Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms

Ms. Lilia Dimova (grant holder)

RSS No.: 489/1997

Director, Agency for Social Analyses

Tel./Fax. ++ 359 2 986 10 72

E-mail: asa@mbox.cit.bg

Project: Ethnic Minorities in the Changing Labour Market in Bulgaria

Duration: 01.09.1997 - 31.08.1999

Amount of grant awarded: Total: $ 10 400 ($ 6 800 approved additional costs)

ETHNIC MINORITIES IN THE CHANGING LABOUR MARKET IN BULGARIA

        Author: Dr. Lilia DIMOVA    

August - 99

      Table of contents

PREFACE *

I. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK *

1. GENERAL OVERVIEW ON THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION IN BULGARIA *

2. ATTITUDES TOWARDS PAID WORK *

3. WORK VALUES *

4. JOB SATISFACTION *

5. BETWEEN EXPECTATIONS AND REALITY *

6. WHERE ARE THE ETHNIC MINORITIES IN THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE? *

CONCLUSIVE NOTES *

REFERENCES *

PREFACE

It is a great challenge nowadays to study social and labour market status of ethnic minorities in one of the new democratic countries like Bulgaria. That is not only because for the last decade Bulgaria has been under the intensive process of establishment and development a democratic social system and the whole spectrum of keeping human rights is crucial for the success of democratic transformation. The challenges come also from the specific ethno-cultural environment of the country - about 84 per cent of the population have Bulgarian ethnic identity and consciousness, 10 per cent - Turkish, 5 per cent - Roma and the rest identified themselves as Jews, Armenians or as some others. The geographical location of the country and its dramatic historical heritage has as a consequence the current heterogeneous ethnic structure with differences in sub-cultures. In addition, the recent ethnic conflicts taking place next to the Bulgarian boundaries inevitable reflect on the ethnicity inside the country.

The labour market status of the ethnic minorities itself is not only a scientific challenge. Economic reforms in the country and the changing labour market dramatically transform previous occupational stratification and put the whole economically active population in a completely new and unknown situation. For the ethnic minorities, in particular for Turkish an Romas, the ongoing changes are even more dramatic mostly because of their educational and skills potential. In general, the educational and qualification capacity of the whole labour force, as well as the required by the new labour market personal abilities like ambition, mobility and inclination towards taking the risk, become more and more important for making an entry into the changing environment and for success. Ethnic groups in the Bulgarian society share the common reflections of the changes but at the same time, being minorities, have some specific features of participation in the labour market. What are they and why - these are the main questions this project tries to answer.

The project development has been possible

due to the financial support of the

RESEARCH SUPPORT SCHEME.

Current analyses is based on a wide massive of information and empirical data - both qualitative and quantitative - obtaining trough different modern methods. It has been collected national representative data through an “omnibus” battery of variables added to the annual module of the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). The survey research has been carried out by the Agency for Social Analyses (ASA) what is the Bulgarian national representative in the ISSP. The qualitative data have come from over 50 in-depth individual and group interviewees with representatives of ethnic groups, leaders of ethnic organisations, employers, politicians, trade union leaders, powerful persons at national, regional and local levels, scientists and experts on ethnic issues. Life-history method has been use also - it turned out a quite appropriate method for studying ethnicity and changes of social status of ethnic groups.

The research has been oriented to the biggest ethnic minority groups in Bulgarian society - Turkish and Romas. However, in the process of project development it has become clear that it has been rather difficult to use quantitative data from a national random sampling survey for Romas. Just because they are only 5 per cent of the whole adult population, the analyses based on such a small relative share would be statistically no correct (the standard error of the used random sample is 3 %). That is why, in spite of the available quantitative data, they are use only as a general orientation and the analyses about Roma specifics is based mostly on qualitative information.

The coming analyses explores Turkish and Roma participation in the changing labour market in Bulgaria in comparative way - differences and similarities between the two minorities and the Bulgarian majority on one hand, and on the other - the specific similarities and differences between the Roma and Turkish minorities.

Project results have been already used for education in the University for National and World Economy (Sofia), in Sofia University and in the Institute for Industrial Relations and Management “OKOM”. The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy in Bulgaria also has used the project results for improvement and development the social policy related to ethnic minorities in the country.

I. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

To study ethnic minorities’ status in the labour market inevitable require specific methods for sample and questionnaire design, for collecting data and doing the field work, and for computing empirical information and choice the most appropriate multivariable analyses. The selection of methods has been based on understanding that the specifics of the target audience needs adequate research methodology. In general the project fulfilment has been based on a set of modern and world widespread research methods.

As the first and started point it has bees overview the available literature, publications and research analyses. In the last several years in Bulgaria they are not so much, but in any case they are more then in the previous decades. The largest part of the resent publications in Bulgaria are result of target studies, conferences, seminars, and other similar events. The summary conclusion is that the topic of ethnicity become more and more popular among the researchers, politicians and social scientists. Since the beginning of 1990’s the orientation to Turkish and Roma people (both Bulgarian citizens and especially migrants to Turkey) has been dominant. Several research have been conducted at that period, focusing on one or other side of the problem area. Among them are the follows: “The image of the other” - historical research leaded by Prof. Vera Mutavchieva; “Tolerance and intolerance relationships between Christians and Muslims in Bulgaria” - social study leaded by Prof. Petar-Emil Mitev; ‘National and Ethnic Identity and Consciousness” - cross-cultural study within the International Social Survey Program leaded by Dr. Lilia Dimova; ‘ The Gypsies in Bulgaria” - purposeful research leaded by Dr. Ilona Tomova.

This research have been a step further in analysing the minorities’ status in the labour market in Bulgaria. That aspect of the ethnicity was less explored by the previous surveys and project trough a new light on the phenomena of ethnic minorities from this racurse. The set of methods used in the research development process is a mullet-disciplinary one and follows the goals and objectives of the project.

The second step of project development was a qualitative survey, including in-depth interviews with representatives of Turkish and Roma groups and organisations, experts on ethnicity, policy and opinion leaders, trade union leaders, employers. The main goal was to collect in-depth information about the problems, opportunities and obstacles for work realisations of Turkish and Roma at the changing labour market. It has been achieved trough a special questionnaire for in-depth interview, included the following batteries of variables:

• the most serious problems for ethnic minorities in the area of labour market;
• the main reasons for the registered problems;
• the major work orientations and work motivations of the ethnic minorities;
• the main chances for ethnic minorities at the labour market;
• the opportunities for employment and advancement for ethnic minorities as a whole and according to their age, education, gender, skills and place of living;
• the economic, cultural and other reasons for the current ethnic minorities status in the labour market;
• the possible solutions of the existing and the raising problems what ethnic minorities face with in the labour market.

The third step was collection of quantitative data through a national representative survey for the whole adult population of Bulgaria, aiming to discover the work orientation of selected ethnic groups and their chances in the labour market. It has been achieved in the following way:

1/ Two stage random sample has been designed for the whole adult population of Bulgaria. N = 1012.

2/ An omnibus battery of variables for collecting quantitative information through individual face-to-face interview has been designed, included the following items:

• employment status of the ethnic minorities;
• correlation work - leisure;
• working time and sectors of employment;
• work values;
• importance of work elements like job security, opportunities for advancement, payment, interesting job, level of job independence, etc.;
• evaluation of factors of payment;
• personal preferences for sectors of employment, type of employment, size of the firm, sector of economy, working time;
• difficulties in job hunting;
• real opportunities for getting jobs;
• job satisfaction;
• working conditions;
• work and organisational attachment;
• labour contract;
• necessary education and skills for getting the appropriate jobs;
• willingness for retraining and improving skills;
• individual strategies for coping with the labour market changes;
• absenteeism;
• portray of unemployed;
• real and potential work mobility;
• evaluation of the governmental responsibilities for jobs supplying;
• self-identification in the “poor-rich” scale;
• expectations for the living standard in the next few years;
• individual strategies for improving the living standard;
• socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents from the ethnic minorities;
• subjective social class of the ethnic minorities.

3/ Quantitative data have been collected with face-to-face interviews.

4/ In computing data SPPS software has been used.

5/ For coding occupational status ISCO’88 code has been applied.

It is important to outline that the obtained quantitative data have been appropriate for different type of analyses mostly for the Turkish because of their comparatively enough relative share. However, for Roma people there were some troubles because of their small amount. In general, the obtained in the previous steps information for Roma people was not sufficient, and that is why there was a need to collect more and with different methods. I has been done as a forth step of project development.

The forth step was collection of purposeful information about the Roma’ status and problems in the labour market. It was realised through a post survey with 20 leaders of Roma organisations from all over the country. A special questionnaire has been designed including mainly open-ended questions. The idea was both to “learn” from the respondents and to “study” them. The general approach in the questionnaire construction was “What and Why”. In the Roma’ module the following sections and topics have been included:

• main occupations of Romas according to their age, sex, place of living and educational potential;
• educational status and reasons for low education;
• employment status, real unemployment rate, specific aspects of employment and unemployment;
• willingness for job hunting, preferences and expectations;
• specific challenges and solutions in work realisations of Romas in the current labour market in Bulgaria;
• expectations from the future and basic continuums: 1/ “pessimism - optimism”; 2/ “hope - fears”; 3/ “desires - opportunities”;
• syndromes and sub-culture of poverty and dependency.

In summary, the following qualitative and quantitative research methods have been used in other to be achieved each project objectives:

This objectives has been achieved through comparative analyses on the available data, collected by the Agency for Social Analyses (ASA) within the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) in the period 1993 - 1998. ASA’s data bank gave an excellent opportunity to follow the dynamic and changes in self-evaluations of the studied ethnic groups.

Qualitative and quantitative methods for analysing the current situation have been applied, too.

2. Survey the social , employment and occupational (ISCO’88 code) status of ethnic groups and the specific stratification factors.

This objective has been achieved through both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The omnibus quantitative survey within the project supplied useful frequencies on occupational status what has been computed using the ISCO’88 occupational code. In addition, in-depth interviews and focus-groups have been carried out in other to be collected more detailed information about the reasons “WHY IS THAT”. The combination between the two research approaches was rather successful.

The research has given enough scientific evidences for support the hypothesis. It has been get using the methods of face-to-face interview, “life-history method”, in-depth individual and group interviews (focus-groups), post survey for Roma. Ethnic minorities in Bulgaria do form an “underclass” and the majority of the surveyed Turkish and almost all surveyed Roma people put themselves to the very bottom of the stratification system of Bulgarian society.

This objective have been successfully achieved again on the basis of qualitative (in-depth interviews) and quantitative (omnibus and secondary analyses) data. The general conclusion is, that Bulgarian people are rather tolerant to ethnic minorities relating to their culture, religion and human rights. As for their accesses to power and political co-operation on the basis of ethnicity, most of the Bulgarians are rather sensitive and reserved.

In spite of usage an quantitative approach for collecting data, this objective has been achieved mostly though in-depth qualitative methods. It appeared more adequate for that delicate topic.

This objective has been achieved through both the omnibus and qualitative methods (in-depth interviews and “life-history” methods). In addition, the available national representative data have been secondary analysed in other to be discovered the dynamic of the needs and strategies.

All these objectives and sub-objectives have been achieved through face-to-face individual interviews, focus-groups and individual in-depth interviews.

During the whole process of data collection “content-analyses” of national media publications have been made. Simultaneously with the other research methods “life-history method” has been applied when ever it was possible. This method has got a lot of advantages, in particular for such audience and topic. Over 50 high qualified interviewers (from the ASA’s network) have been worked in qualitative and quantitative data collection.

The final fifth step of project development was summarising and analyses of the whole collected data. A comparative approach has been applied where ever it was possible. The orientation was to analyse the ethnic-minorities’ labour market status in dynamic.

In the next analyses are presented the major results, following the logic “Who are they”, “How do they stay in the changing labour market environment in Bulgaria”, ‘What are their work orientations, needs and preferences”, “What are their opportunities for success”, and “How do they live and where are they in social stratification structure”.

1. GENERAL OVERVIEW ON THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION IN BULGARIA

Since the beginning of “great transformations” in Bulgaria (November 1989) greater attention has been given to the employment changes as the most dramatic ones within the whole process of transition to a free market economy. The employment rate (the number employed related to population of working-age , 16-55 for women and 16-60 for man) is rather illustrative indicator for the changes - unfortunately it discovers strong decline over the last 10 years. Down-ward trends could be explained by at least three reasons:

First, there is a strong economic reason. The collapse of the Bulgarian economy and the bankruptcy of many enterprises inevitable is linked to decreasing the number of work places and declining of employment rate. At the same time there is neither a strategy for creation new jobs nor opportunities for realizing such a strategy. The jump from a full-employment system (and felling of job security “for ever”) to something new and non-secure become the greatest challenge for the whole Bulgarian population.

The second reason is linked to demographic situation. Similar to many countries in the world Bulgaria faces with problem of increasing the elderly population versus decreasing the birth rate. The current reality is even curious - 100 employed people in the country support 80 pensioners, according to the officially announcement figures by the Government.

The third reason is related to geographical mobility. Many young, well educated people left the country in the last several years, hunting better life and working conditions in the world. As the consequence, not only the quantity but also the quality of the Bulgarian work force has been changed dramatically.

According to the National Statistical Institute and its surveys at the end of 1998 the employment-population ration was 42,4 %. In urban areas it was 47,6 %, in rural - 31,4 %. (See Table 1 and Table 2)

Table 1

GENERAL EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION IN BULGARIA

Sources:1/ Employment and Unemployment, 2/’98. National Statistical Institute. Sofia, 1999.

2/ Employment performance in the Member States. Employment rates report 1998. Employment & Social aferes. European Commission. 1998.

Looking at the unemployment rate in the same period (end of 1998), the officially announcement figures by the National Statistical Institute were 16 % for the Bulgarian citizens in economical active age. In rural areas every fifth person was unemployed (20,1 %). In urban regions the unemployment rate was 14,6 %.

Table 2

EMPLOYED AND UNEMPLOYED BY URBAN/RURAL AREAS

Beyond the figures however are only the registered unemployed. The real unemployment rate is higher and it is different in different regions. According to the experts’ evaluations the so called “hidden unemployment” among the Turkish minorities is about 50 per cent. It means, that almost half of people with Turkish ethnic identity in economic active age who looks for a job has serious problems in finding.

The problem is much more serious for the Gypsies. Leaders of Roma organisations declare that over 80 per cent of Roma population in economically active age is out of the labour market. In some regions in the countryside the Roma’s unemployment rate reaches to and even exceeds 90 %.

Unemployment is one of the most serious problems not only for the ethnic minorities in Bulgaria. If the phenomena “unemployment” is not a new one for the largest part of the world, for Bulgaria it is. The first wave of unemployment occurred in 1992 and since then the unemployment rate increases year by year.

Similar trend could be seen in the EU countries - in 1989 the average unemployment rate for the Union was less than 8 per cent, in 1997 it is over 10 per cent. How it is written in the purposeful publication of the EC “Employment in Europe 1998” there are some significant features of the unemployment structure in Member States. Mostly they are related to unemployment age and time distributions. Age distributions show that now the proportion of the unemployed who are under 25 is around 25 per cent (as opposite to 45 per cent in the mid-1980s). At the same time, the unemployment has become a more widespread problem among other age groups over the past decade. Prime-age workers, between 25 and 49, now account for almost 60 per cent of the unemployed in the Union (more than their share in working age population) - 11 years ago they were 45 per cent. Further, the relative number of those of 50 and over who are unemployed has also increased, from 10 per cent to over 15 per cent. And one more feature - the rate of long-term unemployment remained unchanged in 1997 at just over 5 per cent in the Union, with 49 per cent of the unemployed being out of work for a year and more. In summary, in Member States unemployment remains high.

In Bulgaria however the rate is higher then in the Union and the speed of its increasing is much more faster. In addition, being a new and a negative phenomena, unemployment leads to many stressful consequences affected the whole population in Bulgaria.

If we have even a brief look at the modern research and publications on the topic we could see rather different, sometimes completely contradiction views on the effect of unemployment. On one hand there are opinions unified by the strong negative effect of the unemployment phenomena. For example, the rise in employment aroused fears that, with so many of the population idle, an erosion would occur in the social obligation to work (Gallie et al., 1998). Concerns was also expressed that the unemployed may become discouraged and lose the will to work. Other views suggest that the experience of unemployment might have the opposite effect. Perhaps the experience of being unemployed might serve to highlight the importance of employment, hence leading to increasing work commitment (Jahoda, 1982). In spite of different opinions about the impact of unemployment on the work orientation, the relationship between job insecurity and work orientation is by no means clear-cut (Russel, 1998/99).

For ethnic minorities in Bulgaria, because of their specific socio-cultural characreristics, unemployment is not only one of the most dramatic, but also one of the crucial problems. According to the unemployed themselves, the “lack of job, of regular earning and of the perspectives for getting some provokes another serious problems - criminality, poverty, social isolation, creation of a culture of poverty and dependency, etc.” The status “out of labour market” significantly changes life philosophy, value structure, career and family planning. The common tendency is towards pessimism, apathy and in putting the “survival” and “security” on the top of the life values.

The problem is worse when in the families there are more then one unemployed. For example, in the region of Kurdjali, where 70 per cent of the population has Turkish self-identity, in every second household there is at least one unemployed. In the Razgrad municipality (where ratio between people with Turkish and Bulgarian identity is 50-50), the percentage is 31 (ISSP’s module data, 1998).

Generally speaking, it is quite difficult to be found reliable statistical figures on employment by ethnicity in the country. That is why here we will use mostly social survey data from national representative surveys. According to these data, in 1998 the employment situation of the Turkish minority against the Bulgarians could be seen in the Figure 1.

Figure 1

Data show that there are not differences in employment rate between the Bulgarian majority and the Turkish minority. Almost half of the both groups are in the labour market. However, Turkish unemployed are twice more then Bulgarians. Why? - that is the global question.

One of the hypothesis is that Bulgarian Turkish have lower skills and educational level in comparison with Bulgarians. The following Figure 2 illustrates the differences and gives serious evidence in favour of that hypothesis.

Figure 2

Turkish people from all surveyed categories (working, out of labour force and total) have lower educational status than Bulgarian people. The great differences could be seen in the very bottom and on the top of educational scale. For example, eight times more are Turkish people with basic education against the Bulgarians. The majority of Turkish have elementary or lower education. Educated people with Turkish identity (secondary and upper educational level) are over one third in total.

Looking at the distribution of working-non-working people appear some significant differences. Educational level of the Turkish is lower than of the Bulgarians, but the percentage of university educated non-working Turkish and Bulgarians is almost one and the same. Mostly, this is due to the Turkish high educated pensioners who live in Bulgaria. That clarification is important because of the situation in the middle of 80’s when hundred Turkish families migrate to Turkey pressed by the totalitarian regime. During the period of “The large excursion” , provoked by the re-name of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria, coerced many Turkish people in active age to move the country. Some of them, come back in 90’s to spend the rest of their life where they were born. Currently retired, they form a part of the university educated Turkish people. There are however another high educated group what has graduated and made career within the country, being also currently pensioners and out of the labour force.

Working Turkish however are mostly with elementary and lower education. University educated among them are quite little and almost ten times less than Bulgarians. Even Turkish with secondary (high) education are significantly less than Bulgarians. Such an educational potential inevitable limits their chances to find good and high paid jobs. In addition, they are concentrated in regions where the unemployment rate is high and the opportunities for job hunting are very limited.

In general, labour market situation is quite difficult in the country. For Turkish and Roma ethnic groups it is more difficult mostly because their educational and skills capacity. Especially for Roma people could be added also anti-Roma syndrome, covering over 25 per cent of the whole Bulgarian population.

2. ATTITUDES TOWARDS PAID WORK

People’s attitudes towards paid work or their “work orientation” in the current situation centred around two main issues - people ‘s commitment to work and work values. Talking about “current situation” it is taken in consideration that unemployment, job insecurity and limited vacations are the basic problems of the labour market transformations from centralised state economy to a free market one. In addition, unemployment is a new phenomenon for the Bulgarian labour market environment for two-three generations. Being something “non-known” and at the same time “non-good” its effect on a person’s works commitment, general orientation and work values is much stronger.

Within that framework the purposeful survey under this project examines three different aspects of “work orientation” - work commitment, organisational commitment, and the value a person (without differences which ethnic group s/he identifies) attaches to different work characteristics. Here in his chapter are presented findings concerning he first two aspects and the next chapter is devoted to the “work values”. And one more clarification - since data sources for Turkish and Romanies people are different as it has already been point out (for Turkish people both quantitative and qualitative methods have been used, while for Romanies people data come mostly from qualitative survey), here the two ethnic groups are presented separately.

In order to asses “work centrality” (or what is work for the people thinking of work in general) , respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed (using the standard 5-point scale plus “Cant choose” option) with the following statement:

Work is a person’s most important activity

In order to understand “why” people give one or another answer, or “why” there has been such an extend to which they declare their work commitment , two more variables have been included in the questionnaire. They were formulated as statements with the same 5-point agree-disagree to measure whether work commitment is non-financial (or financial?), and whether employment is valued in itself, rather than being simply as a source of income or some form of social or moral “duty” (Warr, 1982). The statements respondents were asked to agree or disagree are the follows:

A job is just way of earning money - no more

I would enjoy having a paid job even if I did not need the money

Survey results show that for the great majority of Turkish people in Bulgaria “work is a person’s most important activity”. That general work centrality share almost 90 per cent of the them. It could be seen in the Figure 3 where for comparison are put also the answers of Bulgarians.

Figure 3

It is interesting that compare to Bulgarians for Turkish people that kind of work understanding is higher, i.e. work centrality is more important for Turkish than for Bulgarians, even for the both groups it has rather high score. Analysing the cultural background and the socio-economical status of the groups of Turkish and Bulgarians, the explanations could be found in the person’s values of “paid work - leisure”, and “financial - non-financial” commitment score.

The financial - non-financial commitment could be seen in the following Table , where are presented the answers of the two above mentioned variables for measurement the work commitment.

TABLE 3

WORK COMMITMENT BY ETHNICITY

( %)

Data show that the most of Turkish and Bulgarians have an instrumental attitudes toward the paid work. For 71 per cent from the Turkish and for 60 per cent from Bulgarians paid work is no more than source of income. The same ascertain the answers of the other question - 52 per cent Turkish and 41 per cent Bulgarians will not want paid work if they are financially secure. At the same time, both ethnic categories concern that the work is a person’s most important activity. On the basis of these empirical results could me made a least two significant conclusions:

First, that the majority of the Bulgarian citizens without any differences based on ethnicity have financial commitment to work. For them work is central to a person’s life simply because it provides an income.

Second, that compare with Bulgarians Turkish people have at higher extend instrumental attitudes toward work.

Generally speaking, in the current hard situation in Bulgaria for the whole population it is crucial to have paid work. Paid work, even low paid, gives some security for coping with crisis. Paid work nowadays is a significant prerequisite for survival. That is why job is accepted as the most important person’s activity from the largest part of the surveyed people. Having in mind that the survey is national representative one, the findings are valid for the whole population of Bulgaria.

That financial commitment to work is characteristic of the majority, but not of the whole people live in the country. There is another part of the population what has an opposite attitudes. It could not be out of consideration that 28 per cent of Turkish people and 35 of Bulgarians look at the job not only as a source of income. They would enjoy having a paid job even if they did not need the money. Simply it means, that for about one third of the Bulgarian citizens paid work is something more that income’s source. They look to employment also as a source of self-actualisation. Such a non-financial commitment to work is typical for young and/or high educated people, who enjoy their job. Mostly professionals are from that category.

Comparison by ethnicity however give at that matter one more evidence that Turkish people have stronger instrumental attitudes and higher financial commitments to work . One of the reasons is related to their lower educational and skills level compare to Bulgarians. The majority of them who are in economically active age have elementary and less than secondary education. It does allow them to find a job what could be interesting and would give them more satisfaction than income source. Their educational and skill capacity is comparative low and limits their chances for getting job as a source of self-realisation and self-actualisation.

Another reason relates to the real labour market situation what is rather hard and non-friendly. In the crisis environment it is extremely difficult for most people to find appropriate job. The opportunities for free choice and the freedom of choice are reduced to minimum. Because of the strongly narrowed labour market and continuing process of economic crisis, to find any job for many people is equal to success. Especially for low educated and non-skilled workers like Turkish. It is important to mention that many high educated and well skilled Turkish in economically active age left the country and now live in Turkey or in some other regions in the world.

Their is one more reason - a cultural one. Traditionally Turkish people from the mountains municipalities work in agricultural sector, growing tabbaco. That kind of work is very hard, needs a lot of efforts and at the same time is non-secure and low paid. Generations of Turkish people in the country earn money working at that way - cultivate tobacco. Non surprisingly, for that people work is just and only source of income. Even more - way of sources for survival. Instrumental attitudes of the majority of Turkish people in these circumstances is rather reasonable.

Data from the qualitative survey discover even harder picture for Romanies people than for the Turkish. Bulgarian Romanies were very severely affected by the crisis (UNDP and ILO, 1997). Because of their low education and qualification, the negative stereotypes in respect of their community and some specific features of their work ethic, they were among the first to be dismissed from employment after 1990. More than 70 per cent of Romanies in active age have no permanent job. A considerable number of those employed work under the programmes for temporary employment, carry out seasonal agricultural or collection activities, or work in the construction sector, as street peddlers, collect and deliver scrap services, etc.

They almost as a whole have instrumental attitudes toward the paid work. For them employment is something incidental, something for a short time, something what could supply them money - no more. Within the unique exclusions are the occasions when Rome representatives have made career and as a rule it is in the shadow or black economy.

In spite of the internal differences among the Romanies minority what is quite heterogeneous, Romanies look at job as a source of earning, but not as a person’s most important activity. Some of them are black sector’s bosses and correspondingly - very rich, but the greatest majority is one of the most marginal group in the country. Being on the very bottom of society and hardly survey, they inevitable have financial commitment to work (when they have any).

3. WORK VALUES

What ethnic minorities want from work in general, what they value most in work and in employment - these are also the questions what the research has been interested in. The battery of variables was included in the questionnaire on order to measure the proportion between “post-materialistic” and “materialistic” values (Inglehard, 1997).

On the basis of main conclusion that the majority of people (both ethnic majority and minorities) have instrumental attitudes and financial commitment to work, it could be expected logically that “materialistic values” are wide spread among the Bulgarian population and especially among the surveyed ethnic minorities of Turkish and Romanies. Project results confirmed these expectations. Most of the respondents are concerned with the material extrinsic rewards of work. They were asked to indicate how important they personally think are in a job several things, putting in a list of items. The findings could be seen in the following Table 4.

Table 4

IMPORTANCE OF DIFFERENT JOB’S

CHARACTERISTICS

( % “Very important” and “Important”)

We find strong evidence that both Bulgarians and Turkish are likely to hold “materialist values” when it comes to work. Across the two ethnic groups we examine here, there are almost no ethnic differences in measure relating to the importance of extrinsic rewards of work (income and security). Their score is almost one and the same and the reason consists in the socio-economic environment in Bulgaria. In the crisis situation “security” has become one of the top life values for Bulgarian citizens. Job security, because of the increasing unemployment rate and narrowed labour market, has turned into most important work value. There are many examples, when people fully intentionally work in dangerous and health harmful conditions, just to keep their jobs. What means - to keep their income and material sources for survival. That is why it is not surprisingly that such big part of respondents put on the first place job security and income. Ethnic differences here are not significant and even more - there are not such differences at all.

As for the “promotion”, it is valuable for Bulgarians in a higher extend than for Turkish people. One of the reasons is that Turkish people are less educated and skilled in comparison with Bulgarians and for them having a job is more important than making career. Other reason is, that Turkish people have less chances for advancement because they work mostly in agricultural sector or in the constructive sector where the real opportunities for getting ahead are no so many. That is why for Turkish people job promotion is important, but not “very important” work value.

Significantly behind in the value scale are intrinsic rewards of work like interesting work, independence, autonomy or useful for people and society. Again for Turkish people these elements of employment are less important in comparison with Bulgarians. What is more impressive here is that a big part of Turkish people value interesting work and estimate its benefits for other people and for society as a whole. It suggests that in a better labour market situation Turkish people in Bulgaria will be willing to choose a job which will allow them not only to feel financially comfortable, but also their employment to be a field for their personal self-actualisation and self-realisation. Recently in their value structure “materialistic” value dominate on their “post-materialistic”, but as a whole they share both of them.

How it was presented above “high income” is a priority work value for 94 per cent of Turkish people in Bulgaria. It is rather interesting however to settle what is behind these opinions. Surveyed people were asked to express their views about the criteria of justice payment. In particular, they were able to answer the question: “In deciding on pay for two people doing the same kind of work how important should be the following things...?” The obtained answers are in the following Table.

Table 5

IMPORTANCE IN DECIDING ON PAY

(%)

The main criteria for decision how to be paid for the respondents are work efforts. It is valid both for Bulgarians and for Turkish people in the country. For Turkish however the importance of how well the person does the job is less than for the Bulgarians. Probably because Turkish people have less opportunity for comparison in their work places.

Another interesting empirical fact is related to the attitudes towards relation “education - payment”. Only for 1,5 per cent of Turkish formal knowledge and skills is essential for the amount of earning. It is important, but not so much as for the Bulgarians. The explanation again come from the educational status of Turkish people - being not so high educated, they believe that education itself and in particular formal education (meaning diploma) should not be priority taken in consideration in payment decision. Family responsibilities and experiences are much less important for Turkish. That is because they accept work payment mostly as a payment for the work done - not as a social benefits or insurance.

In relation to the same scope could be look preferences about possible choices for work hours and earned money. Surveyed people were asked to choose one of the following options as their general preferences:

• work longer hours and earn more money;
• work the same number of hours and earn the same money;
• work fewer hours and earn less money.

All Turkish respondents focused only on the first two possibilities. Their distribution is the follows:

Diagram 1

The most of Turkish people strongly prefer to work more and as a compensation - to earn more money. Again we have widespread materialistic values and financial commitment to work. The same conclusion come as well from the preferred way for time spending - 55 per cent of Turkish people would like to spend more time in a paid job against only 14 per cent who want more time to spend in leisure activities, and against 16 per cent who wish to spend more time with their friends. Paid job for them is rather important, but mostly in its function as a source of earning.

4. JOB SATISFACTION

Job satisfaction as an important indicator for labour status was measure with several variables: to what extend surveyed people feel satisfied or dissatisfied in their main job; how they estimate the relationships in their work place; how they evaluate their working conditions.

Levels of employees’ general satisfaction could be seen in the following Table.

Table 6

SATISFACTION OF THE MAIN JOB

(%)

Majority of employees in the country are either “fairly satisfied” or are in the middle of the scale, i.e. they are “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied”. Positive answers however are significantly more than negative. Hence, satisfied people from the both ethnicity are more than dissatisfied.

Comparison by ethnicity (Turkish - Bulgarians) discovers that as a whole Turkish people are less satisfied in their main job than Bulgarians. Why - the answer of that question could be found in the people’s evaluations of their work conditions.

The first aspect relates with the relations at their workplace - horizontally and vertically. Distributions of positive answers of the employees from Turkish and Bulgarian groups are shown in the following figure.

Diagram 2

Data show that there are no serious differences between Turkish’s and Bulgarians’ evaluations of relations at the workplace. The majority of the two groups estimate them as “very” or “quite” good. Ten point more Turkish, however , work in better collegial climate than Bulgarians. So, part of their satisfaction in main job come from that.

Working conditions and their evaluation by the surveyed employees is the other aspect of job satisfaction what was explore within the research. In the next figure are presented the data about estimations of some aspects of working conditions. Respondents were asked to share how often they are under exhausted and hard work, stress, or dangerous conditions. Here are the answers “always” and “often”, i.e. it is shown the work situations which are typical for the respondents.

Figure 4

Almost every second Turkish employee in the country work in dangerous working conditions and has to do hard physical work. In other words Turkish people dominate in these parts of the labour market where is needed mostly physical efforts. They usually do non-skill work probably because of their low educational and qualification potential. The biggest proportion of them (88 per cent) developed their skills on the basis of training or experience gained in their present or previous jobs. In their work they rely mostly on their previous experience and on the experience they can gain in their resent job. It is not surprisingly then that almost half (46 per cent) of the Turkish employees identified themselves with low-qualified and non-qualified workers. At the same time many of them are satisfied of their work.

At the surface that situation indicate a paradox - i.e. on one hand Turkish workers according to several indicators belong to the “under class” in the labour market, do hard physical work in dangerous conditions, but on the other hand - they are more or less satisfied with their jobs. In survey results could be found explanations about that. One is related to their general attitudes towards work what are mostly instrumental - job is a source of income and when they have any they feel satisfied. Another concerns acceptance of work as a form of social, moral or economical “duty”. Conformations of the last thesis are contained in the following Figure where are the answers of Turkish employees of the question: “Which of the following statements best describes your feeling about your job?”.

Figure 5

Data indicate that most of Turkish employees in Bulgaria feel their job as a form of “duty” and during their working time just fulfil their job obligations and responsibility. In addition they feel comfortable among their colleagues and in this case job for them plays a role of socialising factor.

Talking about Romanies in Bulgaria, the things there are rather different. Firstly because the large proportion of them in active age are unemployed. Those of them who are working are either in the black or shadow economy, or in the less qualified sector in the labour market. That is why one of the common answer of questions related to job satisfaction was “What does it mean satisfaction - I have a job, it is neither secure, nor good paid, but I earn some and would be happy if my employment will continue. It is so difficult nowadays for people like us to find job, so I must be satisfied even it is dirty and temporarily”.

In summary, Romanies are satisfied when they have any job. Turkish employees are satisfied with their jobs mostly because they have opportunities for earning money and for social contacts. Satisfaction with the two categories is closely linked with their financial commitment to work and with their instrumental attitudes towards work activity in general.

5. BETWEEN EXPECTATIONS AND REALITY

Surveying the labour status of ethnic minorities in the changing labour market in Bulgaria it was an attractive research task to measure differences between their preferences and expectations from one side, and the real situation they are put on - for the other. One of the applied approach was to include in the research module a battery of one and the same variables related to work values and to respondents’ job characteristics. In the next Table 7 are presented the results and the differences between volubility and reality of each job’s aspect.

Table 7

TURKISH AND BULGARIAN EMPLOYEES

ABOUT JOB’S VALUES AND APPLICATION TO THEIR JOB

(%)

The most impressive fact come from the empirical result is that work reality and work values pass very significantly each other. That is valid for the both ethnic groups. In the large extend differences are related to the extrinsic rewards of work - income, security, promotion. It could be concluded that the most valuable and the most important work values are the less meet in the resent Bulgarian labour reality. For the Turkish employees that dependence is even stronger than for Bulgarians.

High income and job security are on the top of value scale. Exactly they lead the list of differences between values and real situation at the workplace. For the Turkish employees the differences are really dramatic - there is none form that ethnic category who evaluate its income as high. At the same time, almost for 100 per cent high income is the most important aspect of work. Dissatisfaction with job’s payment is not something new or unusual. But here the problem is, that Turkish employees in total declare that. Within Bulgarians there are 11 per cent for whom their work values and work reality fix. For Turkish - none.

Analysing the situation in general, now it is really very difficult to be said that work force in the country is high paid. According to the social survey data within the International Social Survey Program over 80 per cent of Bulgarian citizens live on the boundary of poverty. From people on the very bottom of society 17 per cent have job - i.e. they earn money, but it is so low that keep for them “life in poverty”.

As for the job security differences, they mostly come from the limited and unstable labour market situation in the country. In a deteriorated economic environment and intensive process of privatisation, many employees feel insecure of their workplace. Keeping in mind that non-skilled and low-skilled workers are the first dismissed from the enterprises in bad conditions, respondents’ differences between desire security and real security are rather logical. Here there is one more thing - as less secure a job is, as high job security is important for people.

Surveyed employees were asked to tell to what extend, if any, they worry about possibility of loosing their job. Their worries are presented in the next Figure 6. Keeping in mind that less than a half of current Turkish working people feel their job as secure it is not surprisingly that every forth of them worries a great deal of loosing job. It is no surprisingly as well that over half of currently working Turkish are unlikely to try to find a job in another firm or organisation within the next 12 months. Even have a job what is not “ideal” for them they prefer having it instead of jumping to another, probably the same insecure work place.

Figure 6

Over 40 per cent of Turkish people in economically active age who are out of the labour force are there because they are either dismissed (17 per cent), or their work place have been shut down (19 per cent), or their contract ended (6 per cent). Comparison with the Bulgarians in the same situation shows that more Turkish people than Bulgarians have been dismissed from work. Again, it links with their skills and education. Ethnicity here does not play significant role.

The biggest part of Turkish who are out of the labour force ( 64 per cent) would like to have a paid job either now , or in the future. Only few of them however believe that they will have a chance to find any. The distribution of their estimations are put in the following Table 8.

Table 8

PROBABILITY OF FINDING JOB

(%)

There are not serious ethnic differences at the extreme points of the scale - both groups in similar frequencies evaluate their low chances for getting job. Turkish moderate pessimists, however, are three time more than Bulgarians moderate pessimists. Probably because they have more experience in looking for a job with some not so clear promises, or they rely on their family business.

It is quite serious indicator for the opportunities of the Bulgarian labour market that over 80 per cent of Turkish out of the labour force do not see probability to find job. For Bulgarians the percentage is also very high what indicate that such a situation is not based on ethnicity for the Turkish people, but on other reasons.

Talking about the Romanies, however, according to the qualitative data under this research, chances for finding a job related very closely to their ethnic affiliation. One of the surveyed Romanies said exactly the following:

“There is a very negative public attitudes toward us. As to me

it is a discrimination. Employers do not appoint Gypsies,

or they are the first dismissed from work.

My son is swarthy like me and when he applies for a job

none asks him about his education or skills. For the employers it is obvious from his appearance that he is Gypsy and that is all.

He has no any chance to find appropriate job, in spite of his high

education and experience. In such circumstances he must

become either low paid worker because he is with Rome ethnicity,

or to move to the black sector of economy. In our

society there are strong prejudices to Romanies and I do not see any positive chances. Just the opposite - the crisis sharpens people’s

prejudices towards us. That forces many of our community to become criminals in other to survive, what increases

more the existing “anti-Gypsies syndrome”. A vicious circle...”

In summary, in the recent situation there is very strong difference between work values and expectations from the paid job, and the reality. Expectations are much higher than real opportunity, especially concerning the most valuable for the people in Bulgaria aspects of job - income, security, promotion. Turkish minority is in a worse position compare to Bulgarians, Romanies - even worse than Turkish. Chances for getting any job are limited and that fact makes people pessimists.

6. WHERE ARE THE ETHNIC MINORITIES IN THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE?

That was one of the crucial question the research tried to answer. Since the beginning of 1990’s Bulgarian society is in a process of mix up of the social layers. All general changes inevitable reflect on the social structure of the post-communist country. The processes are turbulent and the majority of Bulgarian population more and more have been pushed to the bottom of society. Mass impoverishment is a typical characteristic for over half of all Bulgarian citizens. Unfortunately, even 10 years after the beginning of the general change, that process continues.

Romanies were the first who formed the “underclass” of Bulgarian society. According to the data, obtained by individual and group in-depth interviews, “the transformations had the most dramatic and negative effect on Romanies”. The explanations what Romanies themselves give are related to unemployment, low education, limited access to schools for Roma children, labour discrimination and strong negative attitudes to them by the other social and ethnic groups in the society. Here is the opinion of a Roma women who works for the foundation “Social protection for Romanies in Bulgaria”:

During the last 10 years the situation in the country become

harder and harder. All felt that on their backs, but we were and

still are in the worst position. In our families often the two parents

are out of the labour market. From unemployment and shortage of finances begin all family and life troubles. Children are not able

to do to school because their parents do not have money

even for basic needs. What else but crime left for some of them to do in order to survive and to feed their families? We do not excuse them, but that

is their way of coping with the crisis and misery. The key question for Romanies nowadays are linked with survival - what we will eat

tomorrow and how to find money for basic necessities.

The worst thing is that we do not see any hope for the future.

The things develop from bad to worse.”

All data indicate that Romanies are marginal group and form an “underclass”. For the Turkish people however the thing are different. Their social status is similar to the status of Bulgarians, but there are some differences discovered by the research results.

One of the measures was related to self-estimation of poverty. Is is based on the methodological understanding that the self-estimation by people of themselves as “poor” or “rich” is reflected in the level of conformity between perceived needs and the possibilities for satisfying those needs. It also reflects the comparison between the personal situation and the state of the social environment, as well presents and former quality of standard of living. The distribution in the “poor-rich” scale, based on self-identification of surveyed individuals, is presented in the following Table.

Table 9

SELF-IDENTIFICATION ON THE SCALE “POOR-RICH”

(%)

The data clearly demonstrates that the majority of Bulgarian population, without differences in ethnicity, put themselves from the middle to the bottom of the social pyramid. The mass concentration for all surveyed social, ethnic and employment categories is in that space. Even employees are close to the bottom, and for those out of the labour market the percentage is impressive high. Comparison on ethnicity does not give strong evidence that Turkish people in Bulgaria live in poverty on the higher extend than Bulgarians. How one of the surveyed said “Poverty has not ethnicity”.

Compulsory deprivation and change of life style are, to a great extend, the result of situation constraint. The individual factor determinate only the parameters of adapting to the critical situation. The fact that a great part of Bulgaria’s population has had to sacrifice certain well-established practice and benefits, and now live with many more constraints, has placed them in a state of chock and in situation of “fighting for survival”. The social consequences are manifold - the formation of a culture of poverty, intense feelings of marginalization and helplessness, pessimism, doubts about the directions of the reforms, revival if long established - but largely forgotten - values of security, displays of quite elementary - but at the same time essential - needs, and many others.

On the basis of mass feeling of poverty it was interesting to discover individual strategies for coping and prognoses for the future. In the next Table 10 are presented the individual prognoses of the surveyed people.

Table 10

INDIVIDUAL PROGNOSES FOR THE MATERIAL STATUS

OF THE HOUSEHOLD IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS

(%)

The first conclusion what come from the data is that many Turkish people in the country look with pessimism at the future. The strong pessimist are mainly among those out of the labour market. But even many of the currently employees do not see big hope to improve their standard of living in the next two years.

Compare to the Bulgarians, Turkish people are more pessimistic than Bulgarians. A significantly bigger part of them compare to Bulgarians expect deterioration of their material status what is mostly due to their chances for getting a high paid job. In addition, the correlation between extreme pessimists and extreme optimist among both the Turkish minority and Bulgarian majority is 4 : 1, but as a percentage frequencies it is respective 31:8 for Turkish against 20:5 for Bulgarians.

The widespread pessimism inevitable reflects to people’s individual strategies for coping with the critical situation. Here the research find that both Turkish and Bulgarian employees age are more unlikely to rely on passive strategies - economising and stronger “fasten the belts” - than people out of the labour market. Active strategies like additional job or geographical mobility are more popular among Turkish than among Bulgarians. Here in the Figure 7 is given the distribution between active and passive individual strategies for coping of the Turkish employees in Bulgaria.

Figure 7

However, the majority of Turkish people who are out of the labour market, rely mostly on passive strategies and every third of them share s/he helplessness “I do not know what to do”. For comparison, Bulgarians in the same situation are 15 per cent less.

Surveyed people were asked also to self-locate themselves in the subjective social class scale. Trough that it was examine their general self-estimation compare to the others in Bulgarian society. How it could be seen in the next Figure the largest part of both Turkish and Bulgarians feel to belong to the working class.

Figure 8

The figure clearly illustrate and is one more evidence that Turkish minority in Bulgaria do not form any “under-class” in Bulgaria. Turkish people in their largest part are concentrated in the working class, like Bulgarians, not on the very bottom of the social stratification scale.

The general conclusion what could be made is that Turkish minority in Bulgaria face similar challenges as other groups, but they are not dominantly based on ethnicity. Ethnic differences exist in the country, especially related to educational and skills capacity of people, but social and economic are harder.

CONCLUSIVE NOTES

Bulgarian society is in front of the Twenty First century full of challenges linked with the general transformation and democratic transition to a free market economy. Being a Balkan’s country, Bulgaria is not an exclusion from the others in the region and faces many povocations based on ethnicity. However, ethnic differences in the country exist but are neither as dramatic as in some of the neighbour countries, nor so conflict. Social and economic problems are rather higher than ethnic ones. This research supply a lot of evidence to confirm such a thesis. That conclusion is valid for the whole spectrum of Bulgaria’s ethnic features, including labour market status of the biggest Bulgarian ethnic groups - Turkish and Romanies.

The research was made from the end of 1997 to the middle of 1999, i.e. before the Cosovo’s conflict. Different qualitative and quantitative methods were use for collecting data, for selection of the respondents and for data processing. After the project completion it could be said that such multi-variety approach is rather successful for delicate topics like the project’s one.

Research results threw actual light on the opportunities and barriers for the ethnic minorities in the changing labour market in Bulgaria. They could be summarised in the following way:

• The majority of the Bulgarian citizens without any differences based on ethnicity have financial commitment to work. For them work is central to a person’s life simply because it provides an income, and that could not be surpassingly in the critical situation and mass impoverishment where Bulgaria is.
• Work centrality is more important for Turkish than for Bulgarians, even for the both groups it has rather high score. Turkish people have stronger instrumental attitudes and higher financial commitments to work. One of the reasons is related to their lower educational and skills level compare to Bulgarians. The majority of them who are in economically active age have elementary and less than secondary education. It does not allow them to find a job what could be interesting and would give them more satisfaction than income source. Their educational and skill capacity is comparative low and limits their chances for getting job as a source of self-realisation and self-actualisation.
• Both Bulgarians and Turkish are likely to hold “materialist values” when it comes to work. Across the two ethnic groups we examined here, there are almost no ethnic differences in measure relating to the importance of extrinsic rewards of work (income and security). Their score is almost one and the same and the reason consists in the socio-economic environment in Bulgaria. A big part of Turkish people value interesting work and estimate when it benefits for other people and for society as a whole. It suggests that in a better labour market situation Turkish people in Bulgaria will be willing to choose a job which will allow them not only to feel financially comfortable, but also their employment to be a field for their personal self-actualisation and self-realisation. Recently in their value structure “materialistic” value dominate on their “post-materialistic”, but as a whole they share both of them.
• Almost every second Turkish employee in the country work in dangerous working conditions and has to do hard physical work. In other words Turkish people dominate in those parts of the labour market where is needed mostly physical efforts. They usually do non-skilled work probably because of their educational and qualification potential. The biggest proportion of them (88 per cent) developed their skills on the basis of training or experience gained in their present or previous jobs. In their work they rely mostly on their previous experience and on the experience they can gain in their resent job. It is not surprisingly then that almost half (46 per cent) of the Turkish employees identified themselves with low-qualified and non-qualified workers. At the same time many of them are satisfied of their work.
• Romanies are satisfied when they have any job. Turkish employees are satisfied with their jobs mostly because they have opportunities for earning money and for social contacts. Satisfaction with the two categories is closely linked with their financial commitment to work and with their instrumental attitudes towards work activity in general.
• Work reality and work values pass very significantly each other. On a large extend differences are related to the extrinsic rewards of work - income, security, promotion. The most valuable and the most important work values are the less meet in the resent Bulgarian labour reality. For the Turkish employees that dependence is stronger than for Bulgarians. High income and job security are on the top of value scale. Exactly they lead the list of differences between values and real situation at the workplace. For the Turkish employees the differences are really dramatic - there is no one from that ethnic category who evaluate its income as high. At the same time, for almost 100 per cent high income is the most important aspect of work.
• Over 80 per cent of those Turkish who are out of the labour force do not see probability to find job. For Bulgarians the percentage is also very high what indicate that such a situation is not based on ethnicity for the Turkish people, but on other reasons. Talking about the Romanies, however, according to the qualitative data under this research, chances for finding a job related very closely to their ethnic affiliation.
• Romanies were the first who formed the “underclass” in the Bulgarian society. According to the data, obtained by individual and group in-depth interviews, “the transformations had the most dramatic and negative effect on Romanies”. The explanations what Romanies themselves give are related to unemployment, low education, limited access to schools for Romanies children, labour discrimination and strong negative attitudes and prejudices to them by the other social and ethnic groups in the society.
• Turkish minority in Bulgaria do not form any “under-class” in Bulgaria. Turkish people in their largest part are concentrated in the working class, like Bulgarians, and they are not on the very bottom of the social stratification scale. It is important however, that many Turkish people in the country look with pessimism at the future. The strongest pessimists are mainly among those out of the labour market. But even many of the currently employees do not see big hope to improve their standard of living in the next two years.

In summary, all data indicate that ethnic differences exist in the changing labour market in Bulgaria, especially related to educational and skills capacity of people, but social and economic challenges are harder and much more stressful.

REFERENCES

ALBA, Richard D. Ethnic network and tolerant attitudes. American Sociological Review v.42, no. 1 ( Spring 1987 )

BROWN, C. Black and White in Britain: The Third PSI Survey. Heinemann, London, 1984.

CASTLES, S. and Kosack G.C. Immigrant workers and class structure in Western Europe. O U P , Oxford, 1973.

Employment & social affears. European Commission. 1998.

Employment and Unemployment, 2/’98. National Statistical Institute. Sofia, 1999.

Employment performance in the Member States. Employment rates report 1998.

European Commission (1997, 1998). Employment in Europe

European Commission (1998) Employment Performance in the Member States.

European Commission (1998) Equal Opportunities Magazine

FRANCIS,Emmerich K. Interethnic Relations. New York etc. : Elsevier, 1976.

Gallie, D., White, M., Cheng, Y. and Tomlinson, M. (1998) Restructuring the Employment Relationship, Oxfor: Clarendon Press.

GREELEY, Andrew M. School desegregation and ethnicity. In School desegregation, edited by Walter G. Stephan and Joe R.Feagin. New York, NY: Plenum, 1980.

HALLER, Max (1992), Class and nation as competing bases for collective identity and action, International Journal of Group Tensions 22:229-264

Inglehart, R. (1997). MODERNIZATION AND POSTMODERNISATION: Cultural, Economic andPolitical Change in 43 Societies, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Jahoda, M. (1982). Employment and unemployment: A Social Phycholgical Analysies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PHIZAKLEA, A. and Miles, R. Labour and racism . R K P, London, 1980.

Russell, H. (1998/99) The rewards of work: British Social Attitudes. Athenaeum Press, Ltd.

SMITH, Tom W. and Glenn R. Dempsey. The polls: Ethnic social distance and prejudice. Public Opinion Quarterly v. 47, no. 4 (Winter 1983 ). N O R C.

Tomova, I. (1995). The Gypsies in the Transition Period. International Center for Minority Studies and International Relations. Sofia.

Tzeliazkova, A. (ed), (1998). Between ADAPTATION AND NOSTALGIA. International Center for Minority Studies and International Relations. Sofia.

UNDP. (1997) Human Security in Bulgaria.

UNDP. (1998) Roverty in Transition.

UNDP. (1998) Women in Poverty.