New insights from TEMPO survey about migration patterns of Romanian migrants in Italy after the EU accession

Isilda Mara, economist wiiiw: The immigration of Romanians to Italy, firstly in the context of the free visa regime in 2004 and secondly with the entry of Romania into the European Union in 2007, generated a massive and continuous migration movement of Romanians over a five-year period. While the first phase was typified by casual migration, that led to repeated short stays in Italy, the relaxation of restrictions on mobility, following the accession into the EU in 2007, was characterized by a steady increase in the number of Romanian migrants to Italy to the point that it became the largest immigrant community with more than one million immigrants.

Page 1/3
 1 2 3   

Isilda Mara




NORFACE, under the TEMPO project, funded a survey project which aimed to investigate mobility and migration patterns of Romanian migrants to Italy. The survey was conducted in January 2011 by the team of researchers at the Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (wiiw) in collaboration with ISMU of Milan. The location choice of the survey were main cities of Italy: Milan, Turin and Rome which are recognized as the main destination regions of Romanians who have migrated to Italy since free visa liberalization in May 2004.The survey focusses on four broad areas: the profile and migration plans of migrants, regional differences and basic characteristics; labour market patterns during the migration experience, including income and remittances; social inclusion of migrants and access to social security and the health system; and, self-assessment of the migration experience of moving to Italy.


Migration plans

The survey showed that almost half of late comers, Romanian migrants who reached Italy after January 2007, did not have a predefined migration plan whereas the early comers, those who moved after May 2004, preferred long term migration, Figure 1-4. To some extent the change of migration plans was strongly dependent on duration of stay in the destination country and the preference for long term migration was positively correlated with the length of residence. Moreover, the motives for altering migration plans, being mostly for work and family purposes, suggests the implementation of more coherent migration policies which address and facilitate, firstly, the employment of migrants into those working sectors that match with their migration preferences, (e.g. migrants with temporary migration intentions can be incentivized and channeled to work on temporary/seasonal jobs), and secondly, support family unification and family members of migrants in integrating into the labour market. Such policies would require coordination at national as well as international level and closer cooperation between destination and sending country with the aim to balance labour migration by offering the labour demanded to the destination country while at the same time protecting the needs of temporary workers.

Page 1/3
 1 2 3   


  • Beslan
    15.03.13 ora 02:04

    Building on what Eric wrote: throughout the late 1990s, the Census Bureau estteaimd that the District was hemorrhaging population, right up to the 1999 estimate. Lo and behold, when they actually conducted the Census in 2000, it turned out that the 1999 estimate was off by tens of thousands of people: in 1999 the Census Bureau estteaimd the District's population was 519,000; the 2000 Census counted 572,000 people in the District!!! They were WAY OFF in 1999. I write this not to trash the Census Bureau but to note that their estimates can be quite suspect. In the case of urban areas, it seems that their methodology, at least in 1990s, was biased against urban areas. So, do not be surprised if the actual 2010 Census count is much higher than this 2009 estimate.

Load new captcha.