International Migration for Work-Consequences for the Families Who Remain at Home (The Case of Romania) Agnes Nemenyi Received: 1 November 2011 / Accepted: 21 March 2012 / Published online: 4 May 2012 # Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012 Abstract This paper analyses the consequences of international migration for work on families who remain at home in a Romanian rural sample. Five types of effects were identified: financial; on spousal relations; on children; on old family members and on composition of the population. The most important are the financial impacts, but there are also invisible side-effects, such as deterioration in the relations between spouses and the decrease of the parents’ roles for children. The importance of the old family members is re-evaluated; they are key social links between migrants and the family members that have remained at home. Keywords Care . Migration . Consequences on family . Romania Introduction The international labour migration of Romanian citizens has emerged as a trend in the last 20 years. Prior to 1989, Romanian people could not hold a passport and they could only travel abroad once every 2 years and mainly within the former socialist countries. This therefore is one of the explanations for the sudden growth of migration flows in the 1990s. After the fall of the communist regime, the first trips undertaken were for touristic purposes, but these also served as a first step towards obtaining information regarding possible work opportunities. Now the literature on migration is more expansive and richer, describing different aspects of this movement regarding the recruitment of groups of migrants, regions of recruitment, countries of destination and types of work. After the political and economic changes in Romania, the job opportunities in the Romanian economy were completely restructured and 45–47 % of population that were living in rural areas had no job opportunities As a result, the present international migration for work has a strong economic reasoning. Remittances sent home show that those family Population Ageing (2012) 5:119–134 DOI 10.1007/s12062-012-9061-0 A. Nemenyi (*) Department of Sociology, University Babeş-Bolyai, Cluj-Napoca, Romania e-mail: [email protected]
Transcript
International Migration for Work-Consequencesfor the Families Who Remain at Home (The Caseof Romania)
Agnes Nemenyi
Received: 1 November 2011 /Accepted: 21 March 2012 /Published online: 4 May 2012# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract This paper analyses the consequences of international migration for workon families who remain at home in a Romanian rural sample. Five types of effectswere identified: financial; on spousal relations; on children; on old family membersand on composition of the population. The most important are the financial impacts,but there are also invisible side-effects, such as deterioration in the relations betweenspouses and the decrease of the parents’ roles for children. The importance of the oldfamily members is re-evaluated; they are key social links between migrants and thefamily members that have remained at home.
Keywords Care . Migration . Consequences on family . Romania
Introduction
The international labour migration of Romanian citizens has emerged as a trend in thelast 20 years. Prior to 1989, Romanian people could not hold a passport and they couldonly travel abroad once every 2 years and mainly within the former socialist countries.This therefore is one of the explanations for the sudden growth of migration flows in the1990s. After the fall of the communist regime, the first trips undertakenwere for touristicpurposes, but these also served as a first step towards obtaining information regardingpossible work opportunities. Now the literature on migration is more expansive andricher, describing different aspects of this movement regarding the recruitment of groupsof migrants, regions of recruitment, countries of destination and types of work. After thepolitical and economic changes in Romania, the job opportunities in the Romanianeconomy were completely restructured and 45–47 % of population that were living inrural areas had no job opportunities As a result, the present international migration forwork has a strong economic reasoning. Remittances sent home show that those family
Population Ageing (2012) 5:119–134DOI 10.1007/s12062-012-9061-0
A. Nemenyi (*)Department of Sociology, University Babeş-Bolyai, Cluj-Napoca, Romaniae-mail: [email protected]
members of migrants that have remained at home are receiving important sums of money,which is considerable at country level. There is some analysis of the consequences ofremittance which focuses on the way this money has been earned and what it was thenspent on. However this literature does not include the micro-group consequences onfamilies who have remained at home in Romania. As discussed in a previous article bythe author (Nemenyi 2009), family composition and the attitudes towards this arechanging (marriages are made later, demographic attitudes also change with peoplehaving fewer children or no children). Where there is migration within families withchildren, the care and education of children is undertaken by the grandparents forsometimes considerable periods of time. The long-term consequences of thesechanges are relatively under-researched and this paper will seek to examine them.
Migration
The sociology of migration has its origins in the School of Chicago, as well as in theurban ecology from the USA, and has evolved in Europe in the 1960s and 1970s as aproblem of immigration and its social consequences. The study of internationalmigration has since moved to focus on the dynamics between the country of originand that of destination (see Lee 1966), and therefore differs from the sociology ofimmigration which explored the consequences of migration only on the country ofdestination as opposed to also including the consequences on the country of origin.
The migratory moves are analysed on different levels, from local to global (seeOgden 1984; Sandu 2010; Nemenyi 2010; Nemenyi and Gal 2009, 2010; Petrescu2011). The sociology of migration has therefore included new reflections on theglobalization of this process, migrational trajectories, the relations between thesociety of emigration and the society of immigration.
Some important consequences of migration were demonstrated on migrationalfamilies, when migrants were leaving children, and also other family members andthese children were suffering by the missing of parents. Also in a former study (seeNemenyi 2011), the author demonstrated some consequences of migration (in thecountry of origin) on the ageing of the population.
Methods
An important supposition was that behind economic reasons of migration are con-sequences which are not recognised, linked to children, spouses and older familymembers. Between 2008 and 2009, in a project financed by the ERSTE Foundation,the author conducted (together with assistant Kinga Gál J.) sociological research on asample of migrant families living in rural Romania. The aim of the project was toidentify the consequences of international labour migration on rural families. Theproject began with the selection of three historical regions of the country and in everyregion one village was selected with high rates of out-migration. In the samplevillages a number of families with members who had migrated were chosen and aquestionnaire was sent which had five topics:
I. Work abroad,II. The family and the household,
120 A. Nemenyi
III. Family relations in the household, future plans,IV. Economy, land, sources of living,V. Old family members.
The three localities of the sample were Petresti (Satu-Mare county) on the HungarianRomanian- border in Western Romania, Feldru (Bistrita-Nasaud county) in North-Western Transylvania and Vladnic in the South-Eastern Moldova region (Bacau county).These rural settlements were chosen as after the economic and social changes of the 90s,the rural population became more vulnerable to becoming unemployed, also having alower educational level, and as such there were poor possibilities to obtain a job andliving resources. The only recourse for many was traditional agricultural activity whichdid not generate money, only food for subsistence.
Five types of consequences on the families remained home were identified:
1. Financial consequences;2. Consequences on spouses (marital);3. Consequences on children;4. Consequences on old family members;5. Consequences on whole population.
The Sample
The sample was made up of 201 rural families (households) and all these householdshad one or more member who had migrated. The sampling population had foursegments:
– Sample of questioned persons,– Sample of migrants from the same family,– Sample of aged family members,– Sample of all family members.
Among those who had migranted were heads of family, spouses, children etc. (seeTable 1). The table shows the rate of heads of household (18.6 %) and spouses(8.6 %), in addition to more than 60 % children, because among those migrating, theamount of younger generation is high. Between the sample settlements there areimportant differences which demonstrate differences in age composition of migrants.
In terms of the sample’s general characteristics, they: had a low educational level,involved mainly in agricultural activities, or commuting earlier to industrial units, withhigh unemployment rate after the collapse of heavy industry and mining, without anyfinancial resources of living, and with a high number of children.
Financial Consequences
The most important consequences on families were linked to remittances. Thequestion as to how much money were those migrating sending home is key, becausethe amount of money sent home is correlated to future plans to return home. Also it isinfluenced by the type of relation between the migrated person and family membersthat have remained home. As other sources show (see Adevărul, 10 June 2011,
International Migration for Work-Consequences for Families 121
www.adevarul.ro) during a whole year Romanian migrants made 12 thousand millionEuro savings, from which remittances were only 2.8 thousand million Euros.
Some comparisons show the reduction of remittances over time, and are indicatingthat a high rate of migrants (60 %) do not plan to return home. This is a newphenomenon, and is linked to the deterioration of the economic situation of thecountry as well as other factors such as the European crisis, the lower number ofjobs for migrants, also lower-waged jobs that are available for them.
Family members who remain at home need the remittance because living in ruralsettlements, they have low economic resources.
As other data have shown (see A. Neményi, Ethno-Socio-Cultural Factors in Landuse and Inheritance. The Case or Romania, p.78, in: Trends in Land Succession, Cluj,University Press 2009) there is a huge correlation between poverty, family size, access to
Table 1 Who is working abroad from your household?
Place/Variable Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All
Nr. Nr. % Nr. % Nr. %
Head of household 32 35,6 15 9,3 24 18,3 71 18,6
Spouse/Husband 18 20,0 8 5,0 7 5,3 33 8,6
Child 34 37,8 105 65,2 87 66,4 226 59,2
Stepchild 2 2,2 2 1,2 – – 4 1,0
Grandchild – – 4 2,5 2 1,5 6 1,6
Parent 1 1,1 – – – – 1 0,3
Sister/Brother 1 1,1 1 0,6 8 6,1 10 2,6
Daughter/Son-in-law 2 2,2 16 9,9 3 2,3 21 5,5
Sister-in-law/Brother-in-law – – 2 1,2 – – 2 0,5
Uncle/Aunt – – 1 0,6 – – 1 0,3
Other – – 7 4,3 – – 7 1,8
Total 90 100 161 100 131 100 382 100
3.774.55
10.00
15.09
19.32
21.6720.00
5.00
1.49
5.97
15.42
10.00
28.8628.41
37.74
21.3922.73
20.75
13.43
11.67
14.7713.21
6.47
13.33
3.413.773.982.27
5.66 1.672.27 1.49
5.00
1.002.271.67
0.500.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
AllVladnicFeldruPetresti
Nr. 1
Nr. 2
Nr. 3
Nr. 4
Nr. 5
Nr. 6
Nr. 7
Nr. 8
Nr. 9
Nr. 10
Nr. 11
Nr. 12
Number of person who live in one household
Fig. 1 Number of persons who live in the household
land and international migration intensity, because in another rural sample the moreintense migration was present in such village, where there is a higher poverty, thefamilies are composed of a high number of members (higher number of children), andalso access to land is restricted (there is small amount of agricultural land in the region).In that region the amount of migrational flow was three times higher than in otherregions of the sample. In the present sample all families have migrants, but between thesample villages there are also differences in the intensity of migration.
The average family size in our sample is:
& In Petreşti is 3.56 persons (total number of families is 53, total number of familymembers is 189, there were 90 out-migrants);
& In Feldru is 3.69 persons (total number of families is 88, total number of familymembers is 325, there were 161 out-migrants);
& In Vladnic is 4.26 persons (total number of families is 60, total number of familymembers is 256, there were 131 out-migrants).
As the data from the last Romanian census demonstrate,1 the average number ofhouseholds in rural areas is 3.03, but there are important differences between theethnic groups: for Romanians it is 3.01 and for Hungarians it is 2.82. In our sampletherefore in all villages the average number of households was higher than the averagerural number of persons/households. However it is important to reiterate that this samplewas composed of only families where someone has migrated out of Romania, and thehigh number of persons in households can be responsible for prompting internationalmigration. Exploring the data regarding the number of persons in the household, therewas a low rate of one, two and three persons, and a very high (28.36 %) rate for thosefamilies with more than 5 members (the highest in Vladnic 36,67 %).
The average number of out-migrants per family was:
& In Petreşti is 1.69 persons (total family number 53, number of migrants 90)
1 Recensământul populaţiei şi al locuinţelor, 2002, vol I-IV, INS, 2003.
International Migration for Work-Consequences for Families 123
& In Feldru is 1.82 persons (total family number 88, number of migrants 161)& In Vladnic is 2.18 person (total family number 60, number of migrants 131)
So, there is a positive correlation between family size and the number of migrants,and with the growing family size the number of migrants also increases.
Another correlation is between the amount of agricultural land existing in thefamily property and the migrational potential. Those families without land or smalleramounts than half hectare of land were migrating more so than others. 10.77 % of thesample had less than half hectare of arable land and 21.54% had no land. The average sizeof land/household in our sample was: in Petreşti 1.86 ha/household, in Feldru 2.78 ha/household, in Vladnic 1.93 ha/household. However agriculture is not an attractiveoccupation for young rural people as it does not offer a high status, or money, so in some
Fig. 3 What household equipment do the asked families own?
35.8
26.1
21.7
27.4
28.3
45.5
26.7
35.3
35.8
28.4
51.7
37.3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Petresti
Feldru
Valdnic
All
What kind of change were taking place after migration in your family life?
Same Better Worst
Fig. 4 Change in family
124 A. Nemenyi
regions, if migrational experience is developed, more and more people leave to workabroad (Fig. 1).
Financial Resources
In a question we asked the families about their financial resources. Among them onethird (29.5 %) was made up of wages, the second source was the state pensions(21.8 %), the third source is the social security (social care) received for children(13.5 %), the fourth source were the agricultural pensions (7.7 %) and money theyreceived from the sale of agricultural products (5.1 %), the fifth source as social
30.2 25.0 21.7 25.4
34.051.1
50.0 46.3
35.819.3 23.3 24.9
1.1 5.0 2.03.4 1.5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
AllValdnicFelruPetresti
How is your relation with your spouse?
don’t have that kind the relation very good good less good not good
Fig. 5 Relation with spouse
75.5
65.9
50
63.7
22.6
28.4
35
28.9
1.9
5.7
15
7.5
Petresti
Feldru
Valdnic
All
How is your family harmony compared to last year?
Same Better Worst
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Fig. 6 Domestic harmony
International Migration for Work-Consequences for Families 125
security (4.8 %), and only 4.9 % of the resources are recognized as money fromremittances. It is important to mention the amount of those (4.2 %) without anyresources. The highest percent lacking financial resources was in Feldru, where 8.9 %has no source of income (question nr 33) (Fig. 2).
Expenditure
Our data show that the most important expenditure made by families where a memberhad migrated out of Romania were linked to the construction or reconstruction oftheir own dwellings. In all villages out-migrant families’ houses were the mostmodern and up-to-date. The second highest form of expenditure was on the acquisi-tion of equipment for houses with 63.7 % of our sample admitting such expenses.
18.9
38.6
30.0
30.8
5.7
15.9
6.7
10.4
56.6
30.7
48.3
42.8
17.0
13.6
10.0
13.4
1.9
1.1
5.0
2.5
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Petre ti
Feldru
Vladnic
All
Opinions about consequences of migration: those working abroad... (%)
DA/DN
Change own thinking
Are helping those remained home
Divorce easier
Have a better financial situation
Fig. 7 Opinions about people who are working abroad
Proportion of the sample of pesons over 60 years
28.30
51.14
36.67
40.80
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
AllVladnicFeldru
Proportion of the sample (%)
Petre ti
Fig. 8 Proportion of the sample of persons over 60 years
126 A. Nemenyi
12.1 % of the sample population had bought agricultural land, the highest rate was inFeldru, 18.1 %. Out of the sample population 6–7 % spent money in order to buyagricultural machines, 4.5 % used financial resources to start up a business, 24.4 %bought PCs, and 41.8 % used it to travel.
One of the results of migration was the establishment of self-employment or smallbusinesses. For example, in Feldru we experienced a case of a former migrant whostarted a business by constructing on his own land a restaurant with a motel after a6-year period of living and working outside of Romania. Two brothers are involved inthe business (one of them is working in the present time in Ireland with all hisfamily).
In the everyday expenses there were some radical changes in the migrant families,with new types of expenditure appearing: 20 % used resources for life insurance,25.9 % had a banking loan, 17.9 % made investments, and 52.2 % spent onagriculture. Low expenses were kept for education (26.9 %), for culture (24, 9 %)while they grew for medication to 73 %.
Related to agricultural production: 13.9 % of the sample was not producing food,whilst 30.8 % was producing for the needs of 25 % of the household, 21.4 % for half,14.9 % for three quartes and 18.9 % produced all products for the household.
All the households were well equipped: 89.1 % had a mobile-phone, 39.8 % had acar (the average for the country is 28.6 %), 92.5 % had a refrigerator, 96 % had a
Table 2 Proportion of the sample of persons over 60 years
Place/Variable Petreşti Feldru Vladnic All
Asked household (nr.) 53 88 60 201
Asked person over 60 years (nr.) 15 45 22 82
Proportion of the sample (%) 28,30 51,14 36,67 40,80
The age of family member over 60 year (%)
68.2
31.8
62.260.6
33.333.4
4.46.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Petre ti AllVladnicFeldru
60-7071-8081-90
Fig. 9 The age of family member over 60 (%)
International Migration for Work-Consequences for Families 127
television, 81.1 % had TV-cable, 76.5 % had a washing machine (the average/countryis 73.9 %), 39.8 % had a PC, and 25.9 % had savings.
In response to the hypothetical question on how they planned to spend ahigher amount of money, the first answer was to offer it to poor people(90.5 %), second answer was to give to their own children (89.6 %), thirdwas to offer money to the church (87.6 %), the next was that they would spendfor their own needs (79.6 %), 63.7 % would put the money into the bank,
Petre tiFeldru
VladnicAll
Man
Women
60.0
44.4
63.6
52.4
40.0
55.6
36.4
47.6
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Gender of family members over 60 years (%)
Man Women
Fig. 10 Gender of family members over 60 (%)
Marital status of family member over 60 years (%)
20.0
2.2
0.0
22.0
33.3
64.4
63.6
51.2
46.7
33.3
36.4
26.8
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
Petre ti
Feldru
Vladnic
All
Widow Married/relation Single
Fig. 11 Marital status of family members over 60 (%)
128 A. Nemenyi
48.3 % start a business and 17.4 % wish to emigrate. The migrational potentialwas the highest in Vladnic 26.7 % (Fig. 3).
So to summarise, in terms of the remittances sent home:
& The family who have remained at home receives an important financial sustain-ment for everyday life.
& The most important use of remittances is to construct/restore a house.& Remittances are also used for
– Home-equipment.– To start a business.– To buy agricultural land or use money for agricultural investments.
The nationality/ethnicity of family member over 60 years
13.3
100.0
40.9
68.3
20.0
59.1
15.9
66.7
12.23.7
Petre ti
Feldru
Vladnic
All
Romanian Ceang u Swab (German)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Hungarian
Fig. 12 The nationality/ethnicity of family members over 60 year (%)
15.48.1
5.1
2.7
2.6
1.4
12.8 61.924.3
7.1
15.4
14.3
13.5
14.3
5.1 5.4
7.1
23.1
9.5
16.214.4
2.6 4.17.1
5.17.12.6 2.72.6 1.47.1
1.4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Level of financial resources in the family Over 1301
1201-1300
1101-1200
1001-1100
901-1000
801-900
701-800
601-700
501-600
401-500
301-400
201-300
101-200
51-100
Not anyAllVladnicFeldruPetre ti
7.7
14.4
21.4
14.3
4.1
4.1
10.8
Fig. 13 Level of financial resources in the family
International Migration for Work-Consequences for Families 129
Consequences for the Spouse
In our sample 72.1 % were married, so all these families are confronted by problems,with distance as the most important factor. The families recognized changes in theirfamily-life and for 37.3 % these changes resulted in a worse situation.
By traveling abroad and staying for a long period of time away from each other, therelationship between spouses was deteriorating, and sometimes this resulted in thedissolution of relationships (in our sample 6.3%were divorced). This is a high percentagein a population where for 96.5 % family life is very important (Figs. 4, 5, 6 and 7).
Consequences on Children
There are different situations, with some young people who migrate accepting theywill have to postpone having children. In the case of families with children, labour
Sources of income of family member over 60 years
16.38.8
65.1
35.046.7
31.8
17.5
53.3
59.1
26.3
7.03.84.5
4.7
2.3
1.3
1.31.32.31.32.3 3.84.5
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Inheritance pensionIllness pensionChild allocationSelling foods and agricultural productsSocial assistanceAgricultural pensionState pensionProfits from investments, etc.Salary, wageNothing
AllVladnicFeldruPetre ti
Fig. 14 Sources of income of family member over 60 years
26.7
31.1
27.3
29.3
26.7
28.9
22.7
26.8
6.7
6.7
4.5
6.1
13.3
2.2
3.7
26.7
31.1
45.5
34.1
Feldru
Vladnic
All
Never Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Petre ti
Fig. 15 How often do you look after your grandchild?
130 A. Nemenyi
migration gives an important financial sustainment for children. But often parentsleave children, who then remain with their grandparents or other relatives (or, as therewere some cases, they remain alone), so parent duties are missing. In a formerresearch (www.soros.ro) changes in children’s behaviour were identified, includingsuicide attempts, diminished school performance and difficulties integrating into theschool activity.
In what measure do you employ in the nursing the sick family members?
73.3
31.1
36.4
40.2
0.0
17.8
22.7
15.9
0.0
8.9
22.7
11.0
6.7
6.7
9.1
7.3
20.0
35.6
9.1
25.6
Feldru
Vladnic
All
100%80%60%40%20%0%
Petre ti
Never Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely
Fig. 16 How often do you nurse sick family members?
In what measure do you employ in the helping about work around the house?
20.0
8.9
9.8
73.3
80.0
81.8
79.3
0.06.7
6.7
9.1
7.3
4.5
3.7
4.5
4.4Feldru
Vladnic
All
Never Daily Weekly Rarely
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Petre ti
Fig. 17 How often do you do work around the house?
International Migration for Work-Consequences for Families 131
In the situation of the migration of adult children (it was 60% in our sample), there was areevaluation of the old family members, because they helped their own children andgrandchildren in housekeeping, they took care of the grandchildren and other old or sickfamily members. Sometimes they were visiting family members abroad and supervisedgrandchildren. Those who remained at home took care of the household and they alsoworked in agriculture, and through these activities they sustained themselves. In oursampled households, which were chosen because they had one or more persons workingabroad, 40.8 % were represented by persons over 60 years old; this rate is higher by10 % than the corresponding average age rate in the country. So, the data demonstrate ahigh rate of ageing of the sample regions (Fig. 8) and (Table 2).
In what measure do you employ in the feeding the domestic animals?
26.7
24.4
4.5
19.5
60.0
60.0
86.4
67.1
2.2
9.1
13.3
13.3
9.83.7
Feldru
Vladnic
All
Never Daily Weekly Rarely
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Petre ti
Fig. 18 How often do you feed the domestic animals?
In what measure do you employ in the help in agriculture?
26.7
15.6
9.1
15.9
46.7
60.0
68.2
59.8
6.7
6.7
13.6
8.5
9.1
20.0
17.8
13.42.4
Feldru
Vladnic
All
Never Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely
100%80%60%40%20%0%
Petre ti
Fig. 19 How often do you help into agriculture?
132 A. Nemenyi
Age-groups
In the population over 60 years, we made three groups: 60–70 years, the largest group(63.4 %), 71–80 years (32.9 %), and 81–90 years (3.7 %). In terms of marital status,half were married (51.2 %), 26, 8 % are widows, and 22 % are single. The ethnicgroups were 68.3 % Romanians, 3.7 % Hungarians, 15.9 % Csango and 12.2 %German. In terms of religion, 47.6 % were Orthodox, 45.1 % Roman-Catholics,6.1 % Neoprotestants and 1.2 % Greek-Catholics. 80.5 % out of the older age grouphad medical insurance, but 19.5 % did not. The rate of men to women is 47.6 % menand 52.4 % women (Figs. 9, 10, 11 and 12).
Between them 8 % had some sources of income, 32.2 % had a salary and weretherefore economically active, 21. 8 % had a state pension, 24.1 % an agriculturalpension, 1.3 % obtained resources through selling agricultural products, and 1.3 %had profit from investments. When asking them of the amount of financial resources,8 % declared to have nothing, 52.7 % had less than 500 RON/month, 25.7 % hadbetween 500 and 800 RON, 13.5 % had over 800 RON.2 The data show a high levelof poverty among rural aged people (Figs. 13 and 14).
Family-roles of the Aged Members of the Family
A high percentage of older family members (75 %) took care of or educated grand-children, looked after them, and nursed sick family members. In addition, 80 %worked in the household, 70 % fed domestic animals, 70 % worked in agriculture and80 % made own household governance. We can see the intensity of involvement ofaged people in grandchildren’s care and education: 25.6 % were involved on a dailybasis, 9.8 % weekly, and 2.4 % monthly (Figs. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20).
In what measure do you employ in the helping in household governance?
20.0
6.7
4.5
8.5
73.3
77.8
86.4
79.3
6.7
6.1
2.2
4.5
2.4
2.2
4.5
3.7
11.1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Petre ti
Feldru
Vladnic
All
Never Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely
Fig. 20 How often do you help into household governance?
2 1 Euro04, 21 RON
International Migration for Work-Consequences for Families 133
Consequences on Whole Population
International migration for work has an important impact on the population, resultingin a decrease mainly because of the postponement of having children. Also we canspeak about a considerable brain drain: as a newspaper mentioned (Adevărul10.06.2011, www.adevarul.ro) Romania lost 3 million people, more than in any war!
When considering the rate of those who do not return, this number is higher andhigher. The population undertaking migration is younger then the whole population,thus resulting the in the ageing of the Romania’s population.
Conclusions
International labour migration is generating important consequences for families whoremain at home. This study identified five consequences: financial, on spouserelations, on parent-children relation, on old family members, and on age structureof country population. In this process a reevaluation of aged members of thesefamilies has been demonstrated whereby they are important contact persons, provid-ing links between the remaining and migrating members of families.
References
Lee, E. (1966). A theory of migration. Demography, 3, 48.Nemenyi, A. (2009). Ethno-socio-cultural factors in land use and inheritance. The case of Romania, p.78,
In: A. Nemenyi (Ed.), Trends in land succession. Cluj University Press.Nemenyi, A. (2010). Migrant workers in LTC: The perspective of a major sending country: Romania, paper
presented on London School of Economics, International Conference on Evidence-based Policy inLong-term Care, 8–10 of September 2010, London.
Nemenyi, A. (2011). Demographic ageing in Romania. General and specific consequences on the ruralpopulation and the Relation to International Migration. In: A. Hoff (Ed.), Population ageing in Centraland Eastern Europe. Societal and policy implications (pp. 151–167). Ashgate Publishing Company
Nemenyi, A., & Kinga Gál, J., (2009). The effects of international migration on Romanian Rural Families(ERSTE Foundation 2008–2009) Manuscript.
Nemenyi, A., & Kinga Gal, J. (2010). The role of aged people in migrant rural families in Romania, paperpresented in the 14th Polish Sociological Congress, Krakow, Poland, September 8–11, 2010.
Ogden, E. P. (1984). Migration and geographical change. Cambridge University Press.Petrescu, G. (2011). Migraţia dincolo de prejudecăţi şi mituri. Maximization of the Development Impact of
Migration in Romania www.soros.roSandu, D. (2010). Lumile sociale ale migraţiei româneşti în străinătate). Ed.Polirom, Iasi.
