Abstract
The Roma more than anyone else lost out in the transition to the market economy in the countries of Central and South Eastern Europe. Their unemployment rate is 100 per cent in some rural areas and the Roma's dependence on government benefits is widespread. This article takes a look at unemployment and employment among the Roma on the basis of two surveys completed in 2002 and 2004. It is shown that lack of formal education cannot provide a full explanation of the relatively high unemployment rates faced by Roma and that at least part of the problem arises from discrimination in employment. Roma are also disproportionately employed in low-quality jobs in the informal sector. The paper argues that programmes aimed at combatting labour market and income disadvantages of the Roma must be based on the development of opportunities for autonomous income generation rather than the public works temporary employment programmes currently prevalent.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The surveys covered Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia in 2002 and 2004 and Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo in 2004.
The survey had a separate sample for non-Roma majority populations living in close proximity to Roma. The purpose was to measure the difference in living standards that can be attributed to ethnic identity. In most cases these populations are representatives of majority populations for the country but in some cases they may be other minorities as well. In the text those populations are referred to as ‘non-Roma populations living in close proximity to Roma’.
This is based on those answering ‘Unemployed’ to the question, ‘What is your current status?’.
Essentially the difference between the two definitions lies in the fact that the former is based on self-assessment including what constitutes being ‘unemployed’, while the latter identifies the unemployed on the basis of their (reported) behaviour. For example, in Labour Force Surveys, it is not usual for a person to report themselves as unemployed when they receive unemployment benefits and/or they do not have stable or regular employment. In this case, if the person worked (at all) in the reference period, they are not unemployed according to the ILO definition. Similarly it is possible for a person who does not see himself or herself as unemployed, because they are not actually looking for work and/or are not registered as unemployed, to be included among the unemployed according to the ILO definition if they would work if work were available. In general, one would expect the subjective definition to produce higher estimates; however, this is not necessarily the case, as the figures in the text show.
For an analysis of various dimensions of youth unemployment, see O’Higgins (2001).
Also the more formal evaluation of labour market programmes for Roma undertaken by O’Higgins (2002) tends to support the notion of such programmes having little impact on the employment prospects of programme participants.
References
Kertesi, G . 1995: Cigány foglalkoztatás és munkanélküliség a rendszerváltás előtt és után. Tények és terápiák (Gypsy Employment and Unemployment Before and After the Change of the Regime. Facts and Therapies). Esély 4: 21–63.
O’Higgins, N . 2001: Youth unemployment and employment policy: A global perspective. ILO: Geneva.
O’Higgins, N . 2002: A wandering minstrel I? Roma and the labor market in Central and Eastern Europe. Paper presented at the XVIIth AIEL Conference, Salerno.
UNDP. 2002: The Roma in Central and Eastern Europe: Avoiding the dependency trap. Regional Human Development Report. UNDP: Bratislava.
UNDP. 2004: Survey on vulnerable groups in SEE, available in electronic format at http://vulnerability.undp.sk.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
O'Higgins, N., Ivanov, A. Education and Employment Opportunities for the Roma. Comp Econ Stud 48, 6–19 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ces.8100147
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ces.8100147