Costs and Benefits of Labour Mobility between the EU and the Eastern Partnership Partner Countries - Country Report: Moldova

This Report is one of six studies in the first phase of the EU project on "Costs and Benefits of Labour Mobility between the EU and the Eastern Partnership Partner Countries". It aims to provide an informed view on the potential for increased migration flows and their consequences as a result of possible changes in the migration policies of the European Union with regard to Moldova. Since Moldova's Declaration of Independence in 1990, migration has transformed the country in ways that were impossible to predict. With over a quarter of its labour force now working abroad (a full ten percent of its population), Moldova has become the epitome of a migration-dependent country, with all the costs and benefits associated with this definition. Remittances are as high as one-third of national income, and have helped the country raise its living standards and fuel investment in housing and small businesses. Yet there have also been costs to the large migratory flows, ranging from effects on the macroeconomy to the disruption of social life. All in all, migration has been good for Moldova. This complex socio-economic phenomenon now appears to have stabilized. Further gains for Moldova and its partner countries could be achieved when new agreements are implemented and the institutions dealing with the planning of migration and protection of migrants are strengthened

Labour Migration from the Eastern Partnership Countries: Evolution and Policy Options for Better Outcomes

This study is part of the project entitled Costs and Benefits of Labour Mobility between the EU and the Eastern Partnership Countries for the European Commission1. The study was written by Luca Barbone (CASE) Mikhail Bonch- Osmolovskiy (CASE) and Matthias Luecke (Kiel). It is based on the six country studies for the Eastern Partnership countries commissioned under this project and prepared by Mihran Galstyan and Gagik Makaryan (Armenia), Azer Allahveranov and Emin Huseynov (Azerbaijan), Aleksander Chubrik and Aliaksei Kazlou (Belarus), Lasha Labadze and Mirjan Tukhashvili (Georgia), Vasile Cantarji and Georgeta Mincu (Moldova), Tom Coupé and Hanna Vakhitova (Ukraine). The authors would like to thank for their comments and suggestions Kathryn Anderson, Martin Kahanec, Costanza Biavaschi, Lucia Kurekova, Monica Bucurenciu, Borbala Szegeli, Giovanni Cremonini and Ummuhan Bardak, as well as the dbaretailed review provided by IOM. The views in this study are those of the authors' only, and should not be interpreted as representing the official position of the European Commission and its institutions