International Migration Patterns in and between Hungary and Austria

International Migration Patterns in and between Hungary and Austria Research Report Ádám Németh, Borbála Göncz, Josef Kohlbacher, György Lengyel, Attila Melegh, Zsolt Németh, Ursula Reeger, Lilla Tóth January 2023 FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 1 This working paper was developed in the context of the project MIGWELL – Well-being and Migration: the Hungary – Austria Migration Nexus Work Package 2: „Secondary Analysis of Existing Data‟ MIGWELL is an FWF–NKFIH International Joint Project. In Austria the project is funded by the Austrian Science Fund. In Hungary the project has been implemented with the support provided by the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund (Ministry of Innovation and Technology of Hungary), financed under the ANN funding scheme. Project code: I 5616 (in Austria), 139465 (in Hungary) Project duration: 01.02.2022 – 31.07.2025 (in Austria), 01.12.2021 – 31.05.2025 (in Hungary) Project Partners: Institute for Urban and Regional Research at the Austrian Academy of Sciences Centre for Empirical Social Research at the Corvinus University of Budapest Department of Finno-Ugrian Studies, University of Vienna Scientific Advisory Board: Department of Sociology, University of Vienna Hungarian Demographic Research Institute Hungarian Central Statistical Office MIGWELL‟s website: LINK MIGWELL‟s outputs will be uploaded to: LINK Inquiries can be directed to: Institute for Urban and Regional Research at the Austrian Academy of Sciences, [email protected].at or Centre for Empirical Social Research at the Corvinus University of Budapest, [email protected] Suggested citation: Németh, Á., Göncz, B., Kohlbacher, J., Lengyel, Gy., Melegh, A., Németh, Zs., Reeger, U., and Tóth, L. (2023) International Migration Patterns in and between Hungary and Austria. MIGWELL Working Papers, No. 2.1. 46 p. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 2 Table of contents 1. Aims .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Migration: definitions and methodological challenges ............................................................................. 4 2.1 An overview of key definitions and the focus of the MIGWELL project ................................................. 4 2.2 Methodological challenges........................................................................................................................ 5 2.3 Data sources .............................................................................................................................................. 7 3. General population dynamics .................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Hungary .................................................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Austria ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 4. International migration processes ........................................................................................................... 15 4.1 Hungary .................................................................................................................................................. 15 4.1.1 Migration flows ....................................................................................................................................... 15 4.1.2 Population by place of birth .................................................................................................................... 18 4.2 Austria ..................................................................................................................................................... 19 4.2.1 Migration flows ....................................................................................................................................... 19 4.2.2 Population by place of birth .................................................................................................................... 23 5. The Hungary – Austria migration nexus ................................................................................................. 26 5.1 Migration processes since the late 19th century ....................................................................................... 26 5.2 Migration flows between Hungary and Austria after the millennium ..................................................... 28 5.3 The Hungarian population stock in Austria ............................................................................................ 31 5.3.1 Some socio-demographic features of permanent immigrants from Hungary .......................................... 34 5.4 Spatial aspect .......................................................................................................................................... 35 5.5 The Austrian population stock in Hungary ............................................................................................. 40 6. Open questions for MIGWELL .............................................................................................................. 42 7. Literature ................................................................................................................................................. 43 FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 3 MIGWELL at a glance The MIGWELL project focuses on the nexus of migration and well-being in Hungary and Austria. Using quantitative and qualitative research methods, it seeks to explore the impacts of migration on subjective well-being in the case of Hungarian immigrants in Austria as well as the effects of subjective well-being differences on emigration potential in Hungary. The approach of this project is innovative, not only because it links the concepts of „well-being‟ and „migration‟, but also because it interprets their two-way causal relationship within one research framework. Since the Covid-19 pandemic might have had a profound impact on both pillars, MIGWELL will also reflect on the rapidly changing socio-economic and well-being related issues that have emerged due to the epidemic throughout the life cycle of the project. The theoretical expansion of these concepts and the empirical findings of the project may contribute to more effective policies in both countries. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 4 1. Aims The main goal of Work Package 2 is to understand the patterns of subjective well-being in Hungary and Austria, and the factors responsible for the country-level differences as a driver behind international migration flows. Most importantly, EU-SILC and micro-census data will provide input for the secondary analysis, which will also consider the changing macrostructural conditions and the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic. Before presenting an exhaustive statistical analysis of the currently available secondary data on well-being, this paper, as the first deliverable of WP2, aims to provide an overarching analysis of the international migration patterns in Hungary and Austria. 2. Migration: definitions and methodological challenges 2.1 An overview of key definitions and the focus of the MIGWELL project A previous research report of the MIGWELL project, entitled “Conceptual Framework for the Study of the Subjective Well-being–Migration Nexus” (Németh et al. 2022: 4-19) already provided an overview of the key definitions and some typologies of migration processes in general, followed by a literature-based review of the main theories on migration and wellbeing. This chapter briefly summarizes the most important definitions that are relevant for Work Package 2, “Secondary Analysis of Existing Data”. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs defines an international migrant as “any person who changes his or her country of usual residence”, excluding movements due to “recreation, holiday, visits to friends and relatives, business, medical treatment or religious pilgrimages”. Persons who are absent from their country of origin for a period of three to twelve months are considered short‐term international migrants. If this period exceeds twelve months, they appear in statistics as long‐term international migrants (UN 1998: 17). The term “usual residence” is used to refer to the place “at which a person normally spends the daily period of rest, regardless of temporary absence for purposes of recreation, business, medical treatment or religious pilgrimage or, in default, the place of legal or registered residence” (EC 2007). However, not all states adhere precisely to these definitions, as we will point out in Chapter 2.2. It is important to mention here that during the last years, a new expression has emerged in the European Union‟s parlance: when EU nationals or legally resident third-country nationals move from one EU Member State to another – implementing their right to free movement – it is usually called “intra-EU mobility”. From a scientific point of view it is, of course, still a form of international migration, but this type of spatial mobility is treated separately in EU policy debates. Beyond the pure changes in terminology, this has practical consequences too. Free language courses, for instance, are not available anymore for people who change their FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 5 country of residence “only” within the European Union. In this paper, we will follow the United Nation‟s definition, and use the word “migration” consistently. The MIGWELL project has been designed to analyse the subjective well-being of potential stayers and potential emigrants in Hungary, permanent long-term immigrants in Austria who have arrived from the territory of Hungary, as well as return migrants (or potential return migrants) who have decided (or plan) to move back to Hungary from Austria. Daily or weekly cross-border commuters and second or third-generation immigrants are not included in MIGWELL. 2.2 Methodological challenges “Statistics are not synonymous with reality but are, rather, a way of representing the complexity of the world in categories and figures attached to such categories” (Fassmann et al. 2009: 17). This becomes obvious when we look at the different ways in which certain groups of people – e.g. ethnic minorities, religious groups, or immigrants – have been counted in censuses, population registers, and other databases worldwide. The recognition of the technical and methodological challenges of conducting regular enumerations of the whole population, and tracking processes like migration, date back to the 19th century, when the European empires (e.g. Habsburg, Russian, Ottoman) spent enormous efforts to register, categorise, and hence better control their heterogeneous populations (Kertzer and Arel 2002). While overseas migration was relatively well documented during the 1800s, the measurement of internal migration was technically impossible at the time, and tracking migration across European state borders was likewise difficult. It could only be reconstructed indirectly from the censuses, based on personal declarations of place of birth. (In some cases, statistical offices registered all resident foreign citizens and sent the registration cards back to their countries of origin.) Population censuses rarely provided information about emigrants; if so, they did not yield precise and verifiable results. The first agreements on the necessity of comparable migration statistics started at the conferences held by the International Statistical Institute in the late 1800s (Fassmann 2009: 22-24). Although the United Nations, the OECD, Eurostat, and some other international institutions made significant efforts in the least decades to standardise and harmonise the main concepts and measurement tools of international migration, the definitions and instruments for determining migration figures used by individual countries still differ remarkably, and data are not always directly comparable. This chapter will briefly reflect on the most important methodological problems and the ways national statistics try to cope with them. These challenges are associated with both flow and stock statistics. Migrant-flow data account for the number of migrants entering or leaving a territorial unit, e.g. a country, during a specified time period, usually one calendar year (UN DESA 2017). FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 6 They are more sensitive than stock data for the following reasons: 1. Since these data are typically collected in the course of administrative procedures, such as registrations and deregistrations at registry offices, they heavily depend on the actual legal systems of the individual states. Thus, flow statistics are not always comparable across countries or over time. 2. They are usually compiled by administrative staff without specific qualifications in statistics, which has negative effects on data quality. 3. The whole process is not initially designed and coordinated with the purpose of research in mind. In most cases, only very few basic variables are collected (or published) about the people who arrived or left the country. Detailed information beyond age and gender – that would be useful for researchers, e.g. qualifications, previous countries of residence, or family members left behind – are rarely available (Fassmann 2009). According to the UN recommendations, statistical offices should label only those people as international migrants who had entered the country at least 12 months earlier. Therefore, immigration flow data become out-dated before they are actually published. Some countries, such as Austria, “try to circumvent the problem of delayed statistics by counting those who have crossed their borders as international migrants after they have stayed for more than three months” (ibid: 32-36). However, in this way, data on immigration become comparatively higher than in other countries where statistical offices keep to the one-year limit. Another practical problem concerns the question of who should be called an emigrant. While most European countries count their citizens as part of the resident population for some months after they have left (e.g. three months in the case of Austria), in many countries, for instance in Romania or Hungary, all people are counted toward the population who have a registered permanent address in the country, even if they live in another country (Poulain et al. 2006). This is related to the fact that emigration is poorly registered in most countries. A significant number of the people who leave a country, even for a longer period of time, does not declare the change of their residence, particularly within the European Union. Since there are no incentives for deregistration, many of them maintain their permanent address in the country of origin, while they actually live, work, or study in another country. As a result, flow data on emigration are very often seriously underestimated (Nowok et al. 2006). The numerical gap can be estimated by bilateral comparisons of official emigration data of a country and immigration data of the destination countries within the same time period. Using “mirror statistics” as a tool for detecting asymmetries in flow data is essential in migration studies. International migrant stocks show the total number of international migrants present in a given country at a particular point in time. Country of birth or, if this information is not available, citizenship, are the most frequently used proxy variables for defining international immigrants (UN DESA 2017: 9, 2 UN DESA 2020: 5). However, these approaches are not without difficulties. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 7 Although most countries gather information on the place of birth of their resident population in the course of censuses or population registers, this data in itself does not say anything about when and from which country the respective person has arrived. In this sense, the country of previous residence could be a useful complementary indicator but relatively few censuses contain specific questions on that. Moreover, a person‟s country of birth data can differ from his/her current country of residence without their having moved at all in their lifetime because the international borders have changed or the state itself had meanwhile dissolved. Similarly, all EU Member States ask their resident population about their citizenship. Since the requirements for obtaining citizenship and the treatment of children born in families with foreign citizenship differ significantly in each country, the use of this variable is even more problematic. The main sources of information on international migrant stock are still the censuses. These regular enumerations provide full and precise cross-sectional pictures of the population stock of a country. Their major disadvantage is the great time span – in most cases ten years – between data collection periods. Some national statistics offices, for example in Hungary and Austria, aim to bridge this gap by conducting in-between micro-censuses. Although data validity is limited because these are based on representative sample surveys (and they usually underestimate immigrant population), micro-censuses are widely considered useful tools to track population dynamics that can change drastically over a decade (Fassmann 2009: 39). Another methodological problem that hamper the international comparability of stock data is the lack of consensus about the necessary period of stay to be counted as immigrant (e.g. three months in Austria, three months in Hungary for EU citizens, one year for third-country citizens), and the treatment of asylum seekers; in Austria they are included, while in Hungary they are excluded from the resident population (Poulain et al. 2006). With all challenges and limitations in mind, in this Research Report we will use country of birth as a proxy variable for defining international immigrants, with reflections on the data of country of last residency, which have been available in Austria since 2002. 2.3 Data sources In this paper, we use three main data sources concerning international migration: censuses that cover the stock populations in Hungary and Austria, the population register in Austria, and databases of Eurostat and the United Nations. In Hungary, the authority responsible for organising the censuses and producing accurate data on the population stock is the Hungarian Central Statistical Office. The 2001, 2011, and 2022 censuses provided several variables regarding the foreign population stock, such as citizenship, place of birth, sex, age, and so forth (Hárs and Sik 2009). Beside the census results, the Hungarian Central Statistical Office also uses administrative data sources to count FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 8 foreign population, such as the Central Population Register, the Central Aliens Register, and work-permit data. In Austria, the last “classic” population census was held in 2001. The high costs, growing resistance of the population, and the delay of years between the inquiry and the publication of the results were the main reasons for introducing a new population register, and abandoning the old model (Reeger 2009). Every person who changes his/her residence within Austria, arrives in, or leaves the country, must register within three days. Municipal registration services are responsible for coordinating this process, and Statistics Austria receives these data through the Central Registration System. Since the population register has been linked to many other registers, including education, social security, tax, unemployment, business, etc., Statistics Austria has been able to conduct register-based censuses since 2011. This integrated register-based system makes it possible to measure internal and international migration flows more accurately than before. Data on citizenship, place of birth, current and previous or – in case of deregistered emigrants, the next – country of main residence are available on the level of municipalities. However, preand post-2002 data on migration are not perfectly comparable (ibid: 115-116). Eurostat 1 continuously updates, revises (to obtain internationally comparable data), and publishes migration statistics collected from the Member States‟ national statistical institutes. The United Nations database 2 on international migrant stocks is another relevant source that covers all countries in the world. These data are obtained from censuses, population registers, or nationally representative surveys according to the reference years 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020. However, for countries where empirical data are not available for two or more points in time, interpolation or extrapolation is used to estimate the migrant stock for the reference years. The UN international migration flow statistics cover 45 countries. These data are collected through a variety of data collection systems: population registers, border statistics, the number of residence permits issued, statistical forms that are completed when persons change their place of residence, etc. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/main/data/database 2 https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/data-landing-page FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 15 4. International migration processes 4.1 Hungary 4.1.1 Migration flows As in many other socialist countries, the international migration flows of Hungary were quite moderate throughout the socialist era. Legal emigration and immigration could be permitted upon request in cases of family reunification, although it was not considered a universal right but was decided on a case-by-case basis (Gödri et al. 2013). There were some notable exceptions to this rule, because politically favoured groups such as Greek and Chilean refugees received residence permits in 1949 and 1973 respectively. A circular form of labour migration furthermore existed within the Eastern Bloc. For example, Hungarian engineers worked in the Soviet Union and in certain Middle Eastern countries, while Hungary in return received Cuban weavers, Polish miners, and Russian industrial workers (Puskás 1991). The sum of legal immigrants in the state socialist period is estimated at around 52,000, whereas the total outward migration could have been around 430,000 (Tóth 1997). In 1956, the year of the revolution against the Soviet rule, almost 200,000 people left Hungary during a brief period of open borders (Hablicsek and Illés 2007). From the late 1980s onward, Hungary changed from a closed country with very low migration rates to a country with considerable immigration and transit migration. Due to the introduction in 1988 of rights for nationals to travel abroad freely, outmigration also became significant (Gödri et al. 2013). While the natural change has varied between -30,000 and -40,000 per year since the early 1990s, migration surplus has been mitigating its negative effect on population development. On the whole, approximately 450,000 more people arrived in Hungary than those who had left the country between 1996 and 2021. Immigration According to the official statistics, the annual number of immigrants increased slightly until the 2008 global financial crisis. After a temporary jump and drop, a consistent and considerable increase is observable: in 2010 only 25,000 people arrived in Hungary, while in 2019 this number amounted to more than 88,000 (Figure 5). Ethnicity has played an important role in this process because the inflow of foreign-born people had consisted mainly of ethnic Hungarians from Romania, Ukraine, Serbia, and Slovakia. Although their share has been declining, one can still find the neighbouring countries on the list of the immigrants‟ top countries of birth, together with Germany, Turkey, China, Vietnam, and the USA (Table 3, Figure 6-7). The share of total immigration made up by Hungarian citizens (including returnees) varied between 8 and 13% after the millennium but today it is greater than 55% (Németh and Gruber 2019: 29). FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 16 Figure 5. Flow data on international immigration, emigration, and migration balance in Hungary, 1996-2020 Source: Eurostat, own figure. Table 3. International immigration flows by country of birth (native born, foreign born, top 5 countries of birth) at the national level in Hungary by 2010, 2015, 2020 Immigration flow by country of birth 2010 2015 2020 Total 25,519 58,344 75,470 Native born 2,507 15,162 23,440 Foreign born (EU*) 12,521 15,286 21,297 Foreign born (non-EU) 10,491 27,889 30,718 Top 1. Romania 6,441 Ukraine 10,003 Romania 6,203 Top 2. Germany 2,054 Romania 8,451 Ukraine 5,674 Top 3. Serbia 1,264 Serbia 3,751 Germany 3,532 Top 4. Ukraine 1,072 China 3,527 Slovakia 2,824 Top 5. China 1,056 Germany 1,888 Serbia 2,622 Source: Eurostat, own table. (*EU-28 countries, 2013-2020) Figure 6. International immigration flows by country of birth (native born, foreign born EU-28*, foreign-born nonEU-28) at the national level in Hungary, 2008-2020. Left: in numbers; right: in percentages. Source: Eurostat, own figure. (*EU-28 countries: 2013-2020, including the United Kingdom) 0 10 000 20 000 30 000 40 000 50 000 60 000 70 000 80 000 90 000 100 000 Immigration Emigration Migration balance 0 10 000 20 000 30 000 40 000 50 000 60 000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Native born Foreign born (EU-28) Foreign born (non-EU-28) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Foreign born (non-EU-28) Foreign born (EU-28) Native born FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 17 Figure 7. International immigration flows according to the top 10 countries of birth (regarding the whole period) at the national level in Hungary, 2008-2020. Source: Eurostat, own figure. Emigration Similarly to most European countries, Hungary also lacks reliable data on emigration. Thus, the number of deregistered emigrants is far below the figures shown by mirror statistics. (For instance, while officially about 13,000 Hungarians moved to another EU country in 2012, according to “mirror statistics” almost 80,000 Hungarian immigrants were registered by the respective destination countries – Gödri 2014). Emigration flows from Hungary also experienced a peak in the first years after the political transformation. At the time it however was mainly non-Hungarian citizens, who had arrived in the late 1980s, who then left the country. After a short period with relatively moderate emigration figures, the number of outmigrants started to increase after Hungary‟s accession to the European Union, and particularly after the global financial crisis in 2008 (Hárs 2013). The most important turning point came in 2011, when Germany and Austria opened their labour markets to the workforce coming from the new EU Member States (Gödri 2016: 7). After a temporary stagnation, the number of emigrants grew dynamically – by 72% – between 2017 and 2020 (Figure 5). The three main countries of destination are Germany, Austria, and the United Kingdom, which have yearly been absorbing more than three-thirds of all registered emigrants (Table 4). However, surveys reveal that while living and working in Germany entails a permanent move abroad, Austria and the United Kingdom tend to appear as scenes of circular labour-force migration (Gödri et al. 2013). 0 2 000 4 000 6 000 8 000 10 000 12 000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Romania Ukraine Serbia Germany China United States Slovakia Turkey Vietnam India FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 18 Table 4. International emigration flows of native-born national and foreign citizens by destination country (Top-5 destination countries) at the national level in Hungary by 2016 Emigration flow of native born national citizens Emigration flow of foreign citizens Total 28,166 10,464 Germany 9,087 n.a. Austria 7,470 n.a. United Kingdom 5,759 n.a. Switzerland 1,004 n.a. Netherland 813 n.a. Source: Németh and Gruber 2019: 29. Therefore, the international migration balance grew significantly between 2013 (ca. +4,000) and 2019 (+39,000 people). The Covid-19 pandemic changed this tendency, but it is not yet clear whether this is a temporary phenomenon (Figure 5). 4.1.2 Population by place of birth Foreign-born population in Hungary The size of the foreign-born population (597,000, i.e. 6%) in Hungary has been growing slightly since 1991. Comparable to the flow data, the largest proportion of the foreign-born population stems from the four neighbouring countries of Romania, Ukraine, Slovakia, and Serbia (altogether 64% of the immigrant stock) as well as from Germany and China (Figure 8, Table 5). Figure 8. Population stock by the top 10 countries of birth at the national level in Hungary (number of people, 20122021) Source: Eurostat. Own figure. 0 50 000 100 000 150 000 200 000 250 000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Romania Ukraine Serbia Germany Slovakia United Kingdom China Austria United States Vietnam FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 19 Table 5. Population stock by country of birth (native born, foreign born, top 5 countries of birth) at the national level in Hungary by 2011, 2016, 2021 Immigration flow by country of birth 2011 2016 2021 Total 9,937,628 (100%) 9,803,837 (100%) 9,730,772 (100%) Native born 9,544,643 (96%) 9,420,342 (96%) 9,133,130 (94%) Foreign born (EU*) 266,981 (3%) 252,958 (3%) 337,790 (4%) Foreign born (non-EU) 116,255 (1%) 130,537 (1%) 259,852 (3%) Top 1. Romania 176,550 Romania 158,020 Romania 207,970 Top 2. Ukraine 35,354 Ukraine 37,121 Ukraine 71,508 Top 3. Slovakia 33,155 Slovakia 32,843 Serbia 45,935 Top 4. Serbia 29,144 Serbia 25,387 Germany 38,954 Top 5. Germany 22,605 Germany 23,453 Slovakia 21,266 Source: 2011 population census, 2016 micro-census, 2021: Eurostat. Own table. (*EU-28 countries, 2013-2020) Hungarian-born people abroad According to the estimations of the United Nations, approximately 632,000 Hungarian-born people lived abroad in 2019. This value increased by 64% during the last three decades. The Hungarian emigrant stock (based on country-of-birth data) comprised ca. 387,000 people in 1990, ca. 421,000 in 2000 and almost 514,000 in 2010. Today, almost half of all Hungarian emigrants live in Western Europe, but the USA (85,000) and Canada (39,000) also belong to the most important destination countries (UN DESA 2019). According to the 2016 micro-census, the number of people living abroad temporarily or permanently (but belonging to households in Hungary) was about 38,000 and 259,000 respectively. More than 80% of them moved abroad for to employment reasons, and 70% work in Germany, Austria, or the United Kingdom. Among the people who have chosen Germany or Austria, the ratio of men (55%) was higher than their respective ratio among the total population, while the other over-represented groups were those of working age (90%), the younger generation (33-37%), skilled workmen (58%), or people with a higher education (30%) (Tálas 2020: 73). Additionally, the number of cross-border commuters exceeded 72,000 (Horváth 2022: 110). Based on the 2016 micro-census results regarding the migration experience, we can conclude that ca. 41% of Hungarian emigrants returned to Hungary (Tálas 2020: 73). 4.2 Austria 4.2.1 Migration flows Immigration After having been an emigration country for decades, Austria has developed into an immigration country during the post-World War II period (Fassmann and Münz 1994). Until the 1990s, the highest share of immigration was associated with guest-worker mobility mainly from two countries: Turkey and Yugoslavia. At the peak of the recruitment phase, the number FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 20 of entries rose to around 35,000 per year. This first wave of international immigration brought individual young people, mostly males, to Austria. They were interested in maximising income while minimising living costs, in order to send home as much money as possible (Fassmann 1992: 102). Establishing integration policy was not on the Austrian political agenda because these newly arrived people were generally seen as temporary guest workers who can be hired or sent back home depending on the economic situation (Fassmann and Reeger 2012: 79). The annual international migration balance was moderate (in some years negative) in the post1973 period. During the economic downturn, accompanied by growing unemployment as well as increased inflation and public debt, the Austrian government attempted to reduce the foreign labour force and recruitment was also stopped. The international migration surplus started to grow again slowly in the second half of the 1980s, mainly due to family reunifications. At the same time, the number of refugees from socialist Eastern and SouthEastern European countries also increased significantly. Since the 1991 census, the Austrian population has grown by about one million, and nearly 90% of this increase has been a result of migration gain. However, these three decades cannot be considered a homogeneous period regarding the international migration processes. During the early 1990s, a significant part of the new arrivals comprised refugees from former Yugoslavia. After 1993, stricter regulations (“Aliens Act”, “Residence Law” and the 2002 “Aliens‟ Law Package”) were introduced to control immigration. These involved annual quotas and the classification of potential immigrants into different groups. Austria became more restrictive, especially to third-country nationals. These political measures were the main reason for the drop in migration figures (Figure 4). The annual number of immigrants started to grow again after the eastward expansion of the EU. However, transitional arrangements were introduced: citizens of the new Member States were not granted employment rights in Austria in protected economic sectors (e.g. construction industry) until May 2011. In the case of Romanian and Bulgarian nationals, this regulation was in force until 2013. Thus, immigration flows from the new EU countries grew significantly after the end of these restrictions (Figure 9, 11). The inflow of people from the Middle East increased significantly in 2015-2017 due to an increased number of refugees arriving in Europe. During this period, about 156,000 asylum applications were filed. More than 77,000 persons – mostly from Syria and Afghanistan – were granted asylum but many of these applications are still pending. It was the fifth major wave of asylum applications in Austria since the 1950s, and numerically the most important one since the 1956 uprising in Hungary (Riederer et al. 2020: 22). This created a completely new situation in immigration and integration measures, as these two countries had previously been of little importance as sources of migration to Austria. The Eurostat data illustrate that the shares of foreign-born non-EU citizens in the total international immigration flow have largely returned to pre-2015 values (Figure 10). FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 21 However, the strong asylum migration in 2022 will probably break this trend again. Most of the 71.885 asylum applications were submitted by citizens of Afghanistan (16.510), Syria (12.529), and India (11.541). Among the total number of applicants, the high number of unaccompanied minors (9.347) is particularly noteworthy. 7 Figure 9. Official data on international immigration, emigration, and migration balance in Austria, 2002-2020 Source: Statistics Austria, own figure. Table 6. International immigration flows by country of birth (native born, foreign born, top 5 countries of birth) at the national level in Austria by 2010, 2015, 2020 Immigration flow by country of birth 2010 2015 2020 Total 112,691 214,410 136,343 Native born 13,260 13,483 12,532 Foreign born (EU*) 58,193 85,571 77,207 Foreign born (non-EU) 41,292 115,356 46,604 Top 1. Germany 17,555 Syria 21,741 Germany 18,934 Top 2. Romania 11,432 Afghanistan 17,403 Romania 16,799 Top 3. Serbia 6,775 Romania 17,246 Hungary 8,898 Top 4. Hungary 6,351 Germany 16,875 Serbia 6,333 Top 5. Turkey 4,476 Hungary 13,060 Bosnia-H. 5,545 Source: Statistics Austria. Own table. (*EU-28 countries, 2013-2020) 7 https://www.bmi.gv.at/301/Statistiken/files/2022/Detailstatistik_BFA_Kennzahlen_1-3_Quartal_2022.pdf 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Immigration Emigration Migration balance FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 22 Figure 10. International immigration flows by country of birth (native born, foreign-born EU-28*, foreign-born nonEU-28) at the national level in Austria, 2008-2020. Left: in numbers; Right: in percentages. Source: Eurostat, own figure. (*EU-28 countries: 2013-2020, with the United Kingdom) Figure 11. International immigration flows according to the top 10 countries of birth (regarding the whole period) at the national level in Austria, 2002-2020. Source: Statistics Austria, own figure. Emigration Since 2002, around 1.3 million people emigrated from Austria, and approximately one third of them were native-born persons. Among their main destination countries one could find Germany, Switzerland, the USA, the UK, and Turkey in 2016, while Germany, Romania, Hungary, Serbia, and Poland led the list for foreign nationals (Table 7). 0 10 000 20 000 30 000 40 000 50 000 60 000 70 000 80 000 90 000 100 000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Native born Foreign born (EU-28) Foreign born (non-EU-28) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Foreign born (non-EU-28) Foreign born (EU-28) Native born 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Germany Romania Hungary Poland Bosnia and Herzegovina Turkey Serbia Slovakia Syria Bulgaria FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 23 In 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic restricted mobility, resulting in a decrease in movement in and out of the country. Around 96,000 people left Austria, so that 2020 was the year with the lowest emigration level since 2012. The volume of emigration increased again in 2021 (ca. 102,000 people). The largest group of emigrants were Austrian citizens (17,140), followed by Romanians (13,318), Germans (11,024), Hungarians (7,702) and Serbs (4,615). 8 Austria‟s current net migration rate is 3,237 per 1000 inhabitants, which is a 24.1% decline from 2021. 9 Table 7. International emigration flows of native-born national and foreign citizens by destination country (top-5 destination countries) at the national level in Austria by 2016 Emigration flow of native born national citizens Emigration flow of foreign citizens Total 16,143 Total 89,026 Germany 2,581 Germany 11,593 Switzerland 1,245 Romania 8,811 USA 467 Hungary 7,081 UK 344 Serbia 4,893 Turkey 290 Poland 3,407 Source: Nemeth and Gruber 2019: 21. 4.2.2 Population by place of birth Foreign-born population in Austria Approximately 1.8 million foreign-born people lived in Austria on 1 January 2021, amounting to 20.5% of the population. Looking at a broader indicator, 25% of the total population (more than 2.2 million persons) has a “migration background”, including all persons whose parents had been born abroad. Looking at the current population structure, the highest shares of today‟s population are still holding a migration background from Serbia or Turkey. Today the highest proportion of foreigners in the Austrian population is constituted by people born in Germany, followed by Bosnia and Herzegovina, Turkey, Serbia, and Romania. (Table 8). As a consequence of the 2022 Ukrainian war, there is a strong increase in the number of Ukrainians. At the beginning of 2022, approximately 13,000 Ukrainians lived in Austria, whereas on 1 April 2022, their number already exceeded 52,000. 10 The share of those who want to stay in Austria permanently is currently still uncertain. 8 https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/718036/umfrage/auswanderer-aus-oesterreich-nachstaatsangehoerigkeiten/ 9 https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AUT/austria/net-migration. 10 https://www.integrationsfonds.at/fileadmin/content/AT/Fotos/Publikationen/Statistikbroschuere/OEIF_Statistisc hes_Jahrbuch_2021.pdf FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 24 Table 8. Population stock by country of birth (native born, foreign born, Top 5 countries of birth) at the national level in Austria by 2011, 2016, 2021 Immigration flow by country of birth 2011 2016 2021 Total 8,426,498 (100%) 8,700,471 (100%) 8,932,664 (100%) Native born 7,131,792 (85%) 7,105,748 (81%) 7,135,091 (79.5%) Foreign born (EU*) 585,276 (7%) 714,028 (9%) 831,427 (9.5%) Foreign born (non-EU) 709,430 (8%) 880,695 (10%) 966,146 (11%) Top 1. Germany 205,630 Germany 219,943 Germany 244,947 Top 2. Bosnia-H. 167,255 Bosnia-H. 162,021 Bosnia-H. 172,373 Top 3. Turkey 126,778 Turkey 160,184 Turkey 159,068 Top 4. Serbia 141,877 Serbia 137,057 Serbia 144,416 Top 5. Romania 109,988 Romania 98,727 Romania 134,206 Source: Statistics Austria. Own table. (*EU-28 countries, 2013-2020) The annual data show a significant continuous increase in the Germanand Romanian-born population stock, and a similar trend for Syrians since 2015. The relatively stable stock of Hungarian origin also increased in the following years, but has levelled off again at a stable level since 2018 (Figure 12). In terms of stock of the foreign-born population, the most important country is Germany (14%), followed by Bosnia and Herzegovina, Turkey, Serbia, Romania, and Hungary. Figure 12. Population stock according to the top 10 countries of birth at the national level in Austria (number of people, 2002-2022) Source: Statistics Austria. Own figure. Austrian-born people abroad According to the United Nations, more than 576,000 Austrian-born people lived abroad in 2019: 238,000 in Germany, 72,000 in the USA and Canada, 61,000 in Switzerland and 28,000 in the United Kingdom. This emigration stock, calculated by country-of-birth data, represents a fairly stable number, which has increased slightly since 1990, when around 506,000 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Germany Bosnia and Hercegovina Turkey Serbia Romania Hungary Poland Syria Croatia Slovakia FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 31 assume that they predominantly represent the children born in Austria of return migrants. (Figure 16). Figure 16. The age-sex pyramids of the migration flow between Hungary and Austria, by country of birth, 2002-2021. (Scales differ) Source: Statistics Austria. Own figure. 5.3 The Hungarian population stock in Austria According to the official statistics, altogether 85,316 Hungarian-born people lived in Austria on the 1st of January 2022. More than 85% of them has Hungarian citizenship, yet only threefourths of these Hungarian nationals were born in Hungary (Table 11). These figures include -20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94 95+ Migrants from Hungary to Austria (Country of birth: Hungary) Male Female -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94 95+ Migrants from Hungary to Austria (Country of birth: Austria) Male Female -10000 -7500 -5000 -2500 0 2500 5000 7500 10000 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94 95+ Migrants from Austria to Hungary (Country of birth: Hungary) Male Female -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94 95+ Migrants from Austria to Hungary (Country of birth: Austria) Male Female FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 32 people with dual citizenship, an option that has been available for ethnic Hungarians outside of their kin state since 2010. Since Austrian law does not permit multiple citizenship, people are only allowed to indicate one country of citizenship in their registration documents. We have no information about the decision-making outcomes but a significant proportion of these dual citizens may choose the Hungarian citizenship, instead of the Ukrainian, Romanian, Serbian and so forth. This would explain the difference of approximately 9,000 between the number of Hungarian-born people and Hungarian citizens living in Austria (Figure 13). Table 11. Population stock of the Hungarian-born people by top-5 citizenships and the Hungarian citizens by the top5 countries of birth in Austria in 2022 Hungarian-born people by citizenship Hungarian citizens by country of birth Hungary 72,044 84.44% Hungary 72,044 76.31% Austria 12,038 14.11% Austria 9,778 10.36% Germany 714 0.84% Serbia 7,447 7.89% Romania 135 0.16% Romania 2,757 2.92% United States of America 38 0.04% Germany 579 0.61% Slovakia 25 0.03% Ukraine 308 0.33% other 322 0.38% other 1,498 1.59% SUM 85,316 100% SUM 94,411 100% Source: Statistics Austria. Own table. Similar to the majority of countries in the Global North, the ratio between the sexes in Austria is slightly biased toward the female sex with about 97 males to 100 females. Women make up a bigger proportion of the Austrian-born population from age 55, and this female surplus increases gradually in every age group thereafter. In the case of the Hungarian-born population, the sex ratio is even more biased with 87 males per 100 females, i.e. 46% males and 54% females. Women outnumber men in all age groups above the age of 20. The age-sex pyramid of the Austrian-born population has an “urn” shape, which is common in the developed countries, with decreasing population numbers and longer life expectancies. The “diamond” shape of the Hungarian-born population‟s age-sex pyramid is also typical for immigrant populations (Figure 17). Nevertheless, it is interesting that the ratio of the sexes is inversed in the case of flow and stock data. To recall: while males made up the majority (52%) of the Hungarian-born migrants over the last two decades, and their proportion is even higher among return migrants 16 (56%), there is a female surplus (52%) in the Hungarian-born population stock living in Austria. Based on these figures, we can assume that males are generally more mobile than females, and they move back and forth more frequently, while Hungarian women are more likely to remain in Austria. (Another explanation for the female surplus could be that the 16 As a proxy variable for “return migration”, we here refer to the flow data regarding the number of Hungarianborn people moving from Austria to Hungary. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 33 Hungarian workers in Austria are concentrated in sectors of the hotel and hospitality industry as well as 24-hour home nursing, where the proportion of women is usually higher.) Figure 17. Population pyramid of the Austrian-born (left) and the Hungarian-born (right) populations living in Austria, 2022 (Scales differ) Source: Statistics Austria. Own figure. Blue: males; Orange: females. Although student mobility does exist, and sometimes familial relationships may be the main motivation for migration (e.g. moving abroad because of the pressure to support the family, or, conversely, returning to the country of origin in order to receive kin support, for example, from grandparents), labour migrants doubtlessly constitute the majority of international migrants in the Danube Region, including the Hungary–Austria migration channel. As Gruber and Németh (2021: 232-234) concluded, higher salaries and the availability of jobs are the pull factors, while youth unemployment, precarious or part-time employment, and the aspiration for better opportunities in a different country represent the main push factors. Many of these young males or females can be considered “target earners”, who take up employment in Austria in order to save money and send it back to Hungary, or make investments after returning. While unqualified workers are primarily motivated by higher salaries, skilled workers or those with higher education diplomas tend to pursue professional excellence abroad. However, many of them have to accept jobs requiring lower skills than their own, and they often become trapped in employment below their actual qualification. This phenomenon is called “brain waste” in the literature, and can be explained by the limited international transferability of skills. 17 17 From a theoretical point of view, the segmentation of the labour market also explains why migrants are enrolled in unskilled work to a large extent, despite their actual qualification. Brain waste carries substantial -300000 -200000 -100000 0 100000 200000 300000 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94 95+ -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94 95+ FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 34 In general, families display a lower tendency toward migrating, especially when family ties are close (Kulu and Milewski 2007). In the Danube Region, transnational families with family members left behind are very typical (Gruber and Nemeth 2018). All of these aspects of international migration have a strong impact on peoples‟ subjective well-being. We will focus on this topic in the subsequent Work Packages and MIGWELL Research Reports. 5.3.1 Some socio-demographic features of permanent immigrants from Hungary The 2016 Hungarian micro-census contained a supplementary questionnaire on international migration. It provided, among others, detailed information about persons who belonged to Hungarian households but lived abroad temporarily or permanently on 1 October 2016. The sample was representative by several attributes, including gender, age, economic activity, educational background, etc. 18 The micro-census detected 24,212 permanent migrants with a Hungarian origin in Austria. 19 67% of them belonged to the 15-39 age group, whereas 22% belonged to the 40-54 age group. Overall, the proportion of men was 53%. The male surplus was particularly strong among the 25-39 year-olds (60%) but in the age group 15-24, females outnumbered males (58%). While vocational qualification was typical for men (42%, compared to 17% for women), the proportion of women with secondary school graduation and a higher education degree was significantly higher; 46% and 32% for females, 36% and 17% for males respectively. Regarding marital status there was no remarkable gender-specific differences: 56-58% of this population were single, 29% were married and 11-14% were divorced. 20 While the relative majority of men work in general industry and specifically the construction industry, most women are employed in the tertiary sector (Figure 18). According to the microcensus, more than one-third of the Hungarian permanent migrants can be considered overqualified, i.e. they exceed the education level that is required to perform their actual job. (However, this ratio is no less than 85% among migrant women with children remaining in the homeland – Horváth 2022: 136-137). Permanent migrants tend to maintain strong transnational relationships: 65% of them financially support family members at home and 95% of them have visited Hungary at least once after they had moved to Austria (ibid: 113122). economic costs, it can reduce education incentives, weaken the chances of positive self-selection, and decrease the possibility of „real‟ brain gain (Garcia Pires 2015). 18 https://www.ksh.hu/mikrocenzus2016/kerdoivek/microcensus2016_migration_survey.pdf 19 Temporary migrants (module D), i.e. short-term migrants: people who have been living in Austria for more than 3 but less than 12 months. Permanent migrants (module E), i.e. long-term migrants: people who have been living in Austria for more than 12 months. 20 However, every 10th temporary migrant woman was divorced, while this ratio was only 4% among men. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 35 Figure 18. The occupational distribution of the short-term and long-term Hungarian migrants in Austria, 2016 Source: Horváth (2022) in Hungarian. Data source: 2016 Hungarian micro-census 5.4 Spatial aspect During the last two decades, the spatial pattern of the Hungarian-born population in Austria changed significantly. Although the increase was the greatest in Vienna in absolute terms (by 2,000 people between 2002 and 2011, and further by 9,000 until 2022), today the capital city draws a lower proportion of Hungarians than had been the case around the millennium. While almost three quarters of Hungarian-born migrants lived in Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland in 2002, only half of them are residents of these eastern provinces today (Figure 19, 20). The changing spatial structure can be explained by the rapid growth of the number of Hungarians in other federal provinces, first of all in Upper Austria (from ca. 3,000 to 13,000), Styria (from ca. 3,000 to 10,000), Salzburg and Tyrol (in both cases from ca. 1,000 to 6,000) between 2002 and 2022. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 36 Figure 19. The number of the Hungarian-born population stock in the federal provinces of Austria, 2002-2022 Source: Statistics Austria. Own figure. Figure 20. The Hungarian-born population according to the regions of Austria, 2002-2022 Source: Statistics Austria. Own figure. Although the greatest number of Hungarian-born people live in the largest cities of Austria, their share is relatively high (above 2%) mainly in small towns and villages with a population of about 300 to 5,000 inhabitants (Table 12, Figure 21). Traditionally, these settlements were concentrated in close proximity to Hungary, mostly in Burgenland and the south-eastern part of Lower Austria. However, this spatial pattern has changed dramatically during the last decade – cf. Figure 22 and 23. On the one hand, the darker shades of orange and red on the 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Burgenland Carinthia Lower Austria Upper Austria Salzburg Styria Tyrol Vorarlberg Vienna 12,2 13,2 8,9 2,1 2,3 3,4 19,4 18,7 15,9 8,6 8,7 15,1 3,7 3,6 7,1 8,4 10,9 11,5 3,3 4,4 7,6 1,8 1,6 3,1 40,4 36,4 27,4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Burgenland Carinthia Lower Austria Upper Austria Salzburg Styria Tyrol Vorarlberg Vienna FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 37 maps refer to the increasing number and proportion of Hungarian immigrants in general. On the other hand, while the “eastern cluster” remained significant, the previously sporadic occurrence of settlements with at least 1% Hungarians has become another well visible cluster in the west. In other words, their population-weighted centre moved clearly toward the west. The proportion of Hungarians is especially high in the eastern part of Tyrol (e.g. Eben am Achensee, Kitzbühel), the southern part of the province of Salzburg (e.g. Kaprun, Flachau), and the western edge of Styria (e.g. Bad Aussee, Schladming). We assume that the greater part of this population works in the tertiary sector, first of all in hospitality related to skiing tourism, including lodging, gastronomic services, etc. Table 12. The top-10 settlements (and top-3 Vienna districts) in Austria with the highest number of Hungarian-born people by 1 January 2022 No. Settlement Federal province Hungarian-born population 1 Vienna Vienna 23,403 … District 10, Favoriten 2,411 … District 20, Donaustadt 2,134 … District 21, Floridsdorf 1,910 2 Graz Styria 3,120 3 Linz Upper Austria 1,903 4 Salzburg Salzburg 1,305 5 Wels Upper Austria 1,051 6 Wiener Neustadt Lower Austria 868 7 Eisenstadt Burgenland 798 8 Innsbruck Tyrol 687 9 Klagenfurt am Wörthersee Carinthia 629 10 Steyr Upper Austria 581 Source: Statistics Austria Figure 21. Hungarian-born people in the settlements (and districts in Vienna) of Austria by 1 January 2022 Source: Statistics Austria (X axis: Logarithmic scale). Own figure. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 Share of the Hungarian-born people (%) Population of the settlement (number of people) FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 38 Figure 22. The share of Hungarian citizens in the municipalities (above) and political districts (below) of Austria by 2011. Source: Statistics Austria 21 21 https://www.statistik.at/atlas/?mapid=them_bevoelkerung_staatsangehoerigkeit&layerid=layer1&sublayerid=sub layer0&languageid=0&bbox=738088,5661575,2153090,6457743,7 FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 39 Figure 23. The share of Hungarian citizens in the municipalities (above) and political districts (below) of Austria by 2022. Source: Statistics Austria FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 40 5.5 The Austrian population stock in Hungary Until 2005, the number of Austrian citizens living in Hungary was relatively stable at around 500-1,000 persons. In the subsequent five years, the size of the Austrian population stock experienced a six-fold increase, and reached almost 4,000. After a considerable fluctuation during the 2010s, their number has been growing again dynamically since 2019. On 1 January 2022, a total of 4,637 Austrian nationals lived in Hungary (Figure 24). Their sex ratio is strongly biased, with the proportion of males reaching 60.6%. According to the 2011 population census, their age structure is one of the oldest among the foreign population stocks in Hungary. While the proportion of individuals belonging to the 15-39 year-old category was only 24% (far below the country average of 34%), more than one-third of the Austrian citizens were older than 60 (Figure 25). In 2011, almost 70% of them were concentrated in the western part of Hungary: in GyőrMoson-Sopron (1,258 persons), the Vas (436) and Zala counties (472), as well as in the capital, Budapest (521 individuals) (Figure 26). The results of the 2022 population census will be available shortly. Figure 24. The number of Austrian citizens (stock data) in Hungary, 1995-2022. Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office. 22 Own figure. 22 https://www.ksh.hu/stadat_files/nep/hu/nep0023.html 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000