Czech Republic

Research and data on brain drain and return migration in the Czech Republic are rather scarce. The few research studies that exist, suggest that, although emigration of highly-skilled nationals takes place today in Czech Republic, it is not yet causing a dramatic decline in the number of tertiary educated workers in the country (Vavrečková 2009). However, an exodus of highly-qualified Czechs may result in a short term destabilisation of certain economic sectors. ‘The most significant impacts can be expected among relatively small professional groups of highly skilled experts, who are hard to replace if they go abroad’ (Vavrečková 2009: 3).

The Czech Republic is experiencing a gradually growing immigration of foreigners along with a rather stable emigration of natives. Inflows of immigrants of Czech origin are also rather low (see Drbohlav et al. 2009). According to national statistics for the year 2009, about 39,000 immigrants entered the country. Due to the economic crisis, this was nearly half the number of entries registered in the previous year (78,000). Most of the foreign immigrants come from Ukraine, Slovak Republic and the Russian Federation. In 2009, outflows of Czech nationals almost doubled with respect to the year 2008, growing from about 6,000 to almost 12,000 persons. Most Czechs emigrate to Germany, the UK, the U.S., Canada or Switzerland.

In terms of return migration, inflows of German and Moldovan nationals more than halved. In contrast to the general trend, inflows from the United States continued to increase in 2009, albeit at modest level (about 2,500) (data, see SOPEMI 2010: 272).

Using qualitative face-to-face interviews, Vavrečková (2009) conducted a research study on tertiary-educated Czech specialists who had worked in qualified positions abroad and who have returned to the Czech Republic from a long-term stay abroad. ‘The aim of the survey was to ascertain the degree of integration (adaptation) by Czech specialists of various professions who had returned from more developed countries to the Czech Republic’ (Vavrečková 2009: 70). Main findings show, that ‘the considerably higher incomes on offer is not the only motive encouraging university educated Czechs to work abroad: other motivations include the experience it would afford, the generally better equipped workplaces, the opportunity to make personal contacts and to establish a basis for future career progress’ (Vavrečková 2009: 70).

All interviewed returnees rated their experience of working abroad very positively. Gained language skills (knowledge of four international languages, three of them to a very good standard, is no exception among the respondents), newly acquired expertise (finding out about work procedures, technologies, methods) as well as increased self-confidence and ability to cope with stress situations were seen as valuable souvenirs from the stay abroad. After returning home most of the respondents managed to make use of the experiences they gained abroad. They state that their time abroad positively affected their work career (Vavrečková 2009: 74).

Vavrečková (2009) also studied the migration attitudes of four groups of experts identified as being susceptible to migration, based on quantitative, standardized questionnaires. These chosen groups are doctors (N=462), IT/ICT specialists (N=276), technical engineers from corporate research and development (N=418) and doctorate students (N=523). The findings of the four questionnaires are analyzed and compared with the results of a survey of the migration attitudes of the Czech population as a whole.

Main findings include that ‘the readiness to migrate among the tertiary-educated is influenced by age, language skills, family circumstances and personal qualities. The majority of respondents were not motivated to leave the Czech Republic for good. The reason for this was strong family ties and concerns about the different socio-cultural environment and the status of being “foreign” in the receiving country’ (Vavrečková 2009: 58). Vavrečková (2009) found that there exist significant differences in the readiness to migrate between the different expert groups as well as the Czech population as a whole.

‘One significant finding is that, with the exception of technical engineers, the intensity of the inclination to migrate is markedly higher among the tertiary-educated than in the ordinary population. The declared foreign migration of specialists usually covers a longer period of time and comprises a higher proportion of potential permanent migrants compared to the population as a whole’ (Vavrečková 2009: 57).

Doctors, for example, show a high willingness to go abroad. The dissatisfaction with their income, especially among the young doctors entering the profession and ‘the moods and uncertainty surrounding the introduction of healthcare reforms’ (Vavrečková 2009: 57) increase the motivation to go abroad. Among IT specialists and technical engineers the willingness to go abroad is rather weak – their earnings level is close to that of foreign counterparts. In contrast, doctorate students show a high motivation to go abroad. ‘Scientists’ decisions to migrate are not determined primarily by income levels abroad but by academic and intellectual motivations (prestigious institutions, state-of-the-art facilities, interesting research projects), a broad base of international scientific contacts and their own social networks’ (Vavrečková 2009: 58).

Further, Vavrečková (2009) found, that scientific disciplines differ with respect to scientists’ willingness und preparedness to go abroad. ‘It was found that proclaimed potential mobility is higher among respondents from the medical sciences and natural sciences fields, who also display the lowest level of satisfaction at the prospects for future growth in their chosen field in the Czech Republic. Economists and representatives of technical sciences rate their prospects in the Czech Republic most highly and their motivation to work abroad is relatively low’ (Vavrečková 2009: 58).

Interestingly, up to the middle of the 1990s, the Czech Republic was experiencing internal migration – many scientists left the academic field and joined the private sector (finance, business,…) (see Vavrečková 2009: 58). But since the accession to the European Union, spending on research constantly increased and enabled Czech scientists to find work in the domestic intellectual and academic sphere (see Vavrečková 2009: 58). Therefore Vavrečková (2009) concludes: ‘If the existing conditions remain unchanged we do not (therefore) expect a large-scale exodus of scientists going abroad. (…) We believe that the risk of brain drain does not at present represent pronounced quantitative losses in the Czech Republic, but rather qualitative losses. Among doctors, for example, it is alarming that experienced middle-aged specialists (with two and more attestations) are planning to go abroad as well as young doctors. As the Czech Republic does not possess sufficient information about incoming experts from abroad or about their degree of integration into Czech society, we do not know to what extent the incoming foreign experts can replace the outgoing Czech experts’ (Vavrečková 2009: 58).

Literature:
Drbohlav, D.; Hárs, Á. and Grabowska-Lusińska (2009) : Experiencing immigration. Comparative analysis of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. IDEA Working Papers No. 14. online: http://www.idea6fp.uw.edu.pl/pliki/WP14_Experiencing_immigration.pdf, 27th of June 2012
SOPEMI (2010): International Migration Outlook. OECD.
Vavrečková, J. (2009): The Effect of Brain Drain in the Czech Republic and Earnings Motivation for Qualified Specialists to Work Abroad. Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs, Prague.

Situated in the North of the Czech Republic bordering Saxony (including the German case study region Görlitz, see below), Ústecký kraj has a population of 836 000 and a slightly positive net migration rate (0.97). GDP stands at around 275.000 CZK (€ 11.000,-) in 2010, a minus of 5% from 2009. Basic demographic trends show some negative indicators, especially with regard to the aging of the workforce and education levels. In the last 5 years (2006-2010) the share of 15-24 year old sank from 13.41 to 12.50, while at the same time the share of 65+ increased from 12.71 to 13.99. Median age thus increased from 39.2 to 40. In terms of education levels, there is a high share of people (54.40%) with less than upper secondary education; only 7.9% possess a tertiary educational degree.

Immigration is low, with people coming mainly from neighbouring Slovakia and Poland, from Ukraine and Russia, as well as from Vietnam (due to old historic ties).

Given that the share of employment in the secondary sector is 49%, the general picture of the region can be described as highly industrialised based on a trained but not well educated workforce; at least compared with European standards. This skill-oriented demand of companies implies fewer job opportunities for school leavers and graduates due to their lack of practical experience.

The geographical location of the region between Prague and Saxony as well as the long term industrial history and the availability of restored industrial complexes are advantages of the region. Availability of labour is another positive factor, though this has to be seen in a different light with respect to returning migrants.

For returning migrants, the regional indicators show less promising signals. Unemployment is high, demand for better educated people is low and wages are generally lower than in other regions. For self employment, the general low demand might be a hindering factor. Positive factors can be seen for employment of skilled people in those industries where the region has a historic position: coal mining, geodesy, chemistry, industrial engineering, and environmental restoration.

There is a new (2011) initiative by the Czech government to attract Czech scientists and researchers from abroad to return home. It is too early though to see any results. On regional level, there is a scholarship to support academic students financially to finish their studies.

Share of nationals and non-nationals among immigrants, 2009, data source: EUROSTAT, own calculations

Age structure of recent returnees (1 year upon their arrival) and stayers in LFS 2005-2008, weighted data

Recent returnees (1 year upon their arrival) according to gender, in %, LFS 2008-2008, weighted data

Educational attainment of recent returnees (1 year upon their arrival), aged 17-62, compared to that of stayers, LFS 2005-2008, weighted data

Labour market status of recent returnees (1 year upon arrival), aged 17-62, compared that of stayers, LFS 2005-2008, weighted data

Occupations of recent returnees (1 years upon arrival), aged 17-62, compared to those of stayers, LFS 2005-2008, weighted data

Recent returnees (1 year upon arrival), aged 17-62, and stayers according to sectors of employment, LFS 2005-2008, weighted data

Recent returnees (1 year upon arrival), aged 17-62, and stayers according to the area of residence, LFS 2005-2008, weighted data

IOM International Organization for Migration
Čechova 23, Prague 7, 17000

Jan Schrot
Phone: +420 731 657 401
E-mail: jschroth@iom.int