Migration studies are a relatively new field in the Bulgarian social and economic sciences, which is developing rapidly after the transition from communism to democracy, from a closed to an open society.
MAPPING THE MIGRATION STUDIES FIELD
The map of the migration research could be presented by two logical and one paradoxical characteristics. The first two are theoretical expressions of the migration profile, the last one is an important research zoom on a relatively minor migration phenomenon. The research reflects the specificity of the migration profile by a significant number of publications on emigration. They focus on Bulgarian emigration and diaspora in numerous countries, the push factors – the economic and social reasons for emigration in relation to regional socio-economic disparities (Minchev et al 2016). An increasing cluster of studies analyses return – causes for return migration, reintegration, incentives and motivation for re-emigration (Nonchev and Hristova 2018, Minchev 2016, Hristova 2018). Negative phenomena such as trafficking are also object of numerous PhDs (Stamenkov 2020) and projects.
The immigration research started with the study of the various communities – Russians, Arabs, Chinese, Africans, etc. (Krasteva 2005). Numerous publications detailed and deepened the knowledge and understanding of the immigration phenomenon in Bulgaria in terms of politics and policies, of social and economic integration, of the migration and development nexus, of social representations, etc. (OSI 2010 and 2014, Vladimirova 2009 and 2019, Economic Institute 2008, Maeva 2019, Mantarova 2018, Krasteva numerous years).
The paradoxical characteristic of the Bulgarian migration studies is the interesting asymmetry between very small number of refugees and the rapidly growing field of refugee research (Tsankov 2016, Ilareva 2017, Vankova 2013, Hristova, Maystorovich, Petkova 2019, Tcholarova 2012). This positive paradox is due to two major factors: participation of Bulgarian scholars in European and international projects, and also to the very active
71
policy of UNHCR-Bulgaria. UNHCR funds numerous projects on labour, social, educational integration and increases the visibility of all refugee research activities through the Academic Bulletin, numerous stakeholder workshops, etc.
STATE OF THE ART IN FIELDS RELEVANT FOR MATILDE
ASSESSMENT OF MIGRATION AND INTEGRATION STRATEGIES AND POLICIES
The assessments of foreign analysts on Bulgaria’s integration policy are polarised. From the positive side, the European Migration Network (EMN) notes that: “In the field of integration, Bulgaria has modern, well-developed and effective legislation in the area of equal opportunities, social inclusion and non-discrimination, which is in line with EU standards” (EMN 2018a: 2). From a more critical position, the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) notes that: “Immigrant integration is still not a priority for the Bulgarian government.” (MIPEX Bulgaria 2015). Bulgarian scholars develop the critical perspective. A human rights lawyer (Interview 6) criticises EMN interpretation:
This is a wrong and misleading conclusion. We definitely have national regulations and procedures on protection against discrimination. But with regard to our refugee-migration system, there is a zero level of implementation of integration policy for the 6th consecutive year. The latest version of the AIDA Report for Bulgaria of February 2020 (p. 13) reads: "Integration: No integration activities are planned, funded or made available to recognized refugees or subsidiary protection holders; thus marking the sixth consecutive year of the national" zero integration "Policy" (Interview 6)
The lack of political will in this direction, the fragmentary addressing of individual groups and issues, the lack of a long-term vision for migration and integration is part of this problem.’ In the same vein of thought, another prominent human rights lawyer, also very critically assesses the lack of refugee integration: ‘Regarding integration, unfortunately, not only for several consecutive years we have a "zero year of integration", but also with the latest amendments to the LAR, SG. No. 89 of October 16, 2020, the possibility for support with shelter
72
by the SAR of those who received the status was eliminated, and at the same time the obligations for the refugees were increased. That is, there is no integration support, but there are more obligations’ (Interview 5) The paradoxes and discontinuities in Bulgaria’s migration and integration policies can be summarised in several points (Krasteva 2019):
Late inclusion into government priorities: migration was assigned the status of a public policy, on which the State has a strategic vision, almost two decades after the beginning of the transition. It was not until 2008 that the first strategy for migration and integration was adopted. The strategy covers emigration, immigration and refugees. Its late adoption expresses the discrepancy between the migration policy and the migration phenomena - the huge emigration, the new phenomenon of refugees after the adoption of the Geneva Convention in 1993 and the increasing immigration.
Abrupt, unclear and unexplained discontinuities: in 2010, at the very beginning of the implementation of the first strategy for migration and integration, and without public information about the grounds for revision, work began on the elaboration of a new strategy, which entered into force in 2011. Less than halfway through the planned timeline, a third strategy entered into force in 2015.
Redefinition of the main priorities in migration policy: if the main focus of the 2008 Strategy was on economic emigration and integration of third-country nationals, the 2011 Strategy focused mainly on (in)security issues.
Lack of sustainability in policy implementation: in 2011, action plans for implementation of the 2011-2020 Strategy stopped being adopted, and then the Strategy itself was repealed without a public debate (Krasteva 2014a:618-619). The 2015-2020 Strategy was left for a long time without an Action Plan – it was not until 2018 that the plan was adopted.
MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT NEXUS. LABOUR MARKET INTEGRATION
The labour migration is conceptualised and analysed positively as a resource in the framework of the migration and development nexus (Krasteva 2019). This approach is a theoretical and normative alternative to the securitization of migration.
73
TCNs’ labour market integration is studied in regard to the differentiated labour market profile of the various migrant communities and the economic sectors attracting migrant labour force.
A major characteristic of the migration profile of TCNs from the Near and Middle East and China is that a majority of them are self-employed and own small, medium-sized or large businesses. Most of them are occupied in the typical ethnic niches - restaurant industry and retail. The labour integration of Russians is the most varied and diversified. Unlike most other immigrant communities in Bulgaria – who are employed primarily in the private sector – first, second and third-generation Russian immigrants are employed in public administration, media, and education at all levels. There is also a new wave of Russians who have invested in property on the Black Sea coast which they use for holidays and rent out without settling permanently in Bulgaria. The African community in Bulgaria is very small. In the last decade, call centres – where fluency in French and English is highly appreciated – have provided the chance and impetus for their labour integration.
Britons illustrate another category of TCNs whose migration project is not necessarily aimed at labour integration, insofar as some of them are retirees and settle in spa and small villages and towns. Some of them start small businesses – for example, as real estate brokers for compatriots interested in buying houses in Bulgaria, intermediaries or investors in health/dental tourism, etc.
Another type of TCNs are the seasonal and temporary workers. Third-country nationals are employed predominantly in tourism, services, manufacturing and education, as well as construction and commerce (EMN 2018b:14-15).
The integration of refugees through labour market is a relatively new, but rapidly developing, field with contribution from young scholars: Albena Tcholakova in her comparative PhD analysed the refugee labour integration in Bulgaria and France; Stana Iliev (2017) is a pioneer of another type of comparison – between the two most disadvantaged groups of Roma and refugees. Stana Iliev’s study of the business community engagement in refugee integration is particularly interesting. She focusses on success stories, as well as on difficulties. The business initiatives on refugee integration are still few in number, but the study differentiates three different types: Bulgarian companies, companies of migrant entrepreneurs, and innovative forms of social entrepreneurship. – TELUS International Europe (a business process outsourcing and information technology outsourcing provider) is an interesting example of a Bulgarian company that employs 100 refugees and
74
humanitarian status holders. In addition to work, the company offers a wide range of social services as well as cultural, sporting and other events for its employees (Iliev 2017: 18). One of the main difficulties for companies is the mobility of refugees. Bulgaria is a transit country for most refugees (Iliev 2017:17). The company Convoy, based in the town of Novi Iskar, is a typical example: of the twenty people hired originally, one refugee woman and two men remain in the company (Iliev 2017:16). A similar example is that of Pirin Tex in Gotse Delchev (Iliev 2017:12). Recent studies confirm and develop Tcholakova’s and Iliev’s findings (Catro Bulgaria 2018, UNHCR Bulgaria, The Bulgarian Council on Refugees and Migrants (2021).
75
1.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE INTEGRATION AT LOCAL LEVEL THROUGH SEMI-STRUCTURED