Immigrants in the Czech Republic (With Special Reference to Ukrainian Workers and "Western" Firms Operating in Prague)

International migration has increased rapidly in the Czech Republic, with more than 150,000 legally registered foreign residents at the end of 1996. A large proportion of these are in Prague - 35% of the total in December 1996. The aim of this project was to enrich the fund of information concerning the "environment", reasons and "mechanisms" behind immigration to the Czech Republic. Mr. Drbohlav looked first at the empirical situation and on this basis set out to test certain well-known migration theories. He focused on four main areas: 1) a detailed description and explanation of the stock of foreign citizens legally settled in Czech territory, concentrating particularly on "economic" migrants; 2) a questionnaire survey targeting a total of 192 Ukrainian workers (98 in the fall 1995 and 94 in the fall 1996) working in Prague or its vicinity; 3) a second questionnaire survey of 40 "western" firms (20 in 1996 and 20 in 1997) operating out of Prague; 4) an opinion poll on how the Czech population reacts to foreign workers in the CR. Over 80% of economic immigrants at the end of 1996 were from European countries, 16% from Asia and under 2% from North America. The largest single nationalities were Ukrainians, Slovaks, Vietnamese and Poles. There has been a huge increase in the Ukrainian immigrant community over both space (by region) and time (a ten-fold increase since 1993), and at 40,000 persons this represents one third of all legal immigrants. Indications are that many more live and work there illegally. Young males with low educational/skills levels predominate, in contrast with the more heterogeneous immigration from the "West". The primary reason for this migration is the higher wages in the Czech Republic. In 1994 the relative figures of GDP adjusted for parity of purchasing power were US$ 8,095 for the Czech Republic versus US$ 3,330 for the Ukraine as a whole and US$ 1,600 for the Zakarpatye region from which 49% of the respondents in the survey came. On an individual level, the average Czech wage is about US$ 330 per month, while 50% of the Ukrainian respondents put their last monthly wage before leaving for the Czech Republic at under US$ 27. The very low level of unemployment in the latter country (fluctuating around 4%) was also mentioned as an important factor. Migration was seen as a way of diversifying the family's source of income and 49% of the respondents had made their plans together with partners or close relatives, while 45% regularly send remittances to Ukraine (94% do so through friends or relatives). Looking at Ukrainian migration from the point of view of the dual market theory, these migrants' type and conditions of work, work load and earnings were all significantly worse than in the primary sector, which employs well educated people and offers them good earnings, job security and benefits. 53% of respondents were working and/or staying in the Czech Republic illegally at the time of the research, 73% worked as unqualified, unskilled workers or auxiliary workers, 62% worked more than 12 hours a day, and 40% evaluated their working conditions as hard. 51% had no days off, earnings were low in relation to the number of hours worked. and 85% said that their earnings did not increase over time. Nearly half the workers were recruited in Ukraine and only 4% expressed a desire to stay in the Czech Republic. Network theories were also borne out to some extent as 33% of immigrants came together with friends from the same village, town or region in Ukraine. The number who have relatives working in the Czech Republic is rising, and many wish to invite relatives or children to visit them. The presence of organisations which organised cross-border migration, including some which resort to organising illegal documents, also gives some support for the institutional theory. Mr. Drbohlav found that all the migration theories considered offered some insights on the situation, but that none was sufficient to explain it all. He also points out parallels with many other regions of the world, including Central America, South and North America, Melanesia, Indonesia, East Africa, India, the Middle East and Russia. For the survey of foreign and international firms, those chosen were largely from countries represented by more than one company and were mainly active in market services such as financial and trade services, marketing and consulting. While 48% of the firms had more than 10,000 employees spread through many countries, more than two thirds had fewer than 50 employees in the Czech Republic. Czechs formed 80% plus of general staff in these firms although not more than 50% of senior management, and very few other "easterners" were employed. All companies absolutely denied employing people illegally. The average monthly wage of Czech staff was US$ 850, with that of top managers from the firm's "mother country" being US$ 6,350 and that of other western managers US$ 3,410. The foreign staff were generally highly mobile and were rarely accompanied by their families. Most saw their time in the Czech Republic as positive for their careers but very few had any intention of remaining there. Factors in the local situation which were evaluated positively included market opportunities, the economic and political environment, the quality of technical and managerial staff, and cheap labour and low production costs. In contrast, the level of appropriate business ethics and conduct, the attitude of local and regional authorities, environmental production conditions, the legal environment and financial markets and fiscal policy were rated very low. In the final section of his work Mr. Drbohlav looked at the opinions expressed by the local Czech population in a poll carried out at the beginning of 1997. This confirmed that international labour migration has become visible in this country, with 43% of respondents knowing at least one foreigner employed by a Czech firm in this country. Perception differ according to the region from which the workers come and those from "the West" are preferred to those coming from further east. 49% saw their attitude towards the former as friendly but only 20% felt thus towards the latter. Overall, attitudes towards migrant workers is neutral, although 38% said that such workers should not have the same rights as Czech citizens. Sympathy towards foreign workers tends to increase with education and the standard of living, and the relatively positive attitudes towards foreigners in the South Bohemia region contradicted the frequent belief that a lack of experience of international migration lowers positive perceptions of it.

Securities: Its Conception and Protection of Interests of its Holders

Theoretical studies of the problems of the securities markets in the Russian Federation incline to one or other of the two traditional approaches. The first consists of comparing the definition of "valuable paper" set forth in the current legislation of the Russian Federation, with the theoretical model of "Wertpapiere" elaborated by German scholars more than 90 years ago. The problem with this approach is, in Mr. Pentsov's opinion, that any new features of the definition of "security" that do not coincide with the theoretical model of "Wertpapiere" (such as valuable papers existing in non-material, electronic form) are claimed to be incorrect and removed from the current legislation of the Russian Federation. The second approach works on the basis of the differentiation between the Common Law concept of "security" and the Civil Law concept of "valuable paper". Mr. Pentsov's research, presented in an article written in English, uses both methodological tools and involves, firstly, a historical study of the origin and development of certain legal phenomena (securities) as they evolved in different countries, and secondly, a comparative, synchronic study of equivalent legal phenomena as they exist in different countries today. Employing the first method, Mr. Pentsov divided the historical development of the conception of "valuable paper" in Russia into five major stages. He found that, despite the existence of a relatively wide circulation of valuable papers, especially in the second half of the 19th century, Russian legislation before 1917 (the first stage) did not have a unified definition of valuable paper. The term was used, in both theoretical studies and legislation, but it covered a broad range of financial instruments such as stocks, bonds, government bonds, promissory notes, bills of exchange, etc. During the second stage, also, the legislation of the USSR did not have a unified definition of "valuable paper". After the end of the "new economic policy" (1922 - 1930) the stock exchanges and the securities markets in the USSR, with a very few exceptions, were abolished. And thus during the third stage (up to 1985), the use of valuable papers in practice was reduced to foreign economic relations (bills of exchange, stocks in enterprises outside the USSR) and to state bonds. Not surprisingly, there was still no unified definition of "valuable paper". After the beginning of Gorbachev's perestroika, a securities market began to re-appear in the USSR. However, the successful development of securities markets in the USSR was retarded by the absence of an appropriate regulatory framework. The first effort to improve the situation was the adoption of the Regulations on Valuable Papers, approved by resolution No. 590 of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, dated June 19, 1990. Section 1 of the Regulation contained the first statutory definition of "valuable paper" in the history of Russia. At the very beginning of the period of transition to a market economy, a number of acts contained different definitions of "valuable paper". This diversity clearly undermined the stability of the Russian securities market and did not achieve the goal of protecting the investor. The lack of unified criteria for the consideration of such non-standard financial instruments as "valuable papers" significantly contributed to the appearance of numerous fraudulent "pyramid" schemes that were outside of the regulatory scheme of Russia legislation. The situation was substantially improved by the adoption of the new Civil Code of the Russian Federation. According to Section 1 of Article 142 of the Civil Code, a valuable paper is a document that confirms, in compliance with an established form and mandatory requisites, certain material rights whose realisation or transfer are possible only in the process of its presentation. Finally, the recent Federal law No. 39 - FZ "On the Valuable Papers Market", dated April 22 1996, has also introduced the term "emission valuable papers". According to Article 2 of this Law, an "emission valuable paper" is any valuable paper, including non-documentary, that simultaneously has the following features: it fixes the composition of material and non-material rights that are subject to confirmation, cession and unconditional realisation in compliance with the form and procedure established by this federal law; it is placed by issues; and it has equal amount and time of realisation of rights within the same issue regardless of when the valuable paper was purchased. Thus the introduction of the conception of "emission valuable paper" became the starting point in the Russian federation's legislation for the differentiation between the legal regimes of "commercial papers" and "investment papers" similar to the Common Law approach. Moving now to the synchronic, comparative method of research, Mr. Pentsov notes that there are currently three major conceptions of "security" and, correspondingly, three approaches to its legal definition: the Common Law concept, the continental law concept, and the concept employed by Japanese Law. Mr. Pentsov proceeds to analyse the differences and similarities of all three, concluding that though the concept of "security" in the Common Law system substantially differs from that of "valuable paper" in the Continental Law system, nevertheless the two concepts are developing in similar directions. He predicts that in the foreseeable future the existing differences between these two concepts will become less and less significant. On the basis of his research, Mr. Pentsov arrived at the conclusion that the concept of "security" (and its equivalents) is not a static one. On the contrary, it is in the process of permanent evolution that reflects the introduction of new financial instruments onto the capital markets. He believes that the scope of the statutory definition of "security" plays an extremely important role in the protection of investors. While passing the Securities Act of 1933, the United States Congress determined that the best way to achieve the goal of protecting investors was to define the term "security" in sufficiently broad and general terms so as to include within the definition the many types of instruments that in the commercial world fall within the ordinary concept of "security' and to cover the countless and various devices used by those who seek to use the money of others on the promise of profits. On the other hand, the very limited scope of the current definition of "emission valuable paper" in the Federal Law of the Russian Federation entitled "On the Valuable Papers Market" does not allow the anti-fraud provisions of this law to be implemented in an efficient way. Consequently, there is no basis for the protection of investors. Mr. Pentsov proposes amendments which he believes would enable the Russian markets to become more efficient and attractive for both foreign and domestic investors.