Szilágyi Györgyi, Flóra Gábor

 

POLITICAL OPTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF “NATIONAL INTEREST “

IN THE CONTEXT OF LABOUR MIGRATION FROM ROMANIA TO HUNGARY

 

 Following the political transformations in Central and Eastern Europe, from the beginning of nineties the nature of population movements to and from Hungary has changed. Hungarian territory is not anymore a place of emigration, but a target for immigration and for transit migrants heading to west-European countries.

 

At the end of eighties, beginning of nineties, 80% of the immigrants came from Romania. Emigration from Romania to Hungary has intensified in the last years of communist regime, when due to the restrictions a large part of resettling population arrived by illegal means. The opening of the borders provided an opportunity for those who wanted to leave, but were previously kept in by force and also for those who simply decided to start a new life in the new conditions. They belonged mainly to the young and middle aged generations.

 

The largest proportion (an estimated 95%) of definitive migrants from Romania to Hungary is made up of ethnic Hungarians. Due to the ethnic, linguistic and cultural ties between Hungarians living in Hungary and Romania and the mediating role of relatives and friends, both the decisions to settle in Hungary and the practical possibility to implement such decisions have strong ethnic dimensions and connotations. To Hungarians from Romania Hungary is a place of special social, economic and symbolic attraction. The interethnic tensions in Romania after 1989 also contributed to ethnic Hungarian emigration by increasing the feeling of uncertainty and insecurity among ethnic Hungarian minority members.

 

By contrast, ethnic Romanians are predominantly looking towards western countries as preferred target area. This is not surprising at all, taking into account that in Hungary, for considerably lower wages than attainable in the West, they would have to overcome not only the linguistic and cultural barriers, but also a much stronger fear of discrimination. As a consequence, ethnic Hungarians are much more likely to consider the option of remaining in Hungary and to transform such intention into reality. To them, Hungary does not appear as simply a foreign country like any other. Their definition of “home” is more complex. It can include and integrate into a unitary vision both the place of origin (Romania) and the place of destination (Hungary). What is taking place in fact in the mind of ethnic Hungarian migrants is a continuous redefinition of the significance of geographic, economic, social and cultural space in which they are moving both in terms of the requirements of adaptation and in terms of symbolic appropriation.

 

Given the minority situation of Hungarians living in Romania, to achieve a majority status in the host country can also be regarded as one of the motivational factors of their emigration to Hungary. Unlike in the classical scheme of migration, in this case, emigration is not creating problems of ethnic and linguistic adaptation. Instead it appears in this respect as a problem solving strategy. This fact does not exclude the possibility that a certain proportion of ethnic Hungarian immigrants from Romania might encounter difficulties of integration into the cultural and community environment of Hungary. The primary causes of this are laying in the differences of citizenship and political culture and the existence of divergent interpretations of the belonging to the Hungarian nation.

 

What is characteristic for the migrant type of work engagement is the effort to achieve a long- term adaptation to the values and cultural norms of the host country. By contrast, in the attitudes of non-migrant type laborers, a marked separation between the country of work and the country of habitation can be observed. To this category of migrants, the host country means little more than an opportunity to work and earn money for living and improving life standards in their home countries and regions. To temporary and seasonal migrants the deeply internalized necessity of long term adaptation to the social and cultural norms of their home regions take precedence over the practical need to temporarily adapt to the set of norms and expectations of the host society.

 

Labor migration involving resettlement should be seen not just as a step of territorial mobility, but also as a process, taking into account the time variable. In some cases the intention to emigrate acts as the primary moving force, while other times the opportunity to work and earn money constitutes the most important motivating factor. The intention of temporary resettling people to remain definitively in their host country can be there from the very beginning, or might occur later. Sometime such intentions do materialize, other times not. Or, by contrast, the intention to definitively resettle may subsequently vanish.

 

Labor migrants might convert their status in definitive migration, come back definitively to their country of origin or adopt a commuting way of life. That is why not just one step, but the whole mobility path of individuals engaged in the process needs to be studied. For part of the migrants, especially for those having already their own families back at home, the final decision to settle up in Hungary might be the combined result of two factors. On the one hand, the lack of perspectives in Romania, and, on the other hand, the difficulty to go on long term with a way of life which splits the family. By contrast, there are also families who managed to accommodate with this style of life and are not planning any change.

 

Often, the initial intention of guest workers is to come back home after several years.. However, with the passing of years many of them are getting accustomed with the higher income, and it becomes much harder for them to relinquish the already achieved life standards by choosing to return home. Their preoccupations are switching now to the opposite direction: they are not planning any more how to move back to their home country, but how to bring over the family members to Hungary. Still, their decision to migrate to Hungary might not be for the whole lifetime. There are some who, are planning to return back “with lots of money” at older age, when they are going to retire.

 

To Hungarian policy makers, the issue of ethnic Hungarian immigration, including labor migration from the neighbor countries, is raising serious concerns. One side of the problem is a matter of harmonization with the European legislation, namely to what extent can receive ethnic Hungarian arrivers a special preferential treatment compared to other immigrants in the conditions of the necessity of adaptation to the European Union legislation in this field. The second, and perhaps even more complex, question is to what extent such preferential treatment is desirable from the perspective of Hungarian national interest.

 

There is an extremely delicate balance between the degree of offering support from ethnic Hungarian immigrants and the need to prevent their en mass emigration from the lands they inhabited for centuries. While the flows of Hungarian ethnic immigrants into Hungary is demographically beneficial, a too large number of newcomers competing with Hungarian citizens for the same working opportunities and needing the same range of social benefits is likely to produce social and political tensions.

 

Nevertheless, the number of work permits issued by the Hungarian governments increased constantly but slowly: 21 401 in 1998, 23 486 in 1999, 30 638 in 2000. In 2002 it reached the level of 81 000. This reflects the growing need for foreign labor and a stronger pressure from the side of enterprises to which decision-makers had to react, but in the same time the preoccupation of the government to protect the employment and wages of Hungarian citizens. Compared to the size of the occupied population, the proportion of foreigners active in Hungary with work permits remains at very low level (in 1998 only half percent of the total number of employees). The number of legally employed foreign citizens, remains at low level (only 3-5%) even if compared with the number of unemployed.

 

Not by chance, about half of the foreigners working legally are Romanian citizens. In 2001 the Hungarian Consular Office in Cluj issued 18 500 visa. Out of these, 80% are for work, 10% for study and the remaining 10% for entrepreneurs and for private visits. The number of work visas issued increased from 11000 in 2000 to 16 000 in 2001[1], which denotes a growing demand of skilled labor supply from Romania.

 

This phenomenon originates in the fact that after 1989 Hungary has witnessed a higher demand for the types of qualified workers that Romania can provide. The causes of this phenomenon lay both in the divergent characteristics of socialist industrialization in the two countries and in the specificity of economic development during the years of transition. While Hungary adopted more balanced policies of economic development, in Romania a one-sided industrialization process took place, focusing almost exclusively on heavy industry. This also meant the professional training of a huge number of skilled workers in various technical fields.

 

With the collapse of the communist economic system, many of these workers lost their jobs or quitted due to the low standard of wages. In the same period, Hungary, with the increasing penetration of foreign capital and the migration of its qualified labor towards West, experienced a growing shortage of adequately trained and available work force. In spite of a large number of unemployed (more than 400 000 in November 2001), many jobs (40 000 in the same period)[2] could not be filled due to the lack of availability of adequate workforce. The demand and supply of labor often did not fit. Thus all conditions were ready for an important wave of technically qualified labor migrants coming from Romania to Hungary.

 

However, the need for Romanian skilled workers was higher than the increase in the number of work permits that the government assumed the risk to issue each year. Granting of work permits for foreigners has been throughout this period a sensitive subject, which could raise fears and negative reactions from Hungarian citizens worried about the consequences of “unfair competition of foreigners ” for their jobs and wages. In such social context the emergence of new needs in the labor market could not be translated immediately in a political decision of the same amplitude to allow more foreign workers in.

 

That is why many professionally highly qualified labor migrants coming to work to Hungary for shorter or longer terms decided to start illegally, hoping that in time the social need for their contribution will be recognized and will be able to convert their illegal labor status in fully legal employment. Some succeeded in their attempts, some not, due to the persisting restrictions concerning the number of work permits, which can be issued each year.

 

The possessors of work permits are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, either highly qualified specialists in fields where their special expertise is needed (such as computing) or in professional fields where there is an obviously insufficient number of Hungarian citizen candidates for the job (e.g. nursing). Due to the existence of a strong demand for their skills, legally employed workers are also the best candidates for definitive resettlement. This does not mean, however, that they are necessarily using the opportunity of working abroad in order to prepare the ground for obtaining permanent residence and citizenship. Earning money to raise their life standards in their home country or for starting a business of their own can also provide a strong motivation for working in Hungary legally.

 

While the two concerned countries have developed several bilateral cross border cooperation initiatives, these are barely touching the issue of labor migration. In this field government policies are designed and implemented under the pressure of ad hoc situations and interests. What is particularly missing is the co-ordination of development projects into a unitary strategy at regional level. There is a lack of coordination between the legal framework and policies of Hungary and Romania. Regional thinking and region-based efforts to deal with the phenomenon are also almost completely absent.

 

In Romania (the “sender” country), governments are working, without major success, to attenuate poverty and to reverse pauperization process. However, the ad hoc centralist redistribution measures taken in this regard are running against the natural direction of pro market economic reforms and do not offer any solution to the problem of illegal labor migration. Government policies of the "receiver" country (Hungary) are focusing on crisis management and to restrictive measures to prevent the “invasion” of foreign workforce in order to protect the position in the labor market of Hungarian citizens. These efforts, however, might come in contradiction both with the European Union legislation concerning free movement of labor and with the Hungarian government policy of support for ethnic Hungarians in the neighbor countries.

 

Hungarian local authorities from the border region are interested to preserve the border crossing formalities, as these provide large employment opportunities for local inhabitants. By contrast, the local authorities in the Romanian side of the border are primarily interested to reduce those formalities, in order to create favorable conditions for attracting foreign capital to their localities. In the same time, they tend to support the option of their inhabitants for cross border employment as a mean to ease social problems in their communities. Regional employment authorities in Romania are also preoccupied to attract foreign investors by demonstrating the existence of qualified and cheap surplus of workforce in their regions.  On the other hand, their main concern is that they are not able to exercise a larger degree of control over the guest worker phenomenon as mediators between foreign employment seekers and their potential employers. 

 

On the Romanian an side of the border there is a strong regional interest to regulate foreign labor so as to prevent definitive emigration to Hungary of their qualified workforce. This manifests itself not just at the level of regional administrative institutions, but even much more forcefully at civil society level. In the past years in Romania several attempts were initiated to create cross border employment mediating agencies in the border regions.

 

However, private agencies have to function in conditions of undeclared official suspicion that they are facilitating illegal work abroad.  Central authorities insist in their efforts to preserve complete control over labor mediation. Their main argument in doing so it is to protect potential guest workers from the abuse of employers and employment mediating agencies and to ensure that legal norms and inter-state agreements concerning foreign labor are being enforced. Beyond the political rhetoric combining populist and legalist motives, however, the governmental reasons behind this attitude can be explained by other factors. These are the strong centralist political tradition of the country, the interests linked to the central power, and the perception of cross border labor as a delicate political issue which might affect Hungarian-Romanian relations. In addition, the new adoption of the law also denotes the effort of the Romanian power-holders to improve their image both in the country (as protectors of the rights of Romanian workers abroad) and internationally (as defenders of legality in the labor mediation system).

 

In line with these preoccupations, Government Resolution nr.53/2002 has been enacted, to modify Law nr.156/2000 concerning "the protection of Romanian citizens working abroad." Art. 5 of the new regulation stipulates that private labor mediation agencies, including local subsidiaries of foreign companies, can be active in the field of placing Romanian employees in other countries only if the following five conditions are fulfilled: they shall have the necessary office space and facilities; shall employ qualified personnel with experience in the field of labor force; shall set up a database of job offers and demands, including data concerning the qualifications of job applicants; shall negotiate contractual agreements, including firm job offers, with the foreign employers; shall register with their regional employment  authority.[3] All such agencies need to undertake a process of accreditation in order to be able to function legally.

 

Beyond this new regulation, the Romanian Ministry of Labor also took the initiative to act as an official mediator of jobs, particularly in relation to the countries of the European Union. Periodically, job offers from the European Union countries, are publicly announced by the Ministry, and applicants invited to submit their requests. As usually competition for these places is extremely high, the centralization of the distribution system undoubtedly created a new potential source of corruption. This centralizing approach of the Romanian authorities reflects in fact the peculiarities of the institutional and legal system of the country, which leaves a rather small space of autonomous action to the local communities. Any regional initiatives (such as the setting up of micro-regions, associations or other forms of partnerships between localities) still need to be approved by the central government in order to function legally. Indeed, in the absence of local autonomy it is difficult to think about the possibility to harmonize labor market policies of local communities at the different sides of the border.

 

One important category of unresolved problems where the concerned governments are lacking a coordinated strategy is concerning the social security issues connected with cross-border labor. The guest workers of Romania are using the opportunities of legal or illegal labor in Hungary to earn larger incomes, which would not be available to them in their home countries. However, one important disadvantage is that even if they are employed legally and contribute to the social security system in Hungary, the years spent working abroad do not count towards entitling them to a pension. In the absence of an inter-state agreement to regulate this matter, they have to choose between present foreign employment and future social safety. Although some guest workers are attempting to preserve a formal employment also in their home countries, most do not succeed in doing so. Their only hope for the time being can only be that the additional income earned abroad or in some cases a combination of incomes from guest work and home family economies might offer a degree of compensation for this situation.

 

The new regulations enacted by the Romanian authorities do not make much easier for guest workers to escape this dilemma. In order to benefit from the services of the Romanian social security system, guest workers employed abroad on the basis of legal contracts must pay social security contributions to the Romanian State, which are calculated on the basis of their declared income obtained in the foreign country.[4] As they are obliged by the Hungarian law to pay all taxes and contributions in their country of employment, paying in two countries simultaneously would be a financial burden which most of them are not prepared to accept. The more so, as many perceive guest worker status only as a temporary income optimizing strategy and are not planning to settle in Hungary.

 

The situation of illegal workers is obviously even more precarious, as they usually do not posses social safety and health insurance at all. As far as health care is concerned, the only solution is to take advantage of the emergency medical assistance, which in Hungary is provided free of charge to anybody in need, regardless his/her employment status. Indeed, the insecure way of life of many illegal guest workers belonging to the "underground" society (alcoholics, prostitutes, members of rival gangs, etc.) often leads to accidents and other forms of illness. These require immediate hospitalization and treatment at the expense of the state budget, to which these people never contributed.

 

Hungarian employers are interested in a favorable legislation on guest work in order to be able to select and attract the best workforce from Romania. By contrast, the main preoccupation of central Hungarian authorities is to protect local workforce by adopting restrictive regulations concerning the employment of foreigners. Thus in addition of being a inter-state and inter-ethnic problem, the employment of guest labor in Hungary is also a problem producing internal divisions in that country.

 

On the other hand, there are visible signs of "coalitions" between employers and authorities as far as the acceptance (or rather, the toleration) of illegal foreign workers is concerned. Officially, of course, representatives of self-governments are acting on behalf of the interests of local employees. Their economic and even political interests are, however, linked more to those of employers, who are quite influential in the local political scene.  In the same time, there is a silent recognition of the fact that illegal labor needs to be tolerated within certain limits as an essential component of local economies and social safety.  That is why the existence of the phenomenon is often simply ignored. Illegal guest workers do not appear in any official evidence at local level.  Local officials tend not to reply to outside inquiries concerning the amplitude and characteristics of cross border illegal labor.

 

Cross border labor has become an important subject of the Hungarian and Romanian political agenda after the adoption of the Status Law and particularly of the Hungarian-Romanian Agreement concerning its implementation. The law adopted in 2001 by the Hungarian Parliament aimed at offering the possibility for ethnic Hungarians living in the neighbor countries to work in Hungary for a period of three months each year regardless the situation of labor market. By virtue of the Romanian-Hungarian Agreement (also known as the Orban-Nastase Agreement) signed at the end of the same year, this possibility was extended to the whole population of Romania. This agreement has been in force until June 2003, when the modified version of the Status Law proposed by the coalition government formed by MSZP and FIDESZ after the April 2002 elections eliminated any reference to foreign labor.

 

After the Romanian-Hungarian agreement was signed, the issue of “Hungarian national interest” interpreted as the need to protect citizens of Hungary from the unfair competition of guest workers (including ethnic Hungarians from outside Hungary’s borders) was intensively taken up by the Hungarian opposition parties. This became a major subject of political debate preceding the 2002 April elections. Only after the electoral victory of the opposition and the setting up of the new coalition government formed by MSZP and FIDESZ, the political turmoil around the issue of Romanian labor migration to Hungary started to calm down.

 

Those who contested the relevant provisions of the Hungarian-Romanian declaration argued that by making possible to all Romanian citizens to work three months in Hungary, an ‘invasion” of Romanian migrant workers to Hungary has become imminent. They warned that cheep Romanian workforce would eliminate unemployed Hungarian citizens from the seasonal labor market, which provided so far an important source of living to them. In addition, they argued that as the result of the social and health needs of the newcomers, the budget was going to be subjected to unbearable pressures, which will lead to economic and political crisis. To bring more persuasion to the argument, a local and regional focus was added. It was presumed that the main target areas of Romanian migrant workers would be the less developed regions of Eastern Hungary, where wages are the lowest, and rates of unemployment are the highest in the country.

 

The criticism of opposition parties, which was supported by important trade unions and accompanied by a large media campaign, had a strong impact on population views. According to the results of an opinion poll conducted by Gallup in 22 January 2002, in a representative sample for the whole population of Hungary, 21% of the respondents was strongly concerned for the situation of the labor market, while 26% was to some extent concerned. In the same time a polarization of views according to party preferences could be observed (only 27% of the respondents belonging to the electoral pull of government parties expressed concerns as opposed to 67% in case of those preferring the coalition of the main opposition parties. The same tendency resulted from another survey conducted three weeks later by phone by the Szonda-Ipsos Institute. 70% of those questioned considered that they might loose their jobs as a consequence of the agreement and 57% expressed their view that the agreement serves the interests of Romania, rather than those of Hungary.

 

In an effort to minimize the negative electoral effects of these attacks, the Government tried to assure the population that such fears are not based on facts. In the official view of that time, opening up the labor market for foreign working hands, while in accordance with the interests of Hungarian employers, does not represent a threat to local employees. On the contrary, it would attenuate the shortage of workforce in certain key sectors of economy; thus contributing to economic developed and through this, to social welfare. Instead of being a burden to the budget of social security, according to the governmental argumentation, foreign employment will provide the budget with more resources, due to the taxes foreign employees will pay. Even in short term, there will be no any negative consequences whatsoever for the population of Hungary, as the restrictions, which prevented competition of foreign workers with Hungarian citizen job-applicants, will remain in force. Annual quotas of work permits for foreigners were not increased in 2002.[5] According to official government view, all these provisions, and the functioning of a multi-level authorizing procedure, provided sufficient tools for the Government to keep the process under control.[6]

 

Another important issue raised refers to the relationship between short term-work and emigration. After the adoption of the Status Law, Hungarian intellectuals and minority leaders from Romania as well as representatives of the main opposition parties of Hungary worried, that the provisions of the law concerning employment might be the start of a new wave of ethnic Hungarian immigration. However, later developments did so far only partially confirm such concerns. In the period, which has passed since the adoption of the Status Law until the modification adopted in June 2003 which eliminated altogether the provisions concerning foreign labor, only a few people expressed their intention to take advantage of the new regulations.[7] Skilled laborers continued to apply for one year, rather than three moths valid work permit, while unskilled workforce continue to prefer illegal engagement.  While Status Law was generally welcomed by Hungarian minority members as an important symbolic gesture underlining their belonging to the Hungarian nation, the provisions concerning guest work were not regarded essential by most ethnic Hungarians from Romania. The confusions created and the politicization of the issue after the Orban-Nastase Agreement undoubtedly contributed to this assessment.

 

The causes of this phenomenon are various. To most qualified workers who have permanent jobs in their home country it is too difficult to obtain three months leave from their home jobs and too risky to abandon their job for the sake of three months work in Hungary. As for applicants to seasonal work, most of them have no other chance apart from being employed without legal forms. The option to work legally for three months is neither attractive to them (as they would have to pay for employment visa and accept lower wages) and to their employers (who would have to pay taxes).

 

There are basically two categories, which make an exception from this rule. The first category consists of those high level professionals, who are specifically needed in Hungary due to their special expertise. Secondly, there are young Romanian citizens studying in Hungarian universities, who might wish to settle and start their professional career in Hungary. To the members of these groups, the Status Law provisions concerning employment (which were in force only until August 2003) could indeed be used as a first step in initiating emigration and it was regarded as such. Their number was too small, however, to produce a “wave.”

 

Nevertheless, Hungarian minority leaders from Romania repeatedly reaffirmed the necessity to adequately regulate short term and seasonal work. In their view, this necessity is arising from the importance of such working opportunities, which provide essential source of living to a population affected by economic crisis, low wages and increasing unemployment. In the same time, ethnic Hungarian representatives often express their hope that the compensatory role fulfilled by guest work will prove to be only a temporary phenomenon. According to their view, the real solution to the problems encountered by guest workers would be economic improvement in their home countries and regions, which would enable Romanian workers to earn as much at home as they do currently in Hungary. [8]

 

Finally, the third important issue of debate, which also had a significant dimension affecting inter-state relations between Romania and Hungary, has been the problem of discrimination against ethnic Romanian short term and seasonal labor migrants. After the Hungarian-Romanian Declaration concerning the application of the status law, which offered the same legal possibility to all citizens of Romania, regardless ethnic belonging, to work in Hungary for an annual period of three months came into effect, a special committee was established by the Romanian Government. The task of this body has been to monitor the treatment of ethnic Romanians applying for three months work in Hungary in order to ensure that employers or authorities do not subject them to discrimination.

 

Subsequently it turned out, however, that establishing such a committee had more a symbolic and rhetorical rather than practical significance. When Hungarian officials stated that it would continue to remain difficult for ethnic Romanians to find a job in Hungary, the Romanian Government reacted not as energetically and firmly as usual in similar situations. It seems that the satisfaction over the "diplomatic victory ", the fact that the formal recognition by Hungarian Government of the principle of non--discrimination on ethnic grounds was included in the Agreement, made the Romanian side to refrain from further steps aimed at promoting non-discrimination in practice.

 

The position of Hungarian Government on the issue of applying or not ethnic criteria in hiring labor force from Romania has been subjected to critics from the political opposition as well. It has been argued that Hungarian government policy had in this respect an ambiguous character. While during negotiations with Romania Hungary promised not to discriminate against ethnic Romanian job applicants, in the same time the government tried to reassure its own population, that nothing essential will change: the government will prevent the en mass employment of Romanian citizens.

 

The political debate ensuing after the adoption of the Hungarian-Romanian declaration produced a rather curious reversal of the traditional political positions and ideological outlooks of the respective parties. The government party FIDESZ, which in the past few years strongly emphasized a cultural, rather than political vision of the Hungarian nation, this time made a step back, allowing the very same rights for employment to all citizens of Romania. Thus they formally renounced to the special treatment of ethnic Hungarians, which initially was enshrined in the text of the law. By contrast, the opposition parties MSZP and SZDSZ, which usually firmly rejected any forms of discrimination on any ground, now energetically declared themselves in favor of excluding ethnic Romanians from the beneficiaries of the Status Law in the name of Hungarian national interest.

 

As an alternative both to government and opposition views, the idea emerged that regional, rather than ethnic criteria should be applied in considering applications for guest worker employment in Hungary. In practice this would mean that candidates of all ethnic backgrounds coming from the border region should be offered certain advantages over those coming from other geographic areas.

 

There are some strong arguments in favor of such a regulatory system. First, it would encourage cross-border regional development by strengthening the links between employers, employees and authorities in the region both in terms of day to day contacts and at symbolic level. Second, the regional criteria are more acceptable for the European Union and therefore policies based on these have better chances of implementation. Finally, by avoiding preferential treatment on ethnic ground it would probably attenuate ethnic tensions within the border region and would ease Hungarian-Romanian interstate relations.

 

On the other hand, however, the disadvantages of region based regulations concerning foreign employment are also obvious: while abandoning ethnic criteria, in the same time it would introduce a new discriminatory principle and would put regions outside the Hungarian-Romanian border area in a unfavorable position. More importantly, it would lead to the marginality of the Secklerland, a region inhabited by a homogenous ethnic Hungarian population, but situated in central Romania, which is currently deeply engaged in the exchange of human, institutional and cultural resources with Hungary.

 

With the enlargement of EU in 2004 became a member, while Romania will have to wait at least until 2007. After 2004 the eastern borders of Hungary became in the same time the external borders of EU. This fact will create, at least in short term, a more favorable environment for foreign investments, which is bearing high development potential. This type of foreign capital will continue to attract the highly qualified workforce from Romania. In the same time, Hungary's joining of EU and the adoption of EU labor regulations will result in higher wages and thus a more expensive workforce in Hungary. This is very likely to lead to the migration from Hungary to Romania of those foreign investors who are primarily looking for cheap labor. The newly arriving foreign capital will be able to employ a large part of workers with low qualification, so they will not necessarily have to look for working opportunities in Hungary.

 

From the perspective of advancing European integration process, the existence of the appropriate legislative framework, economic and social policies aimed at ensuring the three movement of persons, labour, material and spiritual goods across the borders is of utmost importance. This is essential also for securing the human rights of migrants in accordance with international and European Union standards.

 

 

back

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



[1] Szatmári Friss Újság 7 January 2002

[2] Statement by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Népszabadság, 29 December 2001

[3] http://www.agenda.ro/2002/34-02-4.htm

[4] http://www.agenda.ro/2002/34-02-4.htm

[5] Szatmári Friss Újság, 16 February 2002

[6] Statement by Hungarian Economy Minister, György Matolcsy, Népszabadság, 7 January 2002

[7] http://www.psd.ro/presa/confdepresa/200205/conf-020528-psd-dancu-gusa.htm

[8] interview with Zsolt Szilagyi, Member of Romanian Parliament representing Bihor County, Bihari Napló, 24 January 2002