SERGEY RIAZANTSEV,
Head of the Demography Department at the Institute for Social and Political Research, Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor at the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, Moscow

The labor migration to the countries of Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC) has become a mass and significant migration flow in terms of its social and political consequences. According to a rough estimation, it involves 3.0-4.5 million people or approximately, 4-5% of the employed population (see Table 1). These data include two reciprocal flows of migrants. The first one is constituted by foreign citizens leaving for work purposes to those countries (labor immigration). The second flow is made up of citizens emigrating from their countries of residence to other countries for work purposes (labor emigration). Every flow has both legal (registered officially) and illegal (having no official registration) components.

Table 1

The number and share of the labor migrants in the EAEC member-states in 2005, thousands of people [1]

Note: * - the figure on Uzbekistan is given for 2002

The number of legal labor immigrants in 2005 in the three host countries of the EAEC (Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus) amounted to 728 thousand people.[2] The scale of illegal migration (the number of migrants simultaneously residing in the host state) in the Union’s countries is estimated about 5,6 to 10.8 million people. According to rough assessments, illegal immigration exceeds the legal one in 8-15 times (see Table 2).

Table 2

The Volumes of the labor migration in the EAEC member-states in 2005, thousands [3]

The majority of the labor immigrants (over 702 thousand) have been accepted by Russia due to its growing economy and a vast labor market. In 2006, the number of immigrants in Russia increased up to 1 million and 150 thousand people. According to the data, provided by the Federal Migration Service at the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation, Ukraine has long remained Russia’s first supplier of the workforce, which sent around one third, and recently about one fourth of the total number of arriving immigrants. The year of 2005 has changed major supplier – China has taken the lead, and is now responsible for every fourth immigrant worker in Russia. Among the ten key suppliers of work force, four foreign states may be distinguished (Turkey, Vietnam, China, and North Korea), and six republics of the CIS, that is, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan. The Russian economy has created niches in the labor market, which are occupied solely by foreign migrant workers – auxiliary construction workers, street cleaners, drivers of the public transport, maintenance workers, market vendors. The majority of the labor migrants in Russia are men aged 30-39.

Figure 1. Major immigrant suppliers to Russia in 2005

There is a huge gap existing between the data, provided by the Federal Migration Service and the real scale of labor migration. The number of illegal, or to be more precise, unregistered migrants, may run up to 5 million people and more. The majority are the CIS citizens who have the right to go to Russia without visas, but having arrived in Russia, they don’t get registered and have no legal work permit. Many of them have resided in Russia for several years, or have gone home occasionally.[4] According to other estimations, Russia houses more than 10 million illegal immigrants.[5] In 2005, 10 Russian regions performed an experiment on legalization of the illegal labor migrants. In the course of this procedure, about 7.5 million migrants were granted work permits. Then the issue of carrying this project on was suspended, though the question still remains open and of vital importance to Russia.

At present, the Federal Migration Service is planning to conduct a nationwide campaign aimed at legalizing the migrants who entered the country before January 15, 2007, and who are now residing in this country with violation of migration laws. This campaign provides legalization of immigrants by imposing a 2000 rouble fine with further official registration of the workers within 10 days. This “legalization” will only concern CIS citizens, employed in the areas, suffering shortage of the native work force. Those are builders, workers in housing and communal services, transportation, and agriculture. The employer will not bear any financial expenses, as he is obliged to sent a note about his relations with foreign citizens to the local office of the Federal Migration Service office.[6]

Kazakhstan has become a new center of immigration in the EAEC. According to the data provided by the Ministry of Labor and Social Security, in 2005 25 thousand workers were legally employed. The number of the illegal immigrants is over 400-450 thousand people. In 2006, Kazakhstan has conducted a campaign to legalize the migrants. The right to legally work in Kazakhstan was granted to the CIS citizens, who arrived in the country before May 31, 2006, and who were able to get employed up to then.

The limits were introduced to inhibit a larger immigration flow from neighboring Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan, striving to acquire an official status. As the preliminary assessments suggest, the campaign must have encompassed around 100 thousand labor migrants from neighboring countries. After it had been completed, the Ministry of Interior reported about over 160 thousand CIS citizens employed in Kazakhstan. The Ministry of Labor and Social Security suggests that before the legalization process started the working places had been legally occupied only by 25 thousand foreign experts. The immigrants working in the private households were the least involved in the campaign. Gardeners, cooks, and maids made up no more than 4 to 5% of the total number of legalized workers. Nearly 70% of migrants, who officially registered their work relations with employers, were house constructors, and 14% were working in agriculture. This “legalization campaign” was found successful not only by independent observers, but also by the government agencies.

Officially, Belarus have hired 0.7 thousand people. Three thirds of all the work force come from Ukraine, Russia, Armenia, and Turkey, while the total number of the illegal immigrants in the country counted for 50-150 thousand people. Besides, illegal immigrants were in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, but these are mostly transit workers, trying to Russia, Kazakhstan or West.

Legal labor emigration from the EAEC countries in 2005 amounted to 80 thousand people, along with illegal one – from 3.0 to 4.5 million people. The difference is immense – 38-56 times! The labor emigrants from Russia went to Europe, United States, Liberia, and Japan, while Kazakhs were emigrating to Russia and China. The expatriates from other EAEC countries were trying to get to Russia and to other countries: for example, Uzbeks – South Korea and Kazakhstan, Belarus – Poland and Czech Republic. The labor emigration to Russia is encouraged by the countries’ geographical proximity, visa-free relations, the common language and culture, recognition of the university diplomas, various agreements. Some of the CIS countries have accepted a lot of labor emigrants, every third worker in Kyrgyzstan and every fourth one in Tajikistan became involved in the process.

The EAEC countries are a very inhomogeneous space in terms of labor migration indicators (see Table 3). The states, which carried out drastic reforms, are heterogeneous in their labor migration indicators. Thus, Russia and Kazakhstan are the host countries of the labor migrants, while Kyrgyzstan is, on the contrary, sending its workforce abroad. As estimated, the legal labor immigration in Russia exceeds the legal emigration in 12 times and in Kazakhstan in 44 times. The countries with slow and step-by-step reforms, such as Uzbekistan and Belarus, have turned into countries of labor emigration. Judging by the character of reforms, Tajikistan occupies the midstream position, representing a labor emigration country, where emigration exceeds immigration by 600 times.

Table 3

CIS countries according to the major official labor migration parameters and system reforming methods [7]

Note: * - the ratio between the labor immigrants and emigrants is based on the legal migrant flow in 2005; ** - the assessments of the immigrant-emigrant ratio is not possible owing to the absence of the statistic data on Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

The labor migration for the EAEC countries has as well many positive aspects. By virtue of the migrants, the entire economic sectors are developing in the recipient countries – trade, construction and development, transportation systems, agriculture. The labor migrants are often filling the unpopular niches of the labor market with hard working conditions, which are not normally welcomed by local inhabitants. The labor migration may smooth out the rough work force deficit at the regional labor markets. Successfully integrated at the recipient country’s labor market, assimilated with its language and culture, the labor immigrants could effectively blend into the host society, thus adding to the country’s populace which fact becomes very acute in the condition of mass depopulation. Unfortunately, the authorities in many of the EAEC states have not yet fully realized the opportunities, which are promised to them by the labor migration from the countries with common culture, mentality, and language.

The major economic effect for the donor countries appears to be the cut-down on unemployment rate and elimination of the payment deficit due to the remittance payments. As the data from the Central Bank indicate, the volume of remittance payments of the natural persons through the money transfer systems and Russian post has amounted to 3.5 billion dollars for the year 2005, the CIS countries having received 3.2 billion dollars. The major remittance recipients are Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and others. Money is basically transferred for family support, children’s education, and medical care expenses.

Social studies held by the International Labor Organization identify that nearly half of all labor migrants in Russia send part of their salary home. It is approximately 100 dollars a month per person. An intensive money flow can be compared to a “money order tsunami”. From other countries’ experience one may infer, that this “tsunami” effect is a very short-term phenomenon, therefore it must be used wisely. The maximum effect from the money orders may be extracted by allowing this money to small businesses development and in other areas of the country’s economy. The data witness Russia’s prominent role in the sphere of employment for the residents of those EAEC countries possessing meeker economic potential and occupying a lower stage of development.

A great deal of the illegal money transfers are withdrawn from Russia in the form of cash by migrants themselves or by their agents. Inside a national community, it has become customary to transfer money through a network of relatives and acquaintances, train conductors, bus drivers, and delivery services. According to a rough estimation, the annual amount of the money transferred from Russia equals 15 billion dollars. If performed in compliance with the legal procedures, these transfers could have added 4.5 billion dollars of annual tax investments into the Russian economy. Today, the labor migration has not only become the only means of surviving for a large share of population, but a real mechanism for economic integration (“people’s integration”) in the EAEC.

At the same time it is necessary to understand all drawbacks of this practice, so as not to idealize the labor migration. These aspects may include the shadow economy thriving, the salary damping, formation of the ethnic enclaves, surge of the national intolerance. The tendency among the migrants to form separate zones of residence, based on the ethnic principle (ethnic enclaves), may also be regarded as a negative feature brought about by labor migration. It significantly impedes, or in some cases makes impossible, the process of the migrant’s effective integration to the recipient society. The communities’ secluded character may deepen the negative attitude and develop incredulity towards the migrants on part of the local residents, which in the end may be cause for aggravation of the international relationships.

In April 1998 the Interstate Counsel of the member states of the Customs Union, which actually established the EAEC, has adopted the Note “About ten ordinary steps towards ordinary people”. Among other points, aiming to ameliorate people’s living conditions, this document also envisaged “provision for the citizens of a free and equal right to cross the borders of the four states, including border, customs, and other types of control”.[8]

To bring this note to life, the Counsel of Prime Ministers at the Interstate Counsel, comprising Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia, have signed an Agreement on the provision of the free and equal crossing of the border for the citizens at the member states of the Customs Union, along with a free transportation of goods and currencies.

The Agreements provided that the parties will simplify and prioritize the relocation procedure for the natural persons and their goods at the points of customs control on the borders or in the international airports which provide air communication between the member states of the Custom Union, as well as create “corridors”, should there be such a necessity. The sole motive for allowing a natural person to cross the border having undergone a simplified procedure is the presence at the former of the valid documents proving the fact of them being permanent residents of one of the member states of the Customs Union.

In May 2000 in Minsk the Interstate Counsel consisting of the Prime Ministers of Republic of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan, Russian Federation, and Republic of Tajikistan outlined the major aspects of the humanitarian cooperation between these states. One of the major decisions made at the counsel session was preserving the visa-free travel inside the Customs Union with simultaneous pursuing the single visa policy in case of the third parties.

Further on, the integration process, concerning the visa regulations, has been intensified. In November 2000 the governments of Russia, Belarus, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan have signed an Agreement about visa-free travel for their citizens. The Agreement provided that the citizens of these five states, regardless of their permanent residence, may enter, leave, transit or reside on the territory of one of the five states, provided that they have valid documents cited in one of the agreement’s appendices. The citizens of the member states may enter and exit any of the five states through the checkpoints, open for international communication in the presence of valid documents granting the right to cross the border, formalized according to the effective laws of their country of residence.

Along with it, the Agreement did not limit the parties’ rights to resort, should they decide so, to a different set of traveling and migrating rules with their further imposition. Besides, the countries’ rights to establish security measures for their state borders and territory, at the emergency situation, especially the ones, threatening their security, were as well envisaged. With all that, such measures may only be of a temporary character and be manifested in the form of the entrance or exit, residence, transit, or relocation limitations.

In March 2005, the EAEC states have signed the Protocol to the agreement which has even more simplified the border crossing formalities for the members of the Eurasian Economic Union. After this document has come to effect, it became possible to cross the borders between these four countries without using foreign passports.

The migration regulations have also been simplified by bilateral agreements as well. In compliance with the Agreement of the Union State Establishment, the Russian citizens arriving to Belarus for work purposes, and vice versa, are granted equal rights in receiving education, employment, payments, and other social benefits. At present, an obligatory procedure of issuing work permits to Belarusians, coming to Russia and vice versa is no longer in use, while Belarusian and Russian workers are free from obtaining documents, approving of their work activity in another country. In fact, these agreements have laid basis for establishing the single labor market between Russia and Belarus.

Lately, some of the EAEC countries, sending their migrant workers abroad, have significantly reinforced their concern about protecting labor migrants. For example, in Kyrgyzstan there has been formed a Committee on migration and employment, enjoying now the status of a ministry, while its head has become a full member of the parliament. Thus, conditions were prepared for establishing an interstate dialogue with the countries, which accept labor migrants from Kyrgyzstan. The State Committee on migration and employment has opened its offices in a number of Russian cities, including Moscow; the structure was set to explore the situation on the Russian labor market. As a result, Kyrgyzstan started to settle its labor issues with Russian regions. Consequently, the Perm region is ready to acquire 2000 labor migrants from Kyrgyzstan, hoping thus to restore the cattle breeding and farming, along with eliminating workforce deficit in the area of the rural healthcare system.[9] Also, Kazakhstan offers its labor migrants to Moscow, Yaroslavl, Sverdlovsk, Orenburg, and Samara regions.

Under the condition of depopulation and growing deficit of the labor forces in the recipient countries, an idea of elaborating a single workforce market within the EAEC is beginning to gain weight. Now the economies of Russia and Kazakhstan are in great demand of work force, and as of 2007, the number of working population in Russia is going down.

In this respect, it is essential to create a single migration space and a single labor market within the EAEC (Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Belarus, and Uzbekistan), where any obstacles on the way of labor migration will be eliminated.[10]

To make this happen the following measures must to be undertaken:

• Preserving the visa-free travel regulations, providing the opportunity of trips with interior passports, abolishing the obligatory procedure of acquiring work permits for the employers of these countries, enlarging the registration-free stay in these countries up to 90 days with further simplification of the granting citizenship procedure;
• Creating decent conditions for extensive and effective integration of the partner countries’ united workforce by means of structured relocation of the latter to the countries’ regions, where the need for it appears to be essential, by signing the intergovernmental treaties, as well agreements, signed between the governments of the countries-recipients and countries-donors;
• Developing migration infrastructure, including elaborating and maintaining job banks, migration offices, recruitment agencies, etc;
• Undertaking the legalization procedure («migration amnesty») in the recipient countries (Russia and Kazakhstan being at the top of the list) of the labor migrants from the EAEC, on the condition of having a work contract;
• Providing equal conditions in terms of payment for the labor migrants, control the procedural justice of the employers and their complying with the rules of employing the workforce, fulfilling retirement and social programs for the foreign workers;
• Stimulating the transparency of money flow, earned by labor migrants by means of establishing a network of affordable system of money transfers;
• Working out programs of the interior employment, enhancement of general education, forming and effective usage of the professional potential of the working population within the member states.

August 31, 2007 

 [1] Содружество Независимых Государств в 2005 г.: Краткий справочник предварительных статистических итогов. – М.: Статкомитет СНГ, 2005. С. 143.

[2] Содружество Независимых Государств в 2002 г.: Краткий справочник предварительных статистических итогов. – М.: Статкомитет СНГ, 2005. С. 145.

[3] Рынок труда в странах Содружества Независимых государств: Статистический сборник. – М.: Статкомитет СНГ, 2004. С. 58; Статистика России: Статистический бюллетень. - № 15 (366). – М.: Статкомитет СНГ, 2005. С. 64.

[4] Рыбаковский Л.Л., Рязанцев С.В. Международная миграция в Российской Федерации, М., 2005 (www.un.org; www.ispr.ru).

[5] Нелегалов в России оказалось на 9 миллионов больше// Иностранец. - № 41, 6 ноября 2001. – С. 4.

[6] ФМС проведет акцию по легализации мигрантов в России// www.vz.ru

[7] Рязанцев С.В. Масштабы и социально-экономическое значение трудовой миграции для стран СНГ// Практика привлечения и использования иностранной рабочей силы в России: тенденции, механизмы, технологии/ Материалы научно-практической конференции (16-17 октября 2006 г.) – М., 2006, С. 85; Статистика СНГ: Статистический бюллетень, № 15 (366), август 2005, С. 55.

[8] Решение Межгосударственного Совета Республики Беларусь, Республики Казахстан, Кыргызской Республики и Российской Федерации от 28 апреля 1998 г. № 25 «О принятии Заявления «О десяти простых шагах навстречу простым людям»// Ведомственное приложение к Российской газете. – 12 мая 1998 г.

[9] 2 thousand of migrants from Kyrgyzstan will be legally hired in the Penza region // www.gazeta.kg

[10] Архангельский В.Н., Иванова А.Е., Кузнецов В.Н., Рыбаковский Л.Л., Рязанцев С.В. Стратегия демографического развития России. – М., 2005. Cc. 12-13.

Hot topics

• CENTRAL ASIA: GEOPOLITICS, SECURITY, INTEGRATION