In 2024, just over 10,000 people moved into the Plovdiv district from other parts of Bulgaria. The largest group, almost 5,000 people, changed their address within the province itself, while there was also a significant inflow (over 700 people) from the capital, a clear sign that Bulgaria’s second-largest city is becoming increasingly attractive.
The province has long emerged as a regional migration magnet, with a substantial number of newcomers arriving from Haskovo, Smolyan, Stara Zagora, and Pazardzhik. Similar trends can be observed in other economically developed regions: Varna received 6,300 migrants, Burgas 6,100, and the total number of people who changed their residence within the country was nearly 97,000.
These figures include only those who have permanently relocated and officially changed their address. If we also add daily labor migration—people who commute for work every day—the numbers are much larger. The municipality of Plovdiv alone receives 34,000 commuters, Maritsa 5,600, and Rodopi 2,300 (according to the 2021 census; today this figure is certainly higher). At the national level, almost 500,000 people leave their place of residence every day to go to work. In other words, about one-sixth of all workers are on the move.
The positive economic effects of this migration are undeniable. Migrants themselves gain better pay, access to jobs, and career opportunities that may be limited or entirely absent in their hometowns or villages, as well as a new and more dynamic social environment and better access to education. The regions that receive them benefit from a fresh (and often young) workforce for their strained labor markets, new students, and so on. Some migrants may also start their own businesses and, in turn, create jobs. Local businesses gain new customers and higher turnover, while municipalities collect more tax revenue.
We rarely hear arguments against internal migration. On the contrary, companies from different cities actively compete for the best workers, and there are even calls for incentives to encourage people to move to economically weaker regions. There are no quotas, labor-market tests, diploma recognition procedures, work permits, or other barriers to someone moving, for example, from Haskovo to Plovdiv (unless we go back to the era of the People’s Republic and the residence permit system). No one opposes these internal migrants, even when they come from the most remote parts of the country.
Yet economically, there is no difference between internal migrants and immigrants from abroad: they fill the same unoccupied niches in the labor market, and their impact is practically identical. Their treatment, however, is very different. People coming from outside face numerous restrictions and requirements. They are also the subject of political rhetoric that is almost always negative, usually framed around claims that they “steal jobs from locals” or “push wages down.” As the labor market continues to tighten, unemployment remains low, and the number of non-EU workers in Bulgaria increases, this issue will become ever more important.
So what explains the different treatment of migrants from a neighbouring town and migrants from a neighbouring country? Since there is no real economic difference, the explanation must be elsewhere. It lies in integration. While no one doubts that people from Haskovo can successfully integrate into Plovdiv’s society, there are real—and not entirely unfounded—doubts about migrants from Uzbekistan or Nepal. This means the debate should take place on a different level: not in terms of economic policy, but of integration and education, focusing on society’s capacity and willingness to accept people from outside for religious, cultural, and social reasons. The answers to these questions are not automatic, but we must conduct the right debate.
Continue exploring:
Yet Another Missed Opportunity for More Free Trade and Growth in the EU