Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe - Multiple Choices

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Construction of Borders and Practices of Labour Migration
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
18
different and lead to contrasting levels of embeddedness
in the local economy. To sum up, the Romanian – Serbian
border economy appears to be a “household economy”
based on the mingling of formal and informal types, linked
by social networks and households (Neef, 2002).
Another way to earn money and establish relationships
is cross-border small-scale trading. The impressive
quantities of rare goods carried through customs facilitated
the view that, before 1989, unlike other impoverished regions,
the Romanian-Serbian border was a good place to gain access
to Western goods, and a certain degree of welfare otherwise
impossible to attain. It was the traders using their special
border crossing permits who contributed to the formation
of subsequent flows of temporary labour migrants.
Furthermore, the border-trade gave an opportunity to purchase
rare goods and a way to cope with the socialist shortage.
Trader-tourism continued in the early 1990s as
a means of developing small enterprises at home, and as
an opportunity to rapidly advance in the local social hierarchy
(Konstantinov, Kressel, Thuen, 1998). The trader-tourists
became intermediaries, actively facilitating the initiation
of commodity chains between various regions in the two
countries. At present, the Romanian trader-tourists buy
cheap Chinese merchandise from Timis‚oara, Drobeta-Turnu
Severin or from more distant locations such as Suceava
(Northeastern Romania) and supply the small shops or
stalls in the open-air marketplaces in Serbia. These goods
are often taken far from the border appearing in the central
part of the country often as far a field as Belgrade. The
important border marketplaces such as Negotin, Kladovo,
Pancevo etc. are usually supplied with cheap merchandise
from Romanian traders carrying big luggage by train. The
continuity in this practice could be explained by the deficiencies
in the taxation system relating to the border enterprises,
and of “Eastern Europe” in general. Therefore, the
traders can easily guarantee their earnings and at the same
time secure low prices for their commodities. The only
“taxes” they pay are the daily rents for the stalls, or other
retailing spaces.
CHANGING THE RULES OF THE GAME
By the beginning of July 2004, the Romanian
Government made it compulsory for the citizens of Serbia
and Montenegro who entered Romania to apply for visas.
Given the reciprocal nature of the agreement, the same
conditions were imposed on Romanians who travel to
Serbia. People working regularly in Serbia for one or two
months were accustomed to arranging their trips without
any bureaucratic intervention. They now need a visa on
their passport that takes time to obtain. However, the flow
of visas was incredibly high. For example, the Embassy of
Serbia and Montenegro in Timis‚oara issued around 8,500
visas in the first four weeks.
The high number indicates the relative importance
Romanians attach to crossing the border and seeking
employment in Serbian villages. The extended networks
of employees and employers, as well as both supply and
demand for labour, increased the circulation of letters
for visas, which are needed in order to travel to Serbia.
For example, immediately after closing the border on 1 July
2004, the payment for day labour in agriculture and construction
rose from 10 up to 15, sometimes even to 20
Euros due to the sudden shortage of labour. The drivers,
who cross the border regularly in order to supply their
shops with goods, are the ones who usually apply for the
visas. Otherwise, the employer himself comes to hand
in the letter for his or her employee. A few days after the
reciprocal regime of visas had been introduced, the returning
workers themselves were carrying out this mailing service.
They were getting three or four letters for the visas from
the employer and distributing them to different recipients
in the village.
Important changes did occur in the available
means of transportation as well. After the introduction of
visas in July 2004, the business of tour operators suddenly
declined as the border became virtually closed. As most
of the former tour operators were lacking transportation
licenses, they were replaced by “taxi drivers”, who began
transporting small groups of up to four persons through
the customs area. The migrants, even coming from distant
places such as Eastern Oltenia or Moldova, realise all the
details of this new opportunity. The names and phone
numbers of the “taxi drivers” circulate widely around the
Embassies, in small communities and in border towns.
CONCLUSIONS
I tried to show how the socialist regime initiated
an active exchange of people disguised as tourists and how
it initiated the development of an informal system of practices
in the form of border crossing. Even in the conditions of
post-socialism, the border inhabitants continue to live on
the opportunities created under socialism. Moreover, the
informality of the practices have expanded and generated
a regional system of temporary migration at the margins
of the European Union.
The introduction of visas on 1st July 2004 transformed
the occupational patterns, the informal structures
that support commuting and even the economic relations
between the nation states involved. Above all, the most
dynamic and the most flexible change was regarding the
re-orientation of social networks. This can be seen in the
exemplar formation of the visa letter system, the new
transportation arrangements and the continuation of cross
border trading.
Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe: Unpacking the Diversity