change font size

print version

copyright

Other languages:

Comment: Sleeping Rough in the Queen's Gardens

09 05 2007  

A farcical furore over Romanians in London reminds us why restricting labour migration in a free Europe is wrongheaded

By Adina Postelnicu in London

When Romania and Bulgaria became member states of the European Union in January, one question loomed large in many minds: would the flood of "Polish plumbers" into the labour markets of western member states now be supplemented by a surge of Romanian repairmen and Bulgarian bricklayers?


The answer has not been clear, so far. Gradual news is hard to measure and awkward to report. With no obvious surge, the question seemed to fade from public consciousness.


Then one crisp April morning, Daniel, a 23-year-old Romanian, woke up outdoors in central London. He had spent the night in Hyde Park alongside fellow migrant labourers, in an encampment partly concealed by trees, he said. So went the story from BBC's Newsnight, whose report on Romanian migrants "sleeping rough" invited outrage from viewers.


From a British perspective, the image of migrants camping illegally in the park looked like evidence that especially desperate migrants had begun to arrive.


From a Romanian perspective, it looked worrying, like a gag to stoke anti-immigrant paranoia in another western EU country already taking steps to restrain labour migration from the new EU member states. Britain will allow no more than 20,000 unskilled Romanian workers to join its registered workforce this year.

Daniel, Newsnight's interviewee, told Romanian television journalists that he no longer slept in the park and that he had been paid by the BBC for his interview. The Romanian chargé d'affaires in London issued a complaint to the BBC, accusing Newsnight of "stage managing" its report and "stereotyping" its coverage of Romanians, The Times reported.


The BBC has held its ground, leaving the minor media furore in stalemate. But whatever the facts of the report, Newsnight did expose a broader truth. With no published statistics describing post-accession labour migration from Romania and Bulgaria, countries like Britain are unsure about the scale of the influx, and they do not like it.


Uncertainty fuels fears of immigration. Even before we can accurately measure the trend, it is subjected to economically illiterate analysis. A simplified, adversarial view of labour migration takes just two sides into account – wealthy hosts and poor beneficiaries.


Sadly, this is the prevailing view. Even with its restrictions, Britain is a model of economic liberalism compared with most other EU countries on the issue of labour migration. Europe's protectionists need to learn a few lessons.


Firstly, income gaps are not all bad. The average Briton earns ten times more money than the average Romanian. But income disparity does not in itself generate economic negatives. On the contrary, it can provide opportunities. Cynical as it may sound, there is always a market for poor people, and where there is demand for low-wage workers, there will be supply.


Secondly, material factors are not the only factors at work. An important one, almost entirely overlooked, is culture. For example, those who have warned that hundreds of thousands of Romanians will cross the English Channel overlook the fact that Britain is hardly a natural destination for Romanians. Romania is a Latin country like Italy and Spain, one big reason why more than 1.5 million Romanians work there – providing, incidentally, much-needed support for Spain's economic growth spurt.


Another overlooked factor is relative economic opportunity. On this count, western countries are no longer the dream destinations they once appeared to be. Romania's economy has grown rapidly in recent years, faster than 7 per cent in 2006, and it suffers from a worsening shortage of labour. Indeed, earlier waves of migration have already reversed course, with workers going back home to open businesses and cash in.


For many Romanians working abroad, like myself, this trend is seen among family and friends. For example, after working for a decade in Austria, my cousin and her family have returned home, building a nicer house than they could ever have afforded in Austria and opening a small business. Likewise, a friend who had a well-paid job in the City of London recently moved back to take a more challenging position, for much lower pay, in Bucharest. There are many more like these.


The evidence therefore suggests that many Romanians working in Britain will choose to do so only temporarily, until they put enough money aside to make a better life for themselves back home.


In addition to grasping factors such as culture, relative economic opportunity and future mobility, EU countries must come to terms with the practical economic realities that they will inevitably face, irregardless of politics and law.


Political rhetoric and market reality do not mix well. Now that Romania and Bulgaria have joined the EU, their citizens enjoy freedom of movement. By restricting their work eligibility, EU member states aim to dissuade them from coming for work. Instead, they keep them from working legally.


In London, where I live and work, a huge gap is seen between the rhetoric of immigration and the market reality. When we needed an electrician, we chose between a British contractor and a self-employed Polish one. The former would have charged us £65 per hour and up to £85 per hour in the evening. The latter offered to do the job for £50 in the first hour and £15 for every subsequent hour. The choice is obvious. The Polish guy fixed the lights.


It's capitalism at work, and it reveals questions that those who oppose the free movement of labour inside the EU should dare to ask. One question is why the Polish guy is cheaper than the British one, but another is what stops the British one from competing.


Protectionists can create “havens” for producers at consumers' expense, with consumers paying for producers' freedom from competition, but market pressures do not cease. To wish they might is a fool's errand.


And yet this is what some opponents of labour migration preach. Frequently they have used the argument that a surge in foreign workers will bring a surge in crime. Not necessarily, British officials acknowledge. But it certainly shall if work is criminalised, if only because Britons will want their children minded, gardens tended and plumbing fixed – and cheaply.


What the EU's labour migration debate really reveals is its own dysfunctional attitude regarding its stated goal and crowning achievement, the single market. So far only goods can travel freely in the EU. People can, too, with no questions asked, but not if they work on the way.


In the journal Economic Affairs, W. S. Siebert, professor of labour economics at the Birmingham University Business School pins the blame on the EU's "French-style civil code", which boosts working conditions, wages and collective bargaining power while cutting economic opportunity for outsider groups.


Indeed the labour migration debate is just one element in a much broader picture. The EU must face the inconvenient truth that its commitment to an outdated social model weakens its bid for economic power, globally. Globalisation is shaking its dear dreams about “social happiness” in a prosperous society.


In such charged atmosphere, we must hope that the relative poverty of new EU citizens will not be used to feed the fear of open borders. A genuine and open dialogue, beyond fear and beyond prejudices, would serve us better.


Adina Postelnicu is a Romanian freelance journalist based in London. Balkan Insight is BIRN's online publication.