Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T19:59:54.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Migration Patterns and Core–Periphery Relations from the Central and Eastern-European Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2017

Ibolya Török
Ibolya Török*
Affiliation:
Babeş-Bolyai University, Faculty of Geography, Hungarian Department of Geography, Kogălniceanu Street No. 1, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to present the current trends in the migration flows of Central and Eastern-European (CEE) countries in the light of socio-economic transition and core-periphery relations. To view migration as a broader process of social and economic development, post-accession mobility information will be analysed within a multi-scalar approach, across time and space, considering first the migration pattern from the CEE countries towards other EU regions in general, and then with a special emphasis on Romania in the light of the 2007 EU enlargement process. The spatial variation of migration was investigated using Moran’s I and Gi* statistics, which is a useful tool for identification of spatial patterns. Alongside the analysis of migration processes between receiving and sending areas (core and periphery regions) the author will discuss how the position of the core and periphery could change, with economic development taking place in a number of periodic waves. Based on the transnationalism paradigm, the author will also highlight the impact of migrants’ changed mobility practices and behaviour on the locality of origin.

Type
Articles
Information
European Review , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , July 2017 , pp. 388 - 405
Copyright
© Academia Europaea 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Goodchild, M.F. (1986) Spatial Autocorrelation (Catmog 47. Norwich: Geo Books), pp. 1–56.Google Scholar
2. Feldkircher, M. (2006) Regional convergence within the EU-25: a spatial econometric analysis. Proceedings of OeNB workshop, 9, pp. 101–119.Google Scholar
3. Glick Schiller, N., Basch, L. and Blanc-Szanton, C. (1992) Transnationalism: a new analytical framework for understanding migration. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 645, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
4. Vertovec, S. (1999) Conceiving and researching transnationalism. Ethnic and Racial Studies, XXII(2), pp. 447–462.Google Scholar
5. Portes, A., Guarnizo, L.E. and Landolt, P. (1999) The study of transnationalism: Pitfalls and promise of an emergent research field. Ethnic and Racial Studies, XXII(2), pp. 217–237.Google Scholar
6. Castles, S. and Miller, M.J. (2003) The Age of Migration (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan), p. 357.Google Scholar
7. Faist, T. (2008) Migrants as transnational development agents: an inquiry into the newest round of the migration-development nexus. Population, Space and Place, XIV(1), pp. 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Faist, T. (2000) The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social Spaces (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 396.Google Scholar
9. Pries, L. (2002) The approach of transnational social spaces: responding to new configurations of the social and the spatial. In: L. Pries (Ed.), New Transnational Social Spaces. International Migration and Transnational Companies in the Early Twenty-first Century (London: Routledge), pp. 3–35.Google Scholar
10. Beck, U. (2000) What is Globalization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 180.Google Scholar
11. Massey, D.B. (2005) For Space (London: Sage Publications), p. 222.Google Scholar
12. Glick Schiller, N. (2009) A global perspective on migration and development. Social Analysis, LIII(3), pp. 14–37.Google Scholar
13. Guarnizo, L.E. and Smith, M.P. (1998) The locations of transnationalism. In M.P. Smith and L.E. Guarnizo (Eds.), Transnationalism from Below. Theoretical and Empirical Contributions Toward a Research Agenda for Transnationalism (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers), pp. 3–34.Google Scholar
14. Latour, B. (1994) We Have Never Been Modern (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), p. 157.Google Scholar
15. Elrick, T. and Ciobanu, O. (2009) Migration networks and policy impacts: insights from Romanian-Spanish migrations. Global Networks IX(1), pp. 100–116.Google Scholar
16. Wallerstein, I.M. (1974) The Modern World-System (New York: Academic Press), p. 410.Google Scholar
17. Skeldon, R. (1997) Migration and Development: A Global Perspective (Harlow: Longman), p. 253.Google Scholar
18. Schmidt, M.H. (1998) An integrated approach to marginal regions: from definition to development policies. In: H. Jussila, W. Leimgruber and R. Majoral (Eds), Perceptions of Marginality: Theoretical Issues and Regional Perceptions of Marginality in Geographical Space (Aldershot: Ashgate), pp. 45–66.Google Scholar
19. Daugirdas, V. and Burneika, D. (2006) Patterns and problems of peripherality in Lithuania-Borderland of the EU. In: T. Komornicki and K. Czapiewski (Eds), Europe XXI 15 (Warsaw: Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization, Polish Academy of Sciences, Polish Geographical Society), pp. 119–135.Google Scholar
20. Churski, P. (2004) Struktura społeczno-gospodarcza obszarow problemowych w Unii Europejskiej i Polsce w świetle unijnej polityki regionalnej. Przeglad Geograficzny, 76, pp. 189–208.Google Scholar
21. Aring, J. and Reutther, I. (2006) Regiopolen zwischen Metropolregionen und Peripherien. http://www.unikassel.de/fb6/srp/07forschung/regiopolen/060914tagung/Aufsatz_Tagung_Regiopolen_Aring_Reuther.pdf (accessed 28 July 2008).Google Scholar
22. Angus, I. and Shoesmith, B. (1993) Dependency/space/policy: an introduction to a dialogue with Harold Innis. Continuum: Journal of media & Cultural Studies, VII(1), pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
23. Bélorgey, N., Garbe-Emden, B., Horstmann, S., Kuhn, A., Vogel, D. and Stubbs, P. (2012) Social Impact of Emigration and Rural-Urban Migration in Central and Eastern Europe. Synthesis Report VT/2010/001.Google Scholar
24.Eurostat – The Statistical Office of the European Union (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat) (accessed 14 December 2015).Google Scholar
25. Grabowska-Lusińska, I. and Okólski, M. (2009) Emigracja ostatnia (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar), p. 246.Google Scholar
26. Hars, A. (2009) Immigration countries in Central and Eastern Europe: The case of Hungary, IDEA Working Papers 12, www.idea6fp.uw.edu.pl/pliki/WP12_Hungary.pdf (accessed 3 August 2013).Google Scholar
27.KSH – Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, Budapest (www.ksh.hu) (accessed 23 May 2013).Google Scholar
28. Drbohlav, D., Lachmanova-Medova, L., Cermak, Z., Janska, E., Cermakova, D. and Dzurova, D. (2009) The Czech Republic: On its Way from Emigration to Immigration country,IDEA Working Papers 11, www.idea6fp.uw.edu.pl/pliki/WP11_Czech_Republic.pdf (accessed 3 August 2013).Google Scholar
29. Drbohlav, D. (2012) Patterns of immigration in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. A comparative perspective. In: M. Okólski (Ed.), European Immigrations. Trends, Structures and Policy Implications (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press), pp. 179–209.Google Scholar
30. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2013) Trends in International Migrant Stock: Migrants by Destination and Origin (United Nations database, POP/DB/MIG/Stock/Rev.2013).Google Scholar
31. Barnickel, C. and Beichelt, T. (2013) Shifting patterns and reactions – migration policy in the new EU member states. East European Politics and Societies and Cultures, XXVII(3), pp. 466–492.Google Scholar
32. Rangelova, R. and Vladimirova, K. (2004) Migration from central and eastern Europe: the case of Bulgaria. South-East Europe Review for Labour and Social Affairs, III, pp. 7–30.Google Scholar
33. Boboc, C., Vasile, V. and Todose, D. (2012) Vulnerabilities associated to migration trajectories from Romania to EU countries. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62, pp. 352–359.Google Scholar
34. OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010) International Migration Outlook. SOPEMI 2010 (Paris: OECD Publishing), (accessed 8 August 2012).Google Scholar
35.România Liberă – www.romanialibera.ro (accessed 4 April 2010).Google Scholar
36. Fic, T. (2013) Migration from Bulgaria and Romania to the UK. National Institute Economic Review, 224(1), pp. F4–F7.Google Scholar
37. McDowell, C. and de Haan, A. (1997) Migration and Sustainable Livelihoods: A Critical Review of the Literature, IDS Working paper, (Sussex: Institute of Development Studies), http://www.ids.ac.uk/publication/migration-and-sustainable-livelihoods-a-critical-review-of-the-literature (accessed 3 March 2013).Google Scholar
38. Ehrkamp, P. (2005) Placing identities: transnational practices and local attachments of Turkish immigrants in Germany. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(2), p. 345–364.Google Scholar
39. Anghel, R.G. (2008) Changing statuses: freedom of movement, locality and transnationality of irregular Romanian migrants in Milan. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(5), pp. 787–802.Google Scholar
40. Kureková, L. (2010) Theories of Migration: Critical Review in the Context of the EU East-West Flows. CARIM AS Best Participant Essays Series 2010/44, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies (San Domenico di Fiesole: EUI).Google Scholar
41. Collinson, S. (1993) Europe and International Migration (London: Pinter Publishers), p. 189.Google Scholar