MIGRATION IN THE BALKANS

by

Theodore P. Lianos*

Department of Economics
ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS

May 9, 2005
Athens

*Professor, Department of Economics, AUEB

Athens :76, Patission Str., Athens, 104 34
Email : tplianos@aueb.gr
 MIGRATION IN THE BALKANS

Introduction

This paper presents the recent labor migration flows in the Balkan Countries among
these countries and from these countries to others. It also reports some
preliminary finding from a survey in Bosnia-Herzegovina regarding some effects
of migration of the professional status of migrants, their qualifications, their
incomes earned, their remittances back home and the use of these remittances.

The Effects of Migration

Migration has many effects on the economy of the country of origin.

On the positive side one may mention the following :

i) Reduction of social pressures if the rate of unemployment is high. If part

of the unemployed labor force migrates social tension may subside and
thus the general economic and political environment may improve.
ii) Migration may be a means by which part of the labor force may acquire
new techniques and general knowledge which may be useful for them and
for the economy upon their return.
iii) Remittances to the country of origin normally follow migration flows and
these monetary funds can be very substantial. In addition to the obvious
positive effects on the receiving families, remittances may ease the foreign
exchange constraint which many countries face.

On the negative side one may mention the following :

i) Migration may result in a substantial loss of young and dynamic labor
fore, since a considerable proportion of migrant will stay in the country of
destination and never return for good to the country of origin.
ii) The human capital (learning new production techniques new languages,
etc.) that migrants acquire in the country of destination may be very small.
Many migrant are employed in Agriculture, in Construction and in
Services (Hotels, restaurants, etc.) where no additional human capital is
acquired. The opposite may also happen, namely migrants are often
misemployed and they may lose part of their human capital instead of
acquiring new.
iii) Remittances may also have negative effects in at least two ways. First,
remittances may be used mainly for consumption and not for productive
purposes. This may have the effects of creating inflationary pressures and
increasing imports. Second remittances may create negative work
incentives, in the sense that as long as remittances are flowing in, there is

2
 less pressure for work in the labor market. It addition, one may mention
that a substantial flow of remittances may appreciate the domestic
currency and thus reduce export increase imports.

From this brief description of the possible positive and negative effects of migration,
it appears that in theory no general conclusion can be drawn regarding the effects of
migration on the long run growth of the sending economy. Probably, the net effect
may depend on how migration and remittances are combined with the other factors
that enhance or limit the prospects of growth. It seems, therefore, that the effects of
migration may differ by country, depending on the prospects of growth, the
institutional framework and government policies.

Growth Rates of Balkan Countries

The growth rates of GDP of the Balcan countries for the period 1990-2003 are
presented on Table 1. The obvious characteristics of these growth rates is their erratic
behaviour. For all countries the growth rates differ greatly from year to year. This is
due to two main factors. First, to the disorganization of the economic structure that
followed the fall of communist regimes and the need for the reconstruction of these
economics within a new, largerly unknown to them, institutional framework. Second,
to the internal conflicts that followed the fall of the old regimes.

However, during the last five years these economies seem to have achieved a
normal way of economic functioning, and their rates of growth appear to vary within
reasonable limits. For the seven countries appearing on Table 1, the (unweighted)
average growth rate in each of the last three years at approximately 4%.

The growth prospects of these countries may differ. One would expect that
Bulgaria and Romania, which will soon become member of the European Union, and
Croatia, a little later, will be, ceteris paribus, in a better position to exploit the
possibilities that will be opened to them and grow at a steady and high rate. Of
course, it is not implied that all Balkan countries will growth at the same rate or that
the existing regional imbalances will disappear. In fact, it is possible that regional
imbalances may become more pronounced as some countries or regions may become
poles of attraction at the cost of others. However, it is expected that the entire area
will benefit when the general economic environment of the Balkan region improves as
a result of growth of some, if not all, countries in the area.

3
 Table 1
Growth Rates of GDP of Balkan Countries

Year Albania Bosnia Bulgaria Croatia FYROM Romania Serbia

Herzegovina Montenegro
1990 -9.9 -9.1 -5.6
1991 -28.0 -12.1 -10.4 -21.1 -6.2 -12.9 -11.6
1992 -7.2 -26.1 -7.3 -11.7 -6.6 -8.8 -27.9
1993 9.6 -26.9 -1.5 -8.0 -14.7 1.5 -30.8
1994 8.3 6.5 1.8 5.9 -1.8 3.9 2.5
1995 13.3 32.9 2.9 6.8 -1.1 7.1 6.1
1996 9.1 54.2 -9.4 5.9 1.2 3.9 5.8
1997 -10.3 36.6 -5.6 6.8 1.4 -6.0 7.4
1998 12.7 15.4 4.0 2.5 3.4 -4.8 2.5
1999 8.9 9.5 2.3 -0.9 4.3 -1.2 -23.7
2000 7.7 5.4 5.4 2.9 4.5 2.1 6.4
2001 7.9 4.5 4.1 3.8 -4.5 5.7 5.5
2002 4.8 3.7 4.8 5.2 0.9 4.9 3.8
2003 5.9 3.2 4.8 4.7 3.1 4.7 1.0

Note : Growth Rates are estimated on GDP values in 1990 prices

Source: United Nations Database.

4
Migration in the Balkan Countries

In analysing migration flows among the Balkan countries and also between the
Balkans and other countries one is faced with rather serious problems regarding the
availability and nature of statistical data. First, in most cases it is not clear whether an
individual reported as migrant is a long term mover, a temporary mover, a seasonal
worker, someone on the move to another destination, a returning migrant, a member
of a family already in country with no intention to work, a student who may or may
not be partially employed, a refugee, member of the staff of a foreign company in the
country, etc. Second, the available data are fragmentary in the sense of being
available for some years for some countries and for different years for other countries.
Third, the method for collecting of migration data, i.e. the definitions and the sources,
may differ by country. Fourth, the accuracy of the data differ by country. For
example, the number of emigrants from country i to country j in a certain year is often
very different from the number of immigrants to country j from country i in the same
year. Obviously, the reporting systems of the various countries do not have the same
reliability. Fifth and very important for the Balkan area, the reported data usually
refer to legal migrants based, for example, on residence or work permits. However,
the extent of illegal migration is very large, at least for some countries and for some
years, and therefore the estimates presented on the following tables are
underestimates.

In examining statistical data, in general and migration data, in particular, for

the Balkan countries one should bear in mind the fall of the communist and socialist
regime in the beginning of the 1990’s and the civil conflicts during the 90’s. It is
therefore preferable to concentrate on migration flows after 1996 because the more
recent flows correspond closer to what is termed economic migration.

The problems mentioned above do not render the available data useless. By
combining migration flows and stocks for various years and countries some
conclusions can be derived regarding the main labor mobility tendencies in the Balkan
countries.

5
(i). Migration in the Balkan Area

There are no systematically collected and complete data on migration flows in

the Balkan countries. However by combining data for outflows, for inflows and for
stocks for various years and for various countries from various sources, it is possible
to draw information and conclusions about the volume of migration flows, and the
main origins and destinations of migrants in the Balkan countries.

The Balkan countries. (i.e. Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia,

FYROMacedonia, Romania and Serbia-Montenegro) have a total population of 52
million (2003), 42% of which (i.e. 22 million) is Romanian. It is interesting to note
that the total population of the area is declining. In the period 2000-2003 it has
declined from 54.8 mil. to 52 mil., that is by 5.2% in three years. The level of income
in these countries is relatively low. The per-capita gross national income of these
countries is below 15% of that of the European Union (EU-15). This immediately
suggests two opposite forces regarding migration in the medium and longer term. On
the one hand, the relatively low level of incomes (in combination with the proximity)
is a strong push force for migrating, but on the other the volume of potential migrant
flows should be small given the population size.

Table 2 shows the net migration rates for the years 2000-2003 and also for the
period 1989-2002. It appears that the Balkan area has lost approximated two and a
half million people after the collapse of the communist regimes. During the last four
years 2000-2003, the net migration rates differ among countries. Albania and
Bulgaria have negative and high rates. The net migration rates of Bosnia-
Herzegovina and Croatia are declining very quickly between 2000 and 2003
indicating that these migration flows are related to internal conflict of the earlier
years, and as the situation settles the migration flows will diminish or even disappear.

6
 Table 2
Migration, Population and Income in the Balkan Area
Net-Migration Rates, 2000-2003
Net Migration Between 1989-2002 Population Ths GDP Per Capita (d)
Country 2000 2001 2002 2003
Ths Percent 2000 2003 Current $, 2003
Albania -10.36 -3.69 -1.46 -1.39 -709 -22.3 3113 3169 1915
Bosnia-
25.92 8.91 2.97 0.32 n.a n.a. 3977 4140 1613
Herzegovina
Bulgaria -5.06 -4.9 -4.74 -4.58 -689 -7.7 8170 7824 2533
Croatia 5.42 13.37 9.72 1.61 -314 -6.6 4446 4456 6398
FYROM -5.66 -1.54 -1.49 -1.46 -46 -2.4 2026 2049 2225
Romania -0.17 +0.02 -0.07 -0.54 -663 -2.9 22435 22200 2550
Serbia-
-1.9(a) -3.38 -1.38 -182 -1.7 10637 8104 1843
Montenegro
Total -2603 54804 51962

Note: Migrants per 1000 population

When more than figures are given for one year, we choose the figure for the largest series.
(a) From UN, Int Migration Report 2003 (c) For the period 1991-2001 (d) UN Dept of Economics + Social Affair.
Source:

7
(ii). Migration Among the Balkan Countries

In the Balkan area, Greece is the only country that, after 1990, has become an
important destination for migrants from Albania, primarily, and to a much lesser
extent from Bulgaria and Romania. According to the 2001 Census 1 of population, the
stock of migrants that has been accumulated over the decade of 1990 in Greece is 762
ths people and includes 438 ths Albanians, 35 ths Bulgarians and 22 ths Romanians. It
is estimated that 12,5% of the Albanian labor force and 14% of the Albanian
population are in Greece. The stock of all immigrants to Greece correspond to 9.5%
of its labor force and to 7.5 of its population. By any standards, these percentage are
high for both countries. Due to proximity and common borders, immigration to
Greece involves, to a substantial extent, seasonal and circular movements the size of
which cannot be measured.

The other migration flows within the Balkan area are very small and should
not have any economic significance for the sending or receiving countries (See
Appendix Table 1). The flows among Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia-
Montenegro are, in all likelihood, the results of the civil conflict in Former Yugoslavia
and are not expected to last. The practically non existing migration flows should not
be surprising, given that these countries are not much different economically and that
there are much better opportunities for economic improvement in the surrounding
countries of the EU.

(iii) Migration from the Balkan Countries

It has already been mentioned that the existing statistical data on migration
flows from and to the Balkan countries are fragmentary with missing values by
country and year and by substantial differences by source. However, some basic
trends can be seen from the available data. From Tables 3,4 and 5 of the Appendix, it
appears that Germany is the most preferred country as a place of destination for
migrants from the Balkan countries. This seems natural given the past huge flows of

1
The census is taken in March 21, that is before the seasonal demand for labor reaches a pick. The
peak season for seasonal employment in Tourism, Construction and Agriculture is late spring and
summer. Thus the Census count is probably an underestimation of the average stock of migrants over
the year.

8
migration from Former Yugoslavia to (West) Germany and the contacts that have been
established in the meantime between those that have migrated and stayed in Germany
and their relatives and friends in the new countries of Former Yugoslavia. In the
present period (after 1990) some new countries appear to have become places of
destination of substantial immigration from the Balkan countries. As mentioned
above Greece has (according to the 2001 Census of Population) a stock of 438 ths
Albanians 35 ths Bulgarians and 22 ths Romanians. Italy has also become a country
of destination with 107,5ths immigrants from Albania, 66.2 ths from Romania, 41.5
ths from Serbia-Montenegro and 15.9 ths from the Former Yugoslavian Republic of
Macedonia, for the 1997-2001 period. Smaller but still significant migration flows are
directed to Austria and Hungary. During the period 1997-2001, Austria has received
35.5 ths immigrants from Serbia-Montenegro 18.9 ths from Croatia and 17.1 ths from
Bosnia. Hungary has received 36.3 ths immigrants from Romania and 7.6 ths from
Serbia and Montenegro. These are the gross out-migration flows. The net migration
flows are, of course, smaller and vary by country as can be seen from tables 3, 4 and 5
of the Appendix.

Despite the fragmentary nature and the rather low quality statistical data, the
following conclusion can be drawn. There are two counties from which substantial
migration flows emanate i.e. Albania and Romania. The flows from Albania are
directed mainly to Greece and Italy whereas the flows from Romania are directed
mainly to Italy, Germany, Hungary and Austria. These are flows that have been
developed since 1990. There are important differences between these two countries.
Albania is a small country with the second lowest per capita income in the area and an
unemployment rate of 17%, and experiences no substantial return migration, at least
there are no indications pointing to a return flow. Romania is the most populous
country in the area with an unemployment rate of 8% and good prospects of growth,
as it is expected to be a member of the European Union in 2007 (its growth rate in
2003 is 4,5%). Looking at the same statistics from the point of view of the receiving
countries, it appears that Greece, Italy and Germany are the main destinations for
migrants from the Balkan countries whereas Austria and Hungary are becoming
significant poles of attraction.

9
(iv) Summary and Conclusion

Despite the lack of adequate data, some general conclusions can be drawn
regarding migration within the Balkan countries and also migration flows to and from
these countries. Regarding the within the Balkans labor movement, Greece is clearly
the only country receiving significant numbers of immigrants from Albania, which is
the major emigration country, from Bulgaria and from Romania. It is hard to make a
judgment for Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina as it is difficult to know to what extent
the in and out flows of migrants represent economic mobility and to what extent they
represent residual effects of the civil conflict. Regarding the out of the Balkans labor
mobility the main receiving countries are Italy, Germany Austria and Hungary, with
Italy receiving mainly Albanian and secondarily Romanian emigrants.

It is difficult to make predictions, within reasonably narrow ranges, regarding

future migration flows in the Balkan area. However some comments may be made.
First the rates of growth of the economies of the Balkan countries will probably differ
substantially. Romania and Bulgaria, which will soon become members of the
European Union, and Croatia a little later, have good chances for relatively high rates
of economic growth. These three countries taken together have a population of
approximately 34.5 million which corresponds to 66% of the population of the Balkan
area (excluding the population of Greece). It is likely that growth in the whole Balkan
area will be based on modern labor saving technologies, given the need for
international competitiveness. Therefore, although economic growth may not
necessarily be accompanied by substantial reductions in the volume of
unemployment one certainly does expect an increase in employment opportunities.
On the other hand, independently of how well these countries do in terms of growth,
the income differences in comparison with the other European countries will remain
large for a long period. All things considered, it is reasonable to assume that even if
the present trends continue in the short-run, one may expect that in the medium and
longer the Balkan countries will not be sizeable pools of emigration flows.

10
Some Preliminary Results form a Bosnia – Herzegovina Survey

It is useful at this point to present some preliminary results from a Bosnia –

Herzegovina Survey on Migration and Remittances. Table 3 show the mobility across
sectors of employment of 862 individuals before migration and after their return.
According to this table 166 individuals were employed in Agriculture before
migration. After their return 41 of them are employed in Agriculture again, 125 are
employed in other sectors and 33 who were employed in other sectors before
migration, are now employed in Agriculture. Thus, overall, Agriculture has lost 192
(=166-74) individuals. Similar calculations can be made for the other sectors. In
general, Agriculture, Manufacturing and Construction show the more substantial
losses in this sample and Hotels and Restaurants, and Public Administration show
gains. The largest difference is in the category “other” which has twice as much
employment after return.

Table 4 which shows the changes in Professional status can be read in a

similar fashion. What is important here is that craft worker and related jobs are
increasing after return whereas the category “unskilled workers” is reported by a
substantially lower number. However it is to be noted that more people are reporting
that they are unemployment after their return than before they left.

Table 5 show the acquisition of additional qualification while abroad as

reported by migrants that have return home. According to this table the majority of
migrants has reported learning a new language, but only one third has learned new
skills on the job.

11
 Table 3
Sector of Employment Before and After Migration
Before After
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Total
1. Agriculture 41 0 1 8 0 14 2 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 90 166
2. Fishing 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
3. Mining 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 12
4. Manufacturing 14 0 0 5.7 0 9 1 5 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 40 135
5. Electricity, Gas, Water 0 0 0 2 7 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 23
6. Construction 6 1 3 4 0 53 1 2 2 0 0 5 0 0 1 1 0 51 130
7. Trade, Repairs 2 0 0 6 0 2 17 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 11 45
8. Hotels+Restaurants 0 0 0 3 0 2 2 21 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 37
9.Transportk Comm. 3 0 0 4 0 10 2 2 23 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 11 58
10.Financial Services 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 7 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 18
11. Real Estate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
12. Public Adm. 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 17 0 0 0 1 0 7 30
13. Eduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 3 9
14.Health, Social Work 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 10 1 0 0 0 17
15. Other Services 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 8
16. Private House bold 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 4
17. Extra-Territorial Org. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18. Other 7 0 0 16 4 14 13 8 10 0 1 12 5 0 1 1 1 74 167

Total 74 2 7 105 12 110 45 44 44 9 5 50 11 12 7 10 1 314 862

Note : Pearson’s X2 statistic is X2=2575.6 with 272 df. and it is significant at 1%.

12
 Table 4
Professional Status Before and After Migration
Before
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Total
1.Senior Official 10 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 15
Manager
2. Professional 4 55 3 8 3 2 6 0 4 0 0 4 6 95
3. Technician 4 3 22 6 2 0 1 5 2 0 0 7 5 57
4. Clerk 0 6 1 28 4 0 5 1 3 0 0 9 7 64
5..Service or Sales 1 2 0 2 21 1 7 3 3 0 0 10 5 55
Worker
6. Stilled Agric. 1 1 0 0 0 4 2 1 5 0 0 1 1 16
Worker
7. Craft worker 1 2 0 1 4 2 50 1 3 0 0 16 8 88
and Related
8.Plant or 6 6 2 1 3 0 6 15 4 0 0 5 7 55
Machine Operator
9.Unskilled 0 1 0 0 6 2 2 8 52 0 0 41 18 130
Worker
10. Armed Forces 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
11. Student 1 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 12
12. Unemployed 6 7 3 1 2 0 12 5 6 0 1 32 10 85
13. Other 3 2 3 3 4 2 6 3 11 0 0 9 25 71

37 88 38 54 50 13 97 42 93 0 2 139 92 745
Note : Pearson’s X2 statistic is X2=1233.5 with 132 df. and it is significant at 1%.

Table 5
Additional Qualifications

Type of Qualification Number

YES NO Percent of Yes
New Language 464 446 51%
Mastering a new Profession 122 788 13.4%
New Skills on the job 292 618 32,1%
New Skills (with exams) 40 870 4,4%
Enhancement of Education 14 896 1,5%
Additional Qualification 634 276 69.7

The distribution of average monthly incomes earned is presented on Table 6.

Two separate distributions are shown, one for migrants who sent money back home
and one for migrant who did not. Both distribution are skewed to the left. The mean
values are 1069 USD for the first and 688 USD for the second.

13
 Table 6
Distributions of Average Monthly Income Earned (USD)

Income Migrants Sending Migrant Not Sending

USD Money Money
Number Recent Number Recent
0-500 111 19.6 174 50.7
500-1000 170 30.0 74 21.6
1001-1500 199 35.2 57 16.6
1501-2000 50 8.8 21 6.1
2001-2500 19 3.4 9 2.6
2501-3000 7 1.2 3 0.9
3001-3500 1 0.2 1 0.3
3501-4000 2 0.4 3 0.9
4001-4500 3 0.5 - -
4501-7000 3 0.5 1 0.3
7001-7500 1 0.2 - -

Sum 566 100 343 100

14
 The distribution of average remittances is shown on Table 7. It is also skewed
to the left. The mean value of this distribution is 328 USD. From the average values
of incomes and remittances it is estimated that approximately 30% of income earned
is remitted.

Table 7
Distribution of Aggregate amount of Remittances during last trip abroad
Amount (USD) Number Percent
<100 257 45.1
1000 – 2000 45 8.0
2000 – 3000 44 7.8
3000 – 4000 28 4.9
4000 – 6000 43 7.6
6000 – 8000 60 10.6
8000 – 10000 38 6.7
1000 – 20000 27 4.8
20000 – 30000 12 2.1
30000 – 60000 6 1.1
>60000 6 1.1
Sum 566 100

Finally it is interesting to see how remittances are use. According to Table 8,

approximately thirty percent of migrant reported that remittances were used for food
and clothing, twenty-two percent for the education of children and twenty-eight
percent for a general category “savings” which probably means later use for one of
the other items of the table.

Table 8
Uses of Remittances
Remittances Where Used for Number Percent
Savings 156 27.8
Investment in Business 20 3.6

15
Education of children 125 22.3
Food and Clothing 170 30.3
Medical Expenses 8 1.4
Education 6 1.1
Buying Property 9 1.6
Home Repair 39 7.0
Wedding, Celebration, Funeral - -
Buying Land 10 1.8
Buying a Car 2 0.4
Starting a new Business 3 0.5
Charity 2 0.4
Other 11 2.0
Sum 561 100

16
 Appendix Table 1
Intra-Balkan Migration Flows

To Albania Bosnia + Bulgaria Croatia FYROM Greece Romania Serbia +

From Herzegovina Montenegro
Albania 9 215 3
Bosnia + 118832 251 - Ø
Herzegovina
Bulgaria 15 69 11
Croatia* - 2747 - - 55 1 19 Ø 3517
1996+97+98 474 610
FYROM* 6 20 3 30 - 1 2 Ø 388
1996+1998 342 3
Greece 2 153 115
Romania* 8 Ø 49 33 3 822 - 339
1996+97+98 3 56 26 -
2000-2003 2 Ø 2 2 Ø 557 55
Serbia + 10478 1333 140 103
Montenegro

Source: UN Statistics Division Demographic Database, Statistical Office of the Republic Macedonia, Central Bureau of Statistics of Croatia,
National Commission for Statistics of Romania. For Romania 2000-2003, the data were supplied by D. Gheorghiou SOPEMS correspondent.

Note: * Indicates the country reporting emigrant and immigrant figures. In cells where there are two numbers, the number below shows the
reverse flow. For example, according to Romanian estimates, during the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 49 people in total have moved from
Romania to Bulgaria whereas 56 people in total have moved from Bulgaria to Romania.

17
 Appendix Table 2.

Migration Flows 1997-2003(Ths)

Years 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Countries
Albania

Bosnia +Herzegovina
Bulgaria Out 64.0 54.0 66.0
In
Net 0.8 4.2 -0.3
Croatia Out 18.5 7.6 14.3 6.0 7.5 11.8 6.5
In 52.3 51.8 32.9 29.4 24.4 20.4 18.5
Net 33.8 44.2 18.6 23.4 16.9 8.6 11.9
Fyrom Out 0.2 0.5 0.1
In 0.6 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.3
Net
Greece Out
In
Net 12.2 33.9 32.1
Romania Out 19.9 17.5 12.6 14.8 9.9 8.2 16.0
In 8.4 11.3 10.5 12.4 11.0 6.6 3.9
Net -13.3 -5.6 -2.1 -2.4 1.1 -1.6 -12.1
Serbia + Montenegro Out 12.69 164.4
In 117.4 214.2
Net -9.5 49.8

Note: Net Migration figures do not necessarily equal the difference between Out
and In flows. Some signs do not agree with those of Table 1 e.g. Serbia and
Montenegro. Empty cells mean non available data.

Source: Central Bureau of Statistics Republic of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro

Statistical Office, International Labour Office, Eurostat, Population Statistics
2004

18
 Appendix Tables 3

Intra-Migration by Country of Immigration and Emigration 2002

To CZ DK DE EL ES FR IE IT CY HU NL AT PT SI SK FI SE UK
From
Albania
IM 40 20 1500 110 10 50
EM
Bosnia+Herzeg
IM 80 210 10570 480 10 120 60 1130
Bulgaria
IM 730 150 13230 360 440 120  50 170
Croatia
IM 150 30 12990 170 10 210  150
EM 10 1450 10 20 20 1110 160   10 10
FYROM
IM 200 110 3950 170  30 10 150
Greece
IM 60 260 15910 4420 1080 10  70 60
Romania
IM 80 610 4440 20 5360 180 10 150 390
EM 100 - 1310 60 170 230 120 1320 20 900 70 290 10 120  40 50
Serbia+Monten
IM 320 180 25770 260 900 10 140 220 2070

Source: Eurostat, Population Statistics 2004, Tables F-12 and F-13

Note: IM and EM indicate that the reporting country is the Immigration and Emigration country respectively.

19
 Appendix Table 4

Migration Inflows – Outflows (Ths), 1997-2002

AUT CAN CZEH FRANCE GERM HUNG ITALY NOR SWEDEN SWITZ USA
Albania
107.5
Bosnia+Herzegovina
To 17.1 48.8 6.3 73.8
From 15.2 8.4 0.6 242.5 1.6
Bulgaria
0.5
Croatia
To 18.9 60.7
From 14.7 74.9
Fyrom
To 4.1 15.9
From 1.6 12.8
Greece
To 84.0 1.3
From 99.2 0.3
Romania
To 7.6 0.2 5.4 93.7 36.3 66.2
From 4.8 77.2 2.1
Serbia+Mon
To 35.5 0.8 4.0 240.2 7.6 41.5 8.3 38.0
From 24.1 284.5 7.1
Source: OECD, Trends in International Migration, various years.

20
 Appendix Table 5

GERMANY FRANCE UK ITALY GREECE EU-15 CAN-USA REST OF WORLD TOTAL

Croatia
1196+97+98
Emigration to 812 16 8 72 1 1209 199 34742 36150
Immigration from 8167 153 29 301 2 11873 1286 135564 148723
FYROM
1996+1998
Emigration to 14 - - - 1 33 2 460 495
Immigration from 24 5 4 4 11 61 64 2421 2546
ROMANIA
2000+2003
Emigration to 6313 1843 390 6938 557 19743 15849 11612 47204
Immigration from 889 374 37 354 113 2100 1229 28226 31555

Source: D. Gheorghiou

21