Demonising the immigrant- why some stakeholders in the UK are working together to exaggerate the threat of Romanian and Bulgarian immigration

On January 1, 2007, The European Union accepted two new members- Bulgaria and Romania. They were the first Balkan countries, members of the EU, after Greece. Nowadays, six years later they are still not enjoying all of the benefits of full membership of the union, in particular the freedom of movement of labour. However, January 1, 2014 is the expected date for both countries in terms of getting freedom of access to the United Kingdom. This will be followed by many benefits but the most important one is opening the borders for the UK labour market for Bulgarian and Romanian migrants. The consequences of this, however, are a matter of concern for the UK politicians who decided to make a hot topic out of the case.

There has been much speculation in the UK press and political circles about the increasing of the number of Bulgarian and Romanian migrants to the country. The UK Government has taken steps to mitigate what is feared will be a massive influx of new immigrants, launching a negative PR campaign in those countries in order to discourage people from emigrating to the UK.

What makes the other European countries distrust Bulgaria and Romania so much? The level of corruption in both countries is high according to the European Commission and the need to demonstrate that it is decreasing is the main requirement for them to enter the passport-free Schengen zone. The reputation of Bulgaria and Romania does not work well for them either. Eastern European countries in general are seen by Western Europeans as “transition” countries with post-communist influence on their politics, which have not yet entirely applied the democratic model. Bulgaria and Romania have problems with the levels of corruption, their judicial, health and education systems. The living standard is also very low which is why many people choose to emigrate.

Nigel Farage/The Telegraph, 30.12.2013

However, the number of immigrants expected to come to the UK after January 1, 2014 is highly exaggerated by the UK politicians and the media. The leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), Nigel Farage made a statement recently that a wave of 29 million immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania is expected to enter the country if Britain puts down the restrictions after January 2014 (Giannangely 2012). However this statement is untrue and logically impossible as the population of Romania is 21,848,504 (Index Mundi, Romania, 2012) and the population of Bulgaria is 7,037,935 (Index Mundi, Bulgaria, 2012).

Some political and media stakeholders have a vested interest in overstating the threat posed by Bulgarian and Romanian immigration in order to achieve their objectives. The situation is exaggerated as some political parties, like UKIP, which have no seats in the British Parliament can make a good use of the issue by creating a problem out of it and this way, attract voters.

Stakeholder salience is an analysis model of identifying and classifying stakeholders according to three main attributes: Power, Legitimacy and Urgency (Virk 2010). It is a useful tool that could be used to analyse the issue with the Bulgarian and Romanian immigration. The theory suggests that paying attention to stakeholders is good for corporate performance and reputation. Waddock & Graves (1997) argue that corporate performance is all about the relationship between an organisation and its stakeholders (Agle et al. 1999, p. 511).

In the particular case the UK Government and politicians are definitive stakeholders as they possess the three attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency and the media is a dangerous stakeholder as it has power and urgency to maintain the negative image of Bulgaria and Romania, before dropping the entry restrictions in 2014. However, Bulgarian and Romanian governments cannot do much to counteract the negative attitude even though they have strong relationships with these stakeholders, as part of one union- the EU. The reason for that is the actual issue is bigger- the immigration in UK as a whole. Bulgaria and Romania do not have much in common with the larger problem, although they have been targeted as the “villains”. That is why they do not have the power to counteract as they are not the real cause of the main problem, but they are just the latest expression of it. Therefore, it could be argued that stakeholder salience theory does not work in this case.

Anholt (2002, p.27-28) argues that the main obstacle for improving reputation is time. Even if a country is doing quite well, its past image could work against it simply because negative stereotype is difficult to change once “it has taken root”. Therefore bad reputation is a major reason for the UK wave of discontent against Bulgaria and Romania, but reputation management cannot do much about it. And this is simply because of the time limit. Bulgaria and Romania would not change the negative perceptions about themselves in the UK even if they launch the most successful and effective PR campaign. The only thing they can do though is, as Anholt (2002, p.28) suggests, “make themselves famous for what they are going to be, instead of what they have been.”

As discussed above, the media is a dangerous stakeholder- therefore it has the power to influence the situation with the Bulgarian and Romanian migrants in a very big way. However, in this particular case, the media is favouring one side rather than providing equivalent treatment to both sides of this political conflict. This means we are now talking about media framing. The average person normally has little personal experience of politics so they rely on the media to inform them and help them form a view and better understand the political environment. This gives the media power to create its own reality, different from the true one. Semetko and Valkenburg (2000, p.94) argue that “How people think about an issue, especially a political issue that is inherently ambiguous, is dependent on how the issue is framed by the media” (Baysha & Hallahan 2004, p.234).

That is the case with Bulgaria and Romania too; the issue is framed by the UK political and press circles. They put a lot more stress on it than is necessary and create artificial tension in the British people against Bulgarian and Romanian migrants. This does not mean that either of the two countries can do anything to stop the negative press coverage. Most of the leading UK newspapers show only the UK politicians point of view, and the right of response was given neither to Bulgaria nor to Romania.

From here, two questions arise: Why are the Bulgarian and Romanian migrants such a big threat for the UK? And can both countries’ governments do anything to stop the negative coverage and speculations in the UK press and political circles? The answers to both quations are simple- "nothing" to the first one and "no" to the second one. Even though the Government gave official statistics on the number of Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants expected to enter the country in 2014, which was several times less than what was said earlier, the situation did not change. The press and politicians continued blaming them for immigration rates which proves the statement that Bulgaria and Romania are the occasion but not the cause of the problem. Therefore nothing could be done by both countries in order to change the attitude as they have already been given the role of “the villains.” 

References

Giannangely M., 2012-23-12. Britain to face a new immigrant wave; Express

Index Mundi, Romania Demographics Profile 2013

Index Mundi, Bulgaria Demographics Profile 2013

Virk, 2010; Salience Model – Stakeholder Analysis; Leadership and Management

Agle B. R. et al., 1999; Who Matters to CEOs? An Investigation of Stakeholder Attributes and Salience, Corporate Performance and CEO Values; Academy of Management Journal Vol. 42, No.5, 507-525

Anholt S., 2002; Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions; Palgrave Macmillan

Baysha O. & Hallahan K., 2004; Media Framing of the Ukrainian Political Crisis, 2000-2001; Journalism Studies

Colorado State University, 1993-2013; Content Analysis

Macnamara J., 2005; Media content analysis: Its uses; benefits and best practice methodology; Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 6(1), 1–34.