negyzet_small (1K) Value-oriented Professionalism symbol Careful Analyses symbol Reliable Data symbol
17 December 2015

Migration potential in Hungary (2015)

Compared to the 1990s the Hungarian migration potential increased in the beginning of the 2000s. In 2010 the intent of short and long term labor migration was lower, but then it first grew rapidly until 2012, and then declined and remained low, around 10-14%, by 2014.

The rate of emigration potential did not change between 2008 and 2014: it has fluctuated between 5-6%. In April 2015 the rate of emigration potential, however, was twice as high as earlier, then fell slightly in July, and remained unchanged in October. The level of cumulative migration potential did not change in 2015 (Figure 1).

Figure I. Migration potential between 1993 and 2015 (%)
chart
Source: TÁRKI "Monitor" and "Omnibus" datacollections 1993 - 2015

The complex characteristic of migration is reflected by the fact that the level of cumulative migration potential is significantly higher in certain social groups, such as:
Figure 2. Migration potential based by party preferences (%)
chart
Source: TÁRKI "Omnibus" 2015 October

From the political perspective, there is no correlation between voting propensity and a willingness to migrate, except that those with an uncertain voting propensity have a high migration potential (29%). As to party preferences (Figure 2), among Fidesz and MSZP voters the proportion of migration potential is low; however, among Jobbik sympathizers - who are significantly younger - the migration potential is very high (Figure 2).

Figure 3. To avoid unemployment would you be willing to... (among migration planners and working population, %)
chart
Source: TÁRKI "Omnibus" 2015 October

Compared to the working population, among those planning to migrate the proportion of those who would be willing to commute greater distances (within the country) to avoid unemployment is higher (75% and 54%, respectively). The difference is the same in terms of moving to another settlement (56% and 30%, respectively) (Figure 3).