Geographical Proximity and Immigrant Labour in Agriculture: Albanian Immigrants in the Greek...

Geographical Proximity and ImmigrantLabour in Agriculture: Albanian

Immigrants in the Greek Countryside

Lois Labrianidis* and Theodosis Sykas

Abstract

We investigate the importance of geographical proximity between Greece and Albania forthe migrating experience of Albanian immigrants who work in the Greek countryside.From the fieldwork research we conducted in the countryside of northern Greece we findthat the geographical proximity between Greece and Albania (the fact that they arebordering countries) and the inherent seasonality of agricultural employment allowimmigrants to make rapid and repeated moves between the two countries and also workon a seasonal basis on their family agricultural holdings for the few months when theyreturn home. Hence, these features embody a range of employment options that givethese immigrants the opportunity to work on both sides of the border, transferringresources and skills acquired in Greece to Albania. As a result, a considerable proportionof immigrants working in agriculture actually work in both countries, and their annualemployment and attempts at upward economic mobility are geographically dispersed inthe two countries.

Introduction

One of the most important socioeconomic changes in Greece since the 1990s is itstransformation from an emigrants’ home country to an immigrants’ host

country. The surge of Balkan immigrants (more than 60 per cent of total immigrantsin Greece are Albanians) has had multiple impacts on the Greek countryside. Prima-rily, immigrants have covered the deficit in the local workforce (Kasimis et al. 2003;Kasimis and Papadopoulos 2005) created by the massive emigration of rural popu-lations towards either western Europe or Greek urban centres during recent decades.It has also reduced the labour cost of farming (Vaiou and Hadjimichalis 1997),allowed for a more flexible combination of capital and labour in the farms andmitigated the aging population of the countryside; in addition immigrants do notseem to be in intense competition with indigenous workers (Lianos et al. 1996;Kasimis 2008; Labrianidis and Sykas 2009). The existing literature has not shed light

© 2009 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2009 European Society for Rural Sociology.Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UKSociologia Ruralis, Vol 49, Number 4, October 2009 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2009.00494.x

on the importance of geographical proximity between the two countries for theeconomic welfare of immigrants. Geographical proximity, in the case of Albanianmigration to Greece, means the existence of a common land border. This createsfavourable conditions for the geographical mobility of Albanians across the border,while it differentiates between the Greek case and that of other southern Europeanhost countries. Even though Albania borders Italy the existence of sea boundariesbetween them limits such immigrants’ geographical mobility to them. This is the casefor Spain and Morocco as well (see Hoggart and Mendoza 1999).

This article attempts to evaluate the importance of geographical proximity, usingthe case of Albanian immigrants working in agriculture (abbreviated to IWA hereaf-ter) in Greece. On the one hand, this geographical proximity allows immigrants tomake rapid and repeated moves (within a year of the previous move) between Albaniaand Greece. On the other hand, the temporary nature of agricultural employmentin Greece allows both permanent and seasonal immigrants to live in Albania duringthe period when the demand for labour in Greek agriculture is limited. Hence, thecombination of these two factors plays an important role in the frequency of immi-grants’ repeated moves, the remittances and skill transfers from the host to the homecountry, and therefore the prospects of IWA economic welfare.

Theoretical considerations and examples of repeated moves

DaVanzo (1983) analysed the factors determining repeated moves (return and onwardmigration) of US internal migrants. She has introduced the concept of ‘location-specific capital’. This is the human capital immigrants accumulate and it is shaped bythe characteristics of the area in which they live. This means this capital might not beuseful in other areas and ties the immigrants to the place where they acquired it. Aslong as this capital increases in the area where the immigrant currently lives, theirprobability of leaving this area decreases. There is therefore an inverse relationshipbetween the time spent in an area and the odds of their returning to it, because themore time they spend in the host area the greater the location-specific capital and thesmaller the importance of the capital left in the home country/area.

Repeated moves can be seen as either a corrective action caused by the first-timemove which lacked adequate information or as a choice within a trial-and-errorframework used by the immigrant for gathering knowledge and experience forfurther moves. Although repeated moves look like continuous motion, they maydevelop into a process of improving the socioeconomic status of the immigrant(Constant and Zimmerman 2003).

The importance of proximity has been raised mainly in internal migration researchand is related to the quality of information the immigrant possesses and the cost tothem of moving. DaVanzo (1983) shows that the greater the distance of the first move,the lower the quality of information that led to it and the greater the odds of returning.In contrast, Newbold (2001) shows (for Canada) that there is an inverse relationshipbetween distance and the decision to return. Lin et al. (1999) found (for Taiwan) thatwith increasing distances the odds of rapid and repeated moves initially increasebecause of inadequate reliability of information and then decrease because of theimmigrant’s financial constraints.

395Geographical proximity and immigrant labour in agriculture

© 2009 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2009 European Society for Rural Sociology.Sociologia Ruralis, Vol 49, Number 4, October 2009

As far as international migration is concerned, proximity between the home andthe host country allows for a more temporary form of migration in comparison tocases where there is no proximity. Researchers have not looked into the importanceof proximity. However, based on the findings available, US–Mexican immigration,where there is proximity, and guest workers from distant European countries inGermany reveal certain differences in the nature of repeated moves.

Analysing the factors determining migration in Mexican communities during theperiod 1987–1992, Massey and Espinosa (1997) argue that the immigrants planningan additional trip to the USA had already made four repeated moves within 43 monthsof their immigration experience. Analysing the immigration of the male offspring ofthe same sample’s, Lindstrom (1996) finds that 61 per cent of the latter repeatedlymoving back and forth had made three or more trips to the USA before their last one,and the average time they spent on the first and the last trip was 20 and 29 months,respectively. Using a sample of Mexican immigrants of the period 1982–1993, Reyes(2001) suggests that most of them return to Mexico after 2 years and that half of theundocumented immigrants return in less than a year. Using the same data source forthe period 1987–1998, Fussell (2004) concludes that the average number of trips tothe USA by a Mexican man was 2.4 per year.

In contrast, Constant and Massey (2002) stress the de facto permanent characterof the postwar immigration to Germany (mainly originating from southern Europeancountries), although immigrants initially entered Germany as guest workers. Study-ing the repeated moves of the guest worker generation for the period 1984–1997,Constant and Zimmerman (2003) find that the average immigrant made only 1.13repeated moves over a 14-year immigration experience.

Undoubtedly, geographical proximity is not the only factor affecting the frequencyof repeated moves. In the cases of both bordering countries (USA–Mexico) anddistant countries (the case of Germany and those in southern Europe) the odds ofrepeated moves are higher for low-skilled immigrants and increase with more immi-gration experience and with the amount of social capital left in the home country,while they decrease with their occupational mobility and with the social capital andassets they hold in the host country (Lindstrom 1996; Massey and Espinosa 1997;Constant and Zimmerman 2003). On the other hand, in cases of adjacent countriesother variables influence repeated moves. The odds of repeated moves between theUSA and Mexico increase as the number of previous moves increases. This points tothe self-perpetuating nature of immigration1 (Massey and Espinosa 1997; Fussell2004).

Researchers on Albanian immigration all agree on its repetitive character becauseof Albania’s borders with Greece. Kule et al. (1999) show in fieldwork conducted in1998 that 53.5 per cent of their sample immigrated to Greece more than once. Usingsecondary data from the 2002 Albania Living Standards Measurement Study and1989 and 2001 Population and Housing Census, Carletto et al. (2006) raise this rateto 57 per cent. From questionnaires addressed to Albanian returnees between 1999and 2001, Labrianidis and Hatziprokopiou (2005) assert that geographical proximitywas the main factor in their repeated moves, mainly from the Albanian countryside.Albanian migrants managed to live between Greece and Albania, with the formerproviding the material resources for economic improvement in the latter. King and

396 Labrianidis and Sykas


Vullnetari (2003) explain that Albanian immigrants develop a short-term strategy ofcapital and experience accumulation that enables them either to migrate to westernEurope (that is, Italy) or to improve their lives back in Albania. On the other hand, theexistence of sea boundaries between Italy and Albania as well as between Spain andMorocco does not facilitate immigrants’ frequent repeated moves (see also Hoggartand Mendoza 1999).

In situations when the home and host countries are adjacent, the propensity forrepeated moves increases, especially for IWA, because of the seasonality of agricul-tural employment (Durand and Massey 1992). Thus, researchers focusing onMexico–USA migration suggest that the odds of repeated moves are particularly highfor IWA and that the time they spend in the host country is shorter than for immi-grants who have non-agricultural jobs in urban US areas (Durand and Massey 1992;Lindstrom 1996; Reyes 2001; Fussell 2004).

Furthermore, immigrants developing back and forth movement strategies aremainly those working in agriculture. Kissam et al. (2001) suggest that among IWAthere are those called ‘target earners’. These are Mexicans who migrate to worktemporarily in US agriculture and then, after gathering a significant sum of money,return to Mexico, usually to start their own businesses. There are few studies on theAlbanian IWA. King and Vullnetari (2003) mention that some of those repeatedlymigrating are skilled Albanians (such as teachers and students) who work seasonallyin Greek agriculture only during the summer months and use their earnings to covertheir families’ needs in Albania.

The role of remittances and the skills acquired by the immigrants

Immigrants are able to contribute to their home economy in many ways. The litera-ture has largely focused on the remittances and the skill transfer from the host to thehome country.

Determinants and uses of remittances

The contribution of remittances to the home economies and the living conditions ofthe recipients are extensive and varied. In fact, remittances are the only flow offinancial resources to developing countries (in relation to capital flows and foreigndirect investment [FDI]) that has been increasing over time (Martin 2004) and FDIflowing to them is very poor (Labrianidis 2008). Remittances may decrease povertyrates and contribute to the development of the home areas, thus creating jobs fornon-emigrants. The productive use of remittances initiates a process of developmentwith spillover effects on the local population due to the multiplier effects of remittancespending. Specifically, in the countryside migrating families are able to move fromagriculture to livestock, to hire fieldworkers and to expand their plots, and thus toachieve economies of scale (Martin 2004; Nikas and King 2005).

Geographical proximity between the home and host country does not seem to havea significant effect on the amount and use of remittances. However, in cases ofgeographical proximity, the decisions to migrate and return might be taken simulta-neously as part of an immigrant’s short-term strategy in order to accumulate a specific



income to cover certain needs in her or his country (for example, the Mexican ‘targetearners’).

The factors that seem to significantly affect the decision to remit and the amountsent are related to the socioeconomic and political characteristics of the host andhome countries and the immigrant’s personal characteristics (Basok 2003; Martin2004; Labrianidis and Hatziprokopiou 2005). Specifically, remittances are used pro-ductively by immigrants who remit a high percentage of their income. Moreover, withthe maturation of immigrants’ families and the accumulation of migratory experi-ence, remittances are directed towards more productive uses (Durand and Massey1992).

Usually, most Albanian remittances covers consumer needs in order to improvethe social and living standard of the immigrant’s family. Only a small proportion isinvested productively. Kule et al. (1999) estimate that 52.8 per cent of remittances areused for consumption, 30 per cent are saved, 10 per cent are used in other activitiesand only 7.2 per cent are invested in some form of business activity. From his fieldresearch Gedeshi (2002) estimates that 71.6 per cent of remittances satisfy the basicneeds of the household, 12.3 per cent are spent on housing, 10.9 per cent are investedand the rest are saved. Similarly, most of the sample used by Arrehag et al. (2005) useremittances to cover basic consumer needs (food and clothing). Then they cover theirhousing needs, including the repayment of any outstanding mortgages. Building/repairing the family house comes third, mainly in agricultural households that live insub-standard housing conditions. Again, only a small portion of remittances is usedproductively.

Additionally, a small proportion of remittances is invested in agriculture and, asexpected, this is higher for rural households. Although 67 per cent of the income ofa typical Albanian agricultural household comes from remittances, investing in agri-culture is their third priority, and constitutes only 7.4 per cent of their total (WorldBank 2003). Arrehag et al. (2005) record that 16.9 per cent of their sample useremittances in agricultural production. The tendency to invest in agriculture is higherin areas with some agricultural infrastructure, while it further increases for the mostproductive and profitable agricultural holdings. Apart from the acquisition of land,remittances are used for buying equipment, building greenhouses and starting upsmall business, usually those trading in pesticides (King and Vullnetari 2003).

Remittances form a significant part of the Albanian GDP (Figure 1). The abruptdecline of Albanian GDP in 1997 is the result of the collapse of a pyramid scheme thatwiped out most of the savings of Albanians and initiated immigration flows to Greeceand Italy (King and Vullnetari 2003). At the end of the 1990s the value of remittanceswas double that of exports and approximately quadruple that of FDI, while it was alsohigher than the financial aid to Albania of international organisations (Arrehag et al.2005; Carletto et al. 2006). The greatest portion of Albanian households’ monthlyincome comes from remittances. Carletto et al. (2006) showed that almost 50 per centof these remittances are directed to the countryside and the main recipients are theimmigrants’ children (55 per cent) and other relatives (25 per cent).

There is no agreement among researchers on the benefits of remittances for theAlbanian economy. Gedeshi (2002) suggests that the use of remittances for consump-tion has impeded the increase of local production and maintained the country’s



dependence on imports. However, using remittances for consumption purposes hadbenign economic effects in the short run, given that a great part of the Albanianpopulation lives under poor economic conditions (World Bank 2003) and especiallyfor the rural households where remittances are the main source of income. Thus,Martin et al. (2002) argue that even the consumption of food strengthens productivityand the reproduction of the national workforce, while the development of construc-tion activities has created new jobs. Korovilas (1999) suggests that remittances havestabilised the Albanian economy by having a balancing effect on the balance ofpayments, deterring both the devaluation of the Albanian currency and possibleinflationary pressures.

The productive use of remittances in Albania is deterred by an inadequate andineffective financial market and the absence of a firm credit policy (Martin et al.2002), as well as by problems in Albanian agriculture. In the early 1990s there wasa deep restructuring of the agricultural sector within a framework of general politico-economic reform that led to the fragmentation and distribution of almost all theagricultural land to individuals in one of the fastest privatisation processes in allEastern Europe. The first results of this reform were encouraging, as productionincreased, covering the loss from the collapse of the state’s agricultural production.However, it was soon realised that fragmenting land into small plots drasticallydecreased productivity.2 There was a significant decrease in agricultural productionwhile the high rate of unemployment and the absence of state aid substantiallyreduced living standards (Martin et al. 2002; World Bank 2003; King and Vullnetari2003; Institute of Statistics Albania [INSTAT] 2004). Today, agriculture providesalmost 60 per cent of all employment in the country as well as 50 per cent ofhousehold incomes for rural families. It further contributes 25 per cent to the coun-try’s GDP (McCarthy et al. 2006; World Bank 2007).

Despite the reform, the limited development of the Albanian agriculture (with littleinfrastructure, an absence of insurance markets for agricultural products and thereluctance of young and middle-aged individuals to work in agriculture) renders theinvestment of remittances on it unproductive. However, the gradual increase of

0

5

10

15

20

25

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Figure 1: Flows of remittances towards Albania (rate of GDP). Source: Central Bank ofAlbania (http://www.bankofalbania.org)



income from agriculture, which has tripled since the mid-1990s, and the restructur-ing of the landholdings combined with the agricultural reform are encouraging forthe improvement of Albanian agriculture (World Bank 2003).

The transfer of skills

The issue of skills transfer is usually raised together with that of returning immi-grants. Returning immigrants are able to enhance the home country productivity bytransferring ‘new ideas,’ skills, and entrepreneurship that were acquired in the hostcountry (Martin 2004).

There is no agreement among researchers regarding the transfer of skills byimmigrants. However, the conditions of skill transfer for IWA that move to work inneighbouring countries are different because of the combination of proximity and theseasonality of the agricultural employment that enable them to keep their employ-ment options open in both the home and the host country.

Thus, only a small part of returning Turks, Greeks, Spaniards, Italians and Mexi-cans managed to transfer skills in their home country, because of the unskilled jobsthey had and the lack of any important training in the host country. Even those whoreceived some training originated from the countryside where they returned, and thecountryside did not have the necessary infrastructure to use their skills beneficially(Gmelch 1980; Nikas and King 2005).

Labrianidis and Hatziprokopiou (2005) stress that the long-term employment ofAlbanian immigrants in low-skilled jobs has a deskilling effect on immigrants. Incontrast, other empirical findings reveal that their skill transfer is successful. Forexample, the Albanian private sector has a preference for workers with migrationexperience in Italy and Greece (Kule et al. 1999). Moreover, returning migrants fromGreece adapt better to the Albanian economy than those from (especially northern)Italy, primarily due to the fact that certain features of the Greek economy are closer tothe Albanian than to the Italian economy (Labrianidis and Lyberaki 2004).

Many researchers suggest that, after the accumulation of experience in the hostcountry, returning immigrants are unwilling to work in agriculture. This attitude istrue for both IWA and those who work outside agriculture. After they return toMexico, immigrants abandon agriculture and look for jobs with higher wages inurban areas (Cohen and Rodriguez 2004). In contrast, there are Mexican IWA whowork in both US and Mexican agricultural sectors within a year, and thus they transfertheir skills between the two sectors (Palerm 1994). Additionally, Albanian returneeswith immigration experience do not wish to work in agriculture (INSTAT 2004).

Methodology and data

A critical problem for immigration research in Greece is the general lack of second-ary data about migrants and specifically about IWA, as their geographical mobilityand the seasonal and atypical character of their employment impede statisticalrecording. According to the 2001 Population Survey (National Statistic Service ofGreece 1981–2001) 17.7 per cent (141,000) of all migrants (797,000) work in theprimary sector.



In the absence of adequate secondary data we conducted field research from May2007 to January 2008 in two prefectures of northern Greece, Chalkidiki and Pella.The findings in this paper reflect a part of our fieldwork findings, which aimed atinvestigating three main research questions. The first one is the employment strat-egies of IWA. The second one is the socioeconomic impact of IWA in the coun-tryside and the third one is the role of geographical proximity on the employmentand economic welfare prospects of IWA. In this paper we focus on the last issue.Both the areas and the immigrants’ sample were selected so as to serve the researchof the aforementioned multiple research questions. The selection of the researcharea was based on three main hypotheses: (a) the employment strategies that IWAdevelop are adapted to the particularities of the local labour markets in the differentregions of the countryside. (b) The kind of IWA contribution in the countrysidedepends on the special characteristics of the local economy in which the IWA work.(c) The geographical proximity between Greece and Albania combined with theinherent seasonality of the agricultural employment in Greece affect the frequencyand the goal of the repeated moves that IWA make between the two countries, theiremployment in the two countries, their remittances behaviour, the transferability ofskills and their economic welfare prospects. Therefore, we selected two prefecturesof the Northern Greek countryside which on the one hand are close to the Greek-Albanian borders, and on the other hand display considerable differences in theireconomic structure.

The two areas selected were the Prefectures of Chalkidiki and of Pella. In thePrefecture of Chalkidiki agriculture is not the only flourishing sector. The buildingand the tourist sectors also thrive. Relying upon all three sectors of production, IWAdevelop various combinations of employment strategies in contrast to the Prefectureof Pella, in which the agricultural sector employs most of both local and migrantpopulations (Table 1).

The sample was stratified according to two parameters. The first one was theproportion of each municipality’s IWA number to the total migrant population ineach prefecture as it emerged from 2001 Population Survey. The sample was derived

Table 1: Rate of employment per economic sector (%)

Native population Immigrant population

1981 1991 2001 2001

Prefecture of ChalkidikiPrimary 46.0 32.9 25.7 30.3Secondary 25.1 23.2 24.5 42.6Tertiary 28.9 43.9 49.8 27.1

Prefecture of PellaPrimary 59.6 51.2 45.6 66.0Secondary 19.9 18.2 17.3 22.4Tertiary 20.5 30.6 37.1 11.6

Source: National Statistic Service of Greece (1981, 1991, 2001)



from those municipalities that employ most IWA in each of the two prefecturesaccording to the 2001 Population Survey: IWA in Chalkidiki and Pella were selectedfrom 85 per cent and 81 per cent of the prefecture’s municipalities, respectively.Furthermore, the distribution of IWA in these municipalities follows (with slightdifferences) their distribution in the Population Survey. The second parameter wasthe proportion of men to women in the total population of the two prefecturesaccording to the 2001 Population Survey.

Two questionnaires were used. The first was addressed to 149 immigrants, 100 ofthem in Chalkidiki and 49 in Pella and the second to key informants. This over-representation of Chalkidiki in the sample is due to its more complex economicstructure, resulting in more complex employment strategies. The sample comprisedpermanent and seasonal3 Albanian immigrants, who are by far the largest immigrantgroup in both prefectures. Snowball sampling was adopted: through personal net-works with farmers and social agents in the two prefectures, we first contactedimmigrants (referrals) who are socially accepted by the migrant population in eachmunicipality. These immigrants helped us to inform the migrant population in eachvillage that fieldwork was taking place, to minimise the interviewees’ cautiousnessand gain their trust. This procedure helped us to contact migrant interviewees in eachvillage, who in turn provided additional contacts. Through this procedure the inter-viewees multiplied at each step (snowball effect). The demographic characteristics ofIWA (Figure 2)4 in both prefectures follow (with slight differences) those in the 2001Population Survey. In order to compare IWA repeated moves with those of im-migrants working outside agriculture we included immigrants practicing non-agricultural employment in our sample.

Interviews with the migrants were conducted during the afternoon, following theend of the working day, in their meeting places (that is, village squares, cafes andhomes). The interviews were conducted in private to avoid partial or ‘politicallycorrect’ answers.

The second questionnaire included mostly open questions that investigated thecontribution of immigrants to the countryside’s economy. The questionnaires were

Not work

ing in

agric

ulture

0

20

40

60

Per

cent

age 80

100

Female

Seco

ndary

educ

ation

Tertiar

y edu

catio

n

Origin

from ur

ban a

reas

Origin

from ru

ral ar

eas

Unmarr

ied

Perm

anen

t immigr

ants

Work

ing in

agric

ulture

Saso

nal im

migran

ts

Marr

ied

Prim

ary ed

ucati

on

Illite

rate

Male

Figure 2: Demographic data for Albanian immigrants. Source: questionnaire processing



conducted with 40 key informants, 23 of whom were farmers, and 17 local societyagents, such as mayors, city council members, presidents of cooperative societies andschoolteachers.

Repeated moves of the Albanian IWA

The movements of Albanian IWA to and from Greece are of a temporary and repeatednature,5 even within the space of a year (Figure 3).

Among the permanent Albanian IWA, 77.2 per cent make at least one repeatedmove between Greece and Albania, while 27.6 per cent make more than two.6 Mostseasonal IWA make one repeated move. Due to the geographical proximity of the twocountries, repeated moves can be viewed as substitutes for returning home: frequentvisits home limit the psychological or other causes of return, while the relatively easyaccess to the two countries constrains the definitive character of decision to returnthat is usually imposed by large geographical distances.

For a considerable period of time, with an average duration of three months for thepermanent and six months for the seasonal IWA, they reside in Albania. This periodof time is either continuous (from November until January) or interrupted (duringChristmas, Easter and the summer holidays) (Figure 4).

It could be assumed that these stays of a few months in Albania are associated withthe temporary nature of agricultural labour in Greece. Indeed, the correlation of thevariable that denotes the existence of repeated moves with the IWA (as opposed tothose having non-farm jobs) is statistically significant (X 2 = 16.785, p-value = 0.000).The average duration of residence in Albania annually for those having non-farmjobs, which are undoubtedly of a less seasonal nature, is 0.9 months and it serves thepurpose of recreational visiting.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 1 2 3 4

Number of repeated moves

Per

cent

age

Seasonalimmigrants

Permanentimmigrants

Figure 3: Distribution of immigrants according to the number of repeated moves betweenGreece and Albania within a year. Source: questionnaire processing



Below, we use a logit model7 in order to estimate the socioeconomic characteristicsof IWA who make repeated moves.

Explanatory variables:8

Agei: IWA age.FamRi: 1 = IWA family lives in Albania, 0 = IWA family lives in Greece.Undi: 1 = Undocumented IWA, 0 = documented IWA.Edi: Polytomous variable. 0 = illiterate, 1 = primary education, 2 = secondaryeducation and 3 = tertiary education.Remi: Rate of IWA income that is sent to Albania as remittances.YSMi: Years since immigration.

Dependent variable:

RMi: 1 = IWA making at least a fast repeated move, 0 = otherwise.

The results are presented in Table 2.

It is observed that younger IWA, those whose families live in Albania9 and docu-mented IWA are significantly more likely to make repeated moves. This probabilityrises along with the increase of the rate of the income that is converted to remittances.In contrast, it is reduced as the years since migration increase (see Dustman 1996;Massey and Espinosa 1997; Nikas and King 2005). The positive correlation betweenrepeated moves and IWA age and the negative correlation between repeated movesand years since migration confirm DaVanzo’s theoretical arguments: younger IWAare more likely to make repeated moves than the older ones, mostly due to their shortmigration experience, which encourages them to move in order to make up forprevious unsuccessful movements. In contrast, residing for a long period of time

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

TodayInitially

Mon

ths Seasonal

immigrants

Permanentimmigrants

Figure 4: Average duration of immigrants’ stay in Albania within a year. Source: ques-tionnaire processing



in Greece increases the accumulation of location-specific capital and reduces theprobability of repeated moves. Furthermore, due to the fear of apprehension anddeportation, undocumented IWA are less likely to make repeated moves than docu-mented ones.

Determinants, uses of remittances and skills transferability

In our sample, 74.3 per cent of Albanian IWA (65 per cent of the permanent and 100per cent of the seasonal workers) sent home part of the income they acquired inGreece. Figure 5 demonstrates the average rate of the income both of the permanentand the seasonal IWA that is converted into remittances in the first stages of theirmigration experience (the first 2 years) and at the time of writing. This rate tends to

Table 2: Logit model: characteristics of Albanian immigrantsworking in agriculture that make repeated moves

Explanatoryvariables

Coefficients t-test

Intercept 18.035** 2.360Age -0.452*** -2.607FamR 4.677*** 2.681Und -12.889*** 5.108Ed -0.631 -0.606Rem 21.499*** 3.134YSM -0.900** -2.358

Pseudo-R2 = 0.66. *,**,***, denote significance at 10 per cent, 5 percent and 1 per cent, respectively.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

TodayInitially

Seasonalimmigrants

Permanentimmigrants

Figure 5: Average proportion of immigrants’ annual income transferred in form of remit-tances to Albania. Source: questionnaire processing



decrease over time. Meeting their basic and consumption needs with the first remit-tances at the beginning of their migration experience, followed by an effort to estab-lish a permanent residence, create a family, or reunite some of their family membersand, consequently, transfer family expenses from Albania to Greece may have jointlydecreased the remittance rate. Furthermore, this decrease is considerably morerestrained for seasonal than permanent IWA, since one of the fundamental objectivesof the former is to maximise remittances.

Below, we use a logit model in order to estimate the socioeconomic characteristicsof IWA that send remittances to Albania and hence to determine the factors that affectthe IWA remittances behaviour.

Explanatory variables:

Edi: Polytomous variable. 0 = illiterate, 1 = primary education, 2 = secondary edu-cation and 3 = tertiary education.FamRi: 1 = IWA family lives in Albania, 0 = IWA family lives in Greece.Permi: 1 = Permanent IWA, 0 = seasonal IWA.Undi: 1 = Undocumented IWA, 0 = documented IWA.YSMi: Years since immigration.Rhi: 1 = IWA come from rural households, 0 = IWA come from urban households.

Dependent variable:

Remi: 1 = IWA sending remittances, 0 = otherwise.

The results are presented in Table 3.

As anticipated, IWA whose families live in Albania are more likely to send remit-tances. Seasonal IWA are more likely to send remittances than permanent workers,since they spend half the year in Albania, where they also use the income earned inGreece. Undocumented IWA are less likely to send remittances due to their unstablework status, which does not ensure a sufficient income to enable them to remit.

Table 3: Logit model: characteristics of Albanian immigrantsworking in agriculture who send remittances

Explanatoryvariables

Coefficients t-test

Intercept 27.206*** 4,198Ed 0.136 0.175FamR 49.722*** 7.862Perm -25.353*** -5.669Und -24.794*** -8.766YSM -0.321*** -2.650Rh 2.238** 2.495

Pseudo-R2 = 0.61. *,**,***, denote significance at 10 per cent, 5 percent and 1 per cent, respectively.



Furthermore, informal employment often leads them to use unofficial, thereforeinsecure, means for transferring remittances, and this also acts to discourage sendingremittances. The longer an IWA lives in Greece, the smaller are the odds of sendingremittances since their everyday needs, their consumption expenses and their fami-lies are gradually transferred from Albania to Greece.

It is noteworthy that IWA coming from rural households are more likely to sendremittances. As already mentioned, poverty constitutes a more acute problem for theAlbanian countryside. Consequently, the economic survival of rural householdslargely depends on the influx of remittances they receive.

As most researchers argue (see Section 3), during the first years of their migrationexperience, most IWA spend their remittances on staple commodities and to a lesserextent on building or repairing their house, while they also cover its running costs.Over time, as migration families mature, remittances are spent on building andrepairing their house and on the education of their children (Figure 6). The rate ofprimarily seasonal, and to a lesser extent, permanent IWA who have used remittancesfor their family agricultural cultivations is particularly important. In fact, for IWAcoming from rural households this rate amounts to 59.8 per cent.

These findings contradict some of the existing literature (Cohen and Rodriguez2004; INSTAT 2004), which argues that immigrants avoid using remittances on theiragricultural holdings. In our case-study, their experience in Greek agriculture, thegeographical proximity between Greece and Albania, the minimum 3-month-longstay in Albania annually, and the fact that 70.2 per cent come from rural householdsare factors that lead IWA to use part of their remittances on agricultural holdings.Additionally, the Albanian rural sector is characterised by an out-of-date infrastructure

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Food/

cloth

ing

Applia

nces

/furn

iture

purc

hase

Agricu

ltura

l hol

ding

s

Per

cent

age

Seasonal immigrants-initiallySeasonal immigrants-todayPermanent immigrants-initiallyPermanent immigrants-today

House

build

ing/

repa

iring

Child

ren e

duca

tion

Health

Figure 6: Use of immigrants’ remittances. Source: questionnaire processing. Not allanswers add up to 100 per cent, as every immigrant could give up to three answers



that, in the framework of its liberalisation, requires upgrading through private funds.Furthermore, the span of Albanian migration to Greece (almost 18 years at the timeof writing) has been sufficient to lead to the re-orientation of remittances to moreproductive purposes.

Consequently, if we combine the fact that IWA coming from rural households aremore likely to send remittances back home with the fact that a considerable part goesto agricultural holdings, we can conclude that, to a certain extent, IWA remittancesare utilised productively and, in fact, are used in the same sector that they areemployed in as immigrants.

Furthermore, a considerable proportion of IWA contributes to their agriculturalholdings with their own personal labour as well.10 Particularly during the time theyreturn to Albania, 53 per cent of the IWA and 60 per cent of those coming from ruralhouseholds11 work on their agricultural holdings. For the permanent immigrants thispercentage is 47.2 per cent and for the seasonal immigrants 75 per cent. Hence,during one year, a considerable proportion of IWA is involved in two different agri-cultural sectors.12 We can distinguish two cases of IWA contribution to their agricul-tural holdings:

• In cases where there is complete overlap between the crops in which IWA work inGreece and those they cultivate in Albania, IWA have a subsidiary role in theirholdings. In fact, they have transferred skills to family members who actually takecare of the farm during their absence in Greece.

• In cases where the overlap between the crops in the two countries is partial (forexample, IWA who cultivate extensive crops in Albania), IWA have a more activerole in their fields and spend more time working on their holdings than in theprevious case.

It is noteworthy that working in two countries affects the integration process ofimmigrants in the host society. During their stay in Albania, permanent IWA loseemployment opportunities in Greece, and this loss impedes their socioeconomicintegration into Greece. As for seasonal IWA, they have a different migration plan,since their goal is to use the income earned in Greece back home.

Additionally, obtaining work experience in Greek agriculture seems to have helpedthe agricultural employment of IWA in Albania. Overall, 96.7 per cent of the IWAwho are employed in agriculture during their stay in Albania stated that their workexperience in Greek agriculture helped them to develop their agricultural holdings(Figure 7).

Most seasonal and permanent IWA have imported and cultivate Greek trees –these are the same fruit trees that they cultivate during their stay in Greece (M.K.13 18August 2007, Portaria; T.S. 5 September 2007, Simantra; A.P. 23 September 2007,Pella). Hence, IWA of Chalkidiki have imported and cultivate mostly olive trees andIWA of Pella peach and apple trees (S.M. 7 August 2007, Olynthos; O.R. 10 January2008, Kriopigi). Indeed, from the key informants’ interviews it emerged that manyfarmers gave IWA tree seeds for their agricultural holdings in Albania and also theknow-how for the cultivation process. Considerable proportions have also importedproduction methods from Greece, transferred their work experience (mainly theseasonal workers) and imported raw materials from Greece. It is remarkable that a



very low percentage of IWA stated that their occupation in Greek agriculture did notbenefit the development of their holdings back at home. These are IWA who, beforecoming to Greece, possessed farms with extensive crops that they continued cultivat-ing during their migration experience.

It should also be noted that a low proportion of permanent and a slightly higherproportion of seasonal IWA have invested remittances in purchasing land, machineryor facilities. Undoubtedly, this observation does not contradict the finding that theiremployment in Greek agriculture contributed in various ways to the development oftheir agricultural holdings. Thus, what we observe up to the present is an interestinginterdependence among repeated moves, remittances, the rural origin of IWA and thedevelopment of their agricultural holdings.

Furthermore, while in the past agricultural products were consumed by the fami-lies themselves, a shift is currently registered towards selling them, without anyconsiderable differences between permanent and seasonal IWA (Figure 8). This isindicative of the fact that it is now easier for IWA to have an income from theiragricultural activities in Albania.

Undoubtedly, the ability to sell agricultural products depends greatly on thedynamics of the respective Albanian market and generally on the development of thecountry’s rural sector, which to the present has been minimal. At the same time,however, the sale of these products is statistically significantly correlated with theimportation of crops from Greece (x2 = 5.390, p-value = 0.020), and consequently it isnot irrelevant to the employment of IWA in Greece. It could be assumed that in areasof the Albanian countryside where there is a local agricultural market in which

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Impo

rt of

new

prod

uctio

n meth

ods

Inve

stmen

t in l

and,

facil

ities

, mac

hine

ry

Impo

rt of

Gre

ek

fruit

trees

Skills

tran

sfer f

rom

Greec

e Impo

rt of

pesti

cides

/ferti

liser

from

Gre

ece

No tra

nsfe

rs

Per

cent

age Seasonal

immigrants

Permanentimmigrants

Other

Figure 7: Skills and resources transferability from Greek to Albanian agriculture (percent-age of immigrants). Source: questionnaire processing. Not all answers add up to 100 percent, as every immigrant could give up to three answers



extensive agricultural holdings prevail the products of Greek orchards produced bythe IWA may be sold as differentiated products of higher added value. In any case, itis important to note that the experience gained in Greek agriculture is transferable tothe Albanian rural sector and may boost the annual income of IWA.

Conclusions

The combination of geographical proximity between the home and the host countryon the one hand and the rural employment of immigrants on the other plays asignificant role in their economic welfare prospects, because it enables migrants tokeep their employment options open in both countries and provides a more flexiblecontext for skills and remittances transfers.

We find that geographical adjacency of Greece and Albania and the inherentseasonality of agricultural employment in the Greek countryside allow IWA (mostlythe seasonal IWA) to make rapid and repeated moves and work on a seasonal basis ontheir family agricultural holdings for the few months when they return home. Con-sequently, in the range of their work options, there is the possibility of working onboth sides of the border, transferring to the Albanian countryside the remittances andskills they have acquired as immigrants.

This means that a considerable proportion of IWA is simultaneously employed intwo rural sectors, and, consequently, their annual employment and their effort toboost their income involve both countries. Hence, due to the geographical dispersionof their labour in the host and home country over a year, skills transfers are carried outduring their migratory experience and not just after their return home, as manystudies argue.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Own consumptionSelling

Seasonal immigrants-initially

Seasonal immigrants-today

Permanent immigrants-initially

Permanent immigrants-today

Figure 8: Production of agricultural goods in Albania for: selling/own consumption (per-centage of immigrants working in their agricultural holdings). Source: questionnaireprocessing



Remittances and skills transfers are also important for the economic upgrading ofIWA. This is more evident in the case of IWA who have imported and cultivate inAlbania the same types of trees that are cultivated in Greece. In this case, not only doesthe transfer of skills take place in a cycle in both directions but it is also followed by thetransfer of a whole range of activities (imposed by tree cultivation) from one rural sectorto the other. Furthermore, if we recall that the importation of Greek tree cultivation ispositively correlated with the sale of agricultural products in Albania, then the employ-ment of IWA on their agricultural holdings can enhance their income.

The abovementioned findings have a clear implication for Greek migration policy,that is, that there is a need to facilitate back and forth movements of immigrantsbetween Greece and their country of origin. Up to the present one of the mostimportant problems that immigrants face is the long delay in being issued with workand residence permits.14 Hence, some IWA are trapped in Greece during the periodswhen they are unemployed, depriving them of the alternative source of incomeavailable to them in Albania.15 Consequently, their economic predicament is aggra-vated, leading to various potential negative social impacts (such as law-breakingbehaviour). Moreover, Greece loses the benefits that could be derived from repeatedmoves if different sets of policies could be implemented.16 If IWA could acquire someadditional income through the spatial dispersion of their labour they could possibly befreed from their position in the lowest-income class, thus limiting potential migrationflows to Greece. Furthermore, repeated moves allow them to preserve unbroken tieswith Albania, which could smooth their economic and social reintegration back home.

Notes

* Corresponding author.1 This argument follows the theory of cumulative causation that claims that international

migration tends to sustain itself, making additional movements progressively more likely(Massey et al. 2005).

2 By 2004 agricultural land constituted around half a million private farms averaging 1.1 haeach (McCarthy et al. 2006). Additionally, each farm is constituted by an average of four plots(World Bank 2007).

3 Seasonal IWA are those who stay in Greece for 6 months (usually from May untilOctober and who later return to Albania), irrespective of their legal status. Therefore,seasonal IWA are either documented IWA (invited by their employer) or undocumentedones who stay in Greece for 6 months. Permanent IWA are those who stay in Greecefor more than 6 months per year, independently of their working time in Greece andtheir legal status. We adopted the limit of 6 month stays following Greek migratorylegislation.

4 Most of the Albanian IWA are men, have an elementary education and come from theAlbanian countryside. Most of them are married. A fact which is important for the IWArepeated moves is that 45 per cent of permanent married IWA live in Greece without theirfamilies, while the same rate for seasonal married IWA is 85 per cent.

5 We focus on repeated moves that are made for economic (such as employment) and not forsocial purposes (such as vacations).

6 According to Labrianidis and Lyberaki (2004), 40 per cent, 20.4 per cent and 8.1 per cent oftheir sample make one, two and three repeated moves, respectively, between Greece andAlbania annually. They speak about Albanians with a double identity who live in twocountries.



7 The model has the following form:

P Y Xe

X X LP

Pi i i Zi 1 i

i

i

=( ) =+

= + + + ⇒ =−

⎛⎝⎜

⎞⎠⎟ =−1

1

1 10 1, . . . lnZi k kβ β β β00 1 1+ +β X . . .

+ +βk k iuX where: Li, the logit, Pi, the probability of the dependent variable to take the value

1, X1 ... Xk, the explanatory variables, b0, the intercept, b1 ... bk, the coefficients, ui, the errorterm; i, refers to IWA i.

8 We did not include the binary variable denoting whether IWA are permanent or seasonal,because all seasonal IWA make at least one repeated move.

9 It seems that repeated moves concern IWA who live in Greece without their families.Overall 81.3 per cent of IWA in our sample who move repeatedly live in Greece without theirfamilies.

10 The fact that IWA spend a few months in Albania renders more long-lasting employment insectors other than agriculture impossible.

11 The correlation between the variable indicating that IWA come from rural households andthe variable indicating that IWA are employed in Albanian agriculture is statistically signifi-cant (X2 = 6.954, p-value = 0.008).

12 They mainly plant in April and May and harvest in October.13 Initials used in this paragraph denote names of interviewees.14 It is not uncommon for immigrants to obtain their permit after its expiration date. Until they

have been issued with a work or residence permit immigrants receive a written certificatethat gives them the same rights as those granted by the permit, apart from the right tore-enter Greek territory in case they travel abroad, including their home country (apart fromvacation periods, that is, Christmas and Easter).Attempting to re-enter the country is con-sidered illegal and if they do so they lose the right to a new permit.

15 It is evident that the demand side is not opposed to the repeated moves of IWA. Most of thefarmers in both prefectures stated: ‘Since I don’t need him in the field he is free to return’.

16 Temporary movements constitute a tool for the containment of illegal migration (Dustman1996).

References

Arrehag, L., Ö. Sjöberg and M. Sjöblom (2005) Cross-border migration and remittances in apost-communist society. South Eastern Europe Journal of Economics 3 (1) pp. 9–40

Basok, T. (2003) Mexican seasonal migration to Canada and development. International Migra-tion 41 (2) pp. 3–25

Carletto, C., B. Davis and A. Zezza (2006) A country on the move: international migration inpost-communist Albania. International Migration Review 40 (4) pp. 45–64

Cohen, J. and L. Rodriguez (2004) Remittance outcomes in rural Oaxaca, Mexico (San Diego, CA:Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California)

Constant, A. and D.S. Massey (2002) Self-selection, earnings and out-migration: a longitudinalstudy of immigrants to Germany. IZA Discussion Paper No. 672 (Bonn: Institute for the Studyof Labor)

Constant, A. and K.F. Zimmerman (2003) Circular movements and time away from the hostcountry, IZA Discussion Paper No. 960 (Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor)

DaVanzo, J. (1983) Repeat migration in the United States: who moves back and who moves on?Review of Economic and Statistics 65 (4) pp. 552–559

Durand, J. and D.S. Massey (1992) Mexican migration to the United States. Latin AmericanResearch Review 27 (8) pp. 8–42

Dustman, Ch. (1996) Return migration: the European experience. Economic Policy 22 pp.214–250

Fussell, E. (2004) Sources of Mexico’s migration stream. Social Forces 82 pp. 937–967



Gedeshi, I. (2002) The role of remittances from Albanian emigrants and their influence in thecountry’s economy. Pp. 315–337 in A. Katios and G. Petrakos eds, Restructuring and develop-ment in Southeastern Europe (Volos: University of Thessaly Press)

Gmelch, G. (1980) Return migration. Annual Review of Anthropology 9 pp. 135–159Hoggart, K. and C. Mendoza (1999) African immigrant workers in Spanish agriculture. Socio-

logia Ruralis 39 (4) pp. 538–562Institute of Statistics (Albania) INSTAT) (2004) People and work in Albania (Tirana: Population

and Housing Census 2001).Kasimis, C. (2008) Survival and expansion: migrants in Greek rural regions. Population Space

and Place 14 (6) pp. 511–524Kasimis, C. and A. Papadopoulos (2005) The multifunctional role of migrants in the Greek

countryside. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31 (1) pp. 99–127Kasimis, C., A. Papadopoulos and E. Zacopoulou (2003) Migrants in rural Greece. Sociologia

Ruralis 43 (2) pp. 167–184King, R. and J. Vullnetari (2003) Migration and development in Albania (Sussex: Development

Research Centre on Migration, Globalization and Poverty, University of Sussex)Kissam, E., J.A. Intill and A. Garcia (2001) The emergence of a binational Mexico–US work-

force. Proceedings of the America’s Workforce Network Research Conference, Washington,U.S. Department of Labor 26–27 June 2001

Korovilas, J. (1999) The Albanian economy in transition: the role of remittances and pyramidinvestment schemes. Post-Communist Economies 11 (3) pp. 399–415

Kule, D., A. Mancellari, H. Papapanagos, S. Qirici and P. Sanfey (1999) The causes and conse-quences of Albanian emigration during transition (London: European Bank of Reconstructionand Development)

Labrianidis, L. (2008) Introduction. Pp. 1–19 in L. Labrianidis ed., The moving frontier (Aldershot:Ashgate)

Labrianidis, L. and A. Lyberaki (2004) Back and forth and in between. Journal of InternationalMigration and Integration 5 (1) pp. 77–106

Labrianidis, L. and P. Hatziprokopiou (2005) The Albanian migration cycle. Pp. 93–117 in R.King, S. Sievers and N. Mai eds, The new Albanian migration (Eastbourne: Sussex AcademicPress)

Labrianidis, L. and T. Sykas (2009) Migrants, economic mobility and socio-economic changesin rural areas. European Urban and Regional Studies 16 (3) pp. 237–256

Lianos, T., A. Sarris and L. Katseli (1996) Illegal migration and local labour markets. Interna-tional Migration 34 (3) pp. 449–484

Lin, J.P., K.L. Liaw and C.L. Tsay (1999) Determinants of fast repeat migrations of the laborforce: evidence from the linked national survey data of Taiwan. Environment and Planning A31 (5) pp. 925–945

Lindstrom, D.P. (1996) Economic opportunity in Mexico and return migration from the UnitedStates. Demography 33 (3) pp. 357–374

McCarthy, N., G. Carletto, B. Davis and I. Maltsoglou (2006) Assessing the impact of massiveout-migration on agriculture ESA WP 06–14 (Rome: FAO).

Martin, P.L. (2004) Migration and development. Working paper 153/2004 (Geneva: InternationalInstitute for Labour Studies)

Martin, P.L., S. Martin and F. Pastore (2002) Best practice options: Albania. InternationalMigration 40 (3) pp. 103–118

Massey, D.S. and K.E. Espinosa (1997) What’s driving Mexico–US migration? A theoretical,empirical, and policy analysis. American Journal of Sociology 102 (4) pp. 939–999

Massey, D.S., J. Arango, G. Hugo, A. Kouaouchi, A. Pellegrino and J.E. Taylor (2005) Worlds inmotion (New York: Oxford University Press)

National Statistic Service of Greece (1981–2001) Population survey (Athens: National StatisticalService of Greece)



Newbold, K.B. (2001) Counting migrants and migrations: comparing lifetime and fixed-intervalreturn and onward migration. Economic Geography 77 (1) pp. 23–40

Nikas, C. and R. King (2005) Economic growth through remittances. Journal of Southern Europeand the Balkans 7 (2) pp. 235–257

Palerm, V. (1994) Immigrant and migrant farm workers in the Santa Maria Valley, California(Santa Barbara, CA: Department of Anthropology, University of California)

Reyes, B.I. (2001) Immigrant trip duration: the case of immigrants from western Mexico.International Migration Review 35 (4) pp. 1185–1204

Vaiou, D. and K. Hadjimichalis (1997) With the sewing machine in the kitchen and the poles in thefields (Athens: Exandas)

World Bank (2003) Albania: rural development strategy-underpinning growth and sustain-able development Available online at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTALBANIA/Resources/Rural_Development_Strategy-Underpinning_Growth.pdf Accessed 3 April 2007

World Bank (2007) Albania: strategic policies for a more competitive agriculture sector, World BankReport, Nr AAA-18-AL (Washington, DC: World Bank).

Lois Labrianidis*Regional Development and Policy Research Unit (RDPRU)

Department of Economics, University of Macedonia156 Egnatia St 540 06 Thessaloniki

Greecee-mail: [email protected]

Theodosis SykasRegional Development and Policy Research Unit (RDPRU)

Department of Economics, University of Macedonia156 Egnatia St 540 06 Thessaloniki

Greecee-mail: [email protected]



Geographical Proximity and Immigrant Labour in Agriculture: Albanian Immigrants in the Greek...

Documents

Transcript of Geographical Proximity and Immigrant Labour in Agriculture: Albanian Immigrants in the Greek...