Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Migration, Crisis and Adjustment in an Enlarged EU: The Spanish Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Labor Migration, EU Enlargement, and the Great Recession

Abstract

Since the turn of the century, Spain has received an impressive inflow of immigrants, at approximately an average annual flow of 500,000 between 2002 and 2007, who have been quick to find jobs in the booming economy and integrate within society. The enlargement of the European Union from 15 to 25 countries in 2004, and 27 in 2007, is partly responsible for this booming inflow of migrants. While immigrants from the new-EU12 countries accounted for only 2 % of the total immigration flow into Spain in 2000, they accounted for 9 % in 2004, with their share having remained constant since 2008 at around 16 % of the country’s total immigrant population. Romanians, followed by Bulgarians and Polish, represent the vast majority of enlarged-EU migrants in Spain.

This paper is a revised version of Rodríguez-Planas/Farré (2014), Migration, Crisis and Adjustment in an Enlarged E(M)U: The Spanish Perspective, IZA Discussion Paper No. 8091.

The authors thank the anonymous referee as well as the editors of this volume for providing a number of suggestions that helped to improve the chapter significantly. We remain responsible for any mistakes still present.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    To have the legal status, immigrants were required to acquire a work and residency permit that restricted them to a particular activity and geographic area only for a year. In addition, immigrants were not granted any social benefits, despite paying social security taxes when employed.

  2. 2.

    For instance, in the 2000 amnesty, immigrants had to provide proof of one of the following: (i) residence since 1 June 1999; (ii) having held a work permit any time during the 3-year period preceding February 1, 2000; (iii) being denied asylum before February 2000; (iv) having applied for any type of residence permit before March 30, 2000; or (v) family ties to legal residents or to individuals in any of the previous categories.

  3. 3.

    For overland borders and seaports; since March 30, 2008, also for airports.

  4. 4.

    The 10 states that had no restrictions to labor market access were the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden.

  5. 5.

    To analyze inflows and stocks of migrants in Spain we use the Spanish Local Population Registry, which has the advantage of including undocumented immigrants. As the Spanish welfare system offers free health care and education to all residents – including undocumented immigrants – it needs a population registry to keep a record of all individuals who can access this universal welfare. Consequently, it is in immigrants’ best interests to register in the Local Population Registry immediately after arriving in Spain. The registration process does not require proof of legal residence and guarantees full data confidentiality (i.e. the Spanish Government cannot use information in the Local Population Registry to deport undocumented immigrants). Moreover, in the case of an amnesty, the undocumented immigrants can show proof of residence and date of arrival in Spain – a necessary condition to be considered eligible for the amnesty – through their registration in the Local Population Registry. Finally, immigrants are required to update their status every 2 years, which guarantees the accuracy of the immigrant population in the Spanish Local Population Registry.

  6. 6.

    For further details about Romanian migration to Spain the reader is refereed to Chapter “Should I Stay or Should I Go? Romanian Migrants During Transition and Enlargements” on Romania in this volume.

  7. 7.

    Unfortunately, the Spanish Local Population Registry has limited information on immigrants’ socio-demographic characteristics and labor force status. To analyze migrants’ profile and evaluate their impact in Spain, we focus on data from second quarter of the Spanish Labour Force Survey (LFS) from the years 2000 to 2011. As is common practice in the research using this dataset, we only use the second quarter to avoid repeated observations. The LFS is carried out every quarter on a sample of around 60,000 households. Each quarter, one sixth of the sample is renewed. However, the dataset does not include a variable that allows identification of individuals along the six consecutive interviews.

  8. 8.

    Responding to the LFS cannot be used as proof of residence. Thus, it is likely that many illegal workers decline answering the LFS, which would show up as underreporting to migrants prior to the amnesty in relation to afterwards.

  9. 9.

    Education is self-reported by the migrant and it is mainly from the country of origin. Sanromá et al., 2009, estimate that immigrants in Spain acquire the bulk of their human capital in their home country (10.95 of their 11.1 years of education, on average, corresponds to their home country), and they find that only 5.5 % of immigrants get some schooling in Spain.

  10. 10.

    High-earning occupations are directors, managers, scientific technicians, professionals and academics. Middle-earning occupations include: technicians and support professions; accountancy, administrative and other office employees; and craftsperson and skilled workers in manufacturing and construction. Low-skilled occupations include workers in: catering, personal and protections services and sales; agriculture, livestock, forestry and fishing; installation and machinery operators and assemblers; and other elementary occupations.

  11. 11.

    To be able to receive UI benefits in Spain you have to be registered in the Social Security records, under 65 years old, unemployed and have contributed to social security for at least 12 months (not necessarily consecutive).

  12. 12.

    We cannot include housing, schooling or health-care benefits are these are not measured in the LFS.

  13. 13.

    We obtain the estimate of 2 percentage points by adding −0.066 and −0.083.

  14. 14.

    The variable “over-qualification” is constructed with value 1 if the individual works in a low-earning occupation, 2 if in a middle-earning occupation and 3 for a high-earning occupation. This last specification is estimated only for individuals working at the time of the survey.

  15. 15.

    However, we do find that enlarged-EU migrants improve their skill mismatch over time, in relation to other migrants.

  16. 16.

    Rodríguez-Planas (2013) includes the following benefits as cash-welfare: (i) unemployment benefits; (ii) disability pensions; (iii) survivor’s pension; (iv) family allowance; and (v) other social programs.

  17. 17.

    Note that this last restriction is not observed in our data that ends the second quarter of 2011.

  18. 18.

    According to the raw data, immigrants are more likely to visit the family doctor and go to the emergency room than natives. Similar results are found by Jiménez et al. (2009).

References

  • Amuedo-Dorantes, C., & De la Rica, S. (2007). Labor market assimilation in Spain. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 45(2), 257–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amuedo-Dorantes, C., & de la Rica, S. (2010). Immigrants’ responsiveness to labor market conditions and its implications on regional disparities: evidence from Spain. SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, 1(1), 387–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amuedo-Dorantes, C., & De la Rica, S. (2013). The immigration surplus and the substitutability of immigrant and native labor: Evidence from Spain. Empirical Economics, 44(2), 945–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrasco, R., Jimeno, J. F., & Ortega, A. C. (2008). The effect of immigration on the employment opportunities of native-born workers: Some evidence for Spain. Journal of Population Economics, 21, 627–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de la Rica, S. (2009). The experience of Spain with the inflows of new labor migration. In M. Kahanec & K. F. Zimmermann (Eds.), EU labor markets after post-enlargement migration (pp. 131–144). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dolado, J., & Vázquez, P. (2007). Los Efectos Económicos y las Políticas de la Inmigración: Panorámica y Reflexiones. FEDEA Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farré, L., González, L., & Ortega, F. (2011). Immigration, family responsibilities and the labor supply of skilled native women. B. E. J. Economic Analysis and Policy (Contributions), 11(1), 1–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández, C., & Ortega, C. (2008). Labor market assimilation of immigrants in Spain: Employment at the expense of bad job-matches? Spanish Economic Review, 10(2), 83–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González, L., & Ortega, F. (2012). How do very open economies adjust to large immigration flows? Evidence from Spanish regions. Labour Economics, 18(1), 57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izquierdo, M., Lacuesta, A., & Vegas, R. (2009). Assimilation of immigrants in Spain: A longitudinal analysis. Labour Economics, 45(3), 556–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez, S., Jorgensen, N., & Labeaga, J. M. (2009). Inmigración y Demanda de Servicios Sanitarios. Efectos Económicos de la Inmigración en España. Monografías, FEDEA, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz de Bustillo, R., & Antón, J. I. (2009). Immigration and social benefits in a Mediterranean welfare state: The case of Spain. MPRA Paper No. 13849.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Planas, N. (2012). Wage and occupational assimilation by skill level. Migration policy lessons from Spain. IZA Journal of European Labor Studies, 1(8), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Planas, N. (2013). Determinants of immigrant’s cash-welfare benefit intake in Spain. International Journal of Manpower, 34(1/2), 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez-Planas, N., Alcobendas, M-A., & Vegas, R. (2014). Wage and occupational assimilation by skill level. In: M-A. Alcobendas, R. Vegas (Eds) The socio-economic impact of migration flows: Measuring effects on trade, labour market, remittances and output. Springer Editorial (Series on “Population Economics”).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Planas, N., & Vegas, R. (2014). Moroccans’, Ecuadorians’, and Romanians’ assimilation in Spain. Middle East Development Journal, 3(2), 119–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salinas Jiménez, J., & Santín González, D. (2010). Los efectos presupuestarios de la inmigración en el sistema educativo español. Presupuesto y Gasto Público 61/2010: 133–157. Secretaría General de Presupuestos y Gastos 2010, Instituto de Estudios Fiscales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanromá, E., Ramos, R., & Simó, H. (2009). Immigrant wages in the Spanish labour market: Does the origin of human capital matter? IZA discussion paper no. 4157.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Queens College, CUNY, Flushing, NY, USA

    Núria Rodríguez-Planas

  2. Institute for Labor Studies (IZA), Bonn, Germany

    Núria Rodríguez-Planas

  3. Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Lídia Farré

  4. Institut d’Anàlisi Econòmica (IAE-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain

    Lídia Farré

Authors
  1. Núria Rodríguez-Planas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lídia Farré
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Núria Rodríguez-Planas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Policy, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary

    Martin Kahanec

  2. IZA - Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn, Germany

    Klaus F. Zimmermann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rodríguez-Planas, N., Farré, L. (2016). Migration, Crisis and Adjustment in an Enlarged EU: The Spanish Perspective. In: Kahanec, M., Zimmermann, K.F. (eds) Labor Migration, EU Enlargement, and the Great Recession. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45320-9_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45320-9_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-45319-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-45320-9

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation