c Consequences of the migration

The consequences of the migration phenomena are very negative for the country. Brain drain had particularly severe consequences for the development of the country. Emigrations from the ethnically diverse areas have involved the most active and qualified segment of the population, namely those who had lost their privileged social status during the transition years of the 1990s. Among them were former mayors, representatives of municipal councils, former policemen, technicians, students and doctors. An extensive research (BOBEVA 1994) showed that the community of the Bulgarian Turks lost 9.000 university graduates to emigration during the early 1990s. Recent developments indicate that foreign companies investing in Bulgaria encounter a serious problem with the recruitment of qualified personnel, which questions both the skill composition of the Bulgarian emigration and the educational system in the country. This is due to the continuous exodus of skilled and educated migrants composed mainly by researchers, university professors, IT specialists, doctors and other specialists with university background (GUENTCHEVA et al. 2003).

 Demographic problem

One of the most immediate effects of Bulgarian emigration was the reduction of the population. Results from Bulgaria‟s 2001 census put the country‟s population at 7,9 million, a decrease of about half a million from the previous census in 1992. The

Economist Intelligence Unit in London gave even lower population figures, estimating Bulgaria‟s population in 2001 at 7,7 million and a further fall to a total of 7,4 million by the year 2013 (EUROSTAT). The negative development in the last few years is attributed

103 to both a negative natural population growth (a low fertility level and an extremely high mortality-rate) and emigration. Bulgaria is amongst the five „oldest‟ countries in Europe together with Italy, Greece, Germany and Spain, with a share of the older-age group (65 years and over) at more than 16% of the total population (MARKOVA 2010).

 Brain drain

Some 20.000 scientists left Bulgaria in 1990 finding professional realization in Germany, Ireland, the UK and France. In the period between 1990 and 1992, another 40.000 specialists left the country (SRETENOVA 2003).

An important number of the high skilled personnel leaving Bulgaria were school teachers due to drastic declining birth rates and the emigration of young people and whole families, which resulted in job losses for teachers. A sample of 202 Bulgarian immigrants in Madrid, interviewed during 2003-2004 showed about 7% of teachers among them (MARKOVA 2010).

Another important consequence of this massive migration is the demographic composition of the population. In the years between the two censuses of 1992 and 2001, the Bulgarian population fell down by 6% and over 1/3 of the reduction was attributed to emigration as officially 217.809 people left the country during this period, while only 19.000 immigrants came from abroad. At the end of 2004 the permanent population of Bulgaria was 7.761.049, showing a decrease by 40.224 people compared to the previous year, due to the low fertility level and the high mortality-rate, as well as the emigration (BULGARIAN INSTITUTE OF STATISTICS – DEMOGRAPHIC DATA).

The massive migration had its consequences on the labor market. During the first half of the 1990s, a large part of the public sector was destroyed, the real wage rate dropped by 52%, the national currency was devaluated and the rate of inflation reached a record of 435,8% (BELEVA et al., 1996). In this process of transition, emigration has alleviated the labor market as in the absence of the emigration alternative, domestic unemployment would have been much more dramatic.

104  Remittances

An important question is related to the remittances of the Bulgarian immigrants. The data given by the Bulgarian National Bank shows that the amount of money sent by Bulgarians abroad to relatives in the country has, over recent years, increased consistently in absolute terms and as a percentage of measured GDP. For 2004 and 2005 it was 921 million EUR and 810 million EUR, respectively. According to data released by the state Agency for the Bulgarians Abroad, at least 300.000 people send amounts ranging between US$100 to US$300 to their families on a regular monthly basis.

Data offered by the Bulgarian National Bank show that the amount of money sent by Bulgarians abroad to relatives in the country has increased in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP. It consisted of about 4,2% of the Bulgarian GPD in 2004 and 5,4% of the country‟s GDP in 2008 (MARKOVA 2010).

The ways to send money are: in cash 56%, by bank transfers 20,7%, by Western Union and by Money Gram or by other non-bank transfer methods 14,5%.

The remittances are used primarily to cover basic needs and became an important element in improving living standards and reviving the local economies through increased consumption and investment (PETKOVSKI et al. 2009). A qualitative study on the effects of seasonal migration on Bulgaria by GUENTCHEVA et al. (2003) confirms the use of remittances for consumption and to purchase properties.

As is reported, despite their positive contributions to foreign exchange earnings and national income, remittances could also have their downside. Usually these negative effects exist in cases of small and open economies which are, at the same time, large remittance receiving countries (PETKOVSKI, M. et al. 2009).

Other positive impacts of the immigration concern the seasonal work abroad related to a new organization of work and life that leads to the development of entrepreneurial behavior as well as the more active role of the local authorities in mediating the exchange regulation.

The social effects of migration among others consist of change in family composition, family separations and the abandonment of old people. It has been shown that the highest dropout school rates are amongst children of migrant parents, left in Bulgaria. GUENTCHEVA et al. (2003). Another research on the access to education in Bulgaria

105 reveals that a frequent practice was to join the family in their travels abroad as seasonal short- or long-term migrants (BOBEVA 1994).