Leave or stay: Serbian and Bulgarian university students’ attitudes determining the decision

Full Text

The exceptionally dynamic spatial mobility in Southeast Europe and the Western Balkans is determined mainly by economic, political, and demographic reasons. In recent decades, this mobility has been further strengthened by informal migration networks and collaboration of migrant organizations with local population [17. P. 36]. Serbia follows this pattern as an emigration country with a long tradition of migrations [1. P. 8; 2], which has developed for more than a century, but we will focus on the waves of mass migration since the second half of the 20^th century, since they influence contemporary emigration and the diaspora size. It should be noted that Serbia, like Bulgaria and other ‘transition societies’, has the highest number of international migrants [11].

The first major wave of emigration from Serbia (then part of the SFRY) was determined by economic reforms in the mid-1970s. The transition to a liberal economic model and the opening of the Yugoslav economy to broader markets resulted in decreased profitability, international indebtedness, workforce rationalization, etc. Consequently, industrial production, once the main economic driver, the largest employer and the reason for migration from rural areas to larger industrial centers, became economically unsustainable and was characterized by uncertain employment. The arrival of new generations of educated workers added pressure on the reduced employment capacity in the industry, increasing the national unemployment rate. This economic crisis led to political democratization and economic liberalization, making people leave the country for ‘temporary’ employment abroad. In the 1970s, all these factors contributed to massive economic migrations to Western countries (Germany, Austria, Italy, France, etc.) of mainly people with lower educational levels and socially disadvantaged groups (two-thirds of Yugoslav and Serbian emigrants were manual workers: skilled, highly skilled workers and farmers [22. P. 8]), but gradually the emigration wave absorbed people with better social-economic status, seeking a higher standard of living.

The second major wave of migrations occurred in the 1990s due to political upheavals and instability after the dissolution of Yugoslavia (SFRY), armed conflicts (1991–1995), UN Security Council sanctions imposed on Serbia (1992–1996), which resulted in mass influx of ethnic Serbians from Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and later Kosovo and Metohija. These factors together with the drastically worsening economic situation and hyperinflation (1993) and the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 led to a significant outflow from Serbia, and many emigrants had university degrees, which is why some authors refer to this period as the beginning of the brain drain from Serbia.

The trend of the qualified labor emigration continued after 2000. The beginning of the third wave of contemporary migrations from Serbia is usually associated with the October 5 changes in 2000 and the start of economic transition, affecting not only industrial workers but also other social strata, including the middle class. Although the intensity of migration has somewhat decreased since then [8], it continues, changing the professional and educational structure of migrants according to the labor market needs in different EU countries. In this period, the labor market demand for specific professions (medical staff, IT professionals, engineers, etc.) favored the departure of such professionals from Serbia together with students. Moreover, the introduction of visa-free travel to Europe for Serbian citizens in 2009, accompanied by the establishment of migration centers within the National Employment Service and, more recently, private employment agencies, somewhat facilitated the migration flows.

There are similar trends in the mass migrations in Bulgaria in the second half of the 20^th century. After the changes which started in 1989 and the opening of the country’s borders, a steady massive emigration flow occurred, mainly to Western Europe and the USA. Researchers identify four periods in this mass emigration [19. P. 87]: the first period (1989–1990) began with the mass departure of 300,000 ethnic Turks from Bulgaria to Turkey due to the ethnic tensions. Immediately after, due to the economic crisis and political instability under the transition to a democratic political system and a market economy, the mass emigration from Bulgaria started, involving in the winter of 1996–1997 exclusively labor migrants, which was a result of the country’s economic collapse. The third period began in 2001, when the visa rules for Bulgarian citizens were changed, and the country entered the so-called Schengen ‘white list’, which led to the emigration of highly qualified people from Bulgaria to Western Europe. The fourth period is associated with the country’s EU accession in 2007 and with the opening of the labor market for Bulgarians in most member states. Since then, the emigration of highly qualified personnel has taken place (especially medical specialists and skilled workers) together with the mass low-skilled outflow and a significant number of Bulgarian students leaving to study in the EU countries. According to the estimates of intermediary companies that arrange admissions to higher education institutions abroad, about 10,000 young people go to study abroad every year [9. P. 11], and many of them never return.

The quantitative assessment of emigration flows is difficult, even impossible. The information provided by the National Statistical Institute provides the data on the number of people who deregister at their permanent address in Bulgaria, but this administrative act cannot be considered a reliable indicator [10; 25]. However, statistical data shows that annually from 26,000 to 39,000 people change their permanent address to another country. The exception was 2020, the year of the covid-19 crisis, when mobility opportunities were minimal. The fact that among emigrants 10 to 16 thousand are 20-34-year-olds is also significant, i.e., “emigration from Bulgaria to the EU… has a pronouncedly young face” [14] (Fig. 1). Expert estimates of the number of emigrants vary, but all experts name large numbers. According to the National Strategy on Migration and Integration (2008–2015), about one million Bulgarians live abroad, including the older diaspora [3]. Another expert estimate is that since 2020 1.5 million emigrated after 1990 [20. P. 21], and in the last decade, the emigration wave was not as intensive as before, but the emigration flow remains high.

Figure 1. Number of emigrants from Bulgaria (2014–2022) [15; 16]

For Serbia, it is also difficult to name the precise number of emigrants for the observed period, and their age, education, and other relevant social-demographic characteristics. This is not only statistical problem as it concerns relevant social actors responsible for managing migrations and introducing strategic measures, such as the Strategy on Economic Migrations in the Republic of Serbia for 2021–2027 [7; 18. P. 71]. The data we have and present only partially shows the intensity of migrations from Serbia and only to European countries “that provide Eurostat with data”. According to the official data published in the ‘Migration Profile’ of the Republic of Serbia, which often excludes countries with many Serbian emigrants (data for Germany, Switzerland, France, Cyprus, etc., are usually not published), there has been an increasing trend of migration from Serbia since 2014, with a decline in 2020, presumably due to the covid-19 pandemic. The available data shows that the number of emigrants from Serbia to European countries doubled annually from 2014 to 2019 (from 13,250 to 26,858) and returned to the 2014 level in 2021 (Fig. 2). However, these numbers are far from true migratory trends due to not covering either all European countries, the traditionally desirable destinations for Serbs, or non-European regions, including overseas countries. Moreover, even the incomplete UN data for 2019 indicate that 14 % of people born in Serbia live abroad, which is four times higher than the global average of 3.5 %. Therefore, Serbia ranks high on the list of countries exporting labor, although labor migrants are a small share of emigration compared to other Western Balkan countries [1. P. 7].

The analysis of cohorts of Serbian emigrants (EU + Switzerland) for a five-year period (2015–2019) showed that the youngest groups experience high net migration: “The cumulative net emigration for all age groups (15–39) is estimated at -37,400 people” [1. P. 10]. However, during this period, there was a trend of increasing circular migration among the youngest cohorts with secondary education: the analysis of the qualification structure of immigrants shows a decades-long pattern in the form of letter V, where the left and right parts are equal (migrants with lower education and those with the highest qualifications). Thus, it is unjustified to speak of a brain drain which implies an excess of highly educated and competent professionals among emigrants compared to those who remain in Serbia, which is not the case.

Figure 2. Number of emigrants from the Republic of Serbia to European countries according to the Eurostat [4; 5]

This paper aims at identifying the students’ perception of social and personal problems, their differences in Serbia and Bulgaria, and whether this perception is related to students’ intention to leave the country in search of better life opportunities. With the accompanying null hypotheses, we argue that: (1) there are no significant differences in the students’ perception of social and personal problems in Serbia and Bulgaria, and (2) there are no significant differences in the migration intentions of students emphasizing different social and personal problems for Serbia, Bulgaria and the survey sample.

The data presented were obtained in the broader study of social attitudes of students in Bulgaria and Serbia, based on the questionnaires designed by the members of the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. The data was collected from October to December 2022 on the sample of 587 respondents (307 from Serbia and 280 from Bulgaria). The Serbian sample consisted of students of social sciences and humanities in three largest university centers — Belgrade, Niš, and Kosovska Mitrovica. In Bulgaria, the survey was conducted among students of social sciences in four cities: Sofia, Plovdiv, Ruse, and Haskovo. The sample included 25% males, 73% females. Although the data from the sample designed in such a way (random selection of professional profiles and available observation units) cannot be generalized to the entire student population, they are useful in terms of preliminary insights into migration intentions of less employable professional categories, particularly in countries with different migration traditions and different situations on the labor market — Bulgaria as a EU member and Serbia as still far from such a status.

Given the negative economic, social-cultural and demographic trends in Serbia and Bulgaria, it was necessary to limit the ‘push’ factors, focusing on the perception of social and personal issues. Of the total sample, 68 % consider corruption as the most significant social issue in their place of residence; over 50 % name hate speech (54 %), environmental conditions (54 %), crime (51 %) and unemployment (51.2 %); then come healthcare conditions (47 %), social stratification (45 %), and poverty (43 %). For both Serbian and the Bulgarian students, the biggest issue is corruption, but Bulgarian students seem to be more concerned (Fig. 3–4), which is not surprising, considering the Transparency International 2022 report that ranks Serbia only 101^st in the Corruption Perceptions Index among 180 countries. However, the attitude of Bulgarian students is somewhat surprising since Bulgaria ranks 43^rd and has significantly improved its position (75^th in 2012), unlike Serbia’s notable decline (80^th in 2012) [6].

Figure 3. The biggest issues in their city of residence for Serbian students

Figure 4. The biggest issues in their city of residence for Bulgarian students

The second biggest issue for Serbian students is the state of nature, which is expected according to the Report on the State of Environment in the Republic of Serbia (2021) [13] (official data on air pollution, construction of mini hydropower plants in protected natural areas, state’s intentions regarding lithium extraction, etc.). Environmental issues are less important for Bulgarian students, which can be explained by the EU membership and the demands for compliance with the EU environmental regulations. Surprisingly, given the age of Bulgarian respondents, the state of healthcare is the second biggest issue, albeit with a much lower share. Apparently, despite sporadic personal contacts with the healthcare system, students assess the experiences of their relatives to provide negative opinions. The state of healthcare is not the biggest problem for Serbian students. Such attitudes towards the state of healthcare can be explained by the young age, especially since healthcare in Serbia is characterized by long waiting lists for complex diagnostics and major medical interventions.

Despite the relatively low official unemployment rate of 9.2 % in the fourth quarter of 2022 [23], unemployment is a very serious issue for 26 %, which seems due to the low-quality job offers, especially outside the public sector. However, it is surprising that social stratification and poverty are at the bottom of the list. Perhaps, students cannot see the connection between employment, poverty and social stratification, which is an unexpected finding, given their field of study. This is particularly noteworthy since the data for 2022 shows that 49 % of unemployed were at risk of poverty [24]. Some explanation may be attributed to the classstratified composition of the student population in Serbia — with a disproportionate share of students from better-off families unaffected by unemployment. In Bulgaria, both objectively and according to subjective assessments, poverty is a particularly serious problem: according to the Eurostat data, in addition to the lowest GDP and GDP per capita in the EU, Bulgaria has the lowest incomes in the EU in terms of average monthly and minimum wages. Self-assessments of one’s material situation follow objective indicators: only 1 in 14 people defines it as very good, while a third of respondents consider is poor, and 36 % as satisfactory. Thus, for more than a quarter (27 %), low income is the biggest personal issue. Moreover, Bulgaria shows the greatest income inequality, as evidenced by the Gini coefficient and quintile distribution — they exceed the EU average and show an upward trend. While in 1989 (the beginning of the transition to a market economy) the Gini coefficient for Bulgaria was 23.43, in 2010 it was already 33.2, in 2015–37, in 2020–40.5, and in 2022–38.4 (with the EU average of 29.6).

Considering unemployment, in 2022, it was 4.1 %, and only 29 % of Bulgarian citizens over 18 defined it as a very serious problem. However, there are clear imbalances between the needs of the labor market and the educationalqualification characteristics of the workforce, since many people cannot find a job that corresponds to their qualifications and education and meets their interests, requirements, and desires.

Bulgarian students rank crime third and hate speech fourth, which can be explained by the several-year pre-election situation in the country — fierce debates of political forces obviously contributed to the problematization of hate speech. Serbian students rank these issues fourth and fifth, and, as was the case with corruption, the data on crime is somewhat surprising, at least considering the transnational organized crime (Serbia is 33^rd among 193 countries, Bulgaria — 70^th).

The most pronounced differences between Serbian and Bulgarian students (Fig. 5) are observed in estimates of the state of healthcare (V = 0.19, p = 0); the use of hate speech (V = 0.175, p = 0.001,); unemployment (V = 0.171, p = 0.002); poverty (V = 0.159, p = 0.005); corruption (V = 0.156, p = 0.007); and the state of environment (V = 0.11, p = 0.131), while the students assess quite similarly social stratification (V = 0.096, p = 0.249) and crime (V = 0.041, p = 0.91). It should be noted that the answers cannot be generalized for the country as students were asked about the situation in their city of residence, which implies judgments based on personal knowledge rather than general assumptions.

Figure 5. Serious and very serious issues for Bulgarian and Serbian students

Social issues inevitably have their personal projections: most students in the sample consider difficulties with finding a job as their biggest personal problem (21 %), which is followed by the lack of perspective (20 %), corruption (16 %), poor financial status (14 %), and the lack of general life security of life (14 %); less than 10 % express concerns about the poor state of environment, personal problems or something else (Fig. 6). For Serbian students, the biggest personal issue is finding a job (27 %), in which they differ the most from their Bulgarian peers (V = 0.232, p = 0). Serbian students also consider the lack of perspective as their major personal problem (20 %), then comes poor financial status (14 %), the lack of general life security (14 %), and corruption (11 %); less than 10 % express concerns about the poor state of environment and personal issues. When asking Bulgarian students about their biggest personal problems, the lack of major answers was striking — only five answers scored 15 %–20 %. The highest ranked problem is again corruption (22 %) but on par with the lack of perspective (20 %), then comes poor financial status (16 %), the lack of general life security and difficulties in finding a job (15 %).

Every third students (32 %) responded negatively to the question “Do you think of leaving the country to find a job?”. 29 % would leave the country temporarily or have no intention of doing so (28 %); every tenth student (11 %) considers leaving the native country permanently. The country of origin has a weak influence on migration plans, but the most significant differences are in shares of students who think of leaving their country of origin permanently (V = 0.201, p = 0), and the share of such Serbian students is three times larger than that of Bulgarian students (17 % vs 5 %). A third of Serbian students plan to migrate temporarily to find a job (30 %), 27 % have no such intention or have not yet considered such a possibility (26 %) (Fig. 7). Perhaps, the share of nearly 50 % of students thinking of a permanent or temporary departure from the country can be explained by the marginalization of social sciences in Serbia and the very limited job offers in these fields, especially in the public sector that traditionally absorbs a significant share of such graduates.

Figure 6. The biggest personal problems for students

Figure 7. Students’ attitudes towards external migration

39 % of Bulgarian students do not have intentions to emigrate, a third would leave the country for work, either temporarily (27 %) or permanently (5 %), 29 % have not yet considered such an opportunity. Yet, there are several things to consider when interpreting these numbers: young people with formed emigration attitudes have most likely already gone to study abroad after completing their secondary education to ensure a better starting position on the foreign labor market; students of social sciences express stronger emigration attitudes due to the better expected opportunities on the labor market in Western Europe; those who have not thought about emigration can be influenced by the widespread idea in Bulgaria that emigration is an alternative to the low standard of living and an underachievement.

Concerning internal migrations, 60 % of students want to change their city of residence for employment. However, there are certain differences at the subsample level, despite a weak influence of the country of residence on attitudes towards internal migrations (V=0.214, p=0). Students from Serbia are significantly more mobile — 70 % would like to change their city of residence for employment (Table 1). Students who live and study in Belgrade, which is the destination for most internal migrations, would like to change their city of residence for employment, while students from Kosovska Mitrovica with high unemployment are the least ready for this step [12. P. 192]. In the Bulgarian subsample, 49 % of respondents declared such a wish, which should be interpreted taking into account that almost two-thirds of respondents are from Sofia and Plovdiv, i.e., their place of residence is the city — a destination for migration inflows of job seekers.

Table 1 Students’ attitudes towards internal migration

Samples	Yes	No	Can’t say
Serbia	70.2 %	10.8 %	19 %
Bulgaria	49.3 %	19.9 %	30.8 %
Total	60.2 %	15.1 %	24.6 %

At the sample level, there is a weak correlation between both the perception of general social problems and the students’ migration intentions (V ranges from 0.065 to 0.102) and the biggest personal issues and migration intentions (V ranges from 0.019 to 0.232). In the Serbian subsample, V does not show significant variability when testing the strength of the correlation between attitudes towards migration and the perception of the most significant social problems (from 0.117 and 0.145). The highest value of Cramer’s V was recorded for the connection between the intention to leave the country and the assessment of corruption and social stratification as the key social problems, which indicates economic reasons for migration. The lowest value of Cramer’s V was recorded for the connection between migratory propensity and the state of environment. The Bulgarian data shows a connection between attitudes toward migrations and the assessment of the severity of specific social problems (V ranges from 0.085 to 0.137).

There is a relatively weak correlation between the perception of problems and internal migration intentions among Serbian students (V varies from 0.082 to 0.135). Cramer’s V reaches the highest value for the connection between readiness for internal migration and perception of hate speech and unemployment, and the lowest value — for the connection between such intentions and the perception of corruption as a pronounced social problem, while a relatively weak connection — for the readiness for internal migration of Bulgarian students (from 0.102 to 0.143).

The biggest personal issues of Serbian students have a weak influence on the idea of permanent departure from the country (V ranges from 0.026 to 0.153). Most students mention difficulties in finding a job as a personal concern, but 34 % of them do not consider the possibility of leaving their country. Nearly a quarter of respondents who named corruption, the lack of general life security or of perspective as personal concerns have such plans (24 %, 22 % and 21 % respectively). The situation is similar for Bulgarian students (V ranges from 0.011 to 0.125): although the highest share of Bulgarian students consider corruption as their personal concern, for 95 % of them, this is not a reason for permanent departure from the country. The most common reasons for the permanent migration are difficulties in finding a job and the lack of perspective (27 % and 20 % respectively).

Serbian students’ intentions for temporary emigration from Serbia are determined mainly by poor financial status (33 %) and the lack of perspective (33 %). The situation is similar for the Bulgarian subsample: of those who mentioned the lack of perspective, 36 % intend to temporarily go to work abroad (20 % is the average for the student sample), just as those concerned about the state of environment and corruption (33 %).

There is a weak correlation between ideas of external migration and attitudes towards work outside one’s field (V = 0.143, p = 0): of those students who would migrate permanently or temporarily to another country, 47 % would do so if the salary or conditions are better, 27 % in case they cannot find a job in their field for a long time, 18 % — to work outside their field, and only 7 % would not work outside their field. In the Serbian subsample, there is a weak correlation between emigration attitudes and the willingness to work outside one’s field (V = 0.178, p = 0.001), and mainly salary and/or better working conditions would make students (46 %) accept a job outside their field, regardless of whether they plan to leave the country temporarily or permanently. 29 % would only accept a job outside their field if they cannot find a job in their field for a long time, 20 % would definitely accept a job outside their field, and 6 % would not.

The greatest differences were identified among those who plan temporary and permanent departure from the country: almost twice as many students say that they would work outside their field and permanently leave Serbia (29 %) compared to those who would do it temporarily (15 %), which indicates a realistic assessment of students’ chances to succeed in their profession. In fact, it is known that the labor market in most Western European countries does not need professionals of the students’ profiles. Therefore, the findings may be somewhat different if the sample included students of in-demand professions. In the Bulgarian subsample, there is a relationship between emigration attitudes and willingness to work outside one’s field of study (V = 0.145, p = 0.04). Bulgarian students willing to work in another country are more ready to change their field. The biggest differences were identified among those willing to work abroad temporarily: a little less than 50 % of respondents would work outside their field for a higher salary and better conditions. The share of those willing to emigrate temporarily is 49 % and of those thinking of emigrating permanently 47 %. These results are rather doubtful, at least for students of social sciences, since the main reason for emigration is greater opportunities abroad for professional development. At the same time, we may question professional awareness of young people when choosing a field of study (future profession).

***

There are two main reasons preventing the generalization of the obtained results. First, the data on the perception of the biggest problems relates to the city of residence, although it is largely similar to the official data, especially on corruption. Second, only students of social sciences were questioned, and migratory intentions were examined only through statements about potential intentions, disregarding any specific steps to carry out such plans, which limits the generalization of the research findings. Nevertheless, it is clear that the student population in the field of social sciences and humanities in two neighboring countries in the Western Balkans (one is a EU member, the other is in the process of accession) have only slight similarities in the perception of social problems that can defined as potential push factors for leaving the country. Students in both countries identify corruption as the biggest problem; however, a significantly larger share of Bulgarian students perceive it as such compared to Serbian students more dissatisfied with the state of environment and unemployment, while their Bulgarian peers are more concerned about healthcare and the use of hate speech. Students’ attitudes towards problems marked as personal were somewhat different; however, regardless of the country, the lack of perspective is one of the strongest concerns together with poor financial status and the lack of general life security; while the biggest difference is that unemployment is the most significant personal problem for Serbian students, and for Bulgarian students it is again corruption.

Thereby, one in six students of social sciences and humanities in Serbia thinks of permanent emigration, as one in 18 students in Bulgaria. Certainly, such differences do not only stem from the students’ recognition of the biggest social and personal problems in both countries — they are partly determined by the traditionally restrictive migration policies in Bulgaria and by the fact that Bulgaria joined the EU, which makes leaving for another European destination less desirable (attractive) for Bulgarian students. Of all students who would migrate to another country permanently or temporarily, almost a half would do so for higher income and better working conditions, while more than a quarter would leave only after being unemployed for a long time, and one in six potential migrants would agree to work outside their field. These data show that Serbia and Bulgaria are still potentially significant exporters of workforce due to the significant differences in the quality of offered jobs, low wages and lower standard for employees in Southeast Europe compared to the surrounding countries.

About the authors

V. D. Miltojević

University of Niš

Email: vesna.miltojevic@znrfak.ni.ac.rs

доктор социологических наук, профессор факультета охраны труда

Čarnojevića 10a, Niš, 18106; Ćirila i Metodija 2, Niš, 18101, Serbia

A. Mantarova

Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of BAS

Email: anna.mantarova@abv.bg
Moskovska St.,13A,1000 Sofia, Bulgaria

J. S. Petrović

University of Niš

Author for correspondence.
Email: jasmina.petrovic@filfak.ni.ac.rs

доктор социологических наук, профессор кафедры социологии факультета философии

Čarnojevića 10a, Niš, 18106; Ćirila i Metodija 2, Niš, 18101, Serbia

References

Supplementary files