to the parents’ home. Research has also shown usage of remittances for investment purposes, opening familyowned businesses such as stores, bars, restaurants, hotels, and mid-size enterprises such as factories, retail, and farming (Kule et al., 2002).

In summary, conclusions:

•

•

•

•

a review of existing literature on Albanian international migration, leads to several The phenomenon predominantly affects the working-age young population and is more prevalent among males.

Migratory experiences are influenced by factors such as unemployment, poverty, lack of individual and collective safety (push factors) as well as economic, educational, and aspirations for a better quality of life (pull factors).

International migration can emerge as an individual undertaking and later become a family-based phenomenon, where family members join the individual migrant after an initial period of living abroad.

Remittances are a key characteristic of Albanian migration, its resources influencing the immediate well-being of family members and indirectly the local economy.

IV.3. Return Migration Over the years, return migration has emerged as another phenomenon within Albanian migration.

Return migration can result from changes in various contexts, such as the reasons for migrating (push factors), the individual migrant (i.e. the individual has worked and saved while living abroad and is now thinking of starting a business at home), or the family context (i.e. family reunification is impossible and the individual migrant decides to return home). These factors are often considered to influence voluntary return (Hope for the future, 2006). On the other hand, return experiences can also stem from negative migratory outcomes, such as a failure to obtain regular status in destination countries, forced return, or deportation because of readmission agreements or return practices in the source country (IOM, 2006). According to IOM (2006), prospective returnees may decide to move to big cities upon their return instead of returning to their hometowns. This decision may be explained by the additional opportunities available in larger urban communities. Additionally, a typology of return migrants can be developed based on migrants’ experiences during their migratory experiences abroad. For example, returnees can be classified as potential investors, skilled migrants, or without a profession upon return (IOM, 2006). Accordingly, strategies that facilitate return experiences should be differently tailored depending on the needs of the individuals in each category.

Despite the variability of factors leading to voluntary or involuntary forms of migration, there is wide consensus in the literature about the importance of facilitating re-integration experiences. King (2000) points out that reintegration experiences include objective and subjective factors. Objective factors include indices such as the number of returnees who obtain a job after returning home, returnees who access vocational training opportunities, those who start their own business, etc. On the other hand, subjective factors include returnees’ perceptions of return, their adjustment experiences in the country of origin, and their outlook on temporary or permanent stay in Albania (IOM, 2006, King, 2000).

Return migration in Albania has many of the features mentioned above. It includes both voluntary and involuntary dimensions and experiences of return are considered along a continuum ranging from positive to negative. Regardless of return migratory experience (i.e. voluntary, forced), there is 18

a wide consensus that return migration should be a facilitated process by government and civil society structures. IOM in Albania has played a pivotal role in facilitating the return and reintegration of Albanians over the years, under various initiatives funded by the British Home Office1 as well as the European Commission 2.

Despite emerging research on this phenomenon, return migration remains an understudied area in Albanian migration literature. Undocumented Albanian migrants, particularly those living in Italy and Greece, were more exposed to return than their documented counterparts. Those who were forced to return, attempted to cross the border multiple times and often within short time intervals. In 2004, an estimated 30,000 Albanian migrants returned after failing to achieve proper documentation (legal status) in host countries (IOM, 2005).

In an attempt to profile irregular migrants and potential returnees to Albania, IOM (2004) highlights four push factors that lead to international migratory experiences in the first place:

(1) general insecurity in country of origin;

(2) economic hardship;

(3) political reasons; and

(4) poor standard of living in country of origin.

From a sample of 68 Albanian migrants participating in this study, only 21% viewed return as a positive step, whereas 16 percent were indifferent to the possibility. The study highlighted three reasons for Albanian migrants to consider the possibility of return:

(1) acceptable living standards,

(2) secure employment and

(3) acceptable level of security.

Similar studies have indicated the presence of a relationship between perceptions of success and willingness to return, implying that stronger perceptions of achievement are positively related to willingness to return. In addition to individual factors, societal factors also influence this relationship, such as meanings ascribed to the return phenomenon in host and source societies. When return is viewed as a personal failure, the individual immigrant is less prone to consider return as a possibility.

Therefore, an emphasis on mass information campaigns and reintegration assistance programs to foster positive feelings and expectations among potential returnees, would buffer the negative effects of stereotypes of return migration.

In summary, literature already existing on Albaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s return migration phenomenon indicates that return migration can result from

(a) the voluntary decision of the individual;

(b) the individual decision if coupled with an assisted voluntary program; or

(c) the individual if forced to return (IOM, 2003).

Furthermore, return decisions can stem from various reasons, such as failure to obtain regular status in destination countries, personal and family reasons (i.e. health, feeling homesick, etc.).

Secondly, upon return, migrants can still face the obstacles they experienced prior to migration abroad, such as unemployment and economic difficulties. These factors can influence decisions about temporary or permanent return, making return migration a time-sensitive phenomenon in Albania.

Thirdly, not all return migrants receive assistance from governmental and non-governmental programs. When assistance is available, it facilitates reintegration experiences in both subjective (i.e. adjustment) and objective levels (i.e. attending a workshop, professional training opportunities, obtaining loans to start a business etc.).

Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration Programme (VARRP) Fostering sustainable reintegration in Albania, Kosovo and FYROM, by reinforcing local NGO capacity for service provisions to returnees 1

2

19

IV.4. Conclusions Emerging from Desk Research When attempting to understand the demographic dimensions of Albaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s internal migration, several conclusions can be reached. The majority of the population is young and this has implications on the labor markets, which are increased in host communities and decreased in communities of origin. The male/female ratio in internal migration is more proportionate that the male/female ratio in international migration (1:1 versus 3:1, respectively). Additionally, coastal and central prefectures are most usually destination prefectures, whereas north and northeastern prefectures are often source prefectures.

As with internal migration, international migrants are also characterized as young, with more males migrating than females. Furthermore, international migrants tend to work in sectors such as construction, manufacturing, and services, with more women employed in domestic settings.

Additionally, international migration is often a multistep process with neighboring countries (Greece, Italy) serving as primary countries of destination and later used as trampolines to migrate to other destinations. The most commonly identified destination countries are Greece, Italy, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, United Kingdom, and the United States.

Return migration has emerged as a result of multiple factors, such as difficulties in obtaining proper documentation in destination countries, difficulties in obtaining family reunifications abroad and political and economic stability in Albania. As a result, voluntary return has become more prevalent recently and the prospects for temporary return are often predictors of permanent return to Albania.

In summary, Albaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s international and internal migrations remain complex phenomena to describe and quantify. Irregular migration adds more complexity to understanding international migration and estimates fluctuate across sources of information. As a result, international and internal migration has collectively changed the demographic landscape of Albania. The consequences go beyond the total population estimate and affect other domains, such as the overall economic and infrastructure changes in the country, the labor market, and gender- and age- ratios.

This section of the report attempted to uncover some of the characteristics of contemporary Albanian migration, the paths and trajectories and the rationale behind them, whereas the estimates provided are simply numbers that describe but do not define the phenomenon.

V. Findings Emerging from the Household Survey The following sections highlight the findings emerging from analysis of participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; responses. As mentioned above, the survey consisted of modules tapping into dimensions of internal, international, and return migration. The overall sample size consisted of 1,400 households represented by 2,417 respondents, head of the households or family members. Classification of findings is in three categories (internal, international, and return migration) because those are the distinct classes of migration in Albania.

V.1. Internal Migration One important focus of this study was to identify patterns and trends in internal migration. The internal migration sample was comprised of 523 respondents, reporting that they moved internally from one prefecture to another before 1990 and after.

V.1.1. Internal Migration across Prefectures An overview of internal migration across various geographical locations indicates that the prefectures most affected by internal migration were Korca (11%), Kukes (10%), Diber (9.9%), Tirana (7.8%), and Fier (7.8%) (Table 2). Some of these, such as Kukes, and Diber are sources of internal migration 20

whereas others (e.g. Tirana, Fier) are destination prefectures. These findings are sample-specific and emerged from the responses of individuals meeting inclusion criteria for enrollment in the study.

Appendix A offers a visual representation of the distribution of internal migration across prefectures, highlighting the areas most affected by this phenomenon.

Table 2: Internal Migration by Prefecture N

%

5

1.0%

Lushnje

7

1.3%

Malesi e Madhe

22

4.2%

Mallakaster

6

1.1%

1.3%

Mat

13

2.5%

21

4.0%

Mirdite

12

2.3%

41

7.8%

Peqin

1

0.2%

Gjirokaster

12

2.3%

Permet

17

3.3%

Gramsh

10

1.9%

Pogradec

4

0.8%

Has

1

0.2%

Puke

19

3.6%

Kavaje

6

1.1%

Shkoder

13

2.5%

Kolonje

6

1.1%

Skrapar

4

0.8%

Korce

61

11.7%

Tepelene

5

1.0%

Kruje

6

1.1%

Tirane

41

7.8%

Kukes

54

10.3%

Tropoje

14

2.7%

Kurbin

3

0.6%

Vlore

10

1.9%

Lezhe

6

1.1%

TOTAL

523

100%

N

%

Berat

22

4.2%

Bulqize

10

1.9%

Devoll

12

2.3%

Diber

52

9.9%

Durres

7

Elbasan Fier

Librazhd

V.1.2. Trends in Internal Migration over the Years When examining internal migration across time (Graph 1), it is clear that internal migration was prevalent before the 1990s. Based on this sample, 156 individuals reported moving to another prefecture prior to 1991. The internal population movement trend decreased between 1991 (n= 23), and 1993 (n=8). However, internal migration increased again in 1994 (n=56). As the timeline below shows, internal migration has progressively decreased since 1999 to the present.

Number of Internal Migrants

200

Graph 1: Internal Migration Over Tim e

150 100 50

Pr e19 9 19 0 9 19 0 9 19 1 9 19 2 9 19 3 94 19 9 19 5 9 19 6 9 19 7 9 19 8 9 20 9 0 20 0 0 20 1 0 20 2 0 20 3 0 20 4 0 20 5 0 20 6 0 20 7 08

0

Year

V.1.3. Migration before 1990

This study also attempted to explore the relationship between employment status and tendencies to migrate internally. It can be noted that the employed were most likely to migrate internally (48%), followed by students (29%), and the unemployed (18%), (Table 3). This confirms the findings of the desk research that showed internal migration mostly affecting the working-age population.

The movement of young working-age individuals from source to destination prefectures depletes the opportunities for growth and development in the former while vitalizing the labor market in the latter.

21

Table 3: Employment Status and Internal Migration After 1900 N % 249

48%

153

29%

95

18%

9

2%

9

2%

6

1%

1

<1%

In the army

1

< 1%

Total

523

100%

Employed Student Unemployed Domestic housewife Retired Other On disability

The study also examined the age and education characteristics of participants in the sample. As Table 4 shows, 47% of internal migrants across various age groups had completed high school.

Additionally, 30% of individuals had completed secondary education (grade 1-8), whereas individuals who completed fewer years of education were the least represented in this sample (23 individuals with no education, and 27 individuals with elementary education, respectively). Additionally, internal migration affects different age groups ranging from 21-30yo (21%), 41-50yo (29%), and older (26%).

As the desk research component of the study showed, internal migration often affects the entire family including adult and older members of the family.

Table 4: Internal Migration Across Age Groups and Levels of Education Elementary Secondary High No Education School School School Age (n=23) (n=27) (n=158) (n=245) 16-20yo 0% 0% .5% 1.1% 21-30yo .2% .4% 6.1% 10.3% 31-40yo .6% .8% 8% 11.1% 41-50yo .6% 1% 8% 14.9% 51-Beyond 3.1% 3.1% 7.6% 9.4% Total 4.4% 5.2% 30.2% 46.8%

University (n=70) .8% 4.4% 1.5% 4% 2.7% 13.4%

Total (n=523) 2.3% 21.4% 22% 28.5% 25.8% 100%

V.2. International Migration The section of the survey on international migration sought to highlight characteristics of Albanian international migration, identifying destination countries, pull and push factors, tendencies to migrate across age groups, forms of migration, and remittances. The sample size for the international migration section of the study was 1097. Respondents were either international migrants or their immediate family members. Appendix B offers a visual of the distribution of international migration across prefectures, highlighting the central and coastal areas most affected. Findings from the study suggest that Tirana, Elbasan, Fier, and Durres are the prefectures most affected by international migration.

V.2.1. Destination Countries Respondents in the sample identified neighboring countries such as Greece (45%) and Italy (38%) as primary countries of destination. Other destinations were the United States (5%) and other Western European countries (6%). This finding confirms previous studies that have identified neighboring countries such as Italy and Greece as main destination countries for Albanian emigrants (Vullnetari, 2007; IOM, 2005), with secondary migration often occurring to other western European countries, the United States, Canada, and Australia.

22

Graph 2: Destination Countries Greece

45% 38%

Italy Other European Countries

6%

U.S.A

5% 2%

Germany Canada

1%

Other

3%

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Know

1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

V.2.2. Reasons for Leaving (Push Factors) Another study objective was to identify reasons for leaving Albania (push factors), as displayed below, in Table 5. The most important factor leading to emigration abroad was economic security.

Economic difficulties, (e.g. poverty, financial problems, unemployment) were indicated by 67% as the primary reason for migration. Other important factors were poor living conditions (9%), reunification with other family members (7%) and better prospects in Western Europe and other countries (7%).

These findings mirror the results originating from the desk research section of the study.

Table 5: Reasons for Leaving (Push Factors)

N

%

Economic difficulties

730

67%

Poor living conditions in Albania

103

9%

Family reunification abroad

82

7%

Better prospects in destinations countries

78

7%

Perceived lack of safety in Albania

49

4%

Education

32

3%

Medical reasons

10

0.9%

Other

9

0.8 %

Personal conflict

2

< 1%

Ethnic conflict

1

<1%

Political reasons

1

<1%

Total

1097

100%

V.2.3. Distribution of Push Factors across Destination Countries Additionally, the study identified similarities in push factor trends between and within countries of destination (Table 6). For example, the majority of respondents who migrated to Greece, Italy, Germany, and other Western European countries identified economic difficulties as the primary reason for leaving their country. However, reasons for migrating to Canada are somewhat different, 54% of the sample stated that they chose this destination, based on the opportunities it has to offer.

As noted in the literature review, migration to Canada is based primarily on a skills-ranking system, confirming that only those who are qualified to migrate consider other options, such as seeking better prospects for their future.

23

Table 6: Push Factors by Country of Destination Greece (n=489)

Italy (n=407)

Other European Germany Countries (n=21) (n=75)

USA (n=57)

Canada (n=11)

Other (n=36)

Economic difficulties Family reunification abroad Ethnic conflict Poor living conditions in Albania Medical reasons Perceived lack of safety in Albania Political reasons

78%

60%

81%

57%

44%

18%

53%

4% 0%

9% < 1%

5% 0%

7% 0%

19% 0%

9% 0%

11% 0%

7% 1%

11% 1%

5% 0%

12% 3%

10% 0%

9% 0%

11% 0%

3% 0%

5% <1%

5% 0%

8% 0%

7% 0%

0% 0%

6% 0%

Education

<1%

6%

0%

4%

2%

0%

8%

Better prospects in destinations countries

6%

6%

5%

10%

12%

54%

11%

Personal conflict

<1%

<1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Other

<1%

1%

0%

0%

5%

9%

0%

Total

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

V.2.4. Reasons for Choosing Destination Countries (Pull Factors) Another important area of exploration in the study was the identification of reasons for choosing countries of destination (pull factors). Table 7 shows that the most important pull factors were, contact with the others who lived in the country (46%), coincidence (15%) and family reunification (11%). As was identified by the desk research, migrants choose destination countries based upon prior connection, allowing them to navigate the challenges of living in a new country. The finding of chance or coincidence as a choice for destination countries may be sample-specific and attributable to early migratory experiences (1990s) when individuals had neither prior knowledge of, nor connections to individuals in prospective destination countries. The reason of family reunification is an important finding of the study, demonstrating that international migration often transcends the individual dimension and becomes a family-based process for Albanian migrants.

Table 7: Reasons for Choosing Countries of Destination (Pull Factors)

N

%

Contacts with others living in that country

506

46%

Simply Coincidence

167

15%

Family reunification

122

11%

Others

96

9%

Person who helped recommended this place

90

8%

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know

41

4%

Transitional destination until permanent move

32

3%

Rumors about positive asylum policies in that country

25

3%

Positive support for asylum seekers

18

1%

Total

1097

100 %

V.2.5. Distribution of Pull Factors by Destination Countries The study also looked at the range of pull factors across destination countries, to examine similarities or differences within and between these countries. Table 8 shows that contacts with others already living abroad remains an important pull factor across destination countries. Similarly, coincidence, and family reunification are two other pull factors that mirror the argument made in the section above.

Coincidence led to choosing a destination country in the early beginnings of migration experiences where migration was â&#x20AC;&#x153;the road not takenâ&#x20AC;? and represented the unknown. However, family reunification has emerged as an important pull factor in recent international migration, where family members join each other abroad.

24

Table 8: Pull Factors by Country of Destination

Contacts with others living in that country Simply Coincidence Transitional destination until permanent move Rumors about positive asylum policies in that country Positive support for asylum seekers Family reunification Person who helped recommended this place

Greece (n=489)

Italy (n=407)

Germany (n=21)

Other European Countries (n=75)

52% 14%

45% 16%

62% 14%

40% 15%

21% 24%

46% 0%

29% 10%

3%

2%

0%

10%

3%

0%

3%

1%

1%

14%

10%

3%

8%

13%

1% 10%

1% 12%

5% 0%

6% 10%

5% 17%

8% 0%

6% 10%

USA (n=57)

Canada (n=11)

Other (n=36)

6%

11%

5%

6%

2%

0%

19%

Others

8%

8%

0%

3%

22%

23%

10%

Don’t know

5%

4%

0%

0%

2%

15%

0%

Total

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

V.2.6. Pull Factors across Different Age Groups As with the above findings, contact with other Albanians living in the same country, was the leading pull factor even when age is the means of comparison (Table 9). The second and third most important factors affecting choice of destination are coincidence (15%) and family reunification (11%). When looking at reasons for choosing a destination country across age (16-20yo; 21-30; 31-40; 41-50; 50+), it appears that the reasons are distributed in the same proportions across the age groups.

Table 9: Pull factors by Age

16 to 20 (n=41) 46% 10% 0%

21 t o 30 (n=381) 46% 15% 3%

31 to 40 (n=350) 48% 15% 2%

41 t o 50 (n=237) 42% 16% 4%

51 or More (n=88) 47% 17% 4%

7% 2% 10% 7%

2% 2% 13% 8%

3% 2% 11% 7%

2% 1% 8% 10%

0% 2% 11% 8%

Others

17%

8%

9%

9%

8%

Don’t know

0%

3%

4%

5%

2%

Total

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Contacts with others living in that country Simply Coincidence Transitional destination until permanent move Rumors about positive asylum policies in that country Positive support for asylum seekers Family reunification Person who helped recommended this place

V.2.7. Ways of Departure to Destination Countries Another focus of this study was to examine the forms and means of departure to destination countries.

The desk research identified several alternatives characterizing movements to destination countries.

Analysis of the survey data (Table 10) showed that 43% of respondents indicated that they left Albania on their own, while 25% left with a family member and 21% left with one or more friends. Thus, the departure process can be an individual endeavor or a collective undertaking, including migrants’ support systems such as family and peers.

Table 10: How Did you Leave the Country of Origin?

N

%

Alone

472

43%

With a family member

277

25%

With one (or few) friends

233

21%

With people I did not know

86

8%

Others

12

1%

Don’t know

17

2%

Total

1097

100%

25

As Table 11 shows, the majority of individuals in the sample indicated that they used transportation by land (46%) and by sea (35%) as the primary means of transportation to arrive in destination countries.

This finding replicates prior research, showing the two primary destination countries for Albanian migrants have been the neighboring states and migration occurred by land (Greece) and by sea (Italy).

Table 11: Means of Transportation Used to Arrive in Destination Countries N

%

By Land

507

46%

By Sea

383

35%

By Air

193

18%

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Know

10

.9%

Other

4

.4%

Total

1097

100%

V.2.8. Sources of Help during Migration Process When asked about sources of help during the migration process, 39% of respondents stated that they migrated on their own, 24% stated that they moved with friends, and 22% stated that they moved with other family members (Table 12). This finding portrays the process of international migration as an individual- and group-based process where friends and family members play a vital role during the early stage of migration (e.g. decision-making, choosing a destination country, and the actual move).

Examination of both the beginning and the actual process of migration are also very important in understanding whether migration is perceived as a solitary or a group-based phenomenon. This finding will later be compared and contrasted with perceptions of return migration, to consider differences and similarities between the two.

Table 12: Who Helped You Migrate?

N

%

Self

426

39%

Friends

272

24%

Family

2 44

22%

Traffickers

97

9%

Other

31

3%

Travel Agency

20

2%

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Know/refuse

7

1%

Total

1097

100%

V.2.9. Regular and Irregular Status in Destination Countries The desk research highlighted the fact that international migration unfolds in both regular and irregular forms among Albanian migrants. The survey section of the study attempted to explore the nature of regular and irregular migration among participants in the sample (Table 13). More than half of the sample stated that they entered their country of destination through a visa (62%). However, due to the temporary nature of the visa one can expect that status can become regular or irregular after the visa expires. Another finding showed that 19% of respondents stated they did not have regular documentation since arrival in the destination country and a small percentage in the sample (4%) indicated that they were in the process of seeking asylum.

Table 13: Current

Status in Destination Countries

N

%

Entrance through a visa

676

62%

Without documents since arrival in this country

207

19%

Others

151

14%

Asylum seeker

41

4%

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know

17

1%

Rejected asylum application

5

<1%

Total

1097

100%

26

V.2.10. Ways of Obtaining Migration The study sought to explore further the question of status in destination countries by looking at migrants’ choices to pay (bribe) someone in order to facilitate the migration process (Table 14). When asked whether they had paid money to migrate to a country, 67% of respondents in the sample reported that they did, whereas 29% asserted that they did not. This finding poses the question of whether bribing someone in order to migrate can be associated with status in the destination country.

Table 14: Did You Pay Someone to Migrate to this Country?

N

%

Yes

742

67%

No

321

29%

Don’t Know

34

4%

Total

1097

100%

V.2.11. Ways of Obtaining Migration and Status in Destination Countries In order to explore whether bribing someone in order to migrate influenced outcomes of migration, the analyses looked at the percentages of those who stated that they bribed across status in destination countries. Table 15 shows that payment in order to emigrate is more prevalent among those who sought asylum (88%), arrived in the country of destination without documents (73%), or through a visa (64%).

This finding suggests that bribing can facilitate migration to a country of destination (short-term results).

However, it can hinder the process of obtaining regular status in that country (long-term impact).

Table 15: Bribing in order to migrate by actual status in destination countries Without documents since arrival in this country (n=207)

Entrance through a visa (n=676)

64% 33%

60% 40%

88% 12%

47% 24%

74% 25%

4%

3%

0%

0%

29%

1%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

73% 23%

Yes No Don’t know

Total

Rejected a sylum application (n=5)

Asylum seeker (n=41)

Don’t know (n=17)

Other (n=151)

V.2.12 Average Duration of International Migration The desk research highlighted the importance of understanding the impact of time spent abroad in migration. The survey analysis showed that the average migration duration for participants was 71 months (approximately 6 years), as shown in Chart 3. The country where participants resided for the longest period of time was Greece (76 months), followed by Italy (69 months), the United States (67 months), Canada (59 months), and Germany (48 months). This finding confirms findings of the literature review phase that Italy and Greece were the first destination countries for Albanian migrants in the early ‘90s.

Chart 3: Average Number of Months Spent Abroad 100.00 80.00

76.31

69.23

67.70

65.26

60.00

59.45

48.05

59.53

40.00 20.00 0.00 Greece

Italy

USA

Other European Countries

27

Canada

Germany

Other

V.2.13. Forms of Exploitation Given that irregular migration emerged as a topic of concern in both desk research and the survey section of the study, it was important to examine the existence and prevalence of exploitation among participants in the sample. Chart 4 shows the responses of 430 participants from the international migration sample (n=1097) who stated that they felt that they were exploited as migrants living abroad. Labor (68%) was listed as the most common form of exploitation, followed by physical (17%) and economical (8%).

Although experiences of exploitation are unique and subjective among respondents in the sample, the study views exploitation as manifested in various forms. These include, labor (i.e. working long hours without pay, lack or insufficient benefits), economical (minimal pay for oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work, lack of working contracts that regulate the relationship between the employer and employee), knowledge (plagiarizing oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s knowledge without acknowledging his/her input) and physical (exploitation of physical abilities in manual work, working in strenuous conditions, poor working conditions/environment, etc.).

Chart 4: Forms of Exploitation Knowledge 6%

Others 1%

Labor Economical

Physical 17%

Physical Knowledge Others

Labor 68% Economical 8%

V.2.14. Perceptions of Exploitation and Country of Destination The study analysis examined perceptions of exploitation and types of exploitation (knowledgebased, labor, financial, economic, physical) among migrants across destination countries (Table 16; n=430). One reason for exploring the exploitation occurrence is to examine any relationship between exploitation and tendency to return home (the more exploited one feels, the more s/he considers returning home). When asked about perceptions of exploitation in the country of destination, 79% of respondents who migrated to Greece stated that they experienced exploitation in areas of labor and physical abilities. Migrants to Italy reportedly experienced knowledge and economical exploitation at equal levels (32%) and lower levels of exploitation of labor and physical ability (16%). A partial explanation of this may be that a significant portion of irregular migrants choose these as countries of destination, hence the risks for exploitation are higher among irregular migrants.

Table 16: Destination countries and Forms of Exploitation

Others (n=6)

Labor (n=287)

78% 17% <1%

55% 32% 8%

79% 16% 0%

50% 17% 0%

USA

4% 11%

3% <1%

0% 5%

3% 1%

17% 17%

Other

0%

1%

0%

1%

0%

Total

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Greece Italy Germany Other European Countries

48% 33% 4%

28

Economical (n=38)

Physical (n=72)

Knowledge (n=27)

V.2.15. Perceptions of Exploitation and Gender The study also examined the prevalence of experiences of exploitation among male and female migrants.

As Chart 5 shows, it appears that males report more exploitation across all types (knowledge, labor, financial, physical) than females. In this sample, 87% of males reported experiencing some form of exploitation and only 13% of the females shared a similar belief. Again, a partial explanation of this phenomenon may be that males have a higher tendency to migrate on both regular and irregular routes, than females.

Chart 5: Types of Exploitation by Gender

18%

Knowledge (n=27)

12%

Labor (n=287)

88%

16%

Economical Physical (n=38)

0%

20%

17%

Female Male

84%

12%

Physical (n=72) Other (n=6)

82%

40%

60%

88%

80%

100%

83%

V.2.16. Level of Education and Perceptions of Exploitation in Host Countries The study also considered education as a variable to understand the phenomenon of exploitation, (Table 17). When examining experiences of exploitation via the educational status of migrants, it can be noted that exploitation occurs more often among those who have completed high school (47%) or 8 years of education (41%). This is an interesting finding because it shows that the risk of exploitation is higher among those who have some education versus those who do not have formal education. It may be that individuals with some education have higher expectations of labor and labor conditions and may be more prone to identify it as exploitation when these conditions are not met.

Furthermore, this survey shows that individuals with college training report a lower risk of exploitation than do their counterparts.

Table 17: Levels of Education and Forms of Exploitation Knowledge (n=27)

Labor (n=287)

Economical (n=38)

Physical (n=72)

Others (n=6)

No Education Elementary School Finished Eighth Grade High School College

4% 0% 44% 41% 11%

4% 2% 43% 46% 4%

5% 5% 40% 47% 3%

0% 4% 35% 53% 8%

0% 0% 33% 67% 0%

Total

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

V.2.17 Remittances and their Frequency during Migration As noted in the desk research section of the study, remittances are a vital feature of Albaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s international migration. Through the survey component, the study sought to examine the prevalence of remittances among respondents. 564 respondents in the sample stated that they sent money home while living abroad (Chart 6). When asked about the frequency of remittances, 39% of participants stated that they sent remittances once every six months whereas 25% of participants stated that they rarely did so. Other participants stated that they sent money home one a month (11%) or once every 29

three months (19%). This finding shows that more than half of migrants sent remittances to their families of origin. This aid has significant impact for the well-being of the recipients, as well as for society as a whole.

Chart 6: Frequencies of Remittances

Others 6%

Rarely 25%

Rarely Once a month Once in three months Once in six months Others

Once in six months 39%

Once in three months 19%

Once a month 11%

V.2.18. Perceived Importance of Remittances Furthermore, the study sought to examine perceptions of the importance of remittances among respondents. As Table 18 shows, 49% of the respondents (n=642) viewed remittances as very important to their families, while only 4% of respondents did not consider remittances important. The findings show that overall, remittances are important to both recipients and senders. Examination of the frequency and perceptions of importance of remittance, demonstrates that migrants remain connected to their family of origin and this closeness yields positive outcomes for the living conditions of the family and the country as a whole.

Table 18: How Important Were Remittances to the Family

N

%

Very Important

318

49%

Important

208

32%

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Know

90

14%

Not important

26

4%

Total

642

100 %

V.3. Return Migration The desk research component of the study showed that return migration has emerged as a new phenomenon in Albaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s migration and that it can be voluntary or forced, assisted and unassisted.

This section of the study examines perceptions and attitudes towards temporary stay and permanent return, and conditions that can facilitate these choices, among a sample of returned migrants (n=797).

Furthermore, Appendix C offers a visual of the distribution of return migration across prefectures, showing the areas most affected, the prefectures of Kukes, Peshkopi, Durres, Tirana, Vlora, and Gjirokastra.

V.3.1. Perceptions about Temporary Stay in the Country of Origin As mentioned earlier, the study sought to examine perceptions about temporary stay among return migrants (Chart 7). Analysis revealed that 42% of respondents were considering this option, whereas 30% were not planning a temporary stay. It is significant that almost one third of respondents (27%) were undecided and this study sought to explore further the reasons that could better predict 30

temporary stay or permanent return to Albania. The undecided group’s perception on re-migration may change, dependent upon a variety of factors; reasons for leaving, experiences abroad, influence of family and personal goals for the future.

Chart 7: Temporary Stay in Albania

Don't know 27%

Yes Yes 42%

No Don't know

No 31%

Furthermore, as Table 19 shows, temporary return was perceived as a plausible alternative among individuals who were 31-40yo (13%) and less so among individuals in the 16-20 years-old age category (.9%). Participants from the other two age groups (21-30yo and 41-50yo, gave similar responses on the prospect of temporary return (10% and 11%, respectively).

Table 19: Considerations for Temporary Return Across Age Groups Yes No Don’t know No response

Total

16-20yo

21-30yo

31-40yo

41-50yo

51yo+

Total

.9%

10%

13%

11%

7%

42.2%

.3%

4%

9%

10%

7%

30.5%

.4%

3%

7%

9%

7%

26.7%

0%

0%

.3%

.3%

.1%

.6%

1.5%

18.1%

30.1%

30%

20.3%

100%

V.3.2. Perceptions about Long-Term Migration Abroad The desk research highlighted the importance of examining perceptions of return vs. staying abroad among prospective returnees and attributions made to those decisions (IOM, 2004; Hope, 2006).

Therefore, the survey section of the study attempted to examine how salient these two options were among return migrants. Table 20 shows participants’ perceptions of living abroad, where 42% of participants viewed living abroad as a successful choice and 26% of participants viewed it as an unsuccessful endeavor. “Successful” and “unsuccessful” choices in this context pertain to respondents’ perceptions about their choices to migrate and stay abroad. When outcomes of their decision to migrate and live abroad were viewed as positive, they consider their decision as successful. Conversely, negative outcomes from such decisions lead to perceptions of unsuccessful migratory experiences. It is significant that an undecided group (22%) exists that has not fully formed an opinion. This group can benefit significantly from intervention strategies to help them to come to an informed decision on return, or re-migration.

Table 20: Perceptions about Living Abroad

N

%

Successful

334

42%

Unsuccessful

210

26%

Don’t know

175

2 2%

Very unsuccessful

52

7%

Very successful

26

3%

Total

797

100 %

31

When examining perceptions about living abroad across different age groups, it appears that individuals in the 41-50yo and 31-40yo age categories perceive it as a successful choice (14% and 12%) (Table 21). It appears that decisions on return tend to be more stable in the older age categories whereas younger migrants are more questioning. Thus younger age groups (16-20yo, 21-30yo and 31-40yo) will benefit more from information and awareness building campaigns to reach an informed decision.

Table 21: Perceptions about Living Abroad across Age Groups Very Unsuccessful Unsuccessful Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Know Successful Very Successful Total

16-20yo

21-30yo

31-40yo

41-50yo

51yo+

Total

.3%

2%

2%

1%

1%

6.5%

.6%

6%

8%

7%

5%

26.3%

.3%

3%

6%

7%

5%

22%

.4%

7%

12%

14%

9%

41.9%

.0%

.4%

1.6%

. 9% .

4%

3.3%

1.5%

18.1%

30.1%

30%

20.3%

100%

V.3.3. Perceptions on Return Migration As reported from the desk research, attitudes towards return migration are complex and often influenced by individual and contextual variables. The survey attempted to identify perceptions of and attributions made to this phenomenon (Chart 8). When asked about the perceptions of return migration, 33% of respondents viewed it as a positive endeavor and 31% stated that return home was a natural outcome.

On the other hand, 17% of participants viewed return migration as a personal failure, indicating once again that personal experience informs this choice rather than contextual influences. Again, this finding has important implications in terms of intervention strategies that can help individuals overcome the guilt and the shame that may occur when viewing return migration as a personal failure.

Chart 8: Perceptions on Return Migration 50% 40%

33%

30%

31%

17%

20%

11%

10%

5%

3%

0% Positive Step

Natural

Indif ferent

Personal Failure

Other

Don't Know

V.3.4. Considering Permanent Return The study sought to identify â&#x20AC;&#x153;critical ingredientsâ&#x20AC;? that could serve as precursors to permanent return.

Table 22 shows that secure employment (51%) is the most important factor that can predict permanent return among respondents in this sample. Another important condition for permanent return is family reasons (23%) and acceptable living conditions (14%). These findings show that reasons for return are not only based on economic or employment criteria, family reasons are also an important factor influencing decisions for permanent return. Collectively, these findings reflect those of previous studies (IOM, 2003; IOM, 2006).

32

Table 22: Conditions for Permanent Return

N

%

Secure Employment

410

51%

Family Reasons

187

23%

Acceptable Living Conditions

108

14%

Safety

39

5%

Favorable economic situation

25

3%

Others

20

3%

Acceptable education system

5

. 6%

Acceptable medical system

3

.4%

Total

797

100 %

Furthermore, the study attempted to examine potential differences in prospects of permanent return among males and females across different age groups. As shown in Table 23, male respondents tend to provide more skewed responses across age groups, than do their female counterparts.. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution as the genders were not proportionally represented in the sample and therefore, the findings could be sample-specific.

Table 23: Considerations for Permanent Return across Gender by Age Age Category

Perceptions on Permanent Return and Gender

16-20yo

Positive Step

31-40yo

41-50yo

51yo or More

85%

84%

86%

86%

Female 0%

15%

16%

14%

14%

Male

50%

89%

88%

85%

87%

Male

A Natural Step

21-30yo

100%

Female 50%

11%

12%

15%

13%

Indifferent

Male

100%

100%

89%

100%

Female 0%

0%

0%

11%

0%

A personal Failure

Male

95%

94%

88%

67%

Female 0%

5%

6%

12%

33%

Male

85%

83%

83%

92%

Female 33%

15%

17%

17%

8%

Male

50%

75%

100%

80%

50%

25%

0%

20%

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Know

Others

100%

100%

67%

100%

Female 0%

V.3.5. Factors that Influence Permanent Return Additionally, the survey section of the study attempted to examine the relationship between living conditions abroad and factors that influence permanent return. Table 24 shows that 66% of those who faced unemployment in destination countries stated that they would consider permanent return, if there were secure employment in Albania. Similarly, 55% of those experiencing employment problems stated that they would consider returning based on family reasons. Additionally, findings show that unemployment and lack of institutional support in destination countries are strong predictors of permanent return.

Table 24: Difficulties in Host Countries and Conditions for Considering Permanent Secure Good Living Family Employment Conditions Safety Reasons (n=197) (n=52) (n=20) (n=73) Unemployment 66% 48% 65% 55% Housing difficulties 4% 7% 0% 10% Lack of institutional support 24% 31% 25% 31% Lack of support from families and friends 3% 6% 0% 4% Lack of social services 1% 6% 5% 0% Discrimination of children in schools 1% 2% 5% 0% Others (specify) 1% 0% 0% 0% Total

100%

100%

100%

33

100%

Return Economic Factors (n=11) 46% 9%

Other (n=1) 100% 0%

36%

0%

9% 0%

0% 0%

0% 0%

0% 0%

100%

100%

V.3.6. Difficulties Experienced Upon Return The desk research identified return as representing both challenges and opportunities, (IOM, 2003; IOM, 2006). The survey section sought further to explore return experiences and Table 25 shows participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; responses on difficulties encountered during the reintegration phase. 60% of the participants described integration as difficult, while 24% found the opposite. This finding suggests that reintegration cannot be assumed a smooth process for all.

Table 25: Was it difficult to Integrate?

N

%

Yes

477

60%

No

189

24%

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know

131

16%

Total

797

100 %

V.3.7. Assistance Received and Forms of Return The study also attempted to identify the prevalence of assistance received prior to or following return.

As Chart 9 shows, an overwhelming 83% of the sample stated that they did not receive any form of assistance upon return. This finding may imply that return experiences often represent individualized trajectories instead of collective and visible trajectories.

Chart 9: Assistance Recived Upon Return

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know 9%

Yes 8%

Yes No

Yes 83%

Don't know

V.3.8. Types of Assistance Received and Types of Return Additionally, the study looked at the type of assistance received and variations across forms of return (i.e. voluntary, regular, forced, etc.). Table 26 shows that the primary forms of assistance across all forms of return were, transportation of belongings, receiving support in job-seeking efforts, facilitating social reintegration, and professional training. When return was voluntary and assisted by non-governmental and international organizations, the primary source of support was in re-integration, primarily assistance in educational and vocational arenas (IOM, 2003, Hope for the future, 2006). These findings are important in highlighting that assistance is necessary and beneficial, despite the nature and the context of return experiences. Largely, return migration remains a complex phenomenon that requires the presence of governmental and nongovernmental, formal and informal entities to reduce barriers and facilitate processes of reintegration in the country.

34

Table 26: Forms of Assistance and Types of Return Regular

Forced

Voluntarily (assisted by NGOs)

Involuntarily (via authorities in the host country)

Transportation of belongings Assistance in obtaining necessar y documentation Financial support to start a small/medium business Professional training Support in seeking employment Support in education Support in social re-integration Other

34%

30%

0%

25%

3%

0%

0%

0%

3% 13% 31% 3% 3% 10%

1 0% 10% 30% 0% 20% 0%

0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0%

0% 0% 25% 25% 0% 25%

Total

100%

100%

100%

100%

V.3.9. Relationship between Time Spent away from Home and Aspirations to Return The survey section of the study also examined the relationship between time spent abroad and aspirations of permanent return, in order to understand whether time spent abroad influences decisions on return.

Table 27 shows that respondents who had lived abroad for less than a year were more prone to consider returning home (47%). Conversely, the more time spent away from home, the less interested participants were about the possibility of return, the percentage decreasing from 26% to 16% when participants reported living abroad 2-3 years and over 3 years, respectively. In conclusion, it appears that there is an inverse relationship between duration of stay abroad and willingness to consider returning home. Considerable attention should be given to individuals who have lived abroad for a considerable amount of time (3+ years) and remain undecided about the possibility of returning home (70% of the sample, see table below). One can infer that duration of time spent abroad can increase ambivalence about the prospects of return. Those who have recently migrated have a clear idea whether they are going to return or not, whereas this decision is approached with ambiguity among those who have lived abroad for a longer period. This finding is important when developing and implementing strategies to facilitate return. Interventions should be sensitive to subgroups of migrants, depending on the duration of their migration abroad and their experiences prior to considering return because it affects the reintegration level of the returnee upon return.

Table 27: Do you plan on staying temporarily in Albania by time (months) being gone Less than one year (n=650)

2-3 years (n=31)

Over 3 years (n=37)

No response

47% 30% 21% 1%

1-2 years (n=79)

Total

100%

100%

100%

100%

Yes No (I will leave again) Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know

22% 39% 38% 1%

26% 19% 55% 0%

16% 14% 70% 0%

V.3.10. Perceptions about Policies that Facilitate Return and Reintegration Participants in the survey provided insightful comments about the policies that the Albanian authorities should undertake to facilitate return and reintegration. Table 28 shows that the majority of responses (55%) indicate that employment opportunities should be allocated to enable smooth return and reintegration processes. Financial incentives (25%) were also perceived as important, as were professional training programs (6%). These findings reflect the primary reasons that lead to migration in the first place, which tend to be economic and occupational in nature. Strategies that offer employment and financial opportunities can also minimize the risk of considering return as a personal failure, rather than a byproduct of migration.

35

Table 28: Perceptions about policies that the government should undertake to facilitate return and reintegration in Albania N % Employment opportunities

434

55%

Financial incentives

196

25%

No response

71

9%

Professional training programs

55

6%

Others

41

5%

Total

797

100 %

V.4. Summary of Findings The desk research and survey components of this study offer many contributions better to understand the processes and manifestations of migration in Albania. Findings emerging from the desk research then informed and complemented the research questions that were raised during the survey phase. Data deriving from both sources (desk research and survey) helped to synthesize the following findings.

V.4.1. Geographical Distributions of Internal, International, and Return Migration Migration in Albania appears in three distinct forms: internal, international, and return migration.

However, there is significant overlap across these processes. An individual and his/her family may decide to better their living conditions by moving from one prefecture to another and later that individual may decide to emigrate abroad and possibly return after few years of residing in a destination country. Therefore, the phenomenon is circular in nature and characterized by multiple interactions between internal, international, and return migration.

When it comes to internal migration, coastal and central prefectures are host prefectures, whereas north and northeastern prefectures tend to serve as source prefectures (Appendix A). Conversely, prefectures in south and southeastern regions are affected by internal and international migration (serving as source prefectures). Secondly, internal migration may be an individual or family-based process; members of an entire family are often influenced by internal migration choices and the implementation of these decisions.

International migration has affected every region in Albania. Appendix B shows the influence of the phenomenon upon each prefecture. Coastal and Central regions of Albania are most affected by international migration. However, as mentioned earlier, it is difficult to isolate population changes within each prefecture according to the type of migration, as these are often interrelated processes.

Furthermore, identification of prefectures most affected by international migration becomes a difficult undertaking, as it often transcends individual parameters and affects the entire family. As shown in Appendix B, prefectures near south and southeastern borders (e.g. Korca and Gjirokastra) appear to be the least affected by international migration. However, this finding is study-specific because the survey section of the study revealed that entire families in these prefectures had migrated abroad and field interviewers were unable to contact head of households or other family members to gather information about the migratory experiences of these families.

Return migration affects multiple locations in the country ranging from the northeast, to central and southern regions. Appendix C shows the prefectures predominantly affected by return migration that often co-occurs with internal migration upon return. In other words, after returning to Albania, migrants decide to move to another prefecture, usually coastal or central, as a way to advance their goals, (i.e. find a job, start a business, etc.)

Finally, as mentioned earlier internal, international, and return migration processes are intertwined and many prefectures are affected by these multiple phenomena.

36

V.4.2. Profiles across Internal, International, and Return Migratory Experiences Both the desk research and the survey component of this study enabled a comprehensive analysis of the reasons leading to migratory experiences, along with individual characteristics that led to the development of in-depth profiles for each category.

Internal migration is often a family-based process and prevalent among families whose members have some years of training, are unemployed, and are seeking betterment of their lives in a different commune, prefecture, or district. Furthermore, internal migrants are men and women and there are no gender disparities in employment among male and female internal migrants. After the end of the communist period, internal migration reached its peak in 1994, after that time internal migration continued at a slower pace.

In summary, the internal migrantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s profile consists of the following characteristics: young male or female, predominantly high school graduate and working age. Internal migration can start as an individual process but later becomes a family-based one, leading to entire families migrating from one region to another. As a result, the internal migrantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s profile is particularly helpful in understanding the demographic changes that affect host and destination prefectures. This study showed that Kukes and Diber are predominantly source prefectures, while central prefectures such as Tirana and Fier are destination prefectures.

International migration has significantly affected individuals and families across various regions in the country. Individuals who migrate internationally tend to be young in age and have different levels of education and work experiences. Additionally, males tend to migrate more often than females.

Reasons to migrate include employment, poverty, and family reunification. Whereas reasons for choosing destination countries range from knowing people who already live in those countries and reunification with family members. It appears that family reunification is both a push and pull factor.

Furthermore, most migration is to neighboring countries (Italy and Greece), including most irregular migration. Irregular migration is in inverse relation to the length of time spent abroad; long periods of migration abroad are associated with regular status in destination countries.

In summary, the international migrantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s profile consists of the following characteristics: young, high school, vocational, or college graduates, who are primarily males tending to migrate for economic reasons and for a higher standard of living in destination countries. International migrants view migration as an individual enterprise and the majority of them choose to migrate on their own, relying on personal resources. Migration via land and sea are the most common migratory routes and migrants tend to have regular visas upon entering their destination countries. Labor exploitation tends to be the most common form of exploitation identified among respondents. International migration is a long-term phenomenon where the majority of migrants spend an average of 5-6 years abroad.

Finally, international migrants continue to send remittances to their families back home (at least one remittance every six months). Prefectures most affected by international migration are central and coastal ones (Tirana, Elbasan, Fier, and Durres). Additionally, migration routes tend to include neighboring countries such as Greece and Italy as initial destination countries, which later serve as trampolines for migration in other Western European countries, the United States, Canada, and Australia.

Return migration spans a continuum from voluntary to involuntary. Individuals decide to return for many reasons: experiences prior to migration (e.g. push factors such poverty), experiences during migration (e.g. unemployment), status while living abroad (e.g. difficulty in obtaining regular status), and perceptions of return experiences (positive or neutral choices). Return experiences are often viewed as possibilities if employment, training, professional development, and financial incentives become available and accessible to prospective returnees. Re-integration experiences are highly 37

mediated by individual factors (e.g. perceptions of return experiences as opportunities, rather than personal failures) and contextual factors (e.g. presence of employment opportunities, access to training, education, and financial incentives.)

The profile of return migration is particularly important in recognizing return migration not as an “individual’s problem” but rather, as an opportunity for the host society to maximize the potential of returnees. As a comprehensive report developed by IOM (2006) points out, return migration is an opportunity for many entities (governmental structures, NGOs, regional employment offices) collectively to develop and implement policy, based upon ongoing research and analysis.

Both quantitative (i.e. survey) and qualitative (e.g. focus group) components of the study indicated that return migration remains an evolving process for most of the participants. Return experiences of participants in the study represent a continuum of choices ranging from temporary return to permanent return. Return migration most affects northeastern and coastal prefectures.

The majority of participants in the study stated that they did not receive any formal assistance prior to and immediately after return. This finding demonstrates that return migration remains an invisible phenomenon. It is often considered an individual endeavor, rather than a collective or societal one.

Additionally, age plays an important role in considering temporary and permanent return; older individuals are more prone to considering return than their younger counterparts (20yo and younger).

Considerations for return are more prevalent among males than females. However, this finding is study specific and reflects the gender imbalance in the return migrant sample.

Return migration is often perceived as a positive outcome from migratory experiences although this is not a universal view. Some returnees continue to view return as a personal failure and this can cause barriers to successful reintegration. Despite differences in perceptions about return, there is a wide consensus that economic factors, particularly employment prospects, and family reunification are salient factors that predict return. Participants in the study shared a common view that re-integration experiences are best facilitated by financial incentives, for employment, in starting small businesses and for vocational training opportunities.

In summary, the return migrant’s profile is as follows: middle age, predominantly male, with a relatively short migratory experience (less than one year). Return migrants tend to be those who experienced employment difficulties, economic hardships, and difficulties in obtaining regular status during their migration. Largely, return migrants perceive return as a positive and natural choice.

Another shared characteristic among return migrants is their aspiration to obtain employment and receive institutional support upon returning home. The prefectures most affected by return migration are Kukes, Peshkopi, Durres, Tirana, Vlora, and Gjirokastra.

In conclusion, several Albanian governmental institutions and international organizations have made the issue of migration a priority in their agendas. Some of the key governmental institutions engaged in the process of monitoring processes of migration and coordinating strategies and policies centered on this phenomenon are the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (MOLSAEO), the Ministry of Interior (MOI) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). Additionally, international entities such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the European Commission (EC) have played a central role in understanding migration as a multidimensional phenomenon and provided assistance in drafting and implementing the National Strategy on Migration and the Action Plan deriving from this strategy.

38

VI. Recommendations for further research and policy development emerging from findings This section summarizes recommendations and suggestions that can inform future research and practices targeting the phenomenon of Albanian migration.

First and foremost, there is extensive literature produced by academics and from, scientific, governmental, and institutional sources that should be considered when launching future research and interventions in this area. Although Albanian migration is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon, the existing body of knowledge should be considered when formulating research questions and developing intervention strategies. Furthermore, triangulation of various research designs including qualitative and quantitative approaches, governmental and non-governmental resources, can facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the prevalence and consequences of migration in various contexts: the individual, the family, the labor market, and society as a whole.

Research and practices that focus on migration should continuously inform each other. All the parties involved in these processes should be part of a community that looks at migration not as a problem but rather, a source of solutions and choices for the individuals and families involved. As stated numerous times throughout this document, migration is a multidimensional and pervasive phenomenon in society that deserves the attention of all members of the community. Additionally, assistance should be tailored to different needs based on a comprehensive assessment of the individual and the family units. Society in general, can benefit from an increased awareness of this complex phenomenon.

Internal migration, although not as pervasive as international migration, can lead to shrinking of human and developmental resources in source prefectures and evoke a sense of chaos in the infrastructure of host prefectures. Key systems such as health care, education, and the employment sectors are most affected and governmental interventions should focus on close monitoring of internal migration, in order to buffer the negative effects of these processes.

International migration may occur for a variety of reasons; including economic gain, family reunification, or seeking better opportunities for the future. Regular and irregular forms of migration add to the complexity of the phenomenon and yet, monitoring of this process is possible by combining multiple sources of information. This study was able to offer an understanding of migration based on a large sample, including members of the household who were currently in migration and whose experiences were recounted using household representatives as respondents. When primary sources of information are absent, it is important to gather information from secondary sources because they increase our understanding of the phenomenon.

International migration in Albania transcends individual parameters and affects the family unit in many ways, through remittances, family reunification, temporary return, etc. International migration changes the landscape of society and ongoing data collection is necessary in monitoring and management of this phenomenon.

Return migration is a vital dimension of Albaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s migration. Literature on this topic remains scarce and represents small samples that make it hard to draw generalizations on the overall population of return migrants. Nevertheless, return migration in voluntary and involuntary forms may be viewed as an individual failure and intervention strategies should focus on reducing stigma and promoting a positive climate to foster acceptance. Findings from this study showed that return migration is often perceived with ambivalence among prospective return migrants and interventions should focus on providing resources (financial, informational, educational, and vocational) that can help undecided individuals to make informed choices. Similarly, return migration can also co-occur with internal mobility, leading to depletion of human resources in prefectures of origin. More incentives, primarily employment and loans for starting small businesses, should be available to prospective returnees in their own communities, in order to facilitate smooth transition and re-integration experiences.

39

Additionally, “best practice” experience of return migration should be made visible and accessible to prospective returnees. Information available through electronic and printed media, Albanian embassies abroad, and organizations established across the Diaspora, can collectively counter the negative stereotypes of return migration and portray the process as a real and a positive experience.

Finally, re-integration processes should be viewed as challenging but also promising in fostering change and sustainability in returnees’ lives.

Specific recommendations targeting return migration are discussed below.

Monitoring and Database Development Despite the circular and complex nature of this phenomenon, a database of return migrants should be developed and updated periodically (e.g. quarterly) at central and local levels (prefectures and municipalities). This will help to track demographic changes at prefecture level and allow key institutions such as the Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs, and Equal Opportunities to develop an accurate and up-to-date assessment of the pervasiveness of return migration across regions.

Continuous Inter-Agency Communication Key entities, playing an instrumental role in understanding and facilitating processes of return migration, (Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Labor Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, INSTAT) should continuously exchange information, expertise, and resources. Partnership at central and local level allows for beneficial information sharing and transparent decision making. For example, interagency communication can improve the planning and delivery of training. A needs’ assessment for training development among personnel and consumers of Regional Employment Offices would precede training sessions developed and led by the institutions with most expertise in the field.

Using a Train the Trainers approach, knowledge and expertise can be shared, horizontally, among local offices. Ongoing communication also clarifies the sources and extent of expertise among key actors. For example, Regional Employment Offices should have clear expertise in connecting people with resources and their role should not be mixed with other activities, such as monitoring the delivery of financial aid disbursed to needy families from municipality structures (IOM, 2006).

Training and Vocational Opportunities To facilitate the transition from migration to return, training and vocational opportunities should be offered to return migrants, to maximize their employment potential upon return. Additionally, training and vocational opportunities reduce the level of stigma and self-blame attached to return and offer support and reduced isolation, through increased contact with other returnees.

Employment Opportunities The ultimate goal of a returning migrant is employment. Returned migrants have different attributes to other unemployed. Therefore, Regional Employment Offices and other agencies should develop and use appropriate methods of data gathering from returned migrants. For example, intake forms should seek to gather additional data that may be invisible in standard information gathering forms: level of education obtained, number of languages spoken, skills acquired during migration abroad, training and vocational opportunities received abroad, training needs, employment goals, etc. Intake and other documentation should be available electronically, to enable easy information exchange between offices and prospective employers.

40

Outreach, Information, and Referrals Return migrants may not proactively seek information and services available at institutions, such as Regional Employment Offices. This, sometimes, invisible population can be reached with outreach and awareness campaign activities. Such activities can provide information on legislation, labor trends on central and local levels, requirements for starting a business, including information about micro-credit packages, business start and operation incentive programs, etc. Outreach and information campaigns help members of the return migrant community overcome barriers to successful return and to socialize and network, to normalize their experiences. Referral activities also solidify partnerships between different entities (Regional Employment Offices, Vocational Training Centers) and help them work closely together to exchange information, resources, and expertise.

41

VII. REFERENCES Barjaba, K. (2004). Albania: Looking Beyond Borders. Retrieved from Migration Information Source at: http://www.migrationinformation.org.

Berxholi, A. (2000). Regjistrimet e Pergjithshme te Popullsise ne Shqiperi: Veshtrim Historik (Censuses in Albania: A Historical Perspective). Tirana: Akademia e Shkencave, Qendra e Studimeve Gjeografike.

Carletto, G., Davis, B., Stampini, M., & Zezza, A. (2004). Internal Mobility and International Migration in Albania. Rome: FAO, ESA, Working Paper 04-13.

De Soto, H., Gordon, P., Gedeshi, I., & Sinoimeri, Z. (2002). Poverty in Albania: A Qualitative Assessment. Washington DC: World Bank Technical Paper 520.

International Organization for Migration (2005). Competing for Remmittances. Tirana: IOM Tirana.

Gedeshi, I., Mara, H., & Preni, X. (2003). The Encouragement of Social-Economic Development in Relation to Growth of the Role of the Remittances. Tirana: Centre for Economic and Social Studies.

Danaj, S. (2006). An Analysis of the Activity of Hope for the Future Association for the Period April 1999-June 2006. Hope for the Future Association: Tirana, Albania.

Government of Albania (2005). National Strategy on Migration and National Action Plan on Migration: The Road Towards Migration Management. Tirana: Albania.

International Organization for Migration (2007). The Republic of Albania: Migration Profile. Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Slovenia: Ljubjana.

International Organization for Migration (2006a). Return and Readmission: The Case of Albania.

IOM, Tirana: Albania.

International Organization for Migration (2006b). Institutionalizing Assistance to Returned Migrants in Albania through Local Employment Offices and Local NGOs. IOM, Tirana: Albania.

International Organization for Migration (IOM) (2004). Profiling of irregular migrants and analysis of reintegration needs of potential returnees from Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro), Albania, and FYROM in Belgium, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Final Research Report to the European Commission.

International Organization for Migration (2004). International Migration Law: Glossary on Migration. IOM, Geneva: Switzerland.

International Organization for Migration (2003). Identification of Sustainable Approaches to Voluntary Return and Reintegration of Asylum Seekers and Persons with Temporary Protection Status: Albania, Romania, and Russia. Prepared by Hulst, M., Laczko, F., & Barthel, J. Final Project Report to the European Commission. IOM Research and Publication Division.

42

INSTAT (2004a). Migration in Albania in 2001. Tirana: Institute of Statistics The European Training Foundation (2007). The Contribution of Human Resources Development to Migration Policy in Albania.

King. R. & Vullnetari, J. (2003). Migration and Development in Albania. WP C5, Development Research Centre on Migration, Globalisation and Poverty, University of Sussex, retrieved from: http://www.migrationdrc.org/publications/working_papers/WP-C5.pdf.

Pastore, F. (1998). Conflicts and Migration: A Case Study on Albania. Written Briefing for the Conflict Prevention Network of the European Commission.

Piperno, F. (2002). From Albania to Italy. Formation and basic features of a binational migration system. Background paper for the CEME-CeSPI mission to Italy and Albania.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Albania (2000). Albanian Human Development Report 2000. Tirana: UNDP Albania.

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division (1998).

Recommendations on Statistics of International Migration. Statistical Papers Series, M, No 58, Rev 1. United Nations: New York.

Tirta, M. (1999). Migrimi te shqiptareve, te brendshme, dhe jashte atdheut (vitet â&#x20AC;&#x153;40 te shek. XIX vitet â&#x20AC;&#x2122;40 te shek. XX). Etnografia Shqiptare, 18.

Vullnetari, J. (2007). Albanian Migration and Development: State of the Art Review. asIMISCOE Working Paper.

43

VIII. APPENDIXES Appendix A: Prefectures most affected by Internal Migration

44

Appendix B: International Migration across Prefectures

45

Appendix C: Returned Migrants across Prefectures

46

This material was prepared in the framework of the project “Support to the implementation of the Albanian National Strategy on Migration”.

This project is funded by the European Union and the Italian Government and implemented

by IOM and the Government of Albania.

European Commission Delegation in Albania

International Organization for Migration (IOM) Rr. Brigada VIII, Vila Nr. 3 Tirana, Albania Tel:+355 42 257 836/7 Fax: +355 42 257 835 www.albania.iom.int

ABA Business Building Rr. Papa Gjon Pali II (floor 15,16,17)

omega studio © 2248803

Tirana, Albania Tel: +355 4 222 8320 Fax: +355 4 223 0752 www.delab.ec.europa.eu

47

48

Ky material u realizua në kuadër të projektit “Mbështetje për zbatimin e Strategjisë Kombëtare për Migracionin në Shqipëri”.

Ky projekt financohet nga Bashkimi Evropian dhe Qeveria Italiane dhe zbatohet nga IOM dhe Qeveria Shqiptare.

Organizata Ndërkombëtare për Migracionin (IOM) Rr. Brigada VIII, Vila Nr. 3 Tiranë, Shqipëri Tel:+355 42 257 836/7 Fax: +355 42 257 835 www.albania.iom.int

Delegacioni i Komisionit Evropian në Shqipëri

ABA Business Building Rr. Papa Gjon Pali II (kati 15,16,17) Tiranë, Shqipëri Tel: +355 4 222 8320 Fax: +355 4 223 0752 www.delab.ec.europa.eu omega studio © 2248803