Studying Migration in Slovenia: The Need for Tracing Gender, with Veronika Bajt

Veronika Bajt, Mojca Pajnik

STUDYING MIGRATION IN SLOVENIA:THE NEED FOR TRACING GENDER1

Introduction

Th e focus of this chapter is the post-1991 production of research in

Slovenia in the fi eld of migration in general and integration of migrant

women in particular.2 Th e structure follows the main historical trajectory

that profoundly aff ected the development of theoretical and empirical

research on migration in Slovenia. Even though many studies deal with

migration processes in general, there is a visible absence of gendered

research, as well as a lack of focus on integration processes. Similarly,

there is very little reference to labour market issues, and no research

about where migrants, particularly migrant women, work.

1 An earlier version of this chapter appeared as a working paper of the FeMiPol project in 2007 under the title ‘Integration of New Female Migrants in Slovenian Labour Market and Society and Policies Aff ecting Integration: State of the Art’. Th e authors wish to thank Luka Hrovat and Marta Gregorčič for their input in drafting the earlier version of the paper.

2 Th e chapter refrains from analysing in more detail the studies of migration of Slovene citizens, though historical research of émigrés and studies of emigration from Slovenia to European countries and overseas (especially to Americas) have been a longstanding preoccupation especially of the Institute for Slovenian Emigration Studies of the Scientifi c Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts. In line with this book’s focus, this chapter also purposefully omits research on highly skilled migration, for instance so-called ‘brain drain’studies – though these are equally rare in the Slovene context as studies of migra-tion in general. It should also be noted that the literature review in this charter does not extend beyond the 2008/2009 time period.

Uporabnik

Note

Marked set by Uporabnik

300 Veronika Bajt, Mojca Pajnik

Slovenia is marked by a lack of comprehensive and timely data on

the number of women migrants and on the discrimination they may

encounter or violence they may suff er.3 Such information could facilitate

the formulation of appropriate policies and provide hard data to advocate

female migrant workers’ rights. Better understanding is needed of the

characteristics of women’s migration for work and their economic and

social contributions to both sending and receiving countries, including

the scale, use and impact of remittances and savings and the expenditure

patterns of women migrants (UNPFA 2006). Using gender as an

analytical category forces us to rethink the artifi cial separation between

male/female, private/public, and production/reproduction. Th e newly

acquired knowledge that women’s reproductive labour is indispensable

for wage labour and the economy, and that without it labour power and

capital cannot be maintained, let alone reproduced on an expanded

scale, can have a major impact not only on the way one conducts research,

but also on the fi ndings and on the policy implications of these fi ndings.

Such newly acquired knowledge has signifi cant implications for research

on globalised migration processes.

Immigration to Slovenia as one of the socialist republics in the

former federal state of Yugoslavia began in the late 1950s. Th e inner

migrations within Yugoslavia intensifi ed with the processes of indus-

trialisation and urbanisation that made Slovenia one of the popular

destinations for economic migration, particularly from the south-

eastern regions of the state. People from other Yugoslav republics

migrated to Slovenia, which off ered employment possibilities. Especially

in the 1970s, when the Western European states that had been the

primary countries of destination for Yugoslav migrants started limiting

immigration, a pronounced economic migration to Slovenia began, as

migrants settled in the industrial cities, the capital Ljubljana and the

coastal region. One of the fi rst studies on migration processes and on

migrants thus stems from the period when Slovenia was still a part of

3 However, see Pajnik, Kogovšek and Zupanc (2006), Pajnik, Bajt and Zupanc (2006), Ayres and Barber (2006) or Cukut and Černič Istenič (2007) for notable recent exceptions.

301Studying Migration in Slovenia: The Need for Tracing Gender

Yugoslavia: the book by Silva Mežnarić (1986) ‘Bosanci’: a kuda idu

Slovenci nedeljom? (‘Bosnians’: Where do Slovenes go on Sundays?)

presented sociological research on migrant workers from other Yugoslav

republics that had been conducted in the 1975–1983 period. Pointing to

the fact that social distance existed between the Slovenes and the

immigrants from other republics, the author argued that symbolic

confl icts that are played out at the level of diff erent languages, cultures

and national rituals are in fact tensions created by unequal access to

the main sources of power and control in the society. Mežnarić there

ore provided Slovene studies of migration with a powerful semi-

nal study.

Th e fi rst studies dealing with modern migration therefore appeared

in Slovenia before it became an independent state in 1991. Th e wider

framework of Yugoslavia and its inner migrations, which became

particularly salient in the 1970s, were the primary focus of research.

With the above mentioned 1986 publication of the seminal study on

migrants, Slovenia saw the beginning of a more focused approach to

migration, although Slovene social scientists had already begun

publishing articles on migration in the 1970s.4

In accordance with the scope of this chapter, it is possible to

diff erentiate among three periods of pronounced academic interest in

migration in Slovenia, all related to socio-economic and political

developments. Firstly, with the armed confl icts following the collapse of

Yugoslavia in the 1990s, it was the existing situation of the growing

number of refugees in Slovenia that triggered research. Secondly, the

so-called ‘immigrant crisis’ of 2001 generated further academic analysis.

And thirdly, the present situation is marked by a continuation of

theoretical and empirical research in the fi eld of studies of migration

and integration. In addition, Slovenia’s EU membership since May

2004 has also infl uenced the proliferation of academic as well as action-

4 One of the key sociologists in this fi eld was Peter Klinar, who began publishing articles on migration in the early 1970s and is also the author of two monographs on international migration (Klinar 1976, 1985) and of several articles (e.g. Klinar 1993a, b).


based research. A growing number of scholars are connecting migra-

tion studies with the issue of integration; there is also a rising trend in

gendered research that recognises the current world trends towards

feminisation of migration. Nonetheless, the fact that these are merely

beginnings is highlighted in most introductory chapters, whereas sev-

eral conclusions end with a plea that more research is needed in terms

of labour migration to Slovenia and the question of integration and

integration policies in general, as well as studying migrant women in

particular.

It is worth pointing out that in Slovenia local activists, collectives

and networks had a signifi cant impact on the development of migration

studies. Th e fi rst actions of solidarity with people in detention centres

and the ‘erased’ were organised in 2001, and this consequently

encouraged studies in the fi eld of migration processes, human rights

and on the topic of the ‘erased’ (Pajnik, Lesjak-Tušek and Gregorčič

2001; Lipovec Čebron 2002; Dedić, Jalušič and Zorn 2003).5

Methods used in studies of migration processes

Qualitative methods are prevalent in the literature on migration, while

quantitative methods are used in most studies to a lesser extent in

Slovenia. Th e most common are the descriptive method and overview

analyses of the existing literature and other sources (offi cial reports,

laws, public opinion polls etc.). Analysis also includes legislative

provisions (Dedić 2004) and demographic changes (Bevc 2000). In

order to gain information directly from the migrants themselves, the

interview or questionnaire method, combined with the ethnographic

method, are also popular tools of research. Th e ethnographic meth-

od and interviews were used in Immigrants, Who Are You? (Pajnik,

5 In February 1992, over 25,000 people were deleted from the registry of permanent residents of Slovenia (the majority of them were members of other nations and nationalities of the former Yugoslavia). Th is illegal and unconstitutionaladministrative measure later became known as the ‘erasure’.


Lesjak-Tušek and Gregorčič 2001), where the authors interviewed

migrants in detention centres in order to present their stories. Th e

Bosnian refugees living in Slovenia were also interviewed for research

purposes ( Janko Spreizer et al. 2004). Moreover, research with migrants

(Lipovec Čebron 2002), and the use of questionnaires about all fi elds of

integration (Komac and Medvešek 2005) resulted in valuable studies

of migrants in Slovenia, their position and the problems they encounter.

Th e researchers also conducted several biographical interviews with the

‘erased’ people, though most of the interviews were with the male ‘erased’

(Dedić, Jalušič and Zorn 2003). Studies using questionnaires aimed at

giving a voice to the voiceless, presenting the interviewees as subjects

and not as objects of research. Th is represents a big step towards migrants’

participation through research, which could and should be followed by

their participation in creating the migration policies as a two-way

process. Th e biographical method, however, has only recently become an

important research method (cf. Pajnik, Bajt and Zupanc 2006; Cukut

and Černič Istenič 2007).

When relying on quantitative methods, the researchers operate with

information based on offi cial statistics. Such data are commonly provided

by offi cials of the Ministry of the Interior, or taken from police reports

or statistical yearbooks of the Statistical Offi ce. When possible, informal

or unoffi cial estimates are also used. Other quantitative information is

provided in the interviews with and questionnaires by migrants. Such

data include the number of migrants, percentage of male and female

migrants, their country of birth, and so on. Th ese data enable the

researchers to gather limited information about migration fl ows, gender

and age structure, social status etc., and allows comparisons of the

number of migrants in diff erent years (Pajnik and Zavratnik Zimic

2003; Zavratnik Zimic 2003, 2004a). Even though the opinion of the

people most involved with the migration process, such as migrants, state

offi cials and NGO representatives, is a highly informative and useful

tool for studying integration into a given society, this method has only

rarely been used, though practised in a few cases (Pajnik, Lesjak-Tušek

and Gregorčič 2001; Lipovec Čebron 2002; Komac and Medvešek

2005). Signifi cantly, some of the recent research grants this method


its due attention (e.g. Pajnik, Bajt and Zupanc 2006; Černič Istenič,

Knežević Hočevar and Cukut 2007).

Research on migrations in the fi rst decade of independent statehood

Refugees from the war zones of the collapsing Yugoslavia

Th e troubled period of the late 1980s brought an intensifi cation of

socio-political and economic problems, growing national confl icts, and

ultimately the break-up of Yugoslavia. Th e 1991 creation of Slovenia as

a state and the wider political and economic changes in the region

contributed to a shift in migration patterns. Th ousands of people from

various regions of the defunct Yugoslavia were forced out of their homes,

and by 1992 Slovenia was supposedly hosting about 70,000 refugees,

initially from Croatia, mostly from Bosnia-Herzegovina, some from

Kosovo. Since the Slovene authorities considered these people to be in

Slovenia only temporarily, the Offi ce for Immigration and Refugees,

founded in 1993, focused merely on temporary protection of these

‘forced migrants’, not recognising their status as that of refugees.

Th e attitude of the Slovene public towards Bosnian refugees

underwent several changes.6 Initially, sympathetic feelings prevailed,

and people were eager to help by raising funds and providing food,

clothes, and toys for children. As war consumed the former Yugoslavia,

the number of people fl eeing their homes rose. Many were staying with

their families and friends in Slovenia; hence, informal social networks

played a crucial part and eased the state’s role of support in various ways.

Th e general expectation and hope was that the situation was temporary

6 Th e term ‘refugee’ is used here despite the fact that legally these persons were not granted refugee status. Th e term ‘Bosnian’ is used to designate residents orcitizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, though they were in fact predominantly ‘Muslims’, which was an ethnic/national category that was replaced in 1994 with the term ‘Bosniak’.


and that people would soon be able to return to their homes, which in

many cases proved impossible as time passed. After the initial welcom-

ing mood of help and solidarity, the attitude began to change. Th e war

lasted much longer than expected and the Bosnian refugees had no

alternative but to stay in Slovenia.

Th e situation of the endless perpetuation of the ‘temporality’ of

refugees not only aff ected them profoundly in terms of exacerbating the

precariousness of their position in Slovenia, but also contributed to the

growing dissatisfaction in the society. Stirred by intolerant and biased

media reports, soon the prevalent rhetoric cautioned the Slovenes

against the ‘refugee tide’ (Doupona Horvat, Verschueren and Žagar

1998; Pajnik 2007b). Looking for reasons and explanations for these

tensions, some researchers argued that they were primarily due to

cultural and religious diff erences, since the Bosnian refugees were in

majority Muslims who did not speak Slovene (Klinar 1993b). Th eir

visible otherness in terms of language as well as culture, the xenophobic

argumentation went, exposed them to discrimination and intolerance

(Vrečer 1999a, b). Analysis of public rhetoric between April 1992 and

March 1993 showed that the refugees were reduced to ‘a problem’

and a threat to the Slovene society (Doupona Horvat, Verschueren

and Žagar 1998). Th e position of people with temporary status of

protection in Slovenia therefore drew signifi cant academic interest.

Studies dealt with the situation of Bosnian refugees in Slovenia in terms

of their integration prospects (Vrečer 1999b; Kranija and Nadarević

2000), in terms of ‘security’ and attitudes of state offi cials towards

them (Meško and Lobnikar 2000; Lobnikar et al. 2002), and in terms

of media representation practices (Pajnik 2007b).

Studies on migration in 2001

Th e period between 2000 and 2001 saw the emergence of the so-called

‘immigrant crisis’, when ‘an explicitly stigmatising and discriminatory

media discourse on illegal immigrants gained ground in Slovenia’

( Jalušič 2001, p. 13). Th is was connected to the fact that migration from

‘Th ird World’ countries was slowly becoming more pronounced, which


brought about a change in the perception of migrants on the part of

offi cials, media and the inhabitants of Slovenia. Th e intolerant public

reaction and anti-immigrant rhetoric also meant that a growing number

of topics related to migration started appearing in the literature, focusing

even more on ‘foreigners’, the ‘erased’, migrants and refugees.

Th e reason for the escalation of the intolerant public attitudes and

xenophobic media discourse was the equation of migrants with crimi-

nalised ‘illegals’, since the media reports focused on undocumented

migrants ‘caught’ crossing the border illegally. Sent to detention centres,

where they faced poor living conditions and questionable legal help,

they were not allowed to move freely, and in reality posed no tangible

threat to the population. Nevertheless, civil initiatives were launched

whenever the nearby local population felt particularly threatened by the

presence of detention centres, and began to resist the settling of migrants.

Such ‘voices of the people’ spread like wildfi re, promulgated by the

media, which encouraged the beliefs of the public that Slovenia was yet

again under threat (cf. Pajnik 2008). In reaction, attempting to open up

the public debate and stop the intolerant public discourse, conferences

were held about what should be done and how to guarantee human

rights and protection for migrants.

Moreover, the year 2001 saw a major breakthrough in the fi eld of

migrant and refugee studies. Th e results of the research project

Immigrants, Who Are You? were published by the Peace Institute (Pajnik,

Lesjak-Tušek and Gregorčič 2001). Th is was the fi rst research to deal

directly with the migrants. Th e poor conditions in detention centres in

which migrants lived were revealed and presented to the Ombudsman.

For the fi rst time the Ombudsman’s Annual Report addressed the issue

of migration processes and problems relating to asylum seekers, whose

human rights were often violated. Th e 2001 report thus included facts

about the Centre for Foreigners (detention centre) in Postojna, where

migrants lived in miserable conditions (Pajnik, Lesjak-Tušek and

Gregorčič 2001; Ombudsman Annual Report 2001).

Th e issue of intolerance in Slovene society was problematised, and

began to be scrutinised by a growing number of social scientists and


activists, and gradually also to be debated in the media. Groups of

activists organised with the aim to promote freedom, the right to move,

and the introduction of global citizenship not based on ethnic origin.

Th e protests were a response to governmental violation of human rights

of migrants and to the xenophobic attitudes of the Slovene population

towards those who had a diff erent culture, religion or nationality, and

were portrayed in the media as a threat to the Slovene national

identity.

After 2001, studies of migration in Slovenia began to proliferate.

Ethnographic research on asylum seekers and undocumented migrants

(Pajnik, Lesjak-Tušek and Gregorčič 2001; Lipovec Čebron 2002), the

‘erased’ (Dedić, Jalušič and Zorn 2003; Zorn 2003), and the refugees

from Bosnia-Herzegovina (Vrečer, 1999b, 2007; Janko Spreizer et al.

2004) was complemented by comparative analyses of integration

policies (Bešter 2003), and by using questionnaires in order to study

the migrants’ integration (Komac and Medvešek 2005).

Contemporary literature on migration and integration

As one of the countries entering the Schengen border regime in 2008,

Slovenia also had to adjust its migration and border policies, which

seriously aff ected migration and rights of migrants. Th e decline of ethics

in migration policy, which was done in order to adopt the European

Union’s migration standards in Central and Eastern Europe, is a case in

point. Slovenia’s migration policy, already restrictive even before the

adoption of EU standards, has become even harsher. Few people are

granted asylum. Often EU standards are not compatible with human

rights as outlined in the Declaration of Human Rights (Milohnić 2002).

Th is raises important questions regarding how the adoption of EU

principles infl uences the migration process and how it aff ects the human

rights of migrants. Most studies see the Schengen border regime as

a wall which divides the rich and the poor. On the one hand, it enables

mobility inside the Schengen border regime; on the other hand, it


restricts the mobility of people from other countries. A big challenge

for the EU is thus the adoption of a social citizenship that would

extend respect for human rights (Milohnić 2002; Pajnik and Zavratnik

Zimic 2003; Zavratnik Zimic et al. 2003; Dedić 2004). In this context

EU migration policies on the borderline between migrants’ aspirations

and restrictive policies come to the forefront (Verlič Christensen 2000,

2002), as well as studies debating traffi cking in human beings as

a controversial social (Zavratnik Zimic et al. 2003) and legal issue

(Oberstar 2003; Peršak 2005).

Research on attitudes towards migrants

Th e rising interest of the research community in issues of migration

could hardly keep up with the fast developing trend of categorising

most migrants in pejorative terms. Th e police and mass media in

particular would often resort to using terms such as ‘illegals’ and ‘illegal

immigrants’, thus criminalising migrants (cf. Pajnik 2008). Th is was

partially due to the lack of information and knowledge about the ‘new’

migrants that were coming from afar, for example from Iraq, Iran,

Bangladesh, China, or the African countries. Such terms were soon

reproduced in public and often associated with criminal activities. Th e

need for a more neutral word was imminent, hence the adoption of the

term ‘prebežniki ’ (migrants), meaning people who are on the move, by

Pajnik et al. (2001).7 As the media also began using the new term it soon

became more common. For the people who were victims of the ‘erasure’

and who had lost permanent resident status, the word ‘erased’ is used

(Dedić, Jalušič and Zorn 2003; Zorn 2003; Dedić 2004; Zorn 2004,

2005; ČKZ 2007).

7 Th e term ‘prebežniki ’ is also discussed at length, for instance, in the foreword to the second edition of Th e Rhetoric of Refugee Policies in Slovenia, which was published in 2001 (see Doupona Horvat, Verschueren and Žagar 1998), and in Lipovec Čebron (2002), where it signifi es ‘undocumented’ migrants.


Th e media discourse has placed much stress on the distinction

between ‘us’ and ‘them’ as diff erent. Such categorisations infl uenced the

attitude of citizens and particularly the inhabitants of local communities

in terms of perceiving migrants and refugees as a threat ( Jalušič 2001;

Drolc 2003). Th ey were portrayed as invaders who disrupt the habits of

the local population, who are an economic burden, who take away ‘our

jobs’, or ‘steal our women’. People would oppose the government’s

intention to establish temporary detention centres – not on the basis

of the inhumanity of such centres, but because of their perception of

migrants as a threat. In order to understand such dynamics, people

who actively opposed migrants were interviewed, and their public

appearances were analysed, revealing that their fears were mostly based

on media reports and stereotypes (Dobaj et al. 2002). Another study

showed that police offi cers had the lowest level of acceptance of migrants,

while social workers, non-governmental workers and volunteers were

the most tolerant (Lobnikar et al. 2002). Public opinion polls about

attitudes towards migrants were also examined, yet no specifi c con-

clusions were drawn (Komac and Medvešek 2005).

Until 2001, the media reports on migrants were often xenophobic

and intolerant; the attitude was particularly anti-migrant and anti-

refugee. After the ‘immigration crisis’ reached its peak and the negative

attitude somewhat changed in 2001/2002, more tolerant and anti-

discriminatory voices began gaining importance in public discourse.

Migrants were no longer portrayed only as intruders and economic

burden, but they were seen as people who suff er, who are without homes

because of poverty, exploitation, traffi cking, war, and so on. Personal

stories of migrants were introduced that changed the initially constructed

negative image of migrants as threatening. Nevertheless, hate-speech,

nationalistic prejudice and racism are still present in the Slovene media.

Th e Mediawatch project of the Peace Institute has been initiated to

closely follow the media reporting, particularly about minority groups,

such as migrants, homosexuals, the Roma etc. Research has shown that

more information and enhanced contact produces better understanding

between social groups, which is confi rmed by the gradually changing


patterns of media-reporting concerning previously unknown topics

( Jalušič 2001; Lipovec Čebron 2002; Pajnik and Zavratnik Zimic

2003; Andreev 2005; Zorn 2005; Komac and Medvešek 2005; Pajnik

2007b, 2008).8

Most of the studies listed above mention the importance of the

question of integration (e.g. Lipovec Čebron 2002; Pajnik and Zavratnik

Zimic 2003; Pajnik 2007a). However, only one tackles the issue of

integration in specifi cally empirical terms by conducting a survey among

migrants from the Yugoslav successor states on their perception of the

integration process and policy (Komac and Medvešek 2005). In general,

most studies link the issue of human rights and the migration process,

rather than focusing on issues of integration. Slovenia is usually perceived

as a transit country, and most studies claim that human rights are not

fully respected either when undocumented migrants are stopped at the

border or in asylum homes or detention centres. As a consequence, most

literature dealing with traffi cking also includes the topic of human

rights, relating it to practices of exploitation (Zavratnik Zimic et al.

2003; Zavratnik Zimic and Pajnik 2005).

The ‘erased’Th e ‘erased’ people represent a specifi c case. Th eir peculiar situation

and many varied problems related to their loss of status of permanent

residence entered public discourse only around 2001. Soon afterwards

the fi rst literature on this question started appearing. Th e fact that the

issue was made public was a consequence of the organisation of the

‘erased’, established in 2002, and their appearances in the mass media.

In the case of the ‘erased’, fundamental human rights were violated, and

people were left without any legal status. Most of the ‘erased’, or at least

one of their parents, were born in other republics of the former

Yugoslavia, which shows that the ‘erasure’ was based on ethnic origin.9

8 For more on the Mediawatch project, see http://mediawatch.mirovni-institut.si/.9 People with permanent residence in the Socialist Republic of Slovenia prior

to 1991 whose citizenship was of any state other than the former Yugoslavia did not experience the same drastic measure.


Th e result of this administrative ‘erasure’ left 25,671 people statusless

– without documents, which had been destroyed upon submitting them

to public offi cials, without healthcare and social security, and denied the

right to work. Factually, the act of the ‘erasure’ constructed these per-

manent residents as illegal migrants.

Stories from the people who were erased were published in articles

and books; several conferences and roundtables have been organised.

Th e studies portray the ‘erased’ as victims of ‘digital ethnic cleansing’,

and the ‘erasure’ is often described as the ‘civil death’ of thousands

(Dedić, Jalušič and Zorn 2003; Zorn 2003, 2004; Dedić 2004), and as

a policy of severe social exclusion (Dedić 2004). Th e literature on the

‘erased’ deals with the question of integration indirectly, especially if one

looks at the ‘erasure’ as a violent disintegrative process (ibid.).

Integration from a gender perspectiveTh ere are only a few studies on the integration of migrants in Slovenia,

and up until recently none focused on migrant women. Th e perspective

of gender rarely appears in studies about migrants; thus new studies on

that topic are needed in Slovenia. A noted exception is Razpotnik’s

Intersections of Redundancy (2004), a study about young migrant women’s

identities, which bridges the gap by focusing research on the gender

dimension. Nevertheless, it omits further discussion of gendered eff ects

of migration, assuming rather static roles of male and female migrants.

Most recent research, however, contributes to the fi eld by study-

ing migration and integration processes from a gender perspective

(e.g. Pajnik, Kogovšek and Zupanc 2006; Pajnik, Bajt and Zupanc 2006;

Cukut and Černič Istenič 2007).

Th e literature in Slovenia has also not included the topic of integra-

tion into the labour market, only the issue of the importance of

employment for independence and self-fulfi lment. Th e study by Komac

and Medvešek (2005) included a questionnaire on economic integration

of migrants from the Yugoslav successor states. Due to their ‘temporary’

status in Slovenia, the Bosnian refugees were never allowed to enter the

labour market and fi nd employment; they were only allowed to par-


ticipate in the educational process. Th e reason for the exclusion from

the labour market was the nature of their status and their expected

return to Bosnia-Herzegovina after the end of the war.

Th e labour market perspective is occasionally pointed out in research

on migration ( Janko Spreizer et al. 2004), and when analysed as

integration to the labour market it is primarily done from the per-

spective of discrimination of migrants (Kovač 2003; Žitnik 2004,

2008; Komac and Medvešek 2005). Dedić (2004) points out how

marginalised groups (the handicapped, women, refugees, etc.) are often

discriminated against on the labour market. In her work on policies of

inclusion and exclusion, Dedić touches upon the problem of exclusion

of migrant women, both in Slovenia and in the European Union. In her

monograph Invisible Work, Hrženjak (2007) importantly draws attention

to the feminisation of care work, focusing on long-term unemployed

women and on (non-) paid reproductive work. Th e author points out

how non-paid domestic work is frequently considered to be women’s

work, or a ‘labour of love’, whereas paid domestic work is characterised

by the specifi c concurrence of gender, nationality, race, class, citizenship

and age.

Th e only gendered data are the offi cial statistics on migrants, and

these are quite scant.10 Th e lack of focus on this topic raises a serious

concern. Few studies are interested in the gender perspective of the

migration process; and until recently it only emerged in research that

deals with traffi cking. Th e publication Women and Traffi cking consists of

articles about traffi cking, with a focus on the Central and Eastern

European countries, including Slovenia. ‘It is obvious that sex traffi cking

is highly gendered. Th erefore, the gender dimension must necessarily be

introduced, but it must also remain a central thread in the analysis of

migration movements’ (Zavratnik Zimic 2004b, p. 13). In Where in the

Puzzle: Traffi cking From, To and Th rough Slovenia, the authors issue

a call for a change in migration policy (Zavratnik Zimic et al. 2003),

with the argument that it would also infl uence traffi cking in women

10 See Ayres and Barber (2006) for a recent attempt at summarising the available statistics on female migrants.


for the purposes of sexual exploitation. More initiatives are needed for

the integration of women who are staying in Slovenia, and there should

exist initiatives for reintegration. Both studies on traffi cking in human

beings (Zavratnik Zimic et al. 2003; Zavratnik Zimic 2004b) criticise

the fact that the issue of traffi cking in Slovenia is portrayed in purely

economic terms. Th e authors point out the problem that the victims of

traffi cking are perceived as criminals because they are involved in the

sex industry – and not as victims who are forced into illegal activities, or

as migrants transgressing state borders.

Th e literature dealing with integration in Slovenia can be divided

into two groups. Th e fi rst group of studies only stresses the importance

of integration, without attaching any further analysis to the issue

(Lipovec Čebron 2002; Đonlić 2003; Pajnik and Zavratnik Zimic 2003;

Zavratnik Zimic et al. 2003; Dedić 2004). Th e study Slovenia and

the European Union – Contemporary Citizenship: Politics of Inclusion

and Exclusion by Dedić (2004) analyses the policies of exclusion of

marginalised groups in terms of employment, social security, culture

and anti-discrimination. It focuses also on women, refugees and asylum

seekers. Concluding that no consistent integration policy exists in

Slovenia and all the existing policies are based only on soft law, Dedić

argues that integration policies fall into the context of general social

exclusion.

Even though the studies from the fi rst group do not present

integration of migrants as a prominent topic, at least some idea of

integration policy or integration process is present. For instance, concrete

proposals have been made concerning the integration of asylum seekers

(Lipovec Čebron 2002). Th ey should be granted freedom of movement,

and the right to social security and employment. Integration should

include education, help in fi nding work and proper information for

everyday life. Employment is one of the most important steps towards

achieving integration.

In Where in the Puzzle (Zavratnik Zimic et al. 2003) recommendations

for migration policy are included from the perspective of traffi cking,

i.e. the programmes and initiatives for integration of victims of

traffi cking. It is argued that integration programmes for victims of


traffi cking need an individual approach. Th is point is of great

importance because victims can by no means be defi ned as a homogenous

‘target group’; hence individual needs have to be met. Victims of sex

traffi cking are a sensitive group (abuse, everyday threats etc.), who

should be treated professionally and with sensitivity, argue the authors.

Migration – Globalization – European Union (Pajnik and Zavratnik

Zimic 2003) points out the disintegration process in Slovenia in the

case of Bosnian refugees, who were never fully integrated. While the

Temporary Asylum Act contained provisions on integration into cultural,

economic and social life, there is still a lack of defi nition of who is

actually responsible for the realisation of integration measures. Th is

poses a major obstacle to the integration process, which in reality then

becomes either a process of assimilation or a state of perpetual exclusion,

even marginality. A quantitative estimate of about 20,000 migrants

a year is off ered in regard to the future integration of migrants (Pajnik

and Zavratnik Zimic 2003). In the same volume, a study of migration

policies in Slovenia and in the European Union (Bešter 2003) presents

diff erent theoretical models of integration and also the policies of

integration of the states that are close to one of the chosen models

(Germany, France and Sweden). Th e aim of the study was to fi nd

suggestions for the Slovene model of integration. Th e integration

policies of Germany, France and Sweden are introduced, and their pros

and cons are debated. Th e situation of the Slovene integration model is

presented and critically evaluated, including some guidelines for the

future. Comparing integration models of other countries and the social

reality of Slovenia, the author claims that the Slovene model of

integration should be based on cultural pluralism and directed towards

the society as a whole. All migrants should receive help in order to start

the process of integration, and they should have the chance to participate

equally in all spheres of social life.

Th e second group of studies pays more attention to integration

processes and policies – all the more important in view of Slovenia’s lack

of functioning integration programmes. Studies in this group (Zavratnik

Zimic 2002, 2003; Vrečer 2001; Pezdir 2004; Komac and Medvešek

2005) focus on integration of migrants; though a gender perspective


concerning integration is not included. Integration is mostly understood

as integration into the ‘new society’, while the studies lack economic

and gender perspective. Integration into the labour market is only briefl y

mentioned, merely stressing its importance for one’s existence. Non-

existent integration policies in the case of the Bosnian refugees were

analysed in research and presented as the biggest challenge for Slovenia’s

migration policy (Vrečer 2001; Pezdir 2004). Recommendations on

integration were to include communication, education and health care:

a holistic policy of integration was suggested (Zavratnik Zimic 2002),

considering diff erent types of migrants. Th e policy should address the

needs of migrants, who must necessarily be involved in policymaking

processes. Aiming to defi ne integration policy in order to make

recommendations for the integration of migrants into the ‘new society’,

Zavratnik Zimic (2002) off ers specifi c suggestions that include

a network of multicultural houses, groups for preparing integration

programmes, an information campaign and educational programmes.

Th e author notes that integration policy has yet to be defi ned in Slovenia,

while migration policy should be based on research and the work of

NGOs and active individuals and groups. Public space should enable

contact between migrants and the majority population via the help of

the specifi c programmes (ibid.). In her research paper on the inclusion

of migrants into new societies, the focus is on the ethics of care

(Zavratnik Zimic 2003)11 – which can have an impact on migration

policies because it is primarily a system of values and social solidarity.

Th e multicultural or plural model is mentioned as the best option for

Slovenia because it follows the multiethnic social structure, which

should be the guideline for future legislature.

Th e Institute for Ethnic Studies published a study on the integration

of migrants that makes them an important part of the research process.

A survey was performed among migrants who came to Slovenia from

the former Yugoslav republics and constitute the so-called ‘new

minorities’ (Komac and Medvešek 2005). Th e sample of migrants was

11 For more on the ethics of care perspective for analysing policies see Sevenhuijsen and Švab (2003).


half men and half women. Several diff erent topics were covered by

the questionnaire, such as the quality of life, school, media, religion,

employment, political participation etc. Th e basic idea is that integration

is a two-way process, where migrants are treated as subjects and not as

objects. Integration as a whole includes social, economic, cultural and

political integration. Th e researchers studied the status of economic

integration of migrants as one of the most crucial factors behind

integration (for instance their opinion about their employment and

payment). Th is part of the study also includes the gender perspective,

but only as a percentage of women who chose a certain answer, thus

analysing the data by gender, not interpreting them through the gender

dimension. Th e study also does not make any recommendations on

integration for future work, yet it can be used for further research in the

fi eld of integration processes.

With the exception of the abovementioned study (Komac and

Medvešek 2005), none of the literature covers the gender perspective of

integration or integration into the labour market. Occasionally, eco-

nomic integration is mentioned or briefl y discussed, while the gender

perspective is neglected, except for a few statistical data that may be

listed for illustration. Th is gap can be connected to the scarce number of

migration studies that deal with the integration of migrants in general,

and the scant number of research projects that deal with marginalised

groups in Slovenia.

Conclusion

Even though international and transnational migration trends have

grown increasingly more complex over the past decades, and the number

of migrant women amounts to nearly half of all migrants worldwide,

Slovene migration and integration policies as well as studies have long

been neglecting the specifi c importance and particularity of women

migrants. While it is a fact that the current migration trends to Slovenia

still point to the prevalence of male migrants, since women make up about

30 per cent of the migrant population, the offi cial migration data in


Slovenia are hardly ever gender-specifi c, and migrant women seem in-

visible. Th e absence of gender-specifi c data hinders the understanding

and appropriate assessment of women’s role and needs in the migration

process. It is essential to understand the characteristics and realities of

female migration – its causes, diff erentiation and gender-specifi c issues,

including the separation of families and particular vulnerabilities to

traffi cking and violence. Women are more than ever actively involved in

the migration process, and scholars often talk about the feminisation of

migration.

Th e existing research in Slovenia applies the gender perspective as

a result of engagement in various international projects that recognise

the current migration trends, or when occasionally responding to the

need for international migration reports, or when addressing specifi c

EU policies and their application in new member states. Th e rare studies

of migration that do incorporate the issue of women treat the gender

question as relevant, yet often without further explication or deeper

analysis. Further research on female migration in Slovenia – at all stages

of the life cycle – is necessary and fundamental if we are to understand

its challenges and opportunities. Th e recent studies, which tackle these

questions by focusing their research interest on the gender dimension of

migration, confi rm this need (cf. Pajnik, Kogovšek and Zupanc 2006;

Pajnik, Bajt and Zupanc 2006; Cukut and Černič Istenič 2007).

Moreover, a new perspective on migration is required if we are to

address the intellectual and practical challenges it poses. More

comprehensive approaches must be adopted, and the evolution of entire

migration systems across space and time should be analysed. New and

concrete research and policy should be adopted in order to achieve

a deeper understanding of past and present migration dynamics in

Slovenia. Th ere is a common standpoint present in most of the Slovene

literature, which, instead of analysing migration as an integral part of

development and global transformation processes, studies it as a problem

to be ‘managed’ or ‘solved’ by tackling its perceived root causes. Th ere are

many problems clearly associated with migration, such as the challenges

of integration, exploitation and traffi cking. Th is discourse of ‘migration

as a problem’ frames much of research on migration, setting its agenda


and the questions that it addresses, to the exclusion of other perspectives.

Migration can point out the limitations of the national state, which

defi nes the borders and socially constructs the ‘foreigner’. In this context,

another issue is the rethinking of national citizenship in a transnational

perspective, recognising transnational modalities of living (Pajnik

2007a). Studies on the institutionalisation of the legal, political and

social components of citizenship from a gender-sensitive perspective

must be a priority. Th ese should probe the evolution of rights for migrant

women with regard to entry, the impact of equity programmes for

migrant women, and their participation in the political processes. New

studies should indicate more about the ways in which migrant women

participate in community life, in order to infl uence decision-making

and break down ethnic barriers.

Th e policies of (female) migration should be integrated with overall

development policies so as to maximise the capabilities and contribu-

tions of women. Th e invisible and illegal nature of migrant women’s

work and integration into society should be an important component of

further studies in Slovenia, as well as all other social needs, such as access

to education and other integrative institutions (cultural institutions,

participation in public discussions and space), and to social and health

services. Some of these points were discussed in pioneer research

initiatives into diff erent aspects of migrations (Pajnik, Lesjak-Tušek and

Gregorčič 2001; Lipovec Čebron 2002; Dedić, Jalušič and Zorn 2003).

Yet it is necessary to attempt to integrate these themes into a coherent

and dynamic framework that contributes to the overall understanding

of migration today and in the changing context of Slovenia from the

EU perspective, as exhibited in the latest research (cf. Pajnik, Bajt and

Zupanc 2006). An interdisciplinary and coherent approach is needed, as

well as greater mutual cooperation between researchers and institutions.

It is also crucial to relate current migration patterns to historical trends

in Slovenia, the wider Balkan region and the EU by analysing continuities

and discontinuities, and linking the micro-level understanding of migra-

tion to macro-level trends.


References

Andreev, A.S. 2005, Active Civic Participation of Immigrants in Slovenia [online], at: http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/politis-europe [accessed 7 September 2009].

Ayres, R., Barber, T. 2006, Statistical Analysis of Female Migration and Labour

Market Integration in the EU [online], Working Paper – WP 3, FeMiPol Project,

at: http://www.femipol.uni-frankfurt.de/docs/working_papers/wp3/Statistical_

analysis.pdf [accessed 7 Semptember 2009].

Bešter, R. 2003, Immigrant Integration Policies, in: M. Pajnik, S. Zavratnik Zimic (eds.),

Migration – Globalization – European Union, Mirovni inštitut, Ljubljana.

Bevc, M. 2000, Vloga naravnega gibanja in selitev v spreminjanju števila prebivalstva

Slovenije v 90. letih po regijah [Th e impact of migration and natural change of

population on the demographic development of Slovenia in the 1990s], IB revija,

vol. 34, no. 3–4, pp. 64–72.

Cukut, S., Černič Istenič, M. 2007, Needs for Female Immigrants and Th eir Integration in

Ageing Societies, WP2: Interviews with Female Migrants – National Report Slovenia,

Federal Institute for Population Research, Wiesbaden.

Černič Istenič, M., Knežević Hočevar, D., Cukut, S. 2007, Needs for Female Immigrants

and Th eir Integration in Ageing Societies, WP4: Focus Groups with Stakeholders

– National Report Slovenia, Federal Institute for Population Research, Wiesbaden.

ČKZ 2007, Zgodba nekega izbrisa [Th e Story of an Erasure], Časopis za kritiko znanosti,

vol. XXXV, no. 228.

Dedić, J. 2004, Slovenija in Evropska unija – Sodobno državljanstvo: politike vključevanja

in izključevanja [Slovenia and the European Union – Contemporary Citizenship:

Policies of Inclusion and Exclusion] [online], Research Paper, Mirovni inštitut,

Ljubljana, at: http://www.mirovni-institut.si.

Dedić, J., Jalušič, V., Zorn, J. 2003, Erased: Organized Innocence and the Politics of Exclu-

sion, Mirovni inštitut, Ljubljana.

Dobaj, P., Družina, J., Mesarič, A., Stibilj, K., Žabjek, I. 2002, Na drugi strani ceste:

raziskava odnosa lokalnega prebivalstva do prebežnikov [On the Other Side of the

Street: A Research on Perceptions of Immigrants by Local Inhabitants], in:

U. Lipovec Čebron (ed.), V zoni prebežništva: Antropološke raziskave o beguncih

v Sloveniji [In the Zone of Immigration: Anthropological Research of Refugees in

Slovenia], Filozofska fakulteta, Ljubljana.

Doupona Horvat, M., Verschueren, J., Žagar, I.Ž. 1998, Th e Rhetoric of Refugee Policies

in Slovenia: Th e Pragmatics of Legitimation, Mirovni inštitut, Ljubljana.

Drolc, A. 2003, Immigrants Between the Common European Migration Policy and

Local Peculiarities, in: M. Pajnik, S. Zavratnik Zimic (eds.), Migration – Glo-

balization – European Union, Mirovni inštitut, Ljubljana.


Đonlić, H. 2003, Deset let samote: izkušnje bosansko-hercegovskih begunk in beguncev

v Sloveniji [Ten Years of Solitude: Experiences of Bosnian-Herzegovian Refugees in

Slovenia], Društvo Kulturni vikend, Ljubljana.

Gregorčič, M. 2006, Epistemologija izkoreninjanja zatiranja in izključevanja: Alfabet za

sodelovanje z zaprtimi v Velikem otoku pri Postojni in vsemi ujetniki schengenske

periferije, Časopis za kritiko znanosti, no. 226, pp. 89–97.

Hrženjak, M. 2007, Invisible Work, Peace Institute, Ljubljana.

Jalušič, V. 2001, Ksenofobija ali samozaščita? [Xenophobia or Self-protection?],

Intolerance Monitor Report, no. 1, Mirovi inštitut, Ljubljana.

Janko Spreizer, A., Kalčić, Š., Šušmelj, D., Pezdir, T. 2004, Oblike ljudske in birokratske

diskriminacije skozi pogled ljudi, ki jih uradno nikoli niso poimenovali za begunce

[Forms of Discrimination through Views of People Who Were Never Called

Refugees], Razprave in gradivo, no. 45, pp. 226–255.

Klinar, P. 1976, Mednarodne migracije: sociološki vidiki mednarodnih migracij v luči odnosov

med imigrantsko družbo in imigrantskimi skupnostmi [International Migration],

Obzorja, Maribor.

Klinar, P. 1985, Mednarodne migracije v kriznih razmerah [International Migrations in

Crisis Situations], Obzorja, Maribor.

Klinar, P. 1993a, Osnove migracijske politike [Th e Basics of Migration Policy], Teorija

in praksa, vol. 30, no. 7–8, pp. 646–650.

Klinar, P. 1993b, O beguncih v Sloveniji [On Refugees in Slovenia], Teorija in praksa,

vol. 30, no. 1–2, pp. 75–84.

Komac, M., Medvešek, M. (eds.) 2005, Percepcije slovenske integracijske politike. Zaključno

poročilo [Perceptions of Slovenian Integration Policy] [online], Inštitut za narodnostna

vprašanja, Ljubljana, at: http://www.inv.si.

Kovač, B. 2003, Globalization, Migration and Economic Development on the Margins

of Slovenia’s Migration Policy Dilemma, in: M. Pajnik, S. Zavratnik Zimic (eds.),

Migration – Globalization – European Union, Mirovni inštitut, Ljubljana.

Kranija, D., Nadarević, D. 2000, Kvalitativno raziskovanje resocializacije beguncev

– študija primera zbirni center Črnomelj [Qualitative Research of Resocialisation of

Refugees], Socialno delo, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 5–11.

Lipovec Čebron, U. (ed.) 2002, V zoni prebežništva: Antropološke raziskave o beguncih

v Sloveniji [In the Zone of Immigration: Anthropological Research of Refugees in

Slovenia], Filozofska fakulteta, Ljubljana.

Lobnikar, B., Pagon, M., Meško, G., Umek, P. 2002, Slovenian State Offi cials,

Slovenian Citizens, and Refugees in Slovenia: How Th ey Perceive Each Other,

European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, vol. 10, no. 2/3,

pp. 192–201.

Meško, G., Lobnikar, B. 2000, Begunci – vir kriminalitete ali vir strahu pred

kriminaliteto? [Refugees – Th e Source of Criminality or the Source of Fear of

Criminality?], Socialna pedagogika, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 375–390.

Mežnarić, S. 1986, ‘Bosanci’: a kuda idu Slovenci nedeljom? [‘Bosnians’: Where do Slovenes

go on Sundays?], ZSMS, Ljubljana.


Milohnić, A. (ed.) 2002, Evropski vratarji: Migracijske in azilne politike v vzhodni Evropi

[European Gatekeepers: Migration and Asylum Policies in Eastern Europe], Mirovni

inštitut, Ljubljana.

Oberstar, J. 2003, Migracije, trgovina z ljudmi in zaščita žrtev [Migrations, Traffi cking

in Human Beings and Protection of Victims], Pravna praksa, vol. 22, no. 8,

pp. 23–32.

Pajnik, M. 2007a, Integration Policies in Migration Between Nationalizing States and

Transnational Citizenship, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 33, no. 5,

pp. 849–865.

Pajnik, M. 2007b, Medijske podobe o beguncih [Media Images of Refugees], Socialno

delo, vol. 46, no. 1–2, pp. 1–11.

Pajnik, M. 2008, Mnenja o migrantih v tisku: potreba po korektivu javnomnenjskega

raziskovanja [Opinions on Migrants in the Press: Towards Corrections in Public

Opinion Research], Annales, vol. 18, no. 1.

Pajnik, M., Bajt, V., Zupanc, S. 2006, Policies Aff ecting Female Migrants: Report on

Key Informant Interviews in Slovenia [online], Working Paper Nr. 8 – WP 2,

FeMiPol Project, at: http://www.femipol.uni-frankfurt.de/docs/working_papers/

wp2/Slovenia.pdf.

Pajnik, M., Kogovšek, N., Zupanc, S. 2006, Mapping of Policies Aff ecting Female

Migrants and Policy Analysis: Th e Slovenian Case [online],Working Paper

Nr. 8 – WP 1, FeMiPol Project, at: http://www.femipol.uni-frankfurt.de/docs/

working_papers/wp1/Slovenia.pdf.

Pajnik, M., Lesjak-Tušek, P., Gregorčič, M. 2001, Immigrants, who are you? Research on

Immigrants in Slovenia, Mirovni inštitut, Ljubljana.

Pajnik, M., Zavratnik Zimic, S. (eds.) 2003, Migration – Globalization – European Union,

Mirovni inštitut, Ljubljana.

Peršak, N. 2005, Trgovina z ljudmi in migracije: pogled od spodaj [Traffi cking in

Human Beings and Migrations], in: Z. Kanduč (ed.), Criminality, Social Control

and Postmodern Processes, Inštitut za kriminologijo, Ljubljana.

Pezdir, T. 2004, Transnacionalne aktivnosti – primer migrantov iz Bosne in Hercegovine

in njihovih potomcev v Sloveniji [Transnational Activities – Th e Case of Migrants

from Bosnia-Herzegovina and Th eir Off spring in Slovenia], Časopis za kritiko

znanosti, vol. 32, no. 217-218, pp. 184–194.

Razpotnik, Š. 2004, Preseki odvečnosti: nevidne identitete mladih priseljenk v družbi

tranzicijskih vic [Intersections of Redundancy: Invisible Identities of Young Female

Immigrants], Pedagoška fakulteta, Ljubljana.

Sevenhuijsen, S., Švab, A. (eds.) 2003, Labyrinths of Care: Th e Relevance of the Ethics of

Care Perspective for Social Policy, Mirovni inštitut, Ljubljana.

UNFPA 2006, Female Migrants: Bridging the Gaps throughout the Life Cycle, Selected

Papers of the UNFPA-IOM, Expert Group Meeting, New York, 2-3 May.

Verlič Christensen, B. 2000, Migracijska politika Evropske skupnosti in Slovenija

[Migration Policy of the EU and Slovenia], Teorija in praksa, vol. 37, no. 6,

pp. 1117–1131.


Verlič Christensen, B. 2002, Evropa v precepu med svobodo in omejitvami migracij

[Europe between Freedom and the Limitations of Migration], Fakulteta za družbene vede, Ljubljana.

Vrečer, N. 1999a, Smrt in žalovanje v begunstvu: Bošnjaki, Bošnjakinje v Sloveniji [Death, Grief and Mourning in Exile: Bosnian Muslims in Slovenia], Etnolog, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 321–338.

Vrečer, N. (ed.) 1999b, Vsakdanje življenje beguncev in begunk v Sloveniji [Everyday

Life of Refugees in Slovenia], Slovensko etnološko društvo, Ljubljana.Vrečer, N. 2001, When Will Social Exclusion and Temporary Protection of Bosnian

Refugees in Slovenia End?, Razprave in gradivo, no. 38–39, pp. 388–392.Vrečer, N. 2007, Integracija kot človekova pravica: prisilni priseljenci iz Bosne in Hercegovine

v Sloveniji [Integration as a Human Right: Forced Immigrants from Bosnia-Herzegovina

in Slovenia], Založba ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana.Zavratnik Zimic, S. 2002, Slovenski model migracijske politike: perspective in možnosti

države na “schengenski periferiji [Slovenian Model of Migration Policy], Research Paper, Mirovni inštitut, Ljubljana.

Zavratnik Zimic, S. 2003, Etika skrbi v migracijskih politikah [Ethics of Care in Migration Policies], Teorija in praksa, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1143–1154.

Zavratnik Zimic, S. 2004a, Migration Trends in Selected EU Applicant Countries, vol. 6: Slovenia: Th e Perspective of a Country on the ‘Schengen periphery’, International Organization for Migration, Vienna.

Zavratnik Zimic, S. (ed.) 2004b, Women and Traffi cking, Mirovni inštitut, Ljubljana.Zavratnik Zimic, S., Kavčič, U., Pajnik, M., Lesjak Tušek, P. 2003, Where in the Puzzle:

Traffi cking from, through and to Slovenia: Assessment Study, International Organi-zation for Migration, Ljubljana.

Zavratnik Zimic, S., Pajnik, M. 2005, Trgovanje z ženskami: perspektiva žrtve [Traffi cking in Women: Th e Victim’s Perspective], Teorija in praksa, vol. 42, no. 1,pp. 113–135.

Zorn, J. 2003, Izbrisani v svojih lastnih besedah [Th e Erased in Th eir Own Words], Balcanis, no. 7–9, pp. 89–93.

Zorn, J. 2004, Th e Politics of Exclusion: Citizenship, Human Rights and the Erased in Slovenia, Revija za sociologiju, vol. 35, no. 1–2, pp. 61–72.

Zorn, J. 2005, Ethnic Citizenship in the Slovenian State, Citizenship Studies, vol. 2,no. 2, pp. 135–152.

Žitnik, J. 2004, Immigrants in Slovenia: Integration Aspects, Migracijske i etničke teme, no. 2–3, pp. 221–241.

Žitnik, J. 2008, Statistical Facts are Human Fates: Unequal Citizens in Slovenia,Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 77–94.

Studying Migration in Slovenia: The Need for Tracing Gender, with Veronika Bajt

Documents

Transcript of Studying Migration in Slovenia: The Need for Tracing Gender, with Veronika Bajt