REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

always been achieved to the extent hoped for. 48 The OECD also points to various lacunae regarding
knowledge on the qualitative and quantitative outcomes of regularisation programmes, including the
employment situation of applicants, both at the time of regularisation and after , the impact of
regularisation on employment patterns ( i.e. whether regularised migrants moved up the job ladder
and whether jobs previously done by regularised migrants were taken by new, undocumented
migrants), and the possible and actual impact on family related migration, amongst others.
Cognisant of the fact that most large-scale regularisation programmes by OECD Member States have
been employment-based, the OECD points to several fundamental challenges of employment-based
regularisations. First, higher labour costs resulting from formalisation of work contracts may mean
that employers have difficulty in paying higher wages and will again resort to hiring illegally
employed workers, depending on the economic situation. This is something that the OECD sees as
being exacerbated by the inadequacy of quota programmes, for example in Spain and Italy, in
providing a flexible tool to respond to labour shortages. In situations of stagnation or recession,
regularised migrants – and also legal immigrants – may risk becoming unemployed and losing their
legal status if the situation does not improve. 49
In a more systematic OECD review of “lessons from recent regularisation programmes” published in
2000, 50 the OECD notes that employment-based regularisation programmes that target irregular
employment of immigrants are constrained by the overall size of the informal economy. Thus, for
regularisation policies to be successful, they need to be part of far broader policies tackling
undeclared work – and not just undeclared work done by immigrants. Reflecting on the 1998
regularisation programme in Greece, the review argues that “[t]o grant permanent status to amnesty
beneficiaries without at the same time radically overhauling labour relations would profoundly alter
labour market flexibility and would no doubt trigger an immediate increase in unemployment for
Greeks and [formally employed] foreigners alike.” 51
On the basis of post-regularisation studies conducted between the 1980s and mid-1990s, the review by
the OECD secretariat notes that regularised migrants are on the whole significantly younger than the
average working population and are located in sectors with a high concentration of foreign labour. In
an earlier review of profiles of migrants regularised in 1991 in Spain and 1986 in the US,
respectively, 52 the OECD found interesting differences between the profiles of regularised immigrants
in the two countries. Whereas irregular migrants benefiting from the 1991 Spanish regularisation were
mostly young, unmarried and male, had a good standard of education and spoke Spanish well, the
percentage of males was much smaller in the US (58%), about half were married and about 43% lived
with their wives. The average family size was 3.5 persons and usually included one person with legal
status. While educational levels were significantly below average for the US population, the labour
force participation rates were significantly higher. More recent data on Spain shows that the profile of
regularised immigrants has changed considerably since: in particular, the share of female immigrants
48 Ibid.
49 OECD (2003): op. cit. p.68
50 OECD Secretariat (2000): op. cit.
51 Ibid. p.57
52 OECD (1994): op. cit. p.47
14