Tag: Migration policy
Ukrainian Refugees: Who Returns and Why?
Of the 17 million Ukrainians who have fled the country since the full-scale Russian invasion in spring 2022, over 60 percent have returned to the country. Based on survey data of Ukrainians who were previously abroad but have returned and those who have remained abroad, we look at the factors that impact their respective decisions to return or to stay. We find that having family in Ukraine is an important factor, but so is missing one’s home, a wish for children to study in Ukraine and a desire to participate in the reconstruction of Ukraine. People who emigrated with their spouse, and those who had planned to emigrate prior to the full-scale war, are more likely to stay abroad. We also find that those staying in a host country are highly involved in Ukrainian affairs and argue that the Ukrainian government should consider them a resource rather than lost human capital.
One of the major consequences of the Russian war on Ukraine has been the mass exodus of Ukrainians fleeing the war. As of February 2022, the Ukrainian statistical agency has ceased publishing population data for both technical and security reasons, so the exact number of Ukrainians that have left the country is unknown. However, on the basis of mirror statistics from other countries, data from international organizations or surveys, it can be estimated that about 17 million people have fled the country since February 2022. Out of those, over 60 percent have returned to Ukraine, while 6 million Ukrainians have remained abroad.
As people are key in the future reconstruction and development of Ukraine, it is of great importance to understand what factors drive people to return (or not to return) to Ukraine. A recent paper (Sologoub, 2024) aims at addressing this question using a representative survey implemented by the Factum Group in July-August 2023. The survey includes 1400 people who, since early 2022, have fled Ukraine. Half of the respondents had returned to Ukraine at the time of the survey while the other half remained abroad. The first group is from here on referred to as returnees and the latter as refugees.
To look at the factors that determine individual’s decisions to return or stay abroad, the paper specifically considers the factors that impact three probabilities:
- the probability that a person stays abroad;
- the probability that a person who stays abroad plans to return (64 percent of the refugees);
- and the probability that a person who returned plans to stay in Ukraine (56 percent of the returnees).
This policy brief briefly describes the survey data, summarizes the key findings and concludes with policy implications and recommendations.
Main Characteristics of the Survey Respondents
The survey data shows that out of the entire sample of people who have returned to Ukraine and who have remained abroad, over 80 percent are women, and out of these 44 percent emigrated from Ukraine with children. About a quarter of our respondents stay or have stayed in Poland or Germany, 7 percent in the Czech Republic, while other countries have accommodated up to 4 percent of the Ukrainian migrants in our sample. The main reason for emigration is safety – almost half of the respondents reported it being the main reason for leaving Ukraine (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Stated reasons for migration choices.
Source: Factum Group survey, own calculations. Note: Blue bars are for returnees, orange bars are for refugees (i.e. individuals who have stayed in host country). A dark color denotes the main reason, and a light color denotes other reasons.
Half of the respondents who had a job in Ukraine prior to the war lost their jobs at onset of the full-scale invasion, 18 percent quit their jobs and 30 percent continued to work remotely. 53 percent of the refugees had a job at the time of the survey, and 9 percent of those who remained abroad worked online for a Ukrainian organization. Of those who worked abroad at the time of the survey, 61 percent remained on the same qualification level, while 37 percent changed their qualification level – the majority of those changed to a lower qualification level.
39 percent of all respondents had school-aged children. A quarter of them reported that their children studied only online in Ukrainian schools in 2022/23. Over 60 percent stated that their children studied in a host country, but most of these children took additional classes within the Ukrainian school program – in an online or offline environment, with tutors or on their own.
When asked to compare different aspects of their life abroad and in Ukraine, approximately equal shares of the respondents reported an improvement or a worsening of these aspects. Worsening aspects was mainly reported to concern relations with friends, psychological state, and healthcare. The respondents also stated reasons for their return to Ukraine (or willingness to return), which allowed for estimation of the significance of these reasons. Generally, we found that pull factors (factors attracting people to return to Ukraine) are much more powerful than push factors (factors that force people out of host countries).
Main Results from the Probability Models
Demographic factors (age, education, family status, or income group) are non-significant across all models with the exception of marital status. People who are single are more likely to return to Ukraine, while those who migrated together with their spouse and those who do not have children are more likely to stay abroad.
Significantly positive for the probability that a person had returned at the time of the survey were pull factors such as missing family or home, the wish for children to study in Ukraine, better job opportunities in Ukraine, having property in Ukraine, and returning friends. Some significant push factors were loneliness or integration hardship, as well as feeling humiliated for living on subsidies/state support.
Among respondents who lived abroad at the time of the survey, 64 percent planned to return to Ukraine someday, 13 percent did not plan to return to Ukraine and the rest were undecided. One should however keep in mind that peoples’ intentions can change rather quickly – in the qualitative part of the survey, some respondents explained that their decision to return was spontaneous.
The probability that a person plans to return was lower for people who had planned to emigrate prior to 2022, for people who hadn’t been to Ukraine since they fled, and for people with refugee status (in some countries, people may lose refugee protection status if they exit the host country and travel to Ukraine).
Safety improvements and better job prospects increase the probability that a refugee plans to return, as well as a wish for children to study in Ukraine and a desire to participate in Ukraine’s reconstruction. Over 70 percent of the respondents believe that their experiences from abroad will be useful for the reconstruction and over 50 percent state that the new skills they’ve gained abroad can be applied during the reconstruction of Ukraine.
Significant push factors are lacking integration into the local community and an inferior social life abroad compared to life in Ukraine. Higher levels of general well-being and life satisfaction abroad expectedly reduce the probability that a person plans to return.
Lastly, those who had returned to Ukraine at the time of the survey were asked whether or not they planned to stay in Ukraine. 56 percent said yes, 7 percent plan to emigrate again, while the rest will consider the circumstances. The main factors that keep a person in Ukraine are family, the wish for one’s children to study in Ukraine and a willingness to participate in the reconstruction of the country. Improved safety is also a significant factor – which might explain why people who are originally from the Western part of Ukraine are more likely to stay (the regional factor is significant only in this third probability model). Finally, people who planned to emigrate prior to 2022, or those whose life in Ukraine is considerably inferior to that abroad, are less likely to stay.
Ukrainians’ Liaison with Their Country
60 percent of the refugees read Ukrainian news daily, and over 90 percent read them at least several times a week. The majority of the readers spread these news in their local communities and/or in their social networks. Generally, Ukrainian refugees are quite active, over 40 percent attend rallies in support of Ukraine, almost 40 percent participate in volunteer projects, over 70 percent donate to Ukrainian organizations (and the same share help their relatives in Ukraine) and 15 percent work at a non-governmental organization.
Not surprisingly, the opinion among Ukrainian refugees on reforms in Ukraine is very similar to the opinion among returnees: anti-corruption and judicial reform have the highest priority. In line with this, the fear of corruption derailing the reconstruction of Ukraine is greater than the fear that Russia will continue with their missile attacks on Ukraine. Therefore, the determination of the Ukrainian government to fight corruption will likely not only improve life for people in Ukraine but also increase the probability that refugees return to Ukraine.
Conclusion
Most of the Ukrainians who initially fled the war have already returned to Ukraine, with the majority planning on staying in the country. For those who are still abroad, the majority wish to return when safety improves. When analysing the factors behind such wishes, it is evident that among the pull factors lie not only personal drivers, such as missing one’s home or family, but also civic factors such as a willingness to participate in the reconstruction of Ukraine or a wish for one’s children to study in Ukraine, thus contributing to preserving their identity. Moreover, Ukrainians who are living abroad are highly involved in Ukrainian affairs.
Therefore, we suggest that the Ukrainian government consider refugees as a valuable resource rather than as a loss. For example, government representatives could ask refugees to donate to Ukraine, and engage in individual or collective actions (e.g. inform their local friends about the situation in Ukraine, join rallies or flashmobs in support of Ukraine etc.). Such “people’s diplomacy” is important to ensure continued support for Ukraine.
We also recommend that the governments of host countries make it easier for refugees to stay connected with Ukraine. Specifically, refugees should be allowed to travel to Ukraine without losing their protection status.
Lastly, the strongest precondition for refugees’ return to Ukraine is supplying the country with weapons and other crucial support to win the war. A Ukrainian victory will not only bring about reconstruction and development of Ukraine but also promote and enforce global democracy.
References
- Sologoub, I. (2024). Return or stay? What factors impact the decisions of Ukrainian refugees. VoxUkraine.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.
Ukrainian Refugees in Poland: Current Situation and What to Expect
The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has forced millions to flee from the war zone. This brief addresses Ukrainian refuge in Poland. It provides an overview of the current situation, discusses the ongoing solutions and potential future challenges, and stresses the key areas for urgent policy intervention. It is based on a presentation held at the FREE Network webinar Fleeing the war zone: Will open hearts be enough?, which took place on March 14, 2022. The full webinar can be seen here.
The latest data (from March 15, 2022) shows that since February 24, 1.8 million refugees have already crossed the Polish-Ukrainian border. This number represents over 60 percent of Ukrainians who have fled the country thus far. Among this group that relocated to Poland, approximately 97 percent were people with Ukrainian citizenship. Most of the foreign nationals living in Ukraine before the war, and who came to Poland after its outbreak, have already returned to their countries of origin.
Figure 1. The influx of refugees from Ukraine to Poland since February 24, 2022.
Note: The vertical axis shows the number of refugees per million. Source: Data from Polish Border Guard
Our estimates show that there are currently about 1.1 million Ukrainian war refugees in Poland. Many stay in large cities such as Warsaw, Kraków or Wrocław. The rest of those who crossed the Polish border transited to the other EU Member States or countries outside of Europe, such as Canada or the USA, reuniting with their families and friends.
In the first days after the outbreak of the war, refugee assistance in Poland was mostly provided by Polish families and households, as well as owners of guesthouses and hotels who made them available for the purpose of providing accommodation.
A similar situation took place at the border and at railway and bus stations where refugees were arriving, with a majority of support coming from volunteering citizens. This assistance largely consisted of the provision of basic necessities such as food, hygiene products, and medical or psychological first aid. The level of mobilization among non-governmental organizations, grass-roots initiatives, private citizens, and civil society, in general, is extremely commendable and should be accredited with providing the safe welcome refugees received upon arrival. For example, during the first days, Polish families sheltered several hundred thousand refugees, often in their own houses or apartments. There are currently two main Ukrainian social groups arriving in Poland: women with children and older persons over the age of 60. This is a result of Ukraine’s internal regulations, which prohibit men aged between 18 and 60 from leaving the country.
Among those who have managed to escape the war, there is a large group of people requiring very specialized support, e.g. children suffering from oncological diseases, and elderly with a high degree of disability. So far, these groups have been provided with the necessary support, but if these needs become more frequent, a review of the capacity of the Polish healthcare system and the system of support for the disabled will be needed.
In the first days after the war broke out, the situation at the border was very difficult. The waiting time for crossing reached up to 70 hours. However, this was related to problems with the information system and the limited number of border guards on the Ukrainian side. Currently, crossing the border is quick and seamless. Every day the Polish Border Police register 80 to 100 thousand individuals, a vast majority of them crossing into Poland. This is a many-fold increase compared to pre-war migration flows, which fluctuated around 12-15 thousand people per day. At the same time, over 80.000 people, mainly men, have crossed the Polish border to Ukraine in the last 20 days with the goal of joining the army or territorial defense.
For a long time, the Polish government held the position that there would be no need to build refugee centers. However, the government recently reversed this decision and decided to open a dozen centers, located in market and sports halls. Currently, over 100,000 people are staying in these types of temporary accommodation facilities. However, these centers are not sufficiently adapted for stays longer than a few days. It is necessary to prepare housing infrastructure (temporary accommodation centers equipped with habitable containers) in which refugees can stay for two or three months until they find another place to live.
So far, Poland has essentially dealt with two of three possible migratory waves. In the first, people with family members or friends living in Poland or in other EU Member States arrived. Before the war, there were already approximately 800 thousand Ukrainians working or studying in Poland. In the second wave, after the bombing of civilian facilities in large cities, people without family or friends living in Poland started arriving. They require full assistance. A third wave is possible, and this one may be much larger than the previous two. It may occur if the situation at the front worsens and the repressions by Russian troops become harsher. Such reports are already coming from eastern Ukraine. If the situation worsens, Poland could even face a couple of additional million people that would leave Ukraine. Under these circumstances, we should assume that the third wave would include young men in addition to women, children, and the elderly. This scenario is currently very unlikely, but cannot be completely ruled out.
Since the beginning of March, Poland has seen an increase in the activity of both local representatives of the government administration and the central government. Information has been gathered about vacancies in smaller cities and local communities where refugees could be accommodated. This is because large cities are on the verge of reaching their capacity for the number of refugees they are able to manage. In addition, a special law entered into force on March 13, which provides for a catalogue of support tools for refugees. The main issues are:
1. The possibility of obtaining an individual identification number, which will enable the opening of a bank account and grant access to the labor market, education, and social benefits. It will be possible to apply for the ID number from March 16. Certainly, large queues can be expected in the first days, as the procedure is complicated and rather bureaucratic. The government decided to require all the necessary information at the start of the application process, which could be complicated for some applicants and lead to additional delays. Based on recent numbers, up to 1 million Ukrainians may apply for an individual identification number in the near future.
2. Reimbursement of the costs of hosting refugees from Ukraine in Polish family homes and in private hotels. The government has agreed to cover the value of around 8 euros per day for each person. However, receiving this refund requires submitting a special application to the local administration offices, which may again cause various kinds of perturbations, and even resignation from obtaining such support.
3. Ukrainian children can be enrolled in Polish schools. It will also be possible to open school branches in temporary accommodation centers, as well as parallel Ukrainian classes inside Polish schools. At present, however, the preferred model is the inclusion of Ukrainian children in Polish classrooms. Currently, no major problems have been reported with this process, but only around 10% of Ukrainian children have entered Polish schools so far. Numerous challenges connected with this integration process are expected. Part of the solution could be distance learning or hybrid learning. The priority is to involve children in education as fast as possible so that they do not lose time while living in Poland from an educational development point of view.
4. A simplified system of qualifications recognition has been implemented for nurses and doctors. Unfortunately, contrary to the advice of experts, the act does not provide guidelines for a simplified qualification recognition of teachers, educators or psychologists from Ukraine. In his media statements, the Minister of Education and Science did not rule out introducing a simplified procedure in the near future. Such recognition could, to some extent, solve the problem of understaffing in Polish schools.
5. All adults from Ukraine who arrived after February 24 have open access to the labor market.
Until early March, the Polish government did not apply for support from other EU member states. Now, this position has changed. Over the first weekend of March alone, more than 20 trains were organized that made it possible for refugees interested in moving from Poland to countries such as Germany or other destinations within the EU. Additional relocation measures are expected in the near future. However, in contrast to the European migrant crisis in 2015, the relocation scheme of Ukrainian refugees is carried out on a voluntary, rather than a compulsory basis.
It is very difficult to predict what will happen in the next days or weeks. While it should be emphasized that Poland is managing the migration challenge well, this is not least due to the exceptional commitment of civil society. Certainly, in the coming months, Poland will not be able to cope with the integration of more than 800.000 people into the labor market and education system. Of course, it is possible to provide ad-hoc support, but that is completely different than integrating refugees into Polish society. Ukrainians are still treated as guests who are expected to return to their homes when possible. Such an assumption should not be changed until May when the situation in Ukraine will be more predictable. We must also be aware that we are dealing with dispersed families who will want to reunite as soon as possible. It is not known, however, whether this will take place in Poland or in Ukraine. It depends on how the situation develops in the weeks and months to come.
In the coming weeks, the key issue will be the relocation of Ukrainian refugees from large to smaller cities within not only Poland but also the European Union. It is absolutely necessary to coordinate activities both at the level of the Polish government and the European Commission. As far as the Polish government is concerned, a task force should be established to maintain constant contact with the European Commission and the EU Member States regarding the ability to relocate refugees from Poland to other countries. This team should be composed mainly of civil servants from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of the Interior. It is also necessary to appoint a team coordinating the actions of voivodes, who are responsible for crisis management in accordance with Polish law. It is also critical to ensure the flow of information between local administrations and the government, as well as to coordinate the activities of non-governmental organizations, whose activity is key in dealing with the challenges related to the migration crisis. In the next stages, it will be necessary to adopt a systemic approach to the inclusion of Ukrainian children in the education system (Polish and Ukrainian, but functioning in Poland – remote learning), and adult refugees to the labor market.
In the end, I would like to recall my opinion, which is now popular in the media and among representatives of the central government, local governments and non-governmental organizations: “Helping refugees and managing migration crises is a marathon, not a sprint.” We must keep this in mind.
The webinar “Fleeing the war zone: Will open hearts be enough?”, was hosted by the FREE Network together with the Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics (SITE) and can be seen here.
Skill Structure of Demand for Migrants in Russia: Evidence from Administrative Data
Authors: Simon Commander (IE Business School, EBRD and Altura Partners) and Irina Denisova (CEFIR, NES).
Using Russian Ministry of Labor administrative data for all legal migrant applications in 2010 and matching the migrant to the sponsoring firm, we find that there is some – albeit limited – evidence of firms using migrants to address high skill shortages. However, the overwhelming majority of migrants are skilled or unskilled workers rather than qualified professionals; a reflection of the low underlying rates of innovation and associated demand for high skill jobs.
Migration policy continues to be a priority in Russian economic policy. This is driven both by a demand for labor – given the unfavorable demographic trends of the last decades – and the easily available supply from the CIS countries. It is still not clear, however, what is the skills structure of the demand for migrants. Relatively new administrative data on demanded permissions to employ migrants sheds however some light on the issue.
In particular, we use the 2010 nationwide dataset ‘Job positions filled by migrants’ published by the Russia Federal Employment Service. The dataset gives detailed information on the applications for permits for migrants, including the 4-digit occupation, firm ID and the offered wage. The Federal Employment Service’s role is to approve or reject an application. In almost all cases documented in this dataset, approval was granted. Moreover, in 99% of the cases, the duration of the permitted contract was one year.
The data allow us to study the skill composition of demand for migrants from the legal sector, with the sizeable illegal labor migration staying beyond the scope of the study. The total number of applications for all of Russia in 2010 was just over 890,000, of which nearly 250,000 or 28% originated from firms in Moscow. The analysis below uses the permission data for the 21 most developed Russian regions (a full version of the paper is available as Commander and Denisova, 2012).
A breakdown of the number of requests in 2010 by skill type using the one-digit ISCO-88 classification (Managers, High-level professionals, Mid-level professionals, Service worker, Skilled agricultural workers, Craft and trades workers, Plant and machine operators, Unskilled workers) shows that over 70% of the requests were for skilled and unskilled workers. At the same time, about 17% of the total migration requests were for higher-level professionals (7%) and managers (10%). Among managers, nearly nine out of ten requests were for production or department managers with no more than 12% of managerial migration requests being for top-level executives. Among the category of high-level professionals, architects and engineers accounted for over two-fifths of requests.
Is the situation any different in the main urban labor markets? In Moscow a lower proportion – around two thirds of the migrant applications – were for skilled and unskilled workers. The starkest difference was that professionals working in IT accounted for a minute share of total high-level skill applications in Russia, but nearly 9% in Moscow. Thus, while there are some differences in the migration profile between Moscow and the rest of the country, the broad picture that emerges is one where migration policy and practice seem to be responding mainly to the apparent bottlenecks at the lower-skill end of the labor market.
Legal requests for migrants are massively dominated by requests concerning low-skill groups; and illegal migrants, as shown by anecdotal evidence, are mainly low skilled. At the same time, there is a sizeable demand for qualified migrants, managers and professionals. There are two potential motives to issuing a request for a qualified migrant: to economize on the costs of labor by substituting a local laborer with a migrant; or to fill in the gap of the scarce qualification/skills hardly available domestically. The two motives could be distinguished by looking at the wage offers associated with the posted positions and comparing them with wages paid in comparable occupations in the same region. The aim of the exercise is to see – particularly within the categories of higher-skilled applicants – whether they command any wage premium that might reflect their scarcity value.
Figures 1-2 plot the reported (relative) wage offers for two migrant skill categories: Department Managers (ISCO code=122) and Computing Professionals (ISCO code=213). The figures depict distributions of relative (to the region average) wage in logs, thus implying that the points around 0 are the wage offers at the level of regional average, above 0 means positive wage premium, and below 0 means negative wage premiums (economizing on the costs). Each figure also gives the mean search wage from the EBRD survey of recruiting agencies in 2010 (relative to the regional average).
Figure 1. Relative Wage Distribution, Production and Operation Department Managers (ISCO-88 Code: 122)
Source: Authors’ calculations based on Rostrud 2010
It is clear from Figure 1 that the wage offers for migrants do not identify any clear positive selection effect, in that migrants’ wages mostly fall below the survey search mean comparators. In the majority of cases, the offered wages also fall below the regional average wage thus implying that the motive is to substitute for cheaper labor.
The demand for migrants with skills of IT professionals is more complicated: there are those who offer wages below regional average, but there is also a large group of those ready to pay a wage premium to attract migrants (with log wage above zero). The search through recruiting agencies (the survey wage) would still require offering higher wages.
Figure 2. Relative Wage Distribution, IT Professionals (ISCO-88 Code: 213)
Source: Authors’ calculations based on Rostrud 2010
For further analysis, the migration dataset was mapped to the ORBIS (a dataset assembled by Bureau van Dijk) firm observations using the unique national tax identification code (so called INN). The ORBIS data includes information on firms’ balance sheets and simple performance data such as output per employee.
When looking only at demand from firms that lie in the top 10-20% of the productivity distribution (productivity is calculated as output per worker in the narrowly defined industry), the picture looks somewhat different: wage offers tend to lie above the average (Figure 3). It is likely that the most productive firms tend to offer wages higher than both regional average for the occupation and the survey-based search wages. This implies that the scarcity of skills on the domestic labor market is one of the more important motives behind the demand for migrants from high-productivity firms.
Figure 3. Relative Wage Distribution, Production and Operation Department Managers (ISCO-88 Code: 122), 10% Most Productive Firms
Source: Authors’ calculations based on Rostrud 2010 and Orbis-Roslana
To control for other firm characteristics, we run regressions relating the relative wage of a migrant to a set of firm and region characteristics, including measures of size and ownership, a measure of recent growth in the region, as well as the level and change in foreign direct investment in a given region since 2007. We also control for the tightness of the local labor market, using a measure of search wages raised in the EBRD survey compared to average wages in a region. The estimates are run with and without region, industry and occupation controls. The results show that relatively high wages tend to be associated with large and/or foreign-owned firms. Growth in a region or the level of FDI per capita are not systematically associated with the relative wage once controls enter the regression, suggesting that the relative wage is largely determined by firm-level features. The measure of labor market tightness enters positively but is insignificant whencontrolling for industry, region and occupation.
Overall, the data from the Russian Ministry of Labor that documents all applications for migrants to Russia in 2010 and allows matching the migrant to the sponsoring firm, show that there is very limited evidence of firms using migrants to fill high-skill jobs. In fact, the overwhelming majority of migrants, skilled or unskilled workers, were mostly originating from other states of the CIS. Furthermore, most were hired at relatively low wages in comparison to the occupation/region averages or the wages reported in the EBRD survey of recruiting firms. At the same time, there is a sizeable portion of demand for skilled migrants, which are offered wage premiums. The demand originates mostly from highly productive firms. Migration policy should acknowledge these different motives behind the demand for migrants.
▪
References
- Simon Commander and Irina Denisova “Are Skills a Constraint on Firms? New Evidence from Russia”, IZA Discussion Paper No. 7041, November 2012