Trends in International Migration

2002 Trends in International Migration « Trends in International Migration This report analyses recent trends in mig...

Author: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development

41 downloads 2499 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

2002

Trends in International Migration

«


This report analyses recent trends in migration movements and policies in OECD countries as well as in selected non-member countries. It includes a detailed description of the flows and channels of immigration and the nationalities of the migrants concerned. It highlights the contribution of immigration to increases in the total population and the labour force and describes the changes that have taken place in the sectoral distribution of foreign workers. It also underlines the growth of employment-based migration and the measures implemented by some OECD countries to facilitate the recruitment of skilled and highly skilled foreign workers. The report notes that the control of flows remains a high priority on the agenda of migration policies, as does the extension of co-operation with countries of origin. Particular attention is given to the integration of immigrants, and notably of youth, into the labour market and society as a whole. In addition to this overall analysis, the reader will also find in this publication: – Two sections on migration in East and South-East Asia, and recent developments in migration movements in and from central and eastern European countries. – A special chapter devoted to a comparative analysis of recent studies of labour shortages and the needs for immigrants in OECD countries. – Country notes describing in detail recent developments in migration flows and policies. – A statistical annex containing the most recent available data on foreign and immigrant populations, foreign workers, migration flows and naturalisations.

This book is available to subscribers to the following SourceOECD themes: Social Issues/Migration/Health Emerging Economies Transition Economies Ask your librarian for more details on how to access OECD books on line, or write to us at

[email protected]


OECD's books, periodicals and statistical databases are now available via www.SourceOECD.org, our online library.

www.oecd.org

ISBN 92-64-19949-7 81 2003 06 1 P

SOPEMI 2002

-:HSTCQE=V^^Y^V:

SOPEMI 2002

© OECD, 2003. © Software: 1987-1996, Acrobat is a trademark of ADOBE. All rights reserved. OECD grants you the right to use one copy of this Program for your personal use only. Unauthorised reproduction, lending, hiring, transmission or distribution of any data or software is prohibited. You must treat the Program and associated materials and any elements thereof like any other copyrighted material. All requests should be made to: Head of Publications Service, OECD Publications Service, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France.

SOPEMI

Trends in International Migration Continuous Reporting System on Migration

ANNUAL REPORT 2002 EDITION

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: – to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; – to contribute to sound economic expansion in member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and – to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996), Korea (12th December 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14th December 2000). The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECD Convention).

OECD CENTRE FOR CO-OPERATION WITH NON-MEMBERS The OECD Centre for Co-operation with Non-members (CCNM) promotes and co-ordinates OECD’s policy dialogue and co-operation with economies outside the OECD area. The OECD currently maintains policy cooperation with approximately 70 non-member economies. The essence of CCNM co-operative programmes with non-members is to make the rich and varied assets of the OECD available beyond its current membership to interested non-members. For example, the OECD’s unique co-operative working methods that have been developed over many years; a stock of best practices across all areas of public policy experiences among members; on-going policy dialogue among senior representatives from capitals, reinforced by reciprocal peer pressure; and the capacity to address interdisciplinary issues. All of this is supported by a rich historical database and strong analytical capacity within the Secretariat. Likewise, member countries benefit from the exchange of experience with experts and officials from non-member economies. The CCNM’s programmes cover the major policy areas of OECD expertise that are of mutual interest to nonmembers. These include: economic monitoring, structural adjustment through sectoral policies, trade policy, international investment, financial sector reform, international taxation, environment, agriculture, labour market, education and social policy, as well as innovation and technological policy development. Publié en français sous le titre : Tendances des migrations internationales RAPPORT ANNUEL

© OECD 2003 Permission to reproduce a portion of this work for non-commercial purposes or classroom use should be obtained through the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC), 20, rue des Grands-Augustins, 75006 Paris, France, tel. (33-1) 44 07 47 70, fax (33-1) 46 34 67 19, for every country except the United States. In the United States permission should be obtained through the Copyright Clearance Center, Customer Service, (508)750-8400, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 USA, or CCC Online: www.copyright.com. All other applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this book should be made to OECD Publications, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France.

FOREWORD This twenty-seventh annual report of the OECD Continuous Reporting System on Migration draws in large part on 32 written contributions from national correspondents (see the list at the end of this report), and on the summary of their discussions at their last annual meeting (December 2001). The 2002 Edition is divided into three parts and a Statistical Annex. Part I describes overall trends in international migration. It focuses on the magnitude, the nature and the direction of flows, as well as the presence of foreign workers in the labour market and in the various sectors of economic activity. Special attention is also given to changes in the countries of origin of immigrants. Two additional sections describe in detail migration in East and South-East Asia together with migration movements in and from Central and Eastern Europe. Part I is completed by an overview of migration policies, in particular those relating to the control of flows, the fight against irregular migration and illegal employment of foreigners, as well as the integration of immigrants in host countries and international co-operation between sending and receiving countries. Part II is devoted to a comparative analysis of recent studies of labour shortages and the needs for immigrants. The available studies confirm the existence of labour market tightness, especially for skilled employment. The report highlights the diversity of methods used by OECD countries to evaluate current and future labour shortages, with a special focus on the needs for IT workers as well as social and medical personnel, and teachers. Labour market tightness also exists for some low-skilled jobs. However, not all OECD countries are necessarily considering an increase in labour-related migration as an answer to the problem of labour shortages. The report also shows that it is important to improve the way present and future generations are prepared and trained to meet the needs of the labour market. Part III is composed of country notes describing recent developments in migration flows and policies in twenty-nine OECD countries and selected non-member countries (The Baltic States, Bulgaria and Romania). This volume is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD.

3

© OECD 2003


This report analyses recent trends in migration movements and policies in OECD countries as well as in selected non-member countries. It includes a detailed description of the flows, the different channels of immigration and the nationalities of the migrants concerned. It highlights the contribution of immigration to increases in the total population and the labour force and describes the changes that have taken place in the sectoral distribution of foreign workers. It also underlines the growth of employment-based migration and the measures implemented by some OECD countries to facilitate the recruitment of skilled and highly skilled foreign workers. The report notes that the control of flows remains a high priority on the agenda of migration policies, as does the extension of co-operation with countries of origin. Particular attention is given to the integration of immigrants, and notably of youth, into the labour market and society as a whole. In addition to this overall analysis, the reader will also find in this publication: • Two sections on migration in East and South-East Asia and recent developments in migration movements in and from Central and Eastern European countries. • A special chapter devoted to a comparative analysis of recent studies of labour shortages and the needs for immigrants in OECD countries. • Country notes describing in detail recent developments in migration flows and policies • A statistical annex containing the most recent available data on foreign and immigrant populations, foreign workers, migration flows and naturalisations.

4

© OECD 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................................

13

Part I MAIN TRENDS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION A.

MIGRATION AND POPULATION TRENDS ..........................................................................................................................

17

1. Trends in migration movements and changes in the foreign population................................................................ 2. Immigration and population growth in OECD countries ............................................................................................

17 52

IMMIGRANTS AND THE LABOUR MARKET .......................................................................................................................

58

1. 2. 3. 4.

The contribution of foreigners to the labour force is increasing ............................................................................... Participation rates of foreigners by gender and place of birth: persistent imbalances......................................... Sectoral breakdown and trends in the employment of foreigners. .......................................................................... Foreigners are more vulnerable to unemployment than nationals..........................................................................

58 59 61 67

RECENT TRENDS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION IN ASIA AND CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE ...................

70

1. Recent developments in migration flows within East and South-East Asia ............................................................ 2. Trends in migration flows in Central and Eastern Europe .........................................................................................

71 78

D. AN OVERVIEW OF MIGRATION POLICIES..........................................................................................................................

85

1. Policies for regulating and controlling flows ................................................................................................................ 2. Reinforcement of legislation concerning the fight against irregular migration and illegal employment of foreigners ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3. Policies for the integration of immigrants .................................................................................................................... 4. Migration and international co-operation ....................................................................................................................

85

B.

C.

88 91 95

Part II LABOUR SHORTAGES AND THE NEED FOR IMMIGRANTS: A REVIEW OF RECENT STUDIES INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................

103

A.

MEASURING CURRENT LABOUR SHORTAGES.................................................................................................................

103

1. Trends in national statistics on the number of registered vacancies by sector of employment and occupational category ............................................................................................................................................. 2. Causes of labour shortages ............................................................................................................................................ 3. Labour reserves exist but it would be difficult to mobilise them rapidly ...............................................................

104 104 105

THE ROLE OF MIGRATION IN ADDRESSING FUTURE LABOUR MARKET NEEDS......................................................

106

1. Demographic challenges ................................................................................................................................................ 2. Special studies on the economic need for migration .................................................................................................

106 111

STUDIES ON LABOUR SHORTAGES AT MICRO-LEVEL AND THE NEED FOR IMMIGRANT WORKERS ...................

113

1. Sector-level studies on the need for immigrant workers ........................................................................................... 2. Studies on labour shortages by occupation ................................................................................................................ CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................................

114 115 117

B.

C.

5

© OECD 2003


Part III RECENT CHANGES IN MIGRATION MOVEMENTS AND POLICIES (COUNTRY NOTES) Australia ............................................................................. Austria ................................................................................ The Baltic States ............................................................... Belgium .............................................................................. Bulgaria .............................................................................. Canada ............................................................................... Czech Republic ................................................................. Denmark............................................................................. Finland ............................................................................... France................................................................................. Germany............................................................................. Greece................................................................................ Hungary.............................................................................. Ireland ................................................................................ Italy ..................................................................................... Japan...................................................................................

129 135 140 145 149 153 159 164 169 173 179 185 189 194 199 205

Korea.................................................................................. Luxembourg ...................................................................... Mexico................................................................................ Netherlands ...................................................................... New Zealand ..................................................................... Norway ............................................................................... Poland ................................................................................ Portugal.............................................................................. Romania............................................................................. Slovak Republic................................................................ Spain .................................................................................. Sweden .............................................................................. Switzerland........................................................................ Turkey ................................................................................ United Kingdom ............................................................... United States ....................................................................

210 214 218 222 226 230 235 239 243 248 253 258 263 269 272 278

STATISTICAL ANNEX INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................ A.

283

SOURCES AND COMPARABILITY OF MIGRATION STATISTICS ......................................................................................

283

1. Sources of migration statistics ....................................................................................................................................... 2. Measurement of migration flows ................................................................................................................................... 3. Stocks of migrants and characteristics of the immigrant population........................................................................

283 285 287

STATISTICAL SERIES.............................................................................................................................................................

288

LIST OF SOPEMI CORRESPONDENTS ....................................................................................................................................

371

B.

6

© OECD 2003

Table of Contents

List of Charts, Tables and Boxes Part 1 MAIN TRENDS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION Maps I.1 I.2 I.3

Foreign population in the European regions, 2001 ....................................................................................................... Foreign-born population in the Australasian regions, 2001 ......................................................................................... Foreign-born population in North American regions, 2000..........................................................................................

47 48 49

Charts I.1 I.2 I.3 I.4 I.5 I.6 I.7 I.8 I.9 I.10 I.11 I.12 I.13 I.14 I.15 I.16 I.17 I.18

Inflows of foreigners in selected OECD countries, 1980-2000 ...................................................................................... Permanent or long-term immigration flows into selected OECD countries by main categories in 2000................ Change in inflows of migrants by country of origin to selected OECD countries, 1990-1999 and 2000 .................. Stocks of foreign and foreign-born populations in selected OECD countries, 2000 ................................................. Stocks of foreign and foreign-born populations by region of origin in all OECD countries, latest available year......... Foreign and national populations by age group and by sex, latest available year .................................................. School performance of children according to their place of birth and the place of birth of their parents ............ Percentage of foreigners in total population in selected OECD countries and measurement of regional disparity, 2001................................................................................................................................................. Cumulated percentage of the foreign and total population by regions, 2001 ........................................................... Components of total population growth in selected OECD countries and in the European Union, 1960-2000 .... Natural increase and net migration rates in OECD countries, 2000 ............................................................................ Foreign births in 2000 ........................................................................................................................................................ Changes in foreign and total employment during economic recoveries in selected OECD countries .................. Atypical employment by nationality in selected European OECD countries, 2001.................................................. Proportion of foreigners in total unemployment related to their proportion in the labour force..................................... Unemployment rate of youth unemployment according to nationality in selected OECD countries, 2001................. Percentage of long-term unemployment according to nationality.............................................................................. Naturalisation rate in selected OECD countries, 1990-2000.........................................................................................

18 22 31 39 41 43 46 50 50 53 55 56 62 64 68 69 70 94

Tables I.1 I.2 I.3 I.4 I.5 I.6 I.7 I.8 I.9 I.10 I.11 I.12 I.13 I.14 I.15 I.16 I.17 I.18 I.19 I.20

Entries of temporary workers in certain OECD countries by principal categories, 1992, 1997-2000....................... Inflows of asylum seekers in OECD countries in 2001................................................................................................... Stock of foreign students in selected OECD countries, 2000 ....................................................................................... Transferees within companies in selected OECD countries, 1995-2000 ..................................................................... Cross-border workers in selected OECD countries, 1985, 1990, 1995 to 2000 ........................................................... Share of immigrants whose official language in their country of origin is the same as in the country of residence, 2000 .............................................................................................................................................................. Relative importance of the top 5 countries in the total immigration flows and stocks of foreigners in selected OECD countries ............................................................................................................................................. Intra-European mobility of EU citizens, latest available year...................................................................................... Stock of nationals from Nordic countries in other Nordic countries, 2000 ................................................................. Foreign or foreign-born population in selected OECD countries, 1995 and 2000..................................................... Foreign and national adult populations classified by level of education in selected OECD countries................. Change in total population in OECD countries, 1950, 2000 and 2050 ......................................................................... Foreign or foreign-born labour force in selected OECD countries, 1995 and 2000 ................................................... Participation rate and unemployment rate of nationals and foreigners by sex in selected OECD countries, 2000-2001 average.............................................................................................................................................................. Employment of foreigners by sectors, 2000-2001 average ........................................................................................... Self employed by nationality, 2001 ................................................................................................................................. Employment in education, IT and health professions according to citizenship in selected OECD countries, 2001..... Theoretical calculation of the number of jobs to be created to absorb the discrepancy between national and foreign unemployment rates in selected OECD countries, 2001 ......................................................................... Real GDP growth in selected Asian countries and in Australia, 1996-2001 ................................................................ Unemployment rates in selected Asian countries and in Australia, 1996-2001.........................................................

© OECD 2003

24 27 28 29 29 33 35 37 38 40 45 57 59 60 63 65 66 68 72 72

7


I.21 I.22 I.23 I.24 I.25 I.26

Total fertility rates in selected Asian countries, 1980, 1990 and 1999......................................................................... Stocks of foreign workers in selected Asian countries, 1996-2001............................................................................... Stocks of students in degree-granting institutions in the United States, 1954/55, 1974/75 and 2000/01................ Top five nationalities of citizens from Central and Eastern Europe residing in selected OECD countries, 2000. Foreigners residing in some Central and Eastern European countries, by major nationality, latest available year..... Main regularisation programmes of immigrants in an irregular situation in selected OECD countries, by nationality......................................................................................................................................................................

73 73 75 80 81 90

Annex: Probability of foreigners aged 15 to 64 to be out of the labour force according to duration of residence and selected individual characteristics........................................................................................................................

101

Boxes I.1 I.2 I.3 I.4 I.5 I.6 I.7 I.8 I.9 I.10 I.11

Migration statistics: definitions and comparability....................................................................................................... The GATS negotiations on service provision ................................................................................................................. Origin of new immigrants and language skills (Theme box on the Integration of Immigrants)........................................... School performance of children of foreign origin (Theme box on the Integration of Immigrants)...................................... Integration in urban areas (Theme box on the Integration of Immigrants)............................................................................ Immigrants age too… (Theme box on the Integration of Immigrants) ................................................................................... Young foreigners and the labour market (Theme box on the Integration of Immigrants) ................................................... Linguistic competence and integration into the labour market (Theme box on the Integration of Immigrants) ............. EU enlargement and impact on migration from the CEECs ......................................................................................... Unaccompanied minors: an increasing phenomenon and matter of concern (Theme box on the Integration of Immigrants) ........................................................................................................................................................................ Seminar on the Integration of Young Immigrants in the Labour Market (Brussels, 6-7 June 2002), (Theme box on the Integration of Immigrants) ............................................................................................................................................

19 30 33 46 51 57 69 71 85 87 93

Part II LABOUR SHORTAGES AND THE NEED FOR IMMIGRANTS: A REVIEW OF RECENT STUDIES Charts II.1

Projections of the working age population (15-64) in selected OECD countries.......................................................

108

Tables Annex II.1 II.2

Employer surveys of labour shortages............................................................................................................................ Projections of occupational labour demand in OECD countries .................................................................................

124 126

Gains and losses in high skilled labour through migration..........................................................................................

109

Boxes II.1

Part III RECENT CHANGES IN MIGRATION MOVEMENTS AND POLICIES Tables III.1 III.2 III.3 III.4

8

III.5 III.6 III.7 III.8 III.9

Permanent and temporary migration programme outcomes, 1998-2001 and planning levels for permanent settlers for 2002, by category, Australia .......................................................................................................................... Current figures on the components of total population change, on flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Austria ............................................................................................................................................... Components of population changes since 1990, Baltic States..................................................................................... Current figures on the components of total population change, on flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Belgium ............................................................................................................................................. Current figures on the foreign flows and stocks in Bulgaria ......................................................................................... Immigrants by category, 1998-2001, Canada .................................................................................................................. Current figures on flows and stocks of migrants, Czech Republic ............................................................................... Current figures on flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, Denmark ........................................... Current figures on flows and stocks of total population, Finland................................................................................

130 136 140 146 150 154 160 165 170

© OECD 2003

Table of Contents

III.10 Current figures on flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, France................................................ III.11 Current figures on the components of total population change, on migration flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, Germany........................................................................................................................... III.12 Total labour force and immigrants who were granted a green card following the 1998 regularisation programme in Greece, by region of residence ................................................................................................................................................. III.13 Current figures on migration flows and stocks of foreign population, Hungary......................................................... III.14 Current figures on migration flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, Ireland ............................. III.15 Current figures on foreign population, Italy ................................................................................................................... III.16 Inflows of foreigners by status of residence, 1997-2000, Japan .................................................................................... III.17 Current figures on migration flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, Japan ................................ III.18 Foreign workers in Korea by category, 1997-2000 ......................................................................................................... III.19 Current figures on the components of total population change, on flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, Luxembourg ......................................................................................................................................... III.20 Mexican emigration to the United States, 1911-2000 .................................................................................................... III.21 Foreign-born population living in Mexico in 2000, by region of origin ....................................................................... III.22 Current figures on flows and stocks of foreign, foreign-born or allochtonous population and labour force in the Netherlands............................................................................................................................................................. III.23 Persons accepted for residence, by main category of admission and by country of birth, 2000-2001, New Zealand....................................................................................................................................................................... III.24 Current figures on flows and stocks of foreign population, Norway ............................................................................ III.25 Current figures on migration flows and stocks of foreigners in Poland....................................................................... III.26 Current figures on flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Portugal.......................................... III.27 Current migration figures in Romania.............................................................................................................................. III.28 Current migration figures, Slovak Republic.................................................................................................................... III.29 Current figures on flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Spain .............................................. III.30 Current figures on flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Sweden .......................................... III.31 Current figures on the components of total population change, on migration flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, Switzerland ..................................................................................................................... III.32 Immigration to Turkey, 1998-2001.................................................................................................................................... III.33 Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, United Kingdom............. III.34 Employment-based immigration, by preference, fiscal years 1997-2000, United States.........................................

174 180 186 190 195 201 206 207 211 215 218 220 223 227 231 236 240 245 249 254 259 264 270 273 281

Statistical Annex 1. Summary table on the sources of migration statistics .......................................................................................................

285

Boxes III.1 III.2 III.3 III.4 III.5 III.6 III.7 III.8

Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia............................................................................................................. An overview of the structure and approach of Canada’s immigration programme ................................................... Main determinants of labour market outcomes for immigrants and their descendants in Denmark..................... New definition for allochtonous in the Netherlands..................................................................................................... Illegal trafficking of women to Western Europe ............................................................................................................. On the situation of Roma minority in the Slovak Republic (from Joint Assessment of Employment Priorities in the Slovak Republic) ..................................................................................................................................................... The 2000 and 2001 regularisations in Spain ................................................................................................................... The new quota system in Spain .......................................................................................................................................

132 158 168 224 247 251 255 256

Statistical Annex 1. Definitions of migration flows and immigrant populations developed by the United Nations................................... 2. Migration systems ...................................................................................................................................................................

284 288

9

© OECD 2003


TABLES OF THE STATISTICAL ANNEX A. A.1. A.1.1. A.1.2. A.1.3. A.1.4. A.1.5. A.1.6. A.2.

Cross national tables

Foreign and/or foreign-born population: stocks and flows Inflows of foreign population into selected OECD countries....................................................................................... Outflows of foreign population from selected OECD countries .................................................................................. Inflows of asylum seekers into selected OECD countries ............................................................................................ Stocks of foreign-born population in selected OECD countries.................................................................................. Stocks of foreign population in selected OECD countries ........................................................................................... Acquisition of nationality in selected OECD countries.................................................................................................

292 293 293 294 295 296

Foreign or foreign-born labour force: stocks and flows

A.2.1. Inflows of foreign workers into selected OECD countries ............................................................................................ A.2.2. Inflows of seasonal workers in selected OECD countries............................................................................................. A.2.3. Stocks of foreign and foreign-born labour force in selected OECD countries ...........................................................

297 297 298

B. Tables by country of origin B.1.

Foreign and/or foreign-born population: stocks and flows

B.1.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality B.1.1. B.1.1. B.1.1. B.1.1. B.1.1. B.1.1. B.1.1. B.1.1. B.1.1. B.1.1. B.1.1. B.1.1.

AUSTRALIA ....................................................... AUSTRIA ........................................................... BELGIUM........................................................... CANADA ............................................................ CZECH REPUBLIC ............................................ DENMARK......................................................... FINLAND ........................................................... FRANCE............................................................. GERMANY ......................................................... GREECE............................................................. HUNGARY ......................................................... IRELAND ...........................................................

299 300 300 301 301 302 302 303 303 304 304 305

B.1.1. B.1.1. B.1.1. B.1.1. B.1.1. B.1.1. B.1.1. B.1.1. B.1.1. B.1.1. B.1.1.

ITALY ................................................................. JAPAN ................................................................ LUXEMBOURG .................................................. NETHERLANDS ................................................ NEW ZEALAND ................................................. NORWAY ............................................................ PORTUGAL ........................................................ SWEDEN ............................................................ SWITZERLAND .................................................. UNITED KINGDOM .......................................... UNITED STATES ...............................................

305 305 306 306 307 307 308 308 309 309 310

311 311 312 312 313 313 314

B.1.2. JAPAN ............................................................... B.1.2. LUXEMBOURG ................................................. B.1.2. NETHERLANDS .............................................. B.1.2. NEW ZEALAND ................................................ B.1.2. NORWAY ......................................................... B.1.2. SWEDEN ......................................................... B.1.2. SWITZERLAND .................................................

314 315 315 315 316 316 317

318 318 319 319 320

B.1.3. B.1.3. B.1.3. B.1.3. B.1.3.

NETHERLANDS ............................................... SWEDEN ........................................................... SWITZERLAND ................................................. UNITED KINGDOM ......................................... UNITED STATES ..............................................

320 321 321 322 322

323 323 324 324 325 325

B.1.4. B.1.4. B.1.4. B.1.4. B.1.4.

NETHERLANDS ............................................... NEW ZEALAND ............................................... NORWAY ........................................................... SWEDEN ......................................................... UNITED STATES ...............................................

326 326 327 327 328

B.1.2. Outflows of foreign population by nationality B.1.2. B.1.2. B.1.2. B.1.2. B.1.2. B.1.2. B.1.2.

AUSTRALIA ....................................................... AUSTRIA ............................................................ BELGIUM........................................................... DENMARK......................................................... FINLAND ........................................................... GERMANY ......................................................... HUNGARY ........................................................

B.1.3. Inflows of asylum seekers by nationality B.1.3. B.1.3. B.1.3. B.1.3. B.1.3.

AUSTRIA ........................................................... BELGIUM .......................................................... CANADA ........................................................... FRANCE ............................................................ GERMANY ........................................................

B.1.4. Stock of foreign-born population by country of birth

10

B.1.4. B.1.4. B.1.4. B.1.4. B.1.4. B.1.4.

AUSTRALIA ...................................................... AUSTRIA ........................................................... CANADA ............................................................ DENMARK ........................................................ FINLAND .......................................................... HUNGARY ........................................................

© OECD 2003

Table of Contents

B.1.5. Stock of foreign population by nationality B.1.5. B.1.5. B.1.5. B.1.5. B.1.5. B.1.5. B.1.5. B.1.5. B.1.5. B.1.5.

AUSTRIA ........................................................... BELGIUM ........................................................ CZECH REPUBLIC ........................................... DENMARK ........................................................ FINLAND ........................................................ FRANCE ............................................................ GERMANY ...................................................... HUNGARY ........................................................ IRELAND .......................................................... ITALY .................................................................

B.1.5. B.1.5. B.1.5. B.1.5. B.1.5. B.1.5. B.1.5. B.1.5. B.1.5. B.1.5.

JAPAN ............................................................... KOREA .............................................................. LUXEMBOURG ................................................ NETHERLANDS ............................................. NORWAY ........................................................ PORTUGAL ....................................................... SPAIN ................................................................ SWEDEN .......................................................... SWITZERLAND ................................................ UNITED KINGDOM .........................................

333 334 334 335 335 336 336 337 337 338

339 339 339 340 340 340 341 341 341 342

B.1.6. B.1.6. B.1.6. B.1.6. B.1.6. B.1.6. B.1.6. B.1.6. B.1.6. B.1.6.

JAPAN ............................................................... LUXEMBOURG ................................................ NETHERLANDS................................................ NORWAY .......................................................... PORTUGAL ....................................................... SPAIN ................................................................ SWEDEN .......................................................... SWITZERLAND ................................................ UNITED KINGDOM ......................................... UNITED STATES ..............................................

342 342 343 343 344 344 345 345 345 346

347 347

B.2.1. UNITED STATES ..............................................

348

349 349 350 350 351 351 352 352 352 353

B.2.2. B.2.2. B.2.2. B.2.2. B.2.2. B.2.2. B.2.2. B.2.2. B.2.2.

353 354 354 354 355 355 356 356 357

329 329 330 330 331 331 332 332 333 333

B.1.6. Acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality B.1.6. B.1.6. B.1.6. B.1.6. B.1.6. B.1.6. B.1.6. B.1.6. B.1.6. B.1.6.

AUSTRALIA ....................................................... AUSTRIA ............................................................ BELGIUM .......................................................... CANADA .......................................................... DENMARK ........................................................ FINLAND .......................................................... FRANCE ........................................................ GERMANY ......................................................... HUNGARY ........................................................ ITALY ................................................................

B.2.

Stocks of foreign or foreign-born labour force

B.2.1. Immigrant labour force by place of birth B.2.1. AUSTRALIA ....................................................... B.2.1. CANADA ........................................................... B.2.2. Stock of foreign labour by nationality B.2.2. B.2.2. B.2.2. B.2.2. B.2.2. B.2.2. B.2.2. B.2.2. B.2.2. B.2.2.

AUSTRIA ........................................................... BELGIUM........................................................... CZECH REPUBLIC ............................................ DENMARK......................................................... FINLAND .......................................................... FRANCE ............................................................. GERMANY ......................................................... HUNGARY ......................................................... ITALY.................................................................. JAPAN.................................................................

KOREA............................................................... LUXEMBOURG ................................................. NETHERLANDS................................................ NORWAY ........................................................... PORTUGAL ....................................................... SPAIN ................................................................ SWEDEN ........................................................... SWITZERLAND ................................................. UNITED KINGDOM .........................................

Notes related to Tables Migration flows in selected OECD countries ............................................................................................................................. Inflows of asylum seekers............................................................................................................................................................. Foreign-born population .............................................................................................................................................................. Foreign population ....................................................................................................................................................................... Acquisition of nationality ............................................................................................................................................................. Inflows of foreign workers............................................................................................................................................................. Inflows of seasonal workers.......................................................................................................................................................... Foreign and foreign-born labour .................................................................................................................................................

358 360 361 362 364 365 367 368

11

© OECD 2003


Overview of migration trends and foreign population in OECD countries Migration flows

Stock of foreign and foreign-born population

Annual average 1990-94 1995-99

Inflows of foreigners (Thousands) United States Permanent immigration Temporary immigration1 European economic area (EEA)2 Japan Australia Permanent immigration Temporary immigration Canada Permanent immigration Temporary workers4

Thousands 2000

1 209 1 357 1 614 244

747 1 893 1 352 251

850 2 741 1 4263 346

99 104

87 154

92 224

236 64

204 69

227 86

2000

Asylum seekers (Thousands) European economic area United States Canada Central and Eastern Europe Australia

1990

2000

Stock of foreign population EEA7 Japan

20 381 1 686

4.6 0.9

5.4 1.3

Stock of foreign-born population United States Canada (1991 and 1996) Australia

28 400 4 971 4 517

7.9 16.1 22.8

10.4 17.4 23.6

Acquisition of nationality Thousands (Annual average)

Net migration (for 1 000 inhabitants) Australia Canada5 United States European economic area (EEA)6 Japan

% of total population

4.3 .. 3.3 3.1 –0.03

5.1 5.4 3.3 1.7 –0.04

5.4 5.1 3.1 2.5 0.3

516 136 30 3 9

326 105 26 13 9

427 57 36 26 12

1990-94

1995-99

2000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 United States EEA8

Canada

Australia

Japan

1. Excluding visitors, transit migrants, foreign government officials and students. Accompanying dependents are including. 2. Austria, Greece, Italy and Spain are not included. 3. 1999 for Denmark. 4. Inflows of foreign workers entering Canada to work temporarily (excluding seasonal workers) provided by initial entry. 5. Fiscal years (July to June of the given year) (Statistics Canada). 6. Data relate to 1999-2000 average instead of 2000. 7. Excluding Greece. 1999 for France instead of 2000. 8. Excluding Greece and Ireland. Sources: Refer to the notes at the end of the Statistical Annex; Statistics Canada; Labour Force Statistics, OECD, 2002.

12

© OECD 2003

GENERAL INTRODUCTION The 1990s and the beginning of the new millennium confirmed the increasing role of migration in the context of economic globalisation. An overview of migration trends during this period shows that, while the United States, Canada and Australia remained the major settlement countries, Europe also faced significant migration flows. Within the OECD zone, Europe in fact experienced the most pronounced increase in immigration at the beginning of the 1990s and welcomed the largest numbers of asylum seekers. The increase in recent years of asylum applications in certain Central and Eastern European countries, and to a lesser extent in southern Europe, will undoubtedly contribute to reinforcing this trend in the future.

Economic globalisation has been accompanied by the growing importance of migration flows and the number of asylum seekers

Compared to the situation at the beginning of the 1990s, the proportion of foreigners or immigrants in the total population in 2000, as well as in the active population, increased in most OECD countries, especially in the United States and Australia and, to a lesser extent, in Canada, Japan and Korea. This trend was also strong in the European Economic Area, where the increase in foreign residents has more than compensated for the fall in the foreign population, due to naturalisations, estimated at a yearly average of 550 000 people.

Migration plays a growing role in contributing to the population growth of host countries…

Geopolitical changes of the past decade, in particular the liberalisation of movements of persons from Central and Eastern Europe, have enlarged the geographical frame of reference for international migration. Moreover, an increasing number of immigrants from Asia, subSaharan Africa and Central and Latin America, have fuelled the flows heading to several OECD Member countries. For example, one can observe the growth of migration flows originating from China, the Philippines, Romania and, more recently, from the Ukraine, Brazil, Ecuador, Argentina, Senegal, Cape Verde and South Africa. Despite the persistence of traditional flows, the emergence of new flows has modified the distribution by nationality of the foreign population in several host countries. The dispersal of same-origin migrants across host countries has also tended to increase. This was the case, for example, for nationals from the former Yugoslavia who are long-term residents in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, and more recently, in Italy and the Scandinavian countries. Moroccan citizens first arrived in France, then went to Belgium and the Netherlands and, more recently, have emigrated to Italy and Spain. Chinese nationals were present in a greater number of OECD Member countries.

… which registered important changes in the countries of origin of their migrants

13

© OECD 2003


14

In 2000 and 2001, the growth of employment-related migration and family reunification flows has continued. Illegal immigration has also persisted

In 2000 and, on the basis of the data available, in 2001, the growth of inflows continued in many OECD countries, most particularly in the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan and southern Europe. Employmentrelated migration (and especially that of skilled temporary workers) continued to increase. This was also true for asylum flows and inflows related to family reunification. The persistence of illegal immigration underscores the difficulties faced by host and sending countries in controlling migration flows. In 2002, most OECD countries were not able to avoid an economic slowdown, resulting from the downturn in the advanced technology sectors and the consequences of the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States. It is nonetheless difficult to measure the impact of these events on international mobility and to predict whether there will be an eventual reversal of migration flows.

The management of migration flows and cooperation with sending countries remain a high priority in migration policy…

Every type of migration policy has been implemented during the past two years. OECD countries have adopted a more restrictive attitude towards the entry and residence of foreigners and some countries have tightened requirements for family reunification procedures (e.g., Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands). These policies were enacted in parallel with those giving more importance to selection procedures for new immigrants, especially to those for skilled workers (e.g., in the settlement countries as well as in the United Kingdom, France and Norway). Measures to accelerate the processing of asylum applications and to discourage clearly unfounded applications have gained in importance. The fight against illegal immigration and the illegal employment of foreigners has been reinforced on two fronts: firstly, with tighter border controls, workplace inspections and identity checks within countries. Secondly, measures involving international co-operation with sending countries were undertaken to provide for their readmission of illegal immigrants. In some cases, these were strengthened with new bilateral labour agreements. At the same time in some Member countries, regularisation programmes have included not only undocumented migrant workers (e.g., Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain), but also their family members (e.g., the United States) and rejected asylum seekers who are long-term residents and/or difficult to deport (e.g., Switzerland, Luxembourg). The integration of immigrants and foreigners remains a major issue for most OECD Member countries.

… alongside the integration of immigrants in the society and labour market of the host country.

This year’s report pays particular attention to this question of socioeconomic integration, especially throughout the first section with a series of specific boxes. These boxes shed light on the linguistic competencies of newly arrived immigrants and the determining role of their command of the host country’s language on their labour market integration. Other boxes address the school performance of foreign children and children of foreign background; the employment situation of young migrants and the need to improve their professional skills; and urban revitalisation of declining neighbourhoods, where many migrants are concentrated. The section also examines the fight against racism and discrimination in housing and hiring practices (which mostly penalise young migrants) as well as the situation of aging migrants and the institutional and economic difficulties some of them face upon retirement. Finally, in several OECD Member countries, the increase in inflows of non-accompanied minors raises additional questions regarding the management of migration flows. These cases constitute serious humanitarian emergencies and

© OECD 2003

General Introduction

require the countries affected to create special reception centres and allocate additional resources to care for these children temporarily, while deciding either to accept them into the community or help them return to their home country. *** The second section of this report presents a survey of recent studies on labour shortages and the role of migration in attenuating this situation. Economic growth in the late 1990s, coupled with increasing concerns about aging populations, led many Member countries to envision using migration to ease labour shortages. While untapped resident labour reserves exist, they vary in size from country to country. Moreover, it is not clear whether these reserves can meet the immediate needs of the labour markets concerned and evidence shows that they cannot be mobilised rapidly.

The special chapter of this year’s report is devoted to labour shortages and the resort to immigration

This survey highlights the diversity of methods used by some OECD Member countries to evaluate current and future labour shortages. Even though workers with skills and qualifications linked to new technologies are scarce, especially in information and communication technologies, other shortages exist. Demographic changes, which have led to aging populations and the increase in related health care needs in most OECD countries, have affected the demand for social and medical personnel. Shortages have also been identified among teachers and professionals in the biomedical and food industries. Labour market tightness also exists for low-skilled jobs in agriculture, manufacturing, construction, catering, tourism and domestic services.

Available studies confirm the existence of labour market tightness, especially for skilled employment…

Faced with labour shortages that may reflect more structural issues, some countries are not necessarily considering an increase in foreign labour recruitment. Other countries, though, are emphasising solutions to labour shortages using larger scale selective labour immigration policies (even if only on a temporary basis) with the goal of obtaining more significant long-term benefits from migration.

… but not all OECD countries are necessarily considering an increase in labour-related migration

The report also shows that immigration alone will not resolve labour market failures, given the fact that selective labour migration policies present limited solutions. Recommendations include: encouraging and pursuing current efforts to make use of underutilised resident labour supplies; examining more effectively sectoral and regional labour market needs; and continuing to study the long-term consequences of an increase in labour-related migration.

It is important to prepare and train current and future generations since immigration solutions have their limits

*** The third part of this report includes country notes on the recent developments in migration flows and policies.

15

© OECD 2003

Part 1

MAIN TRENDS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION The part concerning the main trends in international migration is presented in four sections. The first (I.A) looks at changes in migration movements and in the foreign population of the OECD member countries. The second Section (I.B) focuses on the position of immigrants in the labour market. The third (I.C) sheds particular light on two regions – Asia and Centr al an d Eastern Euro pe . T his is followed by an overview of migration policies (I.D), which reviews policies to regulate and control flows, along with the full range of measures to enhance the integration of immigrants and developments in cooperation at international level in the area of migration. In addition, the issue of the integration of immigrants into host-country societies is highlighted in theme boxes to be found in Part I. A.

MIGRATION AND POPULATION TRENDS

Over the past two decades, trends in migratory flows and in the levels of foreign and foreign-born po pulations in OECD member countries have reversed course on several occasions. These reversals have resulted from major regional geopolitical upheavals in Central and Eastern Europe, but in Asia and Africa as well. They are also tied in with the important changes – both legislative (amendments to the conditions of entry and residence of foreigners, naturalisation, and so on) and economic – that have taken place in a number of host countries. These changes have resulted in broad contrasts in the dynamics of migratory flows, the main sending countries and the profiles of immigrants. 1.

Trends in migration movements and changes in the foreign population

During the 1980s and early 90s, immigration flows intensified, spurred both by the opening up of Eastern Europe and the rapid economic development of a number of Asian countries. The trend was © OECD 2003

reversed in 1992-93, in part because of efforts by the main receiving countries to tighten controls over migratory flows. From that time on, and until at least 1997, entries of foreign nationals dropped significantly despite the persistence of family migration and arrivals of asylum seekers, due in part to the closing of other channels of immigration and a new flare-up of regional conflicts. The resumption of immigration in the OECD countries, which has been perceptible since the late 1990s, was confirmed and tended to gather pace in 2000 and 2001. It results primarily from greater migration by foreign workers, both temporary and permanent. Conditions for recruiting skilled foreign labour have been eased in most of the OECD member countries in order to meet labour market needs, especially in the new technologies and health care sectors. In 2002, under the combined effects of the technology bust and the 11 September terrorist attacks in the United States, OECD-area countries were unable to escape recession. That recession, even if it may be only short-lived and of moderate intensity, has nonetheless helped to ease the tightness of labour markets and to limit business recruitment requirements, including the need for skilled workers. Even so, it is difficult to gauge the impact of tho se even ts on the international mobility of persons, or to predict whether they will reverse the trend in immigration flows. a)

Migratory trends very clearly on the rise

In 2000 and the first half of 2001, the increased inflows that had been observed since 1996-97 continued in a great many OECD countries (see Chart I.1). This phenomenon, more pronounced in the non-European OECD countries, still remained moderate within the European Union as a whole, since EU immigration rose by only 3.2% between

17


Chart I.1. Inflows of foreigners in selected OECD countries, 1980-2000 Thousands, per 1 000 inhabitants and per 100 foreigners Inflows of foreigners,1 1980-2000

Inflows of foreigners in 2000 Thousands, per 1 000 inhabitants and per 100 foreigners

Thousands UE2

USA and CAN3

USA3

DEU

GBR

2 000

849.8 648.8

Thousands

450 400

1 600

350 300

1 200

250 200

800

150 100

400

50 0 1985

1990

JPN

CAN

1995 FRA

2000

AUS

US A DE U GB R JP N IT A5 CA N FR A AU S NL D CH E BE L AU T NZ L SW E NO R IR L DN K PR T HU N LU X FI N CZ E

0 1980

Per 1 000 inhabitants

24.5

400

16

350

14

300

12

250

10

200

8

150

6

100

4

50

2

0 1985

1990 Nordic countries4

NLD

1995 CHE

2000

LU X CH E NZ L AU T DE U CA N BE L IR L GB R NO R NL D AU S IT A5 SW E DN K US A JP N FR A FI N PR T HU N CZ E

0 1980

BEL

Per 100 foreigners6

140

22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

120 100 80 60 40 20 1985 NZL

1990

IRL

PRT

1995 HUN

2000 LUX

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1980

18

AUS AUT BEL CAN CHE

1985 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Switzerland

1990 CZE DEU DNK FIN FRA

1995

Czech Republic Germany Denmark Finland France

NZ L CA N US A AU S

1980

JP N IT A5 IR L GB R NO R NL D HU N FI N DE U AU T BE L DN K PR SWT E LU X CH E FR A CZ E

0

Note: Data for the United Kingdom are from the International Passenger Survey; for New Zealand, data are based on arrival cards. For Australia, Canada and the United States, data relate to new permanent immigrants; for France and South European countries, data are issued from residence permits. For all other countries, data are based on Population Registers. 1. The host countries have been split into 4 groups according to the volume of inflows in 2000. No series are available for Austria, Czech Republic and Italy. 2. Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. 3. Excluding immigrants legalised in the United States under IRCA regularisation programme. 4. Excluding Iceland. 5. Including foreigners who benefited from the 1998 regularisation programme. 6. For Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, inflows in 2000 are related to the stocks of foreign-born residents (1996 Census for Canada). Sources: National Statistical Offices (for more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Statistical Annex).

2000 GBR HUN IRL ITA JPN

United Kingdom Hungary Ireland Italy Japan

LUX NLD NZL NOR PRT

Luxembourg Netherlands New Zealand Norway Portugal

SWE USA

Sweden United States

© OECD 2003

Main Trends in International Migration

1999 and 2000. It was in the United States, Canada and Japan that growth was particularly strong. The left-hand side of Chart I.1 shows the trend in foreign migrant inflows since 1980. The host countries are divided into four groups, in decreasing order of the volume of their 2000 inflows. The righthand side of the chart shows the volume of inflows in absolute terms, and as a proportion of the total population and the stock of foreigners in each country. In the United States, the change in inflows was s pe ct a cu la r be t w e e n 1 9 9 9 a n d 2 0 0 0 . N e a r l y 850 000 new permanent immigrants were admitted in 2000, up more than 30% from the previous year. Th is dynamic is in clear contrast to what had happened in the three previous years, and the main explanation for it is the fact that major efforts were made to reduce the number of pending applications. For 2001, it is expected that over a million permanent entries will have been recorded, which would constitute an all-time high, excluding the figure s for 1990 and 1991, which in corporated amnesties under the IRCA programme.

Box I.1.

Growth in the inflows of foreigners was just as sharp in Japan, where 346 000 persons settled in 2000, up almost 23% from the previous year and the highest level in decades. The significance of this is heightened by the fact that it came at a time when the Japanese economy was gripped by the recession that began in August 2000, with unemployment at an unprecedented level (5% in 2001). Much of this increased inflow is attributable to returns of descendants of Japanese, mostly from Brazil, and to entries of Chinese and Philippine citizens. In Canada, the rise in permanent immigration, perceptible in 1999, continued and gathered pace in 2000, since 227 000 persons settled in Canada that year, or nearly 20% more than in 1999. The figure for 2001 will be even higher, probably exceeding 250 000 entries. In the early 1990s, similar levels had been reached (256 000 in 1993) and had constituted all-time highs. The Canadian authorities have stated their determination to increase immigration gradually, so that inflows amount to roughly 1% of the total population, which for 2001 was estimated at over 30 million.

Migration statistics: definitions and comparability1

International migration statistics are patchy, of varying degrees of reliability, and subject to problems of comparability. These difficulties stem largely from the diversity of migration systems and legislation on nationality and naturalisation, which reflect the individual history and circumstances of each country. For example, in settlement countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States), immigrants are classified by their place of birth (“foreign-born”), while in the other OECD member countries the criterion of nationality is applied (“foreigners”). Some international organisations, in particular the UN, have recommended adopting a common defi ni ti on of the concept of i nternational mi grant, but impl ementi ng these recommendations is fraught with numerous difficulties. The main sources of information on migration vary across countries, which poses difficulties for the comparability of available data. Some countries (notably northern European ones) keep population registers, while others base their statistics on records of residence and work permits issued to foreign nationals or, in the case of workers, on information provided by social security systems. There are also data from censuses, and from surveys on the various characteristics of the population. In some cases, other sources may be used, such as specific surveys on migrants, border-crossing records, disembarkation cards, studies on staff mobility in multinational enterprises, etc. Despite these difficulties, this report and, more generally, all OECD activities in the field of international migration are aimed precisely at improving the availability, comparability and reliability of data. These activities are based largely on a network of national correspondents in thirty four countries (see the list of correspondents in the Annex) and seek to enhance analysis and understanding of migration issues in the light of the socioeconomic challenges facing OECD member countries. 1. For further details on migration statistics, see the Statistical Annex. 19

© OECD 2003


Certain countries in southern Europe that do not necessarily possess comprehensive and accurate statistics on inflows also noted a significant rise in immigration in the late 1990s. This is the case of Portugal, for example, but also of Spain and Greece, both of which had instituted unprecedented legalisation campaigns, involving in all more than a million and a half people in just a few years (see below, Section I.D on migration policies). In 2000, immigration also increased appreciably in several other OECD member countries, including the Netherlands (+16.6%), the United Kingdom (+13.6%), Finland (+15.2%), Ireland (+11.6%), France (+10.3%) and Australia (+9.7%). In contrast, the trend was more moderate in other European countries characterised by sharply rising immigration in the late 1990s (as in Italy and Belgium). Inflows of foreigners declined in Germany, Austria and a number of Nordic countries (Norway and Sweden in particular). In Germany, in 2000, about 649 000 new immigrants were recorded – down by half from the level reached in 1992 and well below the yearly average for the latter half of the 1990s. Even so, in absolute terms, Germany was still the secondranking host amongst the OECD member countries. The OECD countries can be divided into two groups, according to recent trends in migratory flows. First is a group of countries in which immigration flows peaked significantly in 2000, continuing a more or less buoyant trend. This was the case of Japan, as mentioned above, but also of many European countries for which the rise in flows was more moderate in 2000, such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom. For all of these countries, the number of foreigners taken in was the highest in twenty years. Other countries which would appear to have reached a “maximum” in 1998 or 1999 can also be put in with this group, namely Austria, Luxembourg, Norway and France. The latest statistics available for the United States and Canada would suggest that those countries will also have hit record high inflows in 2001.

20

In reality, only a handful of countries for which data are available over a long period truly stand out in that the record immigration flows of the late 1980s or early 90s remain unequalled to this day. Those countries are Germany, Australia and Switzerland, in addition to the Nordic countries, except for Norway. Elsewhere, however, the trend in inflows of foreigners appears to be more stable, and immigration is far from its record levels. In Germany and Sweden,

there has even been a steady decline in entries of foreign citizens. This observation needs to be qualified, however, for certain countries (Australia and Germany) by the fact that temporary labour migration has been trending firmly upward (see Section I.A.1.c below). If inflows of foreigners have been rising in most of the OECD member countries, the same is actually t r u e o f o u t fl o w s ( se e t h e S t a t i s t i c a l An n e x, Table A.1.2). Without calling the previous findings into question, the trends in the net migration of foreigners and the foreign-born appear to be more moderate, at least in countries for which detailed statistics are available. However, net migration of foreigners dropped by nearly 27% in Germany between 1999 and 2000, while increasing, for example, by more than 22% in the Netherlands over the same period (see Section I.A.2.a below for an analysis of total net migration). Recent migration trends have brought little change to the ranking of the main immigration countrie s, th ough some differences have widened slightly (see the right-hand part of Chart I.1). For example, in 2000, the United Kingdom took in some 30 000 persons more than Japan, and 150 000 more than Canada. On the basis of absolute values, however, the United States (849 400) and Germany (648 800) continued to be the two main immigration countries. For France, Australia, the Netherlands and Switzerland, the number of persons taken in ranged from 120 000 to 87 000. Italy confirmed its positio n betwe en Can ada and Japan with 271 000 entries in 2000. If these legal inflows are compared to the total foreign or immigrant population at the beginning of the year, the ranking changes somewhat. Japan then ranks first, ahead of Italy and Ireland, with ratios of between 20.5% and 19%, followed by the United Kingdom, Norway, the Netherlands, Hungary and Finland, for which the ratios range from 16% to 10%. It is particularly hard to predict whether these trends will continue, given that in 2001 economic activity suffered a numbe r of cyclical shocks. However, the partial data available for 2001 seem to confirm the rise reported in 1999 and 2000. In southern Europe, it can be expected, on the basis of demographic trends and labour requirements, that migration pressure will persist in the coming years. In the medium term, settlement by recent waves of migrants may generate further inflows of immigrants to these countries for family reasons, thereby making © OECD 2003


them more significant immigration countries. At the same time, the other OECD countries, despite the economic turndown, have not rescinded the easing of conditions for the admission of skilled foreign workers, suggesting that the rise in employment-related migration in the late 1990s will not be jeopardised for long. The case of Germany, which plans a radical overhaul of its immigration legislation in response to labour market needs, and that of Canada, which has proclaimed its determination to make active use of immigration to preserve its medium- and long-term economic and demographic dynamics, are just two examples of this. Nevertheless, controlling migration flows remains a priority common to all OECD countries, with special emphasis on curbing illegal immigration and the growing number of asylum seekers. On the whole, migration flows, classified by main categories, have been marked over the last two years by the continuing preponderance of family-linked immigration, greater numbers of asylum seekers and, above all, an increase in employment-related migration. b)

An increasingly contrasting breakdown by category of inflows

Previous editions of Trends in International Migration have highlighted changes in the breakdown of immigration flows by category since the early 1990s. In particular, family-linked immigration (accompanying family members and family reunification) has increased in Australia, the United States, France and Sweden, while immigration for employment has risen in Canada and the United Kingdom and the refugee category has grown in the Nordic countries. Recently, however, the rise in worker migration has been the most salient feature in most of the receiving countries. These trends are not uniform, however, and they reflect the effects of the migration policies, active or not, implemented by the countries in question. Some countries explicitly give priority to foreign workers (Australia, the United Kingdom and Switzerland), while others, such as Canada, seek a more stable distribution amongst categories. A number of other OECD countries, because they apply policies that are more restrictive, give implicit priority to non-selective migration arising from family reunification or requests for asylum (France and the Nordic countries). © OECD 2003

Even if it varied sharply from one country to another, the family component still dominated in several OECD countries in 2000; this was especially so in France, the United States and Canada (see Chart I.2). The share allotted to this category continues to grow in some countries in which other official channels of immigration still remain limited. In France, family-related immigration rose by 22% as compared to 1999, reaching 78% of inflows – the highest level ever reached. As a percentage of total entries, France takes in more family members than any other OECD country. In the Nordic countries, this component of migration is also on the rise. It should also be noted that family members who get permanent resident status are often granted the right to work. In 2000, it was in Sweden and Norway that refugees accounted for the largest share of total immigration flows (at respectively 41% and 38%). This share was also large in Denmark (24%), even if the percentage was down somewhat on 1999. It must be made clear, however, that the data in Chart I.2 refer only to asylum seekers who obtained refugee status during the year in question and do not include asylum seekers wh ose applications we re still pending. Inflows of workers increased in 2000 in all of the countries considered, except for Norway. They rose by only 3% in France, but by 18% in Denmark, 25% in the United Kingdom, 29% in Sweden and 88% in the United States. Labour migration accounted in 2000, in the selected countries, for the highest percentage of total inflows in Australia, Portugal, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, the proportion exceeding 50% in the first three of these countries. The case of Australia is remarkable in that changes in the conditions for entry caused inflows of foreign workers to increase by more than 16% over the previous year, while entries associated with family reunification and refugees declined by 7% and 17% respectively. This trend testifies to the Australian authorities’ determination to encourage migration that is apt to be of short- or medium-term benefit to the economy. Portugal’s case is quite different, illustrating the situation of a country in which the migratory phenomenon is a recent one. T he ma ke- up o f flo ws is de stin ed t o ch an ge , however, as newly settled workers send for their families. Similar patterns can be seen in other southern European countries, such as Italy and Spain.

21


Chart I.2.

Permanent or long-term immigration flows into selected OECD countries by main categories1 in 2000 Percentages of total inflows Family reunification

Workers Refugees

Note: Countries are ranked by decreasing order of the percentage of workers in total inflows. Categories give the legal reason for entering the country. A worker who has benefited from the family reunification procedure is regrouped into this latter category even if he has a job in the host country while entering. Family members who join a refugee are counted among other refugees. 1. For Australia, Canada, the United States, Norway and Sweden, data concern acceptances for settlement. For Denmark, France, Portugal and Switzerland, entries correspond to residence permits usually delivered for a period longer than one year. For the United Kingdom, data are based on entry control at ports of certain categories of migrants (excluding EEA citizens). For Australia, “Workers” include accompanying dependents who are included in the category “family reunification” for all other countries. 2. Data refer to fiscal year (July 1999 to June 2000). Category “Workers” includes accompanying dependents. Excluding citizens from New Zealand who don't need a visa to enter the country. 3. Passengers, excluding EEA citizens, admitted to the United Kingdom. Data only include certain categories of migrants: work permit holders, spouses and refugees. 4. Data refer to fiscal year (October 1999 to September 2000). Excluding immigrants who obtained a permanent residence permit following the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). 5. Entries of EU family members are estimated. Excluding visitors. Among those who benefited from the regularisation programme, only those who received a permit under the family reunification procedure are counted. The “family” category also includes spouses of French citizens and scientifists and parents of French children and those who have family relationship in France, who received the new permit “vie privée et familiale”. 6. Excluding Nordic and EEA citizens. Sources: National Statistical Offices.

Australia2 Portugal Switzerland United Kingdom3 Canada Denmark United States4 France5 Norway Sweden6 0

c)

20

40

60

80

100

Growth in employment-related migration

One of the most significant trends in recent years has been the rise in permanent, but especi al ly t e mp o r ar y, mi gr a t io n f o r e m pl o y me n t purposes. In 2000, this trend continued and was accentuated despite the economic slowdown in the second half of the year. It is the result of a combination of several factors involving the intensity of the expansion phase that marked the latter half of the 1990s and the dawn of the 21st century, as well as the development of the information technology sector, for which in some countries there is a shortage of skilled and highly skilled workers (see Part II below).

22

In this context, there is heightened competition between OECD member countries to attract the human resources they lack, and to keep those individuals who might be tempted to emigrate. Accordingly, in the late 1990s a large number of countries changed their laws to facilitate the entry o f skil le d fo re ig n w o rk er s. T he se le g isla tiv e changes are set forth in detail in the 2001 edition of the report on Trends in International Migration.

In 2000 and 2001, far from abandoning their easing of restrictions, a number of member countries introduced new regulations further encouraging the mobility of highly skilled workers (see Section I.D below on migration policies). One example is the United Kingdom, which created a new type of visa allowing highly qualified persons, selected on the basis of a point system, to enter the United Kingdom to seek work. A similar programme was also instituted in Norway. The same is also true of Canada, which in June 2002 amended its point-based selection system so that candidates likely to find a stable place in the labour market are identified more clearly. In Germany, the quota of 10 000 computer spe cialists introdu ce d under the Gre en Card programme was extended (20 000 visas are available until 2003). In addition, the German government voted in favour of a thorough reform of the immigration legislation to facilitate the entry of highly skilled workers who have been offered jobs paying more than € 75 000 a year. Under a second entry procedure, skilled workers will go through a point system-based selection process modelled on the Canadian system. Unlike the first procedure, this © OECD 2003


second channel of entry will be subject to a quota, but it will not require that applicants already be in possession of a job offer. The special measures that the OECD countries have implemented for IT and telecommunications specialists led to the recruitment of 8 700 persons in Germany between August 2000 and August 2001, nearly 2 600 in France in 2000 (4 000 in 2001) and more than 2 700 in Canada under the pilot programme for computer specialists. In the United States, nearly 163 000 H1B visas were granted in 2001, many of which in the information and communication technologies sector, out of a quota of 195 000. Even though the quota was not filled for the first time since 1997, the numbers were still up significantly from 2000, when 115 000 H1B visas had been issued – despite the fact that new exemptions (admissions not subject to the quota) had been introduced, e.g. to recruit staff for research centres and universities. While specialists in the new technologies have been the primary beneficiaries of the recent easing of visa requirements, the measures have applied to other categories of skilled workers as well, and more particularly to doctors, nurses and nurses’ aides. While in most countries it is the employers who find and recruit qualified computer experts, the situation differs in the health care sector. Equivalency issues and knowledge of the host country’s language are crucial to employment in this sector, which is fully or partially controlled by government. The OECD member countries have adopted different recruiting strategies, most of them trying to attract nurses and doctors from countries awarding professional credentials that are recognised, and where the official language is the same as the host country’s. For its part, Norway has endeavoured to recruit health care professionals from other European countries, but candidates must learn Norwegian before they can be accepted in the country. The United Kingdom and France recently signed bilateral agreements with Spain, which trains a greater number of nurses, to facilitate the mobility of Spanish nurses. The language issue, and the working conditions on offer, have so far limited the scope of these initiatives. The Netherlands has looked to its former colonies as a special source of qualified health care professionals, although there is concern in some circles over the brain drain effects on small countries like Surinam. In contrast to the computer sector, where this phenomenon is not considered © OECD 2003

important, international recruitment of doctors and n u r se s ha s be e n cr it ici se d. S ou t h A fri ca h a s opposed the active recruitment of its health care workers by a number of countries, and the United Kingdom’s National Health Service has pledged officially not to recruit medical staff in countries likely to suffer shortages of such personnel. The reasons for labour shortages in the IT and health care sectors differ significantly: in IT, they result from the sector’s dynamic growth, whereas in the realm of health care they are often a reflection of poor working conditions and supply and demand policies that have been administered at a governmental level for twenty years. In many countries, the problem is not so much a shortage of nurses as a shortage of nurses willing to work under the conditions being offered them. The rise in labour migration does not concern skilled workers alone, and some OECD member countries make extensive use of unskilled foreign labour, chiefly in agriculture, building and civil engineering, and domestic services. This is especially true in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and the United States. In some countries, a substantial proportion of these foreign workers are undocumented. Vi sas f or se aso n a l wo r ke rs a re a lso ve ry common, and on the increase in several member countries, including Germany (263 800 seasonal workers hired in 2000), Switzerland (49 300) and the United States (33 300, see Table I.1). The increase was especially significant in Germany and Switzerland, where the numbers were up by respectively 14.5% and 9% on 1999. Other European countries are also developing programmes to recruit seasonal foreign workers, namely Italy (24 500 persons in 2000), Spain (21 200 permits available in 2001), Sweden (19 400 persons in 2000), the United Kingdom (10 100 persons in 2000), Norway (9 900 persons in 2000) and France (7 900 persons in 2000). Over the long run, however, France and Switzerland stand out insofar as the number of seasonal visas granted in both countries declined throughout the 1990s. For the most part, these workers are employed in agricultural jobs. Some countries, including Korea and Japan, issue a large number of temporary work visas to trainees, generally employed in industry. In both these co untries, this entry category h as risen sharply, to respectively 104 800 and 54 000 persons in 2000. For their part, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom issue “Working Holiday Maker”

23

Entries of temporary workers in certain OECD countries by principal categories, 1992, 1997-2000 Thousands 1992

Australia Skilled temporary resident programme (Offshore and onshore)1 Working Holiday Makers (Offshore) Total Canada2 Total France Employees on secondment Researchers Other holders of an APT3 Seasonal workers Total Germany Workers employed under a contract for services Seasonal workers Trainees Total Italy Seasonal workers Japan Highly skilled workers Trainees Total Note:

1997

1998

1999

2000

14.6 25.9 40.5 (40.3)

31.7 50.0 81.7 (19.7)

37.3 55.6 92.9 (26.0)

37.0 62.6 99.7 (28.0)

39.2 76.5 115.7 (32.3)

70.4 (254.8)

75.4 (216.0)

79.5 (174.2)

85.4 (189.9)

93.7 (227.2)

0.9 0.9 2.8 13.6 18.1 (42.3)

1.0 1.1 2.6 8.2 12.9 (11.0)

1.2 1.0 2.2 7.5 11.8 (10.3)

1.8 1.0 3.1 7.6 13.4 (12.2)

2.2 1.6 3.8 7.9 15.4 (11.3)

115.1 212.4 5.1 332.6 (408.9)

38.5 226.0 3.2 267.7 (285.4)

33.0 207.9 3.1 244.0 (275.5)

40.0 230.3 3.7 274.1 ..

64.8 263.8 3.0 331.6 ..

..

..

..

18.7

24.52

108.1 .. ..

93.9 49.6 143.5

101.9 49.8 151.7

108.0 48.0 156.0

129.9 54.0 183.9

1992

Korea Highly skilled workers Trainees4 Total Sweden Grants of temporary permits (mainly seasonal workers) Switzerland Seasonal workers Trainees Total United Kingdom Long-term permit holders (one year and over)5 Short term permit holders5 Working Holiday Makers Trainees6 Seasonal agricultural workers7 Total United States8 Highly skilled workers Specialists (visa H-1B) Specialists (NAFTA, visa TN)9 Workers of distinguished abilities (visa O) Seasonal workers (visa H-2A) Industrial trainees (visa H-3) Total

1997

1998

1999

2000

3.4 4.9 8.3

14.7 90.4 105.0

11.1 64.2 75.4

12.6 98.4 111.0

17.7 104.8 122.5

.. (0.2)

.. (0.4)

.. (0.4)

15.0 (0.3)

19.4 (0.4)

126.1 1.6 127.8 (39.7)

46.7 0.7 47.4 (25.4)

39.6 0.7 40.3 (26.8)

45.3 0.8 46.1 (31.5)

49.3 1.1 50.3 (34.0)

12.7 14.0 24.0 3.4 3.6 57.6

21.7 20.7 33.3 4.7 9.3 89.7

24.8 23.8 40.8 .. 9.4 98.8

30.5 21.9 45.8 .. 9.8 107.9

55.2 30.4 38.4 .. 10.1 134.1

110.2 12.5 0.5 16.4 3.4 143.0 (116.2)

.. .. .. .. .. .. (90.6)

240.9 59.1 12.2 27.3 3.2 342.7 (77.5)

302.3 68.4 15.9 32.4 3.5 422.5 (56.8)

355.6 91.3 21.7 33.3 3.2 505.1 (107.0)

© OECD 2003

The categories of temporary workers differ from one country to another. Only the principal categories of temporay worker are presented in this table. The figures in brackets indicate the number of entries of permanent workers. |: Break in series. 1. The data cover the fiscal year (from July to June of the indicated year) and include accompanying persons. From 1996/1997 on, the data are on and offshore and include Long Stay Temporary Business Programme. 2. Total of persons issued employment authorisations to work in Canada temporarily excluding persons issued employment authorisations on humanitarian grounds. Persons are shown in the year in which they received their first temporary permit. Figures have been revised from 1996 on. 3. Beneficiaries of provisional work permits (APT). 4. Refer to the note for Korea (Part III of this report) to explain the huge increase in figures. 5. Both long-term and short-term permits are now dedicated to highly skilled workers or those where skills are in short supply. Most of short-term permit holders are entertainers and sports people. 6. The new data-recording system does not allow to identify the trainees separately any longer. 7. Students in full time education aged between 18 and 25. 8. The data cover the fiscal year (October to September of the indicated year). A person is counted as many times as he/she enters the country over the course of the same year. The data may well therefore be overestimated. 9. The figures include family members. Sources: Australia: Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (DIEA); Canada: Citizenship and Immigration Canada; France: Office des migrations internationales, Annuaire des migrations; Germany: Bundesanstalt für Arbeit; Italy: Ministry of Labour; Japan: Ministry of Justice; Korea: Ministry of Justice; Sweden: Ministry of Labour; Switzerland: Office fédéral des étrangers; United Kingdom: Department of Employment; United States: United States Department of Justice, Statistical Yearbooks of Immigration and Naturalization Service.


24

Table I.1.


permits which enable foreign students from certain countries to come work in those countries for a number of months. In 2000, some 76 500 young people entered Australia under the programme, up 22% from the previous year and triple the number of entries in 1992. The United Kingdom admitted 38 400 working holiday makers and New Zealand 13 000. All categories of temporary labour migration in f a c t i n c r e a se d b e t w e e n 1 9 9 9 a n d 2 0 0 0 ( s e e Table I.1). For all categories combined, the rise was 24% in the United Kingdom, 21% in Germany, about 18% in Japan and 10% in Korea. In all, it was the United States that recorded the most entries of temporary workers (505 100 in 2000), but the statistics include multiple entries. In reality, it was probably Germany that issued the most temporary work permits in 2000 (331 600 permits), and in Australia that temporary labour migration was greatest in relation to employment-related migration. d)

Continued intensification of asylum-seeker flows

In OECD countries, refugees and asylum seekers do not arrive in quite the same way. Refugees generally arrive within the framework of government programmes negotiated either with specialised international organisations or with countries that are sheltering the refugees. Asylum seekers, on the other hand, most often apply for refugee status (which they do not necessarily obtain) upon arrival at the border, or after they are already inside the potential host country. In addition, OECD countries authorise certain persons, for humanitarian reasons, to remain either temporarily or on a more permanent basis. From the mid-1980s until the early 90s (see Statistical Annex, Table A.1.3), applications for asylum rose appreciably, sometimes spectacularly (as in Austria, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States). Faced with an increasing number of asylum seekers, OECD countries reacted by speeding up the processing of applications, and by introducing restrictive measures, one of them being the extension of visa requirements to a larger number of countries (see Section I.D on migration policies). Most OECD countries also decided to restrict asylum applications, except for special cases, to persons from countries that have not signed the United Nations Conventions on refugees and on © OECD 2003

human rights, provided they have not previously passed through a country that is a signatory. In spite of these measures, and after declining generally in the early 1990s, flows of new asylum seekers began rising again in most OECD countries from 1997 onwards, due to the combined effect of numerous regional conflicts and continuing entry restrictions. Between 2000 and 2001, the total number of asylum requests filed in OECD member countries resumed dynamic growth, rising by approximately 9.5%. In the European Union, however, applications for asylum declined, in contrast to the pattern of the four previous years. These overall trends in fact mask shar p dispa rities acro ss ho st cou n trie s between 2000 and 2001. In 2001, and in decreasing order, it was the United Kingdom, Germany, the United States, France and Canada that received the greatest number of asylum requests (see Table I.1). The United Kingdom recorded 92 000 applications for asylum in 2001, or about 4 000 more than Germany. The United States took in 86 400 asylum seekers, or rou ghly twice as many as F rance (47 300) an d Canada (44 000). Th e rise in a pplication s for asylum between 2000 and 2001 was also spectacular in other countries, even if the absolute numbers involved remained modest. Examples are to be found in Central and Eastern Europe, and especially the Slovak Republic (up 426% to 8 150 applications in 2001) and the Czech Republic (up 106% to 18 000 applications in 2001) and, to a lesser extent, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary. The aggregate number of applications for asylum in Central and Eastern European countries rose by about 76% between 2000 and 2001. The changing regional geopolitical situation, the tightening of controls in these countries and the more restrictive conditions for asylum in European Union countries all contributed to this trend. A number of countries do stand out, however, with substantial declines in applications for asylum be twe en 200 0 an d 200 1. T he y ar e t he Un ite d Kingdom (with 6 900 fewer applications recorded), the Netherlands (11 300 fewer applications), Italy (14 700 fewer applications) and Belgium (18 100 fewer applications). Analysis of trends in asylum requests over the 1990s highlights significant differences among

25


the main receiving countries. Some have experienced a steady increase in applications (United Kingdom, Ireland, Czech Republic), while others seem to have been affected more temporarily. This is particularly the case for Belgium, Switzerland and Italy, and to a lesser extent – because they still take in substantial numbers of asylum seekers – France, Canada and Austria. For their part, Germany, the United St ates and Swe de n re flect a differen t dynamic, in that the number of asylum requests recorded in 2001 was significantly lower than the levels seen in the very early 1990s. Following the terrorist attacks perpetrated in the United States on 11 September 2001, one might have expected a wave of asylum requests, from Asia Minor in particular. But analysis of quarterly statistics contradicts that hypothesis. In fact, a compariso n o f th e to ta l n um be r of n e w ap plica tio n s recorded in the fourth quarter of 2001 with the corresponding figures from a year earlier shows a slight drop (of 3%). This trend appears even more striking in that asylum requests had risen in the first three quarters by an average of 13%. This trend seems to have continued in early 2002, since recorded applications were down on 2001 by 10% for the first five months of the year. If inflows of asylum seekers are expressed as a proportion of the total foreign population (see Table I.2), it is the Slovak Republic that ranks first (with 29%), far ahead of the Czech Republic, Ireland, Norway and Hungary, where the proportions range from 7.5% to 9%. In the United States and Australia, there were no more than three new asylum seekers per thousand of the foreign-born population in 2001. In Japan, the ratio is even significantly lower. As a percentage of the total population, inflows of asylum seekers are especially great in Austria, in Norway, in Switzerland, in Sweden, the Belgium and the Netherlands.

26

In terms of nationalities, the greatest number of requests recorded in the OECD countries in 2001 came from Afghans (roughly 53 000), followed by more than 50 000 requests from Iraqi citizens, 32 000 from Turks, nearly 29 000 from citizens of the former Yugoslavia and 21 000 from Chinese. The breakdown by original nationality varies sharply, however, from one host country to another (see the Statistical Annex, Table B.1.4). Australia, Denmark and the United Kingdom took in mostly Afghans and Iraqis; Germany, Switzerland and Sweden took in mostly Iraqis, citizens of the former Yugoslavia and

Turks; France took in mainly Turks and citizens of the Democratic Republic of Congo; the Netherlands took in mostly Angolans; Canada took in mainly Pakistanis, Sri Lankans and Chinese; while the United States took in primarily Mexicans, Guatemalans and Salvadorans. Not all asylum seekers obtain refugee status, within the meaning of the Geneva Convention, or in some other form (humanitarian refugee) – far from it (see Table I.2). Approval rates, computed on the basis of applications reviewed for the first time in 2001, were in fact low, and very variable from one host country to another. Approval rates are generally under 30%, but they can be much lower, as in France, where scarcely 12% of the applications examined are approved. Of the ten main receiving countries, the approval rate is highest in Canada, where it is 47%. However, the percentages also vary according to the nationalities concerned. Of the main nationalities of persons seeking asylum in the OECD countries, Afghans are most often granted refugee status (54% of the applications examined in 2001), followed by Iraqis (40%), citizens of the former Yugoslavia (25%), Iranians (22%), Chinese (19%), Russians (16%) and Turks (15%). e)

Migration: a multi-faceted panorama

Along with the traditional “big three” of family immigration, refugees and asylum seekers, and employment-related migration, the main trends of which were presented above, some more specific forms of mobility are developing. Aside from tourist visits, which strictly speaking do not constitute migration, and the seasonal movements mentioned earlier, examples include transfers of staff within multinational firms, cross-bo rder commu ters, temporary movements of skilled workers to provide services, the mobility of students, and retired persons electing to live abroad. Student mobility was discussed in a special chapter of the previous edition of Trends in International Migration. It is tending to increase with the expansion of trade and is part of the globalisation process: first, because language skills are increasingly essential for positions of responsibility and skilled jobs; and second, because cultural experience acquired abroad is frequently viewed as an additional advantage by employers. Apart from the direct financial benefit that enrolment fees bring to institutions of higher education, foreign students constitute a potential reserve of highly skilled © OECD 2003


Table I.2. Inflows of asylum seekers in OECD countries in 2001

United Kingdom Germany United States France Canada Netherlands Austria Belgium Sweden Switzerland Czech Republic Norway Denmark Australia Ireland Italy Hungary Spain Slovak Republic Greece Turkey Poland Bulgaria Romania New Zealand Finland Luxembourg Mexico Japan Portugal EU Central and Eastern Europe North America OECD

Thousands

2000-2001 % change

Per 100 foreigners1 at the beginning of the year

Per 1000 inhabitants (2000)

Those with status recognised (as a % of all decisions taken in 2001)2

92.0 88.4 86.4 47.3 42.7 32.6 30.1 24.5 23.5 20.8 18.0 14.8 12.4 12.4 10.3 9.8 9.6 9.2 8.2 5.5 5.0 4.5 2.4 2.4 1.7 1.7 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.2

–7.0 12.5 51.7 22.0 19.6 –25.8 64.8 –42.5 44.4 17.9 105.6 36.4 19.9 4.2 –5.6 –60.1 22.5 16.3 426.2 78.4 .. 3.1 38.3 74.7 23.4 –47.9 10.8 .. 59.1 –4.5

3.9 1.2 0.3 1.4 0.9 4.9 4.0 2.8 4.9 1.5 9.0 8.0 4.8 0.3 8.2 0.7 7.5 1.0 28.8 .. .. 10.6 .. 3.4 0.2 1.8 0.4 0.1 – 0.1

1.5 1.1 0.3 0.8 1.4 2.1 3.7 2.4 2.7 2.9 1.8 3.3 2.3 0.6 2.7 0.2 1.0 0.2 1.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.3 1.6 – – –

26 25 30 12 47 15 4 27 27 36 1 33 52 29 4 20 5 6 – 18 47 5 70 5 19 38 22 34 23 23

388.1 45.1 129.1 612.3

–2.5 75.9 39.3 9.7

1. As a per cent of stocks of foreign-born citizens for Australia, Canada (1996), New Zealand and the United States. 2. Persons who obtained the refugee status plus those who were granted a “humanitarian” status as a per cent of total decisions taken in 2001 (including otherwise closed). Sources: Refer to notes for Table A.1.3 at the end of the Statistical Annex; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

labour that is familiar with the rules and practices prevailing in the host country. A number of OECD countries, including Switzerland, Germany and Australia, and more recently Canada, have relaxed the rules for foreign students wishing to change their visas in order to enter the labour market after completing their studies. In some OECD member cou ntries, th e number of foreign students is very high. This is especially true in the United States, but also in the United Kingdom and Germany, which respectively hosted 475 000, 223 000 and 187 000 foreign students in 2000, in all fields and at all levels of © OECD 2003

study combined (see Table I.3). France and Australia each had over 100 000 foreign students as well. The proportion of OECD member country nationals, however, varies substantially from one country to another (22.4% in Australia and 25.2% in Poland, versus 60.6% in the United Kingdom, 72.8% in Switzerland and 75.4% in Ireland). These disparities are due partly to the geographical locations of the host countries and their histories of migration, but also to strategies to attract foreign students (grants and scholarships, possibilities of entering the labour marke t, et c.) a nd spe cialised pro grammes in certain fields of study. The OECD countries are

27


Table I.3.

Stock of foreign students in selected OECD countries, 2000 Thousands and percentages

Thousands

United States United Kingdom Germany France Australia Japan Spain Canada Belgium Austria Switzerland Italy Sweden Turkey Netherlands Denmark Portugal Hungary New Zealand Ireland Norway Poland Czech Republic Finland Korea Mexico Slovak Republic Iceland Total OECD Source:

Of which: from an OECD country (%)

475.2 222.9 187.0 137.1 105.8 59.7 40.7 40.0 38.8 30.4 26.0 24.9 20.8 17.7 14.0 12.9 11.2 9.9 8.2 7.4 7.0 6.1 5.7 5.6 3.4 2.4 1.6 0.4

37.6 60.6 53.1 30.2 22.4 36.1 61.6 42.9 58.5 70.1 72.8 46.4 72.3 9.8 57.2 38.2 25.5 .. 29.2 75.4 56.9 25.2 51.8 35.6 28.4 .. 41.5 82.1

1 522.7

43.9

Database on Education, OECD.

taking in an ever-increasing number of foreign students. The total stock of foreign students in the OECD area rose by nearly 15% between 1998 and 2000. The trend has been absolutely spectacular in Belgium and Sweden. The increase was also substantial in Hungary (+48%), Spain (+40%) and New Zealand (+39%).

28

In North America the mobility of retired people has been a long-standing feature, and in some states like Florida and California the elderly are over-represented. Large numbers of Canadian senior citizens migrate to the southern states of the USA, Mexico, Costa Rica and the island states of the West Indies, in some cases only seasonally. 1 This trend is much less advanced in Europe, though it is on an upward path and the mobility of retired people is increasingly assuming an international dimension. For example, it is estimated that of the

nearly 6 million European citizens resident in an EU country other than their own, around 900 000 are aged over 60. Most of them are French, British, German or Belgian, and have settled chiefly in Spain, Portugal, Greece and, to a lesser extent, France. This migration of senior citizens would be more pronounced with the inclusion of return flows to home countries, notably Ireland and Portugal. Easier pension transfers and, in the case of Europe, the introduction of the Euro, but above all the retirement between now and 2010 of the babyboomers (probably more mobile than previous generations), are likely to accentuate this trend, though today it is still marginal. The other types of mobility mentioned above relate to workers – more specifically, skilled workers. In particular, transfers of staff within multinational companies have increased appreciably over the past decade or so. These international movements are generally linked with new relocated investment and their purpose is to start up a new subsidiary or to supervise the transfer of know-how from the parent company. But this mobility is not one-way. It may also be from subsidiary to parent, for the purpose of repatriating specific competencies or training local personnel to take over from the expatriate managers. More generally, in these big international corporations, expatriation is seen as a key element of human resource management. Acquisition of multicultural corporate experience is thus becoming an essential requirement for access to managerial posts. In Asia, movements of skilled workers are mostly transfers within multinational corporations. Japanese companies have invested heavily in that part of the world, relocating their activities in order to remain competitive. Expatriated Japanese nationals perform a large share of the management duties in these relocated enterprises. In the United States, inflows of foreign workers due to transfers of staff within multinational corporations almost tripled between 1995 and 2000 (see Table I.4). In 2000, about 300 000 work permits in this category were issued. A similar trend, over a longer period, is observable in nearly all OECD countries. Cross-border workers are not statistically recorded as migrants. Yet they continuously affect the equilibrium of the employment areas in which they work. This is certainly the case in the European Economic Area where, according to the estimates available, there are over 500 000 cross-border © OECD 2003


Table I.4. Transferees within companies in selected OECD countries, 1995-2000 Thousands

Canada1 France Japan Netherlands United Kingdom United States (visa L1)

1995

1996

.. 0.8 3.1 .. 14.0 112.1

.. 0.8 2.8 1.6 13.0 140.5

1997

2.1 1.0 3.4 2.3 18.0 ..

1998

1999

2000

2.8 1.1 3.5 2.7 22.0 203.3

2.9 1.8 3.8 2.5 15.0 234.4

3.6 2.2 3.9 .. 16.0 294.7

1. Including Mexican and American intracompany transferees who entered under the NAFTA agreement. Sources: Canada : Citizenship and Immigration Canada; France : Office des migrations internationales (OMI); Japan : Ministry of Justice, Immigration Service; Netherlands : Employment Office; United Kingdom : Labour Force survey; United States : US Department of Justice.

workers out of a total of 34 million persons employed in the border zones. 2 Cross-border employment would therefore account for about 1.5% of total employment in these regions. In 2000 Switzerland alone admitted nearly 150 000 cross-border workers, more than half of them French (see Table I.5). Luxembourg also admits a great many Belgian, French and German workers. Belgium takes in an estimated 20 000 French cross-border workers and over 6 000 Netherlands nationals. Germany, given its central location in Europe, takes in a large number of workers resident in France, the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland and Luxembourg. Certain estimates put the crossborder workforce in Germany at nearly 100 000. Although intra-European mobility is still low and develo ping slowly, a marked growth of crossborder employment is observable.

International mobility of skilled workers in s e r v i c e p r o v i s i o n is a n o t h e r f o r m o f la b o u r m i gra tio n t ha t is i ncr ea sin g ste ep ly. T he movements are usually for short periods, though they may extend to several months or recur at freque nt intervals. Lo wer transport costs and technical specialisation account for this trend. The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), signed by more than 130 countries, provides for the introduction of simplified procedures to assist the temporary mobility of professionals in certain se cto rs ( se e Box I.2) . H owe ve r, t he sta tistics generally combine these movements with those of entrepreneurs (business trips), making them very hard to identify. Ultimately, the development of electronic communication may curb service worker migration as new forms of distance working are introduced.

Table I.5. Cross-border workers in selected OECD countries, 1985, 1990, 1995 to 2000 Thousands

Austria1 Germany2 Luxembourg3 Switzerland

1985

1990

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

.. .. 16.1 111.6

.. .. 33.7 180.6

.. .. 55.5 151.0

.. .. 59.6 147.0

.. 16.3 64.4 142.2

2.1 9.7 70.8 142.5

4.0 8.8 78.4 144.8

5.2 9.4 87.4 156.0

1. Stock of non-EU cross border workers who hold a residence permit on 1st July of the given year. 2. Flow data (including renewals of permits). 3. Annual average. Sources: Austria: Federal Ministry of the Interior; Germany: Ministry of Labour; Luxembourg: National Statistical Office; Switzerland: Office fédéral des étrangers.

© OECD 2003

29


Box I.2.

The GATS negotiations on service provision

The General Agreement on Trade in Services, which entered into force on 1 January 1995, identifies four types of international service trade called “modes of supply”. Mode 4 is the one concerning the temporary movement of natural persons. It therefore corresponds to temporary migration for purposes of employment. This may concern unincorporated entrepreneurs, employees of multinationals or foreign firms, or even businesspersons travelling on business. Permanent migration and job search are excluded, although the official definition of service suppliers does not specify a maximum length of stay. The fourth mode of service supply was introduced into the GATS negotiations at the insistence of several developing countries, including India. A new round of negotiations on trade in services began in 2000 and should finish at the end of 2005. member countries of the World Trade Organization were able to put forward requests for amendments until 30 June 2002. Six proposals concerning Mode 4 have been put forward by Colombia, India, Canada, the European Commission, Japan and the United States respectively. The proposals put forward by the developing countries concern the risks of brain drain and mobility of medium- or low-skilled service suppliers. The developed countries have a more ambivalent stance on Mode 4 since while anxious to protect their labour markets, they are under pressure from firms to facilitate access to foreign labour. The amendments requested by those countries concern, in particular, the definition of service suppliers, easing of access to foreign markets and the introduction of a GATS work permit.

f)

Traditional flows and new migration movements

Chart I.3 presents a comparison for selected OECD countries of the structure and changes of inflows from the principal countries of origin. Two distinctive trends can be observed in 2000. The first is the predominance of one or two origin countries. The second is the emergence of new migration flows.

30

I n 2 00 0 t h e f i v e ma i n s e n d in g c o u n t r i e s accounted for over 70% of total flows to Hungary and Japan, but less than one-third of the flows to Denmark and the Netherlands. The predominance of just a few origin countries in migration flows can be attributed to different causes, depending on the country concerned: geographical proximity, historical and cultural ties, or a large presence of refugees and asylum seekers. Geographical proximity would account for the high proportion of Poles in Germany, New Zealanders in Australia, Germans in Austria, French in Belgium and Luxembourg, Mexicans in the United States, Russians in Finland, Albanians in Italy and Chinese in Japan. At any given time, one in four of the main sources of outward migration is a co untry that has a co mmon border with the receiving country. The existence of historical and cultural links applies particularly to Britons in Australia (and the other way round), Moroccans and Algerians in France, Angolans, Cape Verdeans and Brazilians in Portugal and Indians in the United

Kingdom. Finally, the priority given to refugees by Sweden, Norway and Denmark explains the continuing inflow of migrants from countries that are the scene of persistent regional or local conflicts. All told, these three causes account for about one-third of the inflows to the receiving countries under review. Parallel with the continuing traditional flows, n ew migration movements are e me rging (se e Box I.3) for which the cultural and linguistic links to the country of origin are more tenuous. Chart I.3 shows average inflows over the 1990s (dotted) together with those for the latest available year (in blue), making it possible to compare these two trends. For a given host country, when an area not coloured blue is shown, this indicates that the share attributed to this country of origin in overall flows is lower for the latest available year than it was on average during the 1990s. For e xample, while Mexico contin ues to be th e leading so urce of emigration to the United States, the proportion of Mexicans in overall flows has fallen by more than 25%. A similar trend is observable for Vietnamese and Britons in Australia, Estonians in Finland, Surinamese and Turks in the Netherlands, Koreans in Japan and Portuguese in Switzerland. The trend is even more pronounced for nationals of countries of the former Yugoslavia moving to Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.

© OECD 2003


Chart I.3.

Change in inflows of migrants by country of origin to selected OECD countries, 1990-1999 and 2000 2000 top ten countries of origin as a per cent of total inflows1

1990-1999 annual average2

Australia 0

5

10

15

20003

Austria 20

0

25

New Zealand (21.9)

5

10

15

Belgium 20

25

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

5

10

15

20

20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

5

10

15

20

25

30

Germany (7.7)

France (8.1)

United Kingdom (9.2)

Turkey (7)

Netherlands (7.2)

China (6.8)

Fed. Rep. of Yug. 6.4)

Morocco (5.7)

South Africa (5.7)

Croatia (4.4)

United Kingdom (3.2) Germany (3)

India (4.6)

Bosnia Herzeg. (4.1)

Philippines (3.2)

Poland (3.5)

Turkey (2.8)

Fed. Rep of Yug. (2.2)

Hungary (2.5)

United States (2.8)

Fiji (1.9)

Slovak Rep. (1.9)

Italy (2.6)

Chinese Taipei (1.7)

Romania (1.9)

Spain (1.4)

Vietnam (1.5)

Czech Rep. (1.4)

0

5

10

15

20

Portugal (1.3)

25

0

20

0

5

10

Canada 0

5

10

15

20

Finland

Denmark 15

5

10

15

China (36.7)

Iraq (1.9)

Russian Fed. (2.5) Sweden (0.7)

India (26.1)

Norway (1.2)

Pakistan (14.2)

Turkey (1.1)

Estonia (0.7)

Philippines (10.1)

Sweden (1)

Fed. Rep. of Yug. (0.3)

Korea (7.6)

Germany (1)

Iraq (0.2)

Sri Lanka (5.8)

Somalia (1)

United States (0.2)

United States (5.8)

Iceland (0.8)


Iran (5.6)


China (0.2)


Former Yug. (0.7)

Germany (0.2)

Russian Fed. (3.5)

United States (0.6)

0

5

10

Somalia (0.2)

15

20

0

5

15

20

0

5

France4 0

5

10

10

15

20

0

15

20

0

Germany 10

Hungary

Morocco (16.9)


Romania (6)

Algeria (12.4)

Poland (72.2)

Former Yug. (1.7)

Turkey (6.6)

Turkey (47.1)

Ukraine (1.6)

Tunisia (5.6)

Italy (34.9)

China (1)

United States (2.6)

Russian Fed. (27.8)

Germany (0.7)

Haiti (1.8)

Romania (18.8)

Russian Fed. (0.4)

China (1.8)

Greece (17.6)

Slovak Rep. (0.3)

Portugal (1.7)

United States (16.8)

Vietnam (0.3)

Switzerland (1.4)

Ukraine (15.3)

Israel (0.2)

Sri Lanka (1.3)

France (15.3)


0

5

0

5

10

15

20

0

15

20

0

5

Italy 10

10

15

10

15

15

20

47.4 (90-98) 38.9 (99)

0

5

25

0

5

10

15

20

10

15

20

25

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Luxembourg

Japan 5

10

20

20

Albania (31.2)

China (75.3)

France (2.3) Portugal (2.2)

Morocco (24.7)

Philippines (74.2)

Romania (20.7)

Brazil (45.5)

Belgium (1.3)

China (15.4)

United States (24.3)

Germany (0.6)

Philippines (12.2)

Korea (24)

Italy (0.6)

United States (7.2)

United Kingdom (7)

United States (0.3)

Poland (7.1)

Thailand (6.6)

Netherlands (0.2)

India (7)

Chinese Taipei (4.4)

Spain (0.2)

Tunisia (6.8)

Canada (4.2) Germany (4.2)

Bangladesh (6.6)

0

© OECD 2003

5

5

10

15

20

0

5

10

15

20

25

31


Chart I.3.

Change in inflows of migrants by country of origin to selected OECD countries, 1990-1999 and 2000 (cont.) 2000 top ten countries of origin as a per cent of total inflows1

1990-1999 annual average2

Netherlands 0

5

10

15

20003

New Zealand 20


0

5

10

Norway

15

20


5

10

15

20

5

10

15

20

Iraq (4.5)

Germany (4.9)

China (4.9)

Sweden (3.5)

Turkey (4.5)

Australia (3.7)

Denmark (1.9) Somalia (1.5)

Morocco (4.2)

Japan (3.6)

United States (3.4)

India (2.3)

Germany (1)

France (2.2)

South Africa (2.1)

Russian Fed. (0.9)

Suriname (2.1)

Fiji (1.4)


Belgium (2)

Samoa (1)

United States (0.7)

China (1.8)


Italy (1.5)

Iran (0.6)

0

5

0

5

10

15

20

0

5

15

20

0

5

Portugal 10

10

15

20

0

15

20

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

5

10

15

20

25

Sweden 10

Switzerland

Angola (2.5)

Iraq (6.6)

Germany (12.5)

Cape Verde (2.1)

Norway (3.9)

Former Yug. (6.7)

Brazil (1.7)

Finland (3.6)

France (6.6)

Guinea-Bissau (1.6)

Denmark (2)

Italy (5.4)

Spain (1.1)

Germany (1.5)

Portugal (4.9)




Germany (0.8)

Bosnia-Herzeg. (1.2)

United States (3.3)

France (0.7)

Iran (1.1)

Turkey (2.8)

Sao Tome/Principe (0.6)

United States (1.1)

Austria (2)

China (0.4)

Russian Fed. (1)

Spain (1.7)

0

5

10

15

20

0

20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

5

United Kingdom5 0

5

10

15

10

15

20

United States

United States (47)

Mexico (173.9)

Australia (31.3)

China (45.7)

India (19.9)

Philippines (42.5)

South Africa (19.5)

India (42)

New Zealand (13.7)

Vietnam (26.7)

Pakistan (12.4)

Nicaragua (24)

Philippines (11)

El Salvador (22.6)

Canada (10.7)

Haiti (22.4)

Japan (9.6)

Cuba (20.8)

Poland (5.5)

Dominican Rep. (17.5)

0

32

0

5

10

15

20

Note: The top 10 source countries are presented by decreasing order. Data for Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States refer to inflows of permanent settlers by country of birth, for France, Italy and Portugal to issues of certain types of permits. For the United Kingdom, the data are based on entry control at ports of certain categories of migrants. For all other countries, figures are from Population registers or Registers of foreigners. The figures for the Netherlands, Norway and especially Germany include substantial numbers of asylum seekers. 1. The figures in brackets are inflows in thousands in 2000. 2. Annual average flows for the period 1990-1999 except for Denmark, Germany and Hungary (1990-1998), Finland, Portugal and the United Kingdom (1992-1999). 3. 1999 for Denmark, Germany and Hungary. 4. Entries from the EU are not counted, except permanent workers (including entries from the EEA since 1994) who are included through declarations made by employers to the authorities. 5. Passengers, excluding European Economic Area nationals, admitted to the United Kingdom. Data only include certain categories of migrants: work permit holders, spouses and refugees (excluding residents returning on limiting leave or who previously settled). Sources: National Statistical Offices. For more details on sources, refer to the introduction to the Statistical Annex.

© OECD 2003


Box I.3.

Origin of new immigrants and language skills Theme box on the Integration of Immigrants

One aspect of the increase in migration, over and above the traditional movements, is an inflow of immigrants whose cultural and linguistic links with the host country are weaker. These new populations have serious difficulties in integrating into the labour market and into society as a whole. Even though there is still a strong element of self-selection in migration, the percentage of immigrants whose mother tongue is the same as the official language of the host country (see Table I.6) is small in most OECD countries. This does not apply so much to the United Kingdom, Portugal, Australia and New Zealand, where migrant inflows are very large, either because of a colonial past as regards the first two of those countries, or because of selection as regards the other two. France is a special case, too, and the proportion there is 6% or 73% depending on whether or not the Maghreb countries are considered to be French-speaking. The Nordic countries, whose languages are little used around the world and which take in large numbers of refugees, are a good deal more affected by linguistic problems. In the United States, the Hispanic immigrant presence is such that it is able over the medium term to influence linguistic practice in that country (in 2000 nearly 11% of households stated that Spanish was spoken at home rather than English and 7% used other languages). In multilingual countries like Canada, Belgium and Switzerland, the mother tongue of immigrants is likewise becoming an additional issue of migration policy. In part this is why Quebec has negotiated with the Canadian federal authorities the right to select immigrants and manage migration flows to the province. The fact of coming from a country where one of the official languages is the same as that of the host country does not necessarily guarantee proficiency in that language. Many persons from the Indian sub-continent and from francophone Africa have a very poor command of English and French. Besides, Chiswick et al. (2002) show that in the case of Australia, language skills depend very much on the migrants’ category upon entry, as refugees, for example, have a lower command of English. These differences tend to decrease after three and a half years of residence as regards the migrants’ ability to speak English and, albeit to a lesser extent, their reading and writing skills in English. A large number of OECD countries have introduced special language training programmes for immigrants (see Section I.D on migration policies). In some countries participation is compulsory, and several countries plan to make citizenship, residence and permit renewal conditional on passing of a language test.

Table I.6.

Share of immigrants whose official language in their country of origin is the same as in the country of residence, 2000 % of total immigrants (among top 10 countries of origin)

United Kingdom Australia Portugal New Zealand Belgium Canada Luxembourg Switzerland Austria Sweden Finland Netherlands United States France Norway Korea Denmark Germany Hungary Italy Japan Source:

© OECD 2003

85.5 73.8 69.1 66.3 48.0 47.1 46.8 42.5 18.9 15.5 13.0 12.6 9.6 6.1 – – – – – – –

Percentages are calculated on the basis of data for top ten countries of origin of immigrants as they are stated in Table B.1.1 of the Statistical Annex.

33


The emergence of new countries of origin, shown in Chart I.3 by a blue area next to the shaded part, is visible in the case of Filipinos in Italy, Brazilians in Japan, Ukrainians in Hungary and South Africans in Australia and the United Kingdom. Table I.7 illustrates the emergence of new migration flows. A specific indicator has been constructed for this purpose. It is calculated by dividing, for each host country considered, the five main sending countries’ share of total inflows for 2000 by their share of the total of foreigners or foreign-born. Thus, a value of 1 for a given sending country means that its share in inflows is the same as its share in the number of foreigners as a whole. This is the case for Indians in the United Kingdom and Brazilians in Portugal. If the value is greater than 1, this can be due either to immigrants from an emerging source country, or to previous waves of immigration which though persistent have had little impact on the total number of foreigners from this country. In the case of Australia and the United Kingdom, for example, the indicator is especially high for South African nationals since their share of inflows is over three times their share of the total number of foreigners. The presence of New Zealanders in Australia and Poles in Germany is not the result of a recent wave of immigration, but probably indicates size able n ew in flo w s a cco mpan ie d by l arg e r outflows. Thus the indicator in the range of 3 in these two cases corresponds to an old wave of migration that has a significant to-and-fro component and/or a high turnover.

34

Three sending countries stand out particularly for the year 2000. These are China, India and Iraq. The same finding was reported in the previous edition of Trends in International Migration, so there is now confirmation of the emergence of new migration flows from these countries. Iraq systematically figures in flows to the Nordic countries (mainly Denmark, Norway and Sweden) with an indicator of over 2, meaning that its nationals are represented at least twice as much in immigration flows as in the total stock of foreigners. But 2001 brought a reversal of the trend, with Afghan nationals figuring increasingly in the flows of asylum seekers (see above Section A.I.1.d.). Chinese and Indian nationals figure prominently in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, although their shares of total immigrant numbers there are already high, reflecting both the continuing nature of the flows and their acceleration. The preponderance of these two nationalities of origin is in itself remarkable. Part of

the explanation probably lies in the heavy flows of ICT specialists to those countries during the period under review. Two other nationalities of origin came to the fore in 2000. Large numbers of South African nationals emigrated to Australia and the United Kingdom, and there were sizeable flows of United States nationals to France, Japan and, to a lesser degree, the Netherlands. Comparatively large numbers of Australians and New Zealanders emigrated to the United Kingdom. There was also quite a large flow of Russians to Germany, chiefly Aussiedler (Russians of German ethnic origin), confirming the continuation of East-West migration. Lastly, the big inflow of Japanese nationals to New Zealand should be noted. In 2000, nationals of Japan were represented 7.6 times more in entry flows than in the stock of foreigners. It may be asked whether the emergence of new source countries of immigration points to a diversification of nationalities of origin or more simply to a renewal of migration trends. An argument could be made for both cases. For countries like Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United States, the number of nationalities present in 50% of the immigration flow rose steeply during the 1990s, clearly indicating a diversification of sources. The number rose from 2 to 15 for the Netherlands, from 2 to 10 for the United States, and from 4 to 8 for Switzerland. By contrast, in the case of the Nordic countries, which are very responsive to requests for asylum, it would be more appropriate to speak of a renewal of flow sources. Finally, in the case of traditional immigration countries like Belgium, France and Germany, migration remains concentrated on a few nationalities that preponderate in both stocks and inflows of foreigners. g)

The case of areas of free movement between OECD countries

Within the OECD area there are three zones of free movement in which mobility and residence of nationals of the countries concerned are not officially restricted in any way. These zones are the European Union, the Nordic countries and the Trans-Tasman area formed by Australia and New Zealand. There is also the special case of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which greatly facilitates temporary mobility of professionals and other skilled workers between the United States and Canada. © OECD 2003


Table I.7.

Relative importance of the top 5 countries in the total immigration flows and stocks of foreigners in selected OECD countries Main immigrants’ countries of origin in 2000

Top 5 nationalities (according to the 2000 volume of inflows)

Stocks of Inflows foreigners of foreigners in 19992 in 20001 % of total stock % of total inflows (A) of foreigners (B)

(A)/(B)


Australia New Zealand United Kingdom China South Africa India Total (in thousands)

21.9 9.2 6.8 5.7 4.6 92.3

8.1 27.5 3.6 1.7 2.4 4 419.0

2.7 0.3 1.9 3.4 2.0

Austria Germany Turkey Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Croatia Bosnia Herzegovina Total (in thousands)

Belgium France Netherlands Morocco United Kingdom Germany Total (in thousands)

8.1 7.2 5.7 3.2 3.0 68.6

12.0 9.6 13.6 2.9 3.8 897.1

0.7 0.8 0.4 1.1 0.8

Canada China India Pakistan Philippines Korea Total (in thousands)

Denmark Iraq Norway Turkey Sweden Germany Total (in thousands)

9.2 5.8 5.2 4.9 4.8 20.3

4.4 4.8 14.8 4.1 4.8 256.3

2.1 1.2 0.4 1.2 1.0

France Morocco Algeria Turkey Tunisia United States Total (in thousands)

17.8 13.0 6.9 5.8 2.7 95.2

15.4 14.6 6.4 4.7 0.7 3 263.2

1.2 0.9 1.1 1.2 4.0

Hungary Romania Former Yugoslavia Ukraine China Germany Total (in thousands)

39.9 11.3 11.0 6.4 4.5 15.0

39.9 11.1 8.5 5.5 5.9 143.8

Japan China Philippines Brazil United States Korea Total (in thousands)

21.8 21.5 13.2 7.0 6.9 345.8

Netherlands United Kingdom Germany Turkey Morocco United States Total (in thousands) Norway Iraq Sweden Denmark Somalia Germany Total (in thousands)

© OECD 2003

Inflows of foreigners in 20001 % of total inflows (A)

Stocks of foreigners in 19991 % of total stock of foreigners (B)

(A)/(B)

11.6 10.6 9.6 6.6 6.3 66.0

.. 18.2 .. .. .. 748.2

16.2 11.5 6.2 4.4 3.4 227.2

4.6 4.7 .. 3.7 .. 4 971.1

3.5 2.4 .. 1.2 ..

27.6 7.7 7.2 3.3 2.7 9.1

24.6 9.2 12.2 1.4 3.1 87.7

1.1 0.8 0.6 2.4 0.9

Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Poland Turkey Italy Russian Federation Total (in thousands)

13.0 10.7 7.0 5.2 4.1 673.9

9.8 3.9 28.8 8.4 1.1 7 319.6

1.3 2.8 0.2 0.6 3.7

1.0 1.0 1.3 1.2 0.8

Italy Albania Morocco Romania China Philippines Total (in thousands)

11.5 9.1 7.6 5.7 4.5 271.5

9.2 11.9 4.1 3.8 4.9 1 252.0

1.2 0.8 1.8 1.5 0.9

18.9 7.4 14.4 2.8 40.9 1 556.1

1.2 2.9 0.9 2.6 0.2

Luxembourg France Portugal Belgium Germany Italy Total (in thousands)

21.1 20.4 12.0 5.9 5.7 10.8

11.8 35.8 9.1 6.6 12.6 159.4

1.8 0.6 1.3 0.9 0.5

6.4 5.3 4.9 4.6 3.7 91.4

6.1 8.3 15.5 18.4 2.2 651.5

1.1 0.6 0.3 0.2 1.7

New Zealand United Kingdom China Australia Japan India Total (in thousands)

16.1 12.7 9.6 9.4 6.0 38.8

31.3 5.6 8.1 1.2 3.0 698.6

0.5 2.3 1.2 7.6 2.0

16.1 12.6 7.0 5.5 3.6 27.8

3.2 14.1 10.7 2.7 3.8 178.7

5.0 0.9 0.6 2.0 1.0

Portugal Angola Cape Verde Brazil Guinea-Bissau Spain Total (in thousands)

15.9 12.9 10.5 10.2 7.0 15.9

9.3 22.9 10.9 7.4 5.8 190.9

1.7 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.2

Finland Russian Federation Sweden Estonia Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Iraq Total (in thousands) Germany

0.6 .. .. ..

35


Table I.7.

Relative importance of the top 5 countries in the total immigration flows and stocks of foreigners in selected OECD countries (cont.) Main immigrants’ countries of origin in 2000


Stocks of Inflows foreigners of foreigners in 19992 in 20001 % of total stock % of total inflows (A) of foreigners (B)

(A)/(B)


Sweden Iraq Norway Finland Denmark Germany Total (in thousands)

19.7 11.5 10.6 5.9 4.3 33.8

6.2 6.4 20.3 5.1 3.2 487.2

3.2 1.8 0.5 1.1 1.4

Switzerland Germany Former Yugoslavia France Italy Portugal Total (in thousands)

United Kingdom United States Australia India South Africa New Zealand Total (in thousands)

16.3 10.8 6.9 6.7 4.8 288.8

5.6 2.5 6.7 2.3 1.5 2 208.0

2.9 4.4 1.0 3.0 3.2

United States Mexico China Philippines India Vietnam Total (in thousands)

Inflows of foreigners in 20001 % of total inflows (A)

Stocks of foreigners in 19991 % of total stock of foreigners (B)

14.3 7.7 7.6 6.2 5.6 87.4

7.5 24.2 4.2 23.9 9.9 1 368.7

1.9 0.3 1.8 0.3 0.6

20.5 5.4 5.0 4.9 3.1 849.8

29.5 4.9 4.4 3.3 3.2 31 107.9

0.7 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.0

(A)/(B)

1. 2000 except for Denmark, Germany and Hungary (1999). 2. Stocks of foreign-born population for Australia, Canada (1996 Census), New Zealand and the United States (2000 Census); 1998 for Denmark, Germany and Hungary; Stock of US citizens in France is issued from 1990 Census. Sources: National Statistical Offices (see notes for Tables A.1.1, A.1.4 and A.1.5. at the end of the Statistical Annex).

The Treaty of Rome (1957) recognises the principle of free movement for nationals of EU countries wishing to reside or work within the area formed by the signatory states. More recently, measures have been taken to facilitate intra-European mobility. These include a directive on free movement of nonworkers, students and retired persons, and a series of directives on mutual recognition of skills and access to certain public service jobs previously reserved for nationals. Nevertheless, intra-European mobility is still low, especially having regard to the differences between EU labour markets. Intra-European migration involves less than 0.2% of the total population of the Union, whereas movements between the nine major census areas in the United States concern 1.5% of those regions’ total population. The low mobility within Europe is partly attributable to linguistic and cultural barriers, but it is also due to structural rigidities in the labour markets of individual EU countries. In fact, though higher than intercountry migration, inter-regional mobility within EU counties is quite low as well, with 1.2% of people in work changing residence in 1999.

36

In 2002 the Commission launched an action plan for mobility and skills, one of the aims of which is to facilitate geographic mobility between now and

2005 by removing the remaining administrative and legal barriers, increasing the portability of supplementary pension rights of migrant workers, and improving the existing regimes of skills recognition in the regulated professions. The number of EU nationals in immigration inflows has risen slightly in recent years, however. Table I.8 shows movements of EU citizens, by nationality, for fourteen EU countries. The last line in the table shows the proportion of foreigners from other EU countries in the total population. The five countries with the highest proportion of EU nationals in their foreign population are Luxembourg (89%), Belgium (62.2%), Spain (42.7%) and France (36.6%). Ranking EU countries by the proportion of EU citizens in overall inflows produces very similar findings, and indicates other destinations as well. In the years 1998-99, the proportion was around 70% for Luxembourg, 51% for Portugal, 48.5% for Belgium, 47.5% for the United Kingdom and 39% for Spain. The remaining EU countries have considerably lower proportions of other EU citizens in their inflows, ranging from around 28% in the case of Denmark to 6% for France. Over 40% of EU citizens living in another country were in Germany, as against 20% in the United Kingdom. Compared to © OECD 2003


Table I.8.

Intra-European mobility of EU citizens, latest available year

Immigration flows by nationality in per cent of total inflows of EU citizens

% in row

United Kingdom

Spain

Denmark

Netherlands

Sweden

Greece

Austria

Germany

Finland

France

Italy

1999

1998

1999

1998

1998

1998

1998

1998

1998

1998

1999

1999

1998

1999

0.5 16.4 2.0 2.7 1.0 26.6 8.5 1.0 1.3 6.7 – 25.1 1.3 1.7 5.2 100.0

1.2 3.7 0.9 6.9 1.0 15.7 22.0 0.4 0.7 7.6 0.3 – 18.7 2.3 18.7 100.0

0.9 – 1.4 22.1 1.5 28.3 11.0 2.2 1.2 9.3 0.7 4.7 4.2 2.0 10.8 100.0

0.1 1.2 3.8 4.2 2.4 22.0 13.3 18.3 2.8 14.2 0.0 3.6 9.8 4.4 – 100.0

1.5 5.8 1.4 4.9 3.3 12.1 31.9 0.2 0.9 8.9 0.1 6.4 – 2.4 20.4 100.0

2.1 1.9 – 7.6 5.0 9.6 20.9 1.5 1.7 6.8 0.0 1.2 6.4 18.4 16.8 100.0

1.8 9.7 2.0 – 2.5 10.3 23.8 3.4 2.7 6.9 0.1 3.7 5.8 3.3 23.8 100.0

1.1 1.1 13.4 4.2 35.9 7.2 13.7 2.4 1.6 3.5 0.0 0.8 3.4 – 11.8 100.0

3.6 3.2 3.6 6.6 4.1 14.7 26.2 – 1.0 9.1 0.1 0.3 0.9 7.1 19.5 100.0

– 1.4 1.7 4.2 2.6 5.1 52.7 4.0 0.9 10.4 0.3 3.2 2.4 3.4 7.6 100.0

8.8 1.5 1.8 4.8 2.1 11.3 – 13.0 2.0 25.8 0.5 10.9 6.1 2.5 8.9 100.0

1.8 1.1 4.5 3.8 – 7.0 12.4 2.0 1.7 4.9 0.0 0.3 3.1 44.6 12.9 100.0

1.0 6.7 1.4 3.1 1.1 – 10.7 1.4 2.0 13.8 0.3 31.9 9.2 2.5 15.1 100.0

4.6 3.5 2.1 4.5 2.0 19.6 24.2 7.3 1.6 – 0.1 3.6 10.6 3.0 13.3 100.0

4.2 2.6 2.4 5.8 3.1 15.0 11.5 9.9 2.0 16.4 0.3 7.7 6.2 3.5 9.5 100.0

Total

Belgium

Austria Belgium Denmark Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom Total EU citizens

Portugal

EU citizens by nationality

Luxembourg

Receiving country

2.5

0.9

8.4

20.5

6.7

2.4

6.0

2.5

0.9

3.6

40.6

0.5

1.8

2.8

100.0

In per cent of total inflows of foreigners

69.7

50.9

48.5

47.5

38.8

27.7

24.4

23.4

22.9

20.2

20.1

19.2

6.1

..

26.2

Stocks (in 1998): EU foreigners (% of total foreigners)

89.0

26.3

62.2

18.5

42.7

20.5

28.0

33.9

..

13.0

25.1

18.7

36.6

13.7

..

EU foreigners (% of total population)

31.0

0.5

5.5

0.7

0.7

1.0

1.2

2.0

..

1.2

2.3

0.3

2.0

0.3

..

Source:

Eurostat, New Cronos database.

the situation prevailing in 1997, in 1998 the United Kingdom received far more immigrants from EU countries (up 15.5%), while Luxembourg, Portugal and Belgium received markedly fewer. The proportion of intra-European immigration also rose in Finland, Greece and Sweden; in Denmark and Austria it remained virtually unchanged. The analysis of intra-European mobility by nationality shows great diversity, largely reflecting cultural and linguistic affinities (Germans in Austria, French and Dutch in Belgium, Finns in Sweden and Swedes in Finland). Historical ties also play a role in this mobility, as is the case of Portuguese and Italians in France and of Italians in Austria. In 1954 the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) concluded an agreement that led to the creation of the Nordic passport© OECD 2003

free area. Nationals of third countries have to meet the entry and stay requirements of the Nordic country in which they wish to settle. In 1996, when Denmark, Finland and Sweden joined the Schengen system, Iceland and Norway, which are not EU members, negotiated co-operation agreements with the Schengen Member States, but the Nordic passport-free area was maintained. Up until the early 1990s most of the migration within the area was to Sweden, the Nordic country with the most buoyant economy. Annual inflows of Nordic nationals averaged some 12 000 persons, half of them Finns.3 Most of the Finnish immigrants in Sweden were young and low-skilled, wh ereas today’s immigrants tend to be “white collar”. The Danes and Swedes preferred to migrate to Norway. Although its pattern has changed, notably with the

37


Table I.9.

Stock of nationals from Nordic countries in other Nordic countries, 2000 Thousands and percentages

Citizenship/Host country

Denmark

Finland

Norway

Sweden

Denmark Iceland Finland Norway Sweden

– 5.9 2.1 13.0 10.8

0.6 .. – 0.6 7.9

19.4 3.9 6.0 – 25.2

25.6 4.1 98.6 32.0 –

Total of the above % of total foreigners

31.8 12.3

9.1 9.9

54.5 29.6

160.2 33.6

Sources: Population Registers.

entry of some of the Nordic countries into the European Union, Nordic migration still takes place on a large scale. In 2000, Nordic citizens represented over a third of the foreigners residing in Sweden and a little under 30% in Norway (see Table I.9). Norwegians predominate in Denmark, Swedes in Norway, and Finns in Sweden. Since 1920 there has been no restriction, so to speak, on mobility between New Zealand and Australia. In 1973 the two countries signed the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement, which authorises their citizens to move between New Zealand and Australia and reside and work in either country without the need for any permit. Migration between the two countries is in fact very sensitive to changes in the economic climate and dominated by the mobility of New Zealanders. Specifically, the number of New Zealanders in Australia increases during periods of economic growth and decreases during recessio ns. Ove r th e past t en y ea rs, h o we ve r, n e t migration of Ne w Z ealan ders to Australia has increased continuously, rising from less than 3 000 in 1991/92 to +30 000 in 1999-2000. In March 2001 an estimated 450 000 New Zealanders were residing in Australia, of whom 251 000 had been there for more than 12 months. For purposes of comparison, the ce nsus figure fo r Australian s re sident in Ne w Zealand in 2001 is only 56 300. In February 2001, Australia and New Zealand amended the terms of the Trans-Tasman Arrangement, which now stipulates that New Zealanders must obtain a residence permit if they wish to receive certain types of welfare benefit in Australia.

38

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), in effect since 1994, allows Canadian and Mexican professionals to come and work temporarily in the United States (TN visa) if they have a

formal offer of employment. Labour certification (proof that the visa applicant is not taking a job away from a US worker) is not required. The application can be made at the border and the visa issued on the spot. There is no quota for Canadian nationals, but the number of Mexicans that can apply for the TN visa is limited to 5 500 a year. In January 2004 this limit will be abolished together with the clause on pay offers (these must be comparable to current pay levels in the United States). Consequently, migration of Mexican professionals to the United States can be expected to increase. In 2000, nearly 89 900 Canadian professionals (60 700 in 1999 and about 93 000 in 2001) and a little under 2 500 Mexicans entered the United States with TN visas. Migration of Mexicans and Americans to Canada under the TN system is on a much smaller scale, totalling no more than 10 100 persons in 2000. But the flow can be expected to increase in the years ahead. Finally, there is the very specific case of Puerto Rico, which formally is a free state associated with the United States. Puerto Rican citizens can circulate freely in the United States and have a special status that confers all the rights and duties associated with American citizenship, except the right to vote in presidential elections. According to the 2000 census figures, Puerto Rico has a population of 3.6 million, plus about 3.4 million Puerto Ricans living in the United States. The latter represent 9% of that country’s Hispanic immigrant population and a little over 1% of the immigrant total. h)

The foreign or immigrant population is increasing and diversifying…

In Australia, New Zealand and Canada, immigrants account for a large share of the resident population: 23.6% in 2000 for Australia and 19.5% for © OECD 2003


New Zealand, and over 17% in 1996 for Canada (see Chart I.4). In the United States, according to data from the 2000 CPS, the number of foreign-born persons amounts to 28.4 million or 10.4% of the total population. Between 1995 and 2000 the immig r a n t p o pu la t i o n t h e r e i n c re a se d b y n e a r l y 5.5 million. In Canada, in the interval between the last two censuses (1986-96), the immigrant population rose by one million. In Australia, between 1996 and 2000, immigration increased the population by more than 600 000.

Chart I.4.

The foreign presence in the total population varies widely across the European OECD countries. In 2000 it was very large in Luxembourg (37.3%) and in Switzerland (19.3%). In the other traditional immigration countries the foreign presence ranged from 4% in the United Kingdom to 9.3% in Austria. The proportion was close to 9% in Germany and 8.5% in Belgium, as against 5.6% in France and 4.2% in the Netherlands. In the northern European countries the proportion of foreigners in the total population ranges from

Stocks of foreign and foreign-born populations in selected OECD countries, 2000 Percentages of total population Foreign-born population

Foreign population % of total population 40 Luxembourg (37.3) 35 30

Australia (23.6) New Zealand (19.5) Canada (17.4)

25 20

Switzerland (19.3)

15 11 United States (10.4) 10 9

Austria (9.3) Germany (8.9) Belgium (8.4)

8 7 6 France (5.6) Sweden (5.4) 5 4

Denmark (4.8) Netherlands (4.2), Norway (4.1) United Kingdom (4.0) Ireland (3.3)

3 2 1 Mexico (0.5) 0

Greece (2.7) Italy (2.4), Spain (2.2) Portugal (2.1), Czech Rep. (2.0) Finland (1.8) Hungary, Japan (1.3) Slovak Rep. (0.5), Korea (0.4) Poland (0.1)

Note: 1996 for Canada, 1999 for France, Hungary, the Netherlands and Norway. Sources: National Statistical Institutes. For more details on sources, refer to the notes for Tables A.1.4 and A.1.5 at the end of the Statistical Annex.

© OECD 2003

39


4.1% in Norway to 5.4% in Sweden. It is much lower in Finland, being only 1.8%. In the new immigration countries of Southern Europe the foreign presence, although still comparatively small, has grown appreciably in recent years. In 2000 it represented over 2% of the total population in Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal. In Spain, following the recent rounds of regularisation, the proportion of foreigners may have reached or even exceeded 3% in 2001. Despite the recent developments mentioned in this report (see below), in the OECD countries of Central and Eastern Europe and Asia the foreign presence is still

Table I.10.

extremely small. It is about 1.3% in Japan and Hungary, but no more than 0.5% in the Slovak Republic, Korea and Poland. The trend of stocks of immigrants or foreigners varies across countries and depends on migration policy, migrant inflows and outflows, the demographic dynamics of foreign populations, and the number of naturalisations, which reduces the stock of foreigners commensurately. In most OECD countries the number of foreigners or immigrants has risen during the past five years (see Table I.10).

Foreign or foreign-born population in selected OECD countries, 1995 and 2000 Thousands and percentages Foreign population Thousands

Austria Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Finland France (1990-99) Germany Greece (1994-99)1 Hungary (1995-99) Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom

1995

2000

724 910 159 223 69 3 597 7 174 106 140 96 991 1 362 110 138 725 161 168 22 500 532 1 331 1 948

758 862 201 259 91 3 263 7 297 238 127 127 1 388 1 686 210 165 668 184 208 28 896 477 1 397 2 342

Annual growth over the period (%)

Data source

0.93 –1.08 4.85 3.03 5.83 –0.97 0.34 17.69 –2.39 5.65 6.96 4.36 13.83 3.59 –1.64 2.77 4.33 5.32 12.38 –2.14 0.98 3.75

R R R R R C R LFS R LFS P R R R R R P R P R R LFS

Foreign-born population Thousands

Australia (1996-2000) Canada (1996) Mexico New-Zealand United States

40

1995

2000

4 164 4 971 .. .. 23 000

4 517 .. 406 699 28 400

Annual growth over the period (%)

2.06 .. .. .. 4.31

Data source

E C C C LFS

Note: For details on sources, refer to the notes for Tables A.1.4 and A.1.5 at the end of the Statistical Annex. 1. Population aged 15 and over. Sources: C: Census; E: Estimates by the national Statistical Institute; LFS: Labour force survey; P: Residence permits; R: Population register or register of foreigners.

© OECD 2003


Chart I.5.

Stocks of foreign and foreign-born populations by region of origin in all OECD countries, latest available year Percentages Oceania 2% North America 3%

Unknown1 10%

Africa 5%

Europe 36%

Central and South America 18%

Asia 26%

Notes: For Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, data relate to the foreign-born population. For all other host countries, they relate to foreigners. 1. Data are not available for all nationalities/countries of birth. Sources: Calculations are made on the basis of Tables B.1.4 and B.1.5 of the Statistical Annex (including some unpublished data related to nationalities/ countries of birth not included among the Top 15).

During the 1990s the foreign population grew very considerably in Austria, Germany and Switzerland, mainly because of increased inflows from Central and Eastern Europe. In the United States the number of foreign-born persons rose by more than 40% between 1990 and 2000. Between 1995 and 2000 the highest average annual growth rates for the foreign population were in Greece, Korea and Spain. Growth rates were also very high (over 5% a year) in Italy, Ireland and the Slovak Republic. Belgium, France and the Netherlands were notable exceptions, mainly because of the comparatively large number of naturalisations in those countr ie s. In S we den th e sto ck of fo re ign er s a lso decreased between 1995 and 2000, chiefly owing to naturalisations and the return of Finns to their home country. Chart I.5 shows the distribution of all foreigners and immigrants by region of origin. The largest share is found in Europe (36%), followed by Asia (around 26%). The African and Asian continents, which respectively account for 13% and 59% of the world’s po p u la t io n , a r e th e re f o r e v e r y m u ch u n d e r© OECD 2003

represented in the foreign populations of OECD countries, while Europe (13% of the world’s population), is still heavily over-represented, although its share of total immigration flows is declining noticeably. Generally speaking, the size of the foreign population, broken down by nationality (see Statistical Annex, Tables B.1.4 and B.1.5), varies in each host country in accordance with migration tradition, the facilities already in place, employment opportunities and geographic proximity of the country of origin. In the OECD countries of Europe the proportion of European immigrants increased during the 1990s with the opening of eastern borders. The same trend is perceptible in the new immigration countries of Southern Europe and certain countries of Cen tral and Easte rn Europe. By contr ast, the proportion of European nationals in the foreignborn population has been decreasing in the United States and Canada, but also in Australia and New Zealand. In 1986, Europeans represented 62% of the foreign-born population living in Canada, ten years later the proportion was down to 47% and it is still falling.

41


In recent years, there have been large-scale movements of Asian persons, notably Chinese and Indians, outside their traditional areas of migration (i.e., Japan, Korea, Australia and, to a lesser extent, the United States and Canada for the Chinese; the Commonwealth countries for the Indians). The immigration statistics for the United States somewhat mask this phenomenon because of the very large presence of Latin Americans, who form an expatriate community of nearly 15 million persons in that country, but in a number of European countries the Asian inflow is very visible. Chinese form the fourth largest foreign community in Hungary, the fifth in Italy and the eighth in Spain. The foreigners and foreign-born persons resident in OECD countries include member country nationals. Although statistical analyses rarely single them out, their number is relatively high. Nearly 45% of the foreigners and immigrants in OECD countries, taken together, come from a member country. This compares with over 70% in Belgium and Luxembourg. In Switzerland, Germany, Sweden and Australia the proportion is over 50%. It is also high in the United States (48%) because of the Mexican presence, but very much lower in Japan (5%) and the Slovak Republic (11%). The recent accession of six more countries to the OECD (the Slovak Republic in 2000, Hungary, Poland and Korea in 1996, the Czech Republic in 1995 and Mexico in 1994) has accentuated this trend. In 2000, Turks topped the ranking by nationality of foreigners resident in European OECD countries with more than 2.6 million persons. They were followed by nationals of the former Yugoslavia (about 1.8 million), Italians (1.5 million) and Moroccans, just ahead of Portuguese (about 1 million). After Turks and nationals of Maghreb countries, Americans make up the largest non-European community in the EU. Mexica ns form the largest expatriate community in the OECD area, with over 8 million persons in the United States alone. Demographic characteristics of the foreign or foreign-born population

42

The demographic structure of the foreign or foreign-born population differs from that of nationals in its age and gender composition. But specific features vary considerably across countries and in fact depend on the nature of migration flows, in particular the size of the family component, and on

the dates of migration waves and the features of the main groups of migrants themselves. In some of the major immigration countries in Europe, such as France, but also Belgium and Switzerland, and to a lesser extent Sweden and the Netherlands, the age structure for foreigners is relatively close to that for nationals and the sole distinction is that foreigners are under-represented in the 65 and over age groups (see Chart I.6). Longstanding migration and the fact that immigrants have tended to settle permanently in these countries partly explain this finding. Under-representation in the higher age groups, moreover, may be due to the numbers of naturalisations. In Austria and Germany the recent waves of migration, following the opening up of Eastern Europe (see Part I.C), have injected a younger element into the age structure of the foreign population, at a time when low fertility rates give the age pyramids for nationals there the typical aspect of an ageing population. More recent countries of immigration, such as those of Southern Europe and some of the Nordic countries (Finland and Norway), present a distinctive age structure for their foreign population. There is a clear preponderance of groups of working age (25-34, 35-44 and to a lesser extent 15-24), and very marked under-representation of older groups. This pattern is also visible in the United Kingdom. The findings are more mixed in the countries of settlement (Australia, Canada and the United States). The scale of family reunion helps to ensure that the proportion of elderly people in the immigrant population is little different from that for nationals (in fact it is appreciably higher in Canada). Apart from a few exceptions, women are underrepresented in the foreign or foreign-born population (see Chart I.6). In Switzerland, Portugal and Germany, where employment-related immigration remain s pre do min ant, th e disparity betwe en foreigners and nationals is considerable (over 5%). But some other countries, the United Kingdom and Canada, stand out with a higher percentage of women in the foreign population. A similar finding can be made for some Nordic countries, where refugees and asylum seekers make up a substantial proportion of total flows and where employment-related movements often involve women, especially in the health care sector. © OECD 2003


Chart I.6.

Foreign and national populations by age group and by sex, latest available year Percentage of total foreign or national population

Nationals

Foreigners

France (1999)

Germany (1998)

Women

Share of women among: Foreigners: 46.9% Nationals: 51.7%

Women

Men 75+ 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

15 10 5 0 % of total population of each group

Men 65+

21

60-64 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 21-24 15-20 10-14 5-9 0-4

5

10

15

15

10

5

Netherlands (2001) Women

Share of women among: Foreigners: 47.3% Nationals: 50.7 %

Women 80+ 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

5

10

15

15

10

Sweden (1998)

5



United Kingdom (1999) Men

Women

Men

80+ 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4


© OECD 2003

Men

80+ 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

Women



Portugal (1998) Men



55-59

80+ 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

5

10

15

15

10

5



43


Chart I.6. Foreign and national populations by age group and by sex, latest available year (cont.) Percentage of total foreign or national population

Natives

Foreign-born

Australia (2000)

Canada (1996)

Population aged 15 and over Women

Population aged 15 and over Women Men

Men 80+ 75-79

Share of women among: Foreign-born: 49.8% Natives: 50.9%

65+

70-74 65-69


60-64 55-64

55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44

25-54

35-39 30-34 25-29 15-24

20-24 15-19


5

10

15

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 % of total population of each group

United States (2001) Women


Men 80+ 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4


44

5

10

15

Lastly, Table I.11 reflects differences in levels of education between nationals and foreigners or immigrants aged between 15 and 65, as observed in 2000-2001. In a number of OECD countries, over h alf t he fo re ig n po pu la tio n h a s no t pu r sue d education beyond the first cycle of secondary school. The proportion is as much as around 67% in France. With the exception of Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain, foreigners seem on average to have lesser levels of education than nationals. But

1. Foreign-born and native populations for Australia, Canada and the United States. Foreigners in the Netherlands are defined as foreignborn with one parent at least who was born abroad. Sources: New Cronos database (Eurostat) for European countries except for France (1999 Census data published by INSEE); Labour force surveys, figures compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and by the US Bureau of the Census; 1996 Census data from Statistics Canada.

the gap is less significant in the main countries of settlement, which apply a selective policy on immigration (Canada, for example). Similar observation also concern children of foreign origin (see Box I.4). The duality of migration flows by level of education stands out sharply in the case of some member countries where foreigners or foreign-born persons are over-represented at both the highest

© OECD 2003


Table I.11.

Foreign and national adult populations classified by level of education in selected OECD countries1 2000-2001 average, percentages Lower secondary

Austria Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom Canada2 United States3

Upper secondary

Third level

Foreigners

Nationals

Foreigners

Nationals

Foreigners

Nationals

41.8 54.4 22.6 21.2 26.9 66.7 48.5 40.3 18.6 55.0 49.4 50.8 15.7 69.5 14.5 44.6 29.1 33.6 30.1 22.2 30.1

21.4 39.9 13.7 20.0 26.7 34.9 15.1 48.9 30.5 55.8 33.6 32.6 14.4 79.6 15.7 62.4 22.4 10.5 18.8 23.1 9.3

43.5 24.5 48.5 51.1 45.6 19.6 36.1 41.2 52.2 32.1 28.7 27.6 44.1 19.8 68.6 25.9 40.3 42.6 29.1 54.9 24.7

64.3 32.0 74.8 53.9 40.7 42.3 60.4 34.1 55.7 34.4 50.6 42.8 53.2 11.0 73.8 15.5 48.0 64.4 53.3 60.3 33.7

14.7 21.2 28.9 27.7 27.6 13.7 15.4 18.5 29.1 13.0 21.9 21.6 40.2 10.7 16.9 29.5 30.6 23.8 40.8 22.9 45.2

14.4 28.2 11.4 26.1 32.6 22.7 24.5 16.9 13.8 9.8 15.7 24.6 32.4 9.4 10.4 22.1 29.7 25.1 27.9 16.6 57.1

1. The educational attainment classification is defined as follows: lower secondary refers to pre-primary education or none, primary or lower secondary; upper secondary refers to upper secondary education or post-secondary non tertiary education; third level refers to tertiary education. Data refer to individuals aged 25 to 64. 2. Foreign-born and native populations aged 25 to 44. Lower secondary refers to below grade 9, upper secondary refers to grades 9 to 13 and third level refers to some post-secondary education plus university degrees. 3. Foreign-born and native populations aged 25 and over. Lower secondary refers to less than high school diploma, upper secondary refers to high school diploma and third level refers to some college or more. Sources: Labour force survey, data provided by Eurostat; Statistics Canada; US Bureau of the Census.

and lowest levels of education. This is particularly the case in the United Kingdom and Canada, but also in Austria and the Nordic countries. The main immigration countries in Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland) show signs of the older waves of migration in the 1960s and 1970s, largely made up of low-skilled labour employed in the manufacturing sector. If the above figures are compared with the 1999-2000 averages (see 2001 edition of Trends in International Migration), it will be seen that the proportion of foreigners with tertiary education has risen by more than one and a half percentage points in the United Kingdom , reflecting increased inflows of high-skilled workers. Education levels of foreigners have also risen in Italy and Austria. But in Portugal and Greece they have declined during the past two years. This is not sur pr isin g, give n the gr owth o f e mplo ymen trelated migration of low-skilled workers to these countries. © OECD 2003

i)

… but remains very concentrated around urban areas

An initial analysis of regional data shows that patterns of foreign population distribution vary substantially across host countries. The disparities are due in part to current migration policies and the extent to which they encourage the dispersion of new immigrants throughout the country, but also to the economic structure of the country concerned (concentrated or dispersed job catchment areas, administrative and/or economic activities concentrated around a centre). Maps I.1, I.2 and I.3 show the distribution of foreign populations by large regions in Europe, as well as in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Australia and New Zealand. In some European member countries of the OECD (see Map I.1), the regional concentration of the foreign population can be high, particularly in capital regions. For instance the percentage of foreigners in the total population is almost 27% in the London area and 26% in the Brussels area, 14.5% in Stuttgart and

45


Box I.4.

School performance of children of foreign origin Theme box on the Integration of Immigrants

Access to education is one of the most important determining factors concerning integration into the labour market, as school performance among children of immigrants may be influenced by lack of language skills or unfavourable social and economic conditions. This may raise serious long-term issues in terms of integration of immigrants into the host society. The PISA study (www.pisa.oecd.org) has analysed and compared the school performance of children born abroad of foreign parents (non-native or immigrant children), of native pupils of foreign-born parents (first generation) and of native children with at least one parent native-born (natives) (see Chart I.7). In most OECD member countries, immigrant children lag behind native-born children in terms of reading skills, as well as mathematics and science (not reported), although the discrepancies tend to be slightly lower in the latter two cases. The test score differences are particularly significant in Switzerland and Luxembourg and to a lesser extent in Austria, Belgium and Germany. Conversely it is quite low, if not negligible, in Canada, Australia and New-Zealand. The improvement in education attainment between non-natives and first generation students is particularly striking in the United Kingdom, illustrating either a change in the origin of foreign children or an improvement in the school performance across generations. Belgium and Denmark are the only two countries where the recorded combined reading test score is lower for first generation than for immigrant students. Country-specific studies shed light on the complexity of this pattern. For example, according to research in the United Kingdom poor performance is not necessarily found in areas where there is a high concentration of immigrants but is often more directly affected by the school environment. Research for the United States finds that immigrant children are as likely as those native-born to enrol in primary schools but less likely to go on to high school. Research for Canada suggests that immigrant children consistently out-perform native-born children. Strong motivation among immigrant families to succeed in their new host country could be one explanation. Most OECD countries are aware of the importance of this issue and thus provide special training, including language training, to foreign children. Nonetheless, as previously shown, difficulties in integrating into the school system also concern first generation children, for whom the educational disadvantage factors are much more difficult to identify and to cope with. Although institutional and historical situations differ from one country to another, it seems that much can be learned from the relative success of traditional settlement countries such as Australia, Canada and New-Zealand.

Chart I.7.

School performance of children according to their place of birth and the place of birth of their parents Natives (natives with at least one parent born in the country) First generation (natives with both parents born abroad) Non-natives (born abroad of foreign parents)

Combined Reading Scores Luxembourg

Canada 550

Mathematics Scores Luxembourg

Australia

Denmark

450

New Zealand

Belgium

United States Norway

46

New Zealand 350

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom 450

Belgium

350

Germany Austria

Australia

550

United Kingdom

Denmark

Canada

France

Germany

Sweden

Austria Switzerland

United States Norway

France

Source: PISA Study, OECD, 2001.

© OECD 2003


Map I.1. Foreign population in the European regions, 2001

Percentage of total population More than 9% From 4.5% to 9% From 1.5% to 4.5% From 0.5% to 1.5% Less than 0.5% Average 4.4%

Note: Population aged 15 and over, except for Denmark, Luxembourg and Switzerland for which data cover the whole population. For those three countries data are not broken down by region. Data are not available for Iceland and Poland. Source: Eurostat and OECD Territorial Statistics and Indicators.

© OECD 2003

47


Map I.2.

Foreign-born population in the Australasian regions, 2001

Percentage of total population More than 20% From 13% to 20% From 8% to 13% Less than 8% Average: Australia: 23.1% New Zealand: 19.5%

Source: 2001 Census, Australian Bureau of Statistics and Statistics New Zealand; OECD Territorial Statistics and Indicators.

almost 17% in Vienna. And this percentage is at least double the national ave rage in the Paris area (13.9%), Prague (1.2%), the Balearic Islands and Madrid (5.7% and 3.1% respectively). The other OECD member countries under review (see Maps I.2 and I.3) display similar patterns, but with the particular drawing power of other important economic areas such as British Columbia in Canada, California and Florida in the United States, Sydney in Australia or Auckland in New Zealand. Italy is also interesting in that the foreign population is noticeably concentrated in the leading industrial areas to the north of the country. The maps also reveal more specific concentrations, in particular around the borders (e.g. France an d th e Un it ed St ate s), alo ng th e co ast (e.g. Australia) or, in the case of Germany, between the eastern and western parts of the country.

48

Chart I.8 shows regional disparities in the distribution of the foreign population. The horizontal axis gives the percentage of foreigners (or immigrants in the case of host countries) in the countries under

review, while the vertical axis measures regional disparities in the distribution of the foreign population. Patterns are sharply contrasted from one country to the next. Typical patterns are found in the following countries: in Europe, Spain (small share of foreigners in the total population and large regional disparities) contrasts with Germany and Austria (large number of foreigners and relatively small regional disparities); the Netherlands (share of foreigners in the total population around the European average and very small regional disparities) contrasts with the United Kingdom (share of foreigners in the total population slightly higher than the European average and very large regional disparities); and finally Belgium has a large number of foreigners and very large regional disparities. Other countries have less clear profiles. Ho we ver, some can be gro upe d to get he r, for instance Greece, Finland and Norway, with a relatively low number of foreigners and small regional disparities. Conversely the Czech Republic, which takes in few foreigners, has very marked regional disparities.

© OECD 2003


Map I.3.

Foreign-born population in North American regions, 2000

Percentage of total population More than 15% From 7% to 15% From 3% to 7% From 1% to 3% Less than 1% Average: Canada: 17.4% United States: 11.0% Mexico: 0.5%

Sources: 1996 Census, Statistics Canada; 2000 Census, US Census Bureau; 2000 Census, INEGI; OECD Territorial Statistics and Indicators.

In the case of the United Kingdom, Belgium and the Czech Republic, regional disparities are considerably attenuated if the capital region is excluded from the analysis. The same applies to Spain if the analysis excludes the Balearic Islands (region with the highest percentage of foreigners). The difference is indicated in Chart I.8 by an arrow connecting the point which includes all regions to the point which excludes the region with the highest foreign population density. In the four host countries under review (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States), the immigrant population is highly concentrated in the major coastal cities, particularly in

© OECD 2003

Australia and Canada but also, in the case of the United States, in entire regions that have had massive recourse to immigrant labour. Compared with the United States and Canada, however, Australia and New Zealand have a more uniform regional distribution of the immigrant population. Chart I.9 breaks down the previous findings using a generic indicator of foreign population dispersion. Regions are classed in ascending order according to the number of foreigners they contain. The vertical axis shows the cumulative percentage of foreigners. The horizontal axis shows the cumulative percentage of the

49


Chart I.8.

Percentage of foreigners in total population in selected OECD countries and measurement of regional disparity, 2001 Coefficient of variation (%) 100

Coefficient of variation (%) 100 United Kingdom

90

Calculations including all regions. Excluding the top region where foreign/foreign-born population is the denser.

Spain

80

90

80 Czech Rep.

Belgium

70

70 United States Canada

60 Italy Greece 50

France Sweden

Germany

Australia 50

Finland Hungary

60

Austria New Zealand

Norway

40

40 Netherlands

30 0

5

10

15

30 20 25 Foreign population (% of the total population)

Notes: Foreign-born population for Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States (indicated in blue). 1996 for Canada, 2000 for the United States. Sources: Labour Force surveys, figures provided by Eurostat; Censuses of the population (Australian Bureau of Statistics; Statistics Canada, New Zealand Statistics, US Bureau of the Census).

Chart I.9.

Cumulated percentage of the foreign and total population by regions, 2001 Netherlands United States

Australia United Kingdom

Spain

Foreigners (%) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

50

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 90 100 Total population (%)

Note: Population aged 15 and over except fot the United States (total population). Sources: Labour force surveys (Eurostat and Australian Bureau of Statistics); Census 2000 (US Bureau of the Census).

© OECD 2003


total population. A theoretical curve following the first bisector would show a uniform regional distribution of foreigners (i.e. the share of foreigners in each region matches the region’s demographic weight). Conversely, the further the curve is from the first bisector, the more dispersed the foreign population.

to be found in Spain, for instance, where Murcia, the Balearics and the Canary Islands are intermediate regions (i.e. not the most densely populated in terms of immigrants) where the percentage of foreigners is well above the national average. This can be seen on Chart I.9 as sharp changes in the slope of the curve.

In the case of the United Kingdom, France and the United States, the curve is very far from the first bisector (see Chart I.9). In particular, Inner and Outer London jointly account for almost half of the foreign population, whereas their combined demographic weight does not exceed 13%. Conversely, there is less contrast between the regional distribution of the foreign/immigrant population and that of the native population in the Netherlands but also in Germany, Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, for instance, the five most densely populated areas (around Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide) jointly account for almost 60% of the population and 77% of the immigrant population. In the United States, the immigrant population is more concentrated. Over 60% of immigrants live in the five most densely populated states (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois), which only account for just over one-third of the total population. Other more atypical patterns are

Economic conditions and local manpower needs are certainly among the principal determinants of migrants’ choice of location. At the same time family and community links, as well as the geographical proximity of the country of origin, could be considered significant influences. This would partly explain, in the case of the United States, the concentration of Asians in the Hawaiian archipelago, Mexicans in California and Texas, and Cubans in Florida. The same applies to Canada, for the Asians in British Columbia and the French in Quebec, as it does to France and Spain, for the North Africans in Corsica and the South of France and in the region of Andalusia. The high concentration of immigrants in certain areas poses particular difficulties in terms of the accessibility of public services, the availability of housing and more generally the social integration of new arrivals (see Box I.5). In order to alleviate these

Box I.5. Integration in urban areas Theme box on the Integration of Immigrants The major economic and social changes that have occurred in the metropolitan areas – inner cities and suburbs – of most OECD countries since the 1950s have created new difficulties for immigrants as regards integration. In a number of OECD countries, local and national authorities are confronted with special problems caused by the concentration of immigrants in deprived neighbourhoods and labour market areas that are not sufficiently dynamic, even in periods of high growth.1 In some cases the result has been the development of ethnic enclaves. This is particularly true of North America, but the phenomenon is also becoming increasingly frequent in the European OECD countries and especially the new immigration countries (Greece, Portugal, Spain). Some specialists maintain, however, that the concentration process can help to further the economic integration of immigrants through the development of community and ethnic activities and, in the medium term, to generate a process of spatial assimilation in which immigrants move from their enclaves to more affluent urban areas. But social integration is still uncertain in this type of scheme. Uneven geographic distribution of the immigrant population is not necessarily the result of segregation. It may derive from a process of self-selection, with new arrivals preferring to be among their community and close to the places that can give them the special assistance they need (integration classes, specific social services, etc.). For instance, in 2000, more than 47% of new immigrants to Canada chose to settle in the urban community of Toronto. Central governments are tending to leave the responsibility for immigrant integration to regional and municipal authorities, but they generally provide a limited amount of financial assistance. In several OECD countries, local authorities have asked for a new division of responsibilities in the management of migration flows and for larger fund transfers from central government. 1. See Immigrants, Immigration and Cities. Exploring the Links, OECD, 1998. 51

© OECD 2003


problems, certain countries that receive many applications for political asylum have introduced variously coercive measures that have the effect of dispersing asylum seekers across the territory (e.g. Germany, the United Kingdom and Sweden). Nevertheless, policies such as these have a limited impact, essentially because they only concern one category of new arrivals and do not affect the foreign population already installed. Canada and Australia have recently developed more general measures to encourage new immigrants to settle in less densely populated areas where foreigners are under-represented. 2.

Immigration and population growth in OECD countries

Migration plays a significant role in the annual population growth of many OECD countries. First of all, the presence of a foreign or foreign-born population contributes to the natural increase in the population (excess of births over deaths). The higher the fertility of foreign women relative to indigenous women, the more significant this contribution is. Secondly, when net migration is positive, the population of the ho st coun try gro ws by the same amount. a)

Growth in the total and foreign populations

Chart I.10 shows the respective contributions of net migration (nationals and foreigners) and of natural increase (excess of births over deaths) to total population growth in the countries of the European Union and other OECD countries over the past three decades. In nearly all the European OECD countries migration made the major contribution to population growth during the 1990s. But this has not always been the case. In the early 1960s, natural increase was clearly the bigger contributor, notably in the countries of Southern Europe but also in the Nordic countries. During the next two decades, natural increase and net migration followed opposite trend paths, as shown in Chart I.10 for the European Union.

52

For some years now, however, several European OECD countries would have seen their total population fall, were it not for an inflow of new immigrants. This has been the case in Germany since 1986, but also in Italy since 1993 and in Sweden since 1997. Among the EU countries, France is the exception in that its rate of natural increase is substantially positive and has never fallen below 3. In that country the

contribution of births to total population growth remains higher than that of migration and has risen steadily since 1993. This can be explained by the fact that the fertility rate in France is higher than the European average (1.89 childre n per wo man 4 against 1.53 for the EU in 2000) but also, somewhat more artificially, by the large number of naturalisations granted. In 2000, the trend that had prevailed for several decades in the countries of the European Union seems to have turned around. The natural rate of increase rose significantly and, with the benefit of large immigration flows, the EU population grew by about 4 on the previous year. The other OECD countries present a different picture. In Australia, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand and the United States, but also in Poland and the Slovak Republic, the natural rate of increase contributed at least as much and generally much more to popula tion growth than net mig ration (see Chart I.11). In Turkey and New Zealand the differential was particularly wide. In the United States, despite a marked decline in the natural rate of increase in the 1960s, the fertility level remains high (2.06 children per woman in 2000) and contributes greatly to the population growth rate, which is roughly three times higher than that of the EU. Can ada appears to be a case apart, with a decline in net immigration and in fertility as from the late 1980s. It should be noted, though, that the two demographic components contribute equally to Canadian population growth, which remains buoyant (about 8 in 2000). To sum up, the long-period (1960-2000, by region and by country) and cross-sectional (2000, by country) data show that the migration component makes the larger contribution to total populatio n g ro wth in man y OECD co un tr ies. T his is particularly the case in countries where fertility levels are low (Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy and Spain). In settlement countries like Australia, Canada and the United States, which continue to receive large numbers of immigrants each year, the predominance of family-linked immigration and the younger age structure of the new arrivals have a marked effect on the natural increase rate over the medium and long terms. In net emigration countries like Mexico, Poland and Turkey, and to a le sse r e xte n t N e w Ze a lan d, na tu r al in cre a se continues to be the determinant of population growth. The same is true of the United States and a few European countries, like France and the © OECD 2003


Chart I.10.

Components of total population growth in selected OECD countries and in the European Union, 1960-2000 Per 1 000 inhabitants at the beginning of the year

Natural increase rate Per 1 000 20

Net migration rate

Total population growth

European Union (15 members)1

Per 1 000 25

France

20

15

15

10

10

5

5 0

0

-5

-5

-10

-10

-15 1960

65

70

75

Per 1 000 20

80

85

90

95

2000 1960

65

70

75

Germany

80

85

90

95

-15 2000 Per 1 000 20

Ireland

15

15

10

10

5

5

0

0

-5

-5

-10

-10

-15 1960

65

70

75

Per 1 000 20

80

85

90

95

2000 1960

65

70

75

Italy

80

85

90

95

-15 2000 Per 1 000 20

Spain

15

15

10

10

5

5

0

0

-5

-5

-10

-10

-15 1960

65

70

75

Per 1 000 20

80

85

90

95

2000 1960

65

70

Sweden

75

80

85

90

95

-15 2000 Per 1 000 20

United Kingdom

15

15

10

10

5

5

0

0

-5

-5

-10

-10

-15 1960

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

2000 1960

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

-15 2000

53

© OECD 2003


Chart I.10.

Components of total population growth in selected OECD countries and in the European Union, 1960-2000 (cont.) Per 1 000 inhabitants at the beginning of the year Natural increase rate

Per 1 000 25

Net migration rate

Total population growth

Australia

Per 1 000 25

Canada

20

20

15

15

10

10

5

5

0

0

-5 1960

65

70

75

Per 1 000 25

80

85

90

95

2000 1960

65

70

Japan

75

80

85

90

95

Per 1 000 30

New Zealand

25

20

20

15

15 10

10

5

5

0 -5

0 -5 1960

-5 2000

-10 65

70

75

Per 1 000 25

80

85

90

95

2000 1960

65

70

Poland

75

80

85

90

95

-15 2000 Per 1 000 30

Switzerland

25

20

20 15

15 10

10

5

5

0 0 -5 1960

-5 65

70

80

85

90

95

2000 1960

65

70

Turkey

Per 1 000 25

75

80

85

90

95

-10 2000 Per 1 000 25

United States

20

20

15

15

10

10

5

5

0

0

-5 1973

54

75

78

83

88

93

1960

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

-5 2000

1. Excluding Portugal and Greece for all years and the United Kingdom from 1999 on. Source: Labour force statistics, OECD, 2001.

© OECD 2003


Chart I.11.

Natural increase and net migration rates in OECD countries, 20001 Per 1 000 inhabitants at the beginning of the year Taux de migration nette (pour 1 000) 3 Suède Suisse Grèce Autriche 2 Allemagne Portugal Danemark

Taux de migration nette (pour 1 000) 10 Espagne Luxembourg

7.5

Irlande

2.5

Australie

Pays-Bas

5

Canada

Italie Allemagne Rép. tchèque

2 Norvège

Royaume-Uni

1 France

Islande États-Unis

0 -1

0

France

0 Hongrie

Belgique

1

3

Finlande Rép. Japon slovaque 0 1 2 3 4 Taux d’accroissement naturel (pour 1 000)

Turquie

0

Pologne

-2.5

-2.5 Nouvelle-Zélande

-5 -5

0

5

10

Mexique

-5 15 20 25 Taux d’accroissement naturel (pour 1 000)

Note : Les données sur le solde migratoire sont des chiffres résiduels calculés à partir des estimations annuelles de la population et des données sur les naissances et les décès. 1. 1996 pour la Turquie ; 1998 pour le Portugal et le Royaume-Uni ; 1999 pour la Grèce, la Hongrie et l’Islande. Source : Statistiques de la population active, OCDE, 2001.

Netherlands, where the birth rate has declined less. In those last two countries, long-term settlement of immigrants and their families has helped, through foreign births, to enhance the contribution of natural increase. b)

Foreign births: a brake on demographic ageing

In a number of European OECD countries, births to foreign nationals and persons of foreign origin account for a sizeable percentage of total births. In many cases this percentage is higher than the proportion of foreigners in the total population. Foreign births contribute to the natural increase in the population and can therefore act as brake on demographic ageing. This outcome is not inevitable, however, and depends essentially on a continuing succession of migration waves. A prolonged halt to new immigration would reduce these beneficial effects considerably, given that the fertility rate of foreign women tends to converge with that of nationals. It is difficult to obtain comparable data on foreign births, as the term “foreign” may apply to the child or to the parents. If it applies to the parents, the number of foreign births will vary according to whether the criterion adopted is the nationality of © OECD 2003

both parents, of the mother or of the father. Generally, since fertility is studied in relation to women, the nationality of reference chosen is that of the mother. In Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland, foreign births are those of children having foreign nationality. In France and Sweden, foreign births are those to female foreign nationals. In Japan they are births to parents both of foreign nationality. In England and Wales they are births to women born outside the United Kingdom. Data based solely on births to foreign mothers are not a measure of the total number of births linked to the presence of the foreign population or the population of foreign origin. In general, the legislation on naturalisation, depending on how liberal it is, either accelerates or slows the process of absorption of foreigners into the national population and thus reduces or increases the number of foreign births. The proportion of foreign births is high in some OECD countries (see Chart I.12). In 2000 this was the case in Luxembourg (49%) and in Switzerlan d (22.5%). However, in the United Kingdom (England and Wales only), Austria and Germany, foreign births

55


Chart I.12.

0

5

10

15

Foreign births in 20001

Foreign births

Foreign births

(% of total births)

(% of total births) relative to stocks of foreigners (% of total population2)

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Luxembourg

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Portugal

Switzerland

Italy

United Kingdom3

United Kingdom4

Austria

France

Germany

Austria

France

Sweden

Sweden

Germany

Norway

Netherlands

Belgium

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Finland

Portugal

Switzerland

Italy

Norway4

Finland

Hungary

Hungary

Belgium

Japan

Japan 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0.0

Note: For Finland, France and Sweden, foreign births are births to a foreign mother, for Japan, to foreign parents. For England and Wales and Norway, foreign births refer to those to mothers and both parents born outside the country respectively. For Canada, foreign births refer to those to foreign-born mothers who have been granted immigrant status. For all other countries, foreign births are those of children of foreign nationality. 1. 1997 for Sweden; 1998 for France; 1999 for Belgium, Finland and the Netherlands. 2. Population aged 15 and over in the case of the United Kingdom. 3. Data refer to England and Wales. 4. The share of foreign births is relative to the share of the foreign-born in the total population (aged 15 and over in the case of the United Kingdom). Sources: Data on births are from civil registers; data on population are from population registers for all countries except for France (1999 Census), the United Kingdom (Labour Force Survey), Portugal and Italy (residence permits).

accounted for no more than 10% of total births. Italy, Finland and especially Japan and Hungary all have significantly lower levels, this being largely due to the relatively small share of foreigners in the total population.

OECD countries from the late 1960s, and longer life expectancy, have led to a very marked acceleration of the population ageing process in virtually all OECD countries. However, this applies more to Europe and Japan than to North America.

In 2000, Portugal had the highest proportion of foreign births relative to the percentage of foreigners in the total population (over 2); the share was also high in Italy and in the United Kingdom. The proportion was particularly low (less than 1) in Japan, where immigration is mostly temporary, and Belgium, where Europeans account for a large share of non-naturalised immigrants.

According to demographic projections by the United Nations, the populations of the European Union and Japan are expected, between 2000 and 2050, to fall by 10% and 14% respectively, representing in all some 55 million persons (see Table I.12). For the United States the projections point to an increase in the total population, but with a rise in the proportion of elderly persons and in the dependency ratio (i.e. the number of persons aged 65 and over as a percentage of the population of working age, 20-64). These projected developments have serious implications for the sustainability of pension and benefit systems and for labour market equilibrium (see Part II).

c)

56

Ageing populations and migration

The combination of the demographic effects of the baby booms that marked the immediate postwar period, the fall in fertility rates that began in

© OECD 2003


Table I.12.

Change in total population in OECD countries, 1950, 2000 and 2050 EU 15

United States

Japan

OECD countries1

83 600 127 000 109 200

683 300 1 125 300 1 275 300

8.1 20.3 43.1

13.1 21.0 40.8

Thousands

Total population 1950 2000 2050

296 400 377 200 340 300

157 800 283 200 397 000 Percentages

Dependency 1950 2000 2050

ratio2 15.5 27.9 55.7

13.3 15.6 26.8

1. The dependency ratio is calculated without taking into account figures for Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Mexico, Switzerland and Turkey. 2. Population aged 65 and over as a percentage of active age population (20-64). Sources: Total population: World Population prospects: the 2000 revision, United Nations; dependency ratio: OECD.

A number of research projects run by the OECD have considered the economic and fiscal impact of coming demographic trends (OECD 2001, 2000, 1998, Visco 2001). The research generally concludes that decisions are required over the medium and long terms to tackle the populatio n challenge and preserve balance in the social protection systems, which are linked with determination of the length of working life, the level of contributions and benefits and also with productivity gains. The studies also

show that it is not possible to use immigration to alleviate the effects of population ageing. Quite apart from the unrealistic increases in entry flows this would imply (see United Nations 2000), experience has shown i) that it is impossible to fully control the level of net migration and the age structure of inflows and outflows; ii) that the higher fertility attributed to foreign women declines very rapidly with the length of stay; 5 and iii) that the foreign population is also ageing (see Box I.6).

Box I.6. Immigrants age too… Theme box on the Integration of Immigrants Reliance on temporary work-related immigration, a solution much advocated in the 1960s, has proved to be counter-productive. Not only did immigrants fail to return to their home countries when economic conditions deteriorated after the oil shocks of the 1970s, but there are also many who, after 30 years of work abroad, will not go back for their retirement. Today the presence of foreign retirees is still limited, but it is likely to expand greatly in the coming decades, especially in countries that had massive recourse to foreign labour in the 1960s and 1970s (Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland). The German Ministry of the Interior has estimated that in 2010 there will be nearly 1.3 million foreign retirees in Germany and about 2.8 million in 2030. This poses major problems of integration for which the host societies are as yet ill prepared. Apart from the very specific case of hostels for immigrant workers (in France more than one-quarter of the places available in these hostels are occupied by workers aged 56 and over), the special housing facilities and the persons working in the senior citizen sector are not necessarily ready to cope with an increasing number of elderly immigrants. The difficulties are not only institutional, and immigrants themselves are not always aware of the problems they will have to face when they reach retirement age. Many of them have limited financial resources and are not homeowners. The idea that members of the family will take care of them when they are old, as is generally the custom in the country of origin, is in many cases a false one, given that host society regulations, notably where housing is concerned, do not permit this traditional form of inter-generational assistance. In the case of wives of immigrant workers of this generation there is even more cause for concern, since they are particularly exposed to the risk of isolation and most of them have hardly any money because they have never been in gainful employment. 57

© OECD 2003


Even if it cannot be expected to have more than a marginal impact on the predicted imbalances in age structure, immigration can for a while help to prevent population decline. But for this to happen, a number of OECD countries will have to introduce major changes in their migration policy so that it will, among other things, contribute to labour market adjustment and equilibrium of demographic dynamics.

B.

IMMIGRANTS AND THE LABOUR MARKET

The second half of 2001 was marked by a turnaround in activity in the majority of OECD countries, ending a period of strong growth that had begun in the first half of the 1990s. In contrast with what had been observed during the previous expansionary phase, and particularly in a number of European OECD countries, economic growth was accompanied during the second half of the 1990s by a sharp increase in job creation. Between 1993 and 2000, more than 40 million jobs were created in the OECD member countries as a whole, while the average rate of unemployment fell by more than 1.5 points from 7.9 to 6.3% over the entire period. That trend was even more noticeable in the European Union, where the unemployment rate fell by over 27% between 1993 and 2001. Because of the economic slowdown, employment growth was however appreciably slower in 2001, reaching just 0.4% in the OECD area. In a number of OECD countries, however, labour markets are still affected by major imbalances involving, in particular, a high level of structural unemployment, persisting long-term unemployment and the scale of youth unemployment. Even, moreover, in countries where significant progress has been made in recent years, there are still large pockets of nonactivity. Employment rates among elderly workers and the unskilled, in particular, are often still low, while in several OECD countries women are continuing to experience difficulty in entering the labour market (see Employment Outlook, OECD, 2002), as are foreign and immigrant workers. Even so, under the combined effect of the upturn in immigration flows for employment purposes and demographic forces, immigrants are accounting for a growing share of the total labour force. 1.

58

The contribution of foreigners to the labour force is increasing

Over the last five years, the number of foreign and immigrant workers has increased in the majority

of OECD countries, and especially in the countries of southern Europe, Japan and Korea, as well as in certain Nordic countries (see Table I.13). Only in Germany and Switzerland did the foreign labour force diminish over the period in question. In 2000, the number of foreign-born members of the labour force was particularly large in the United States (some 17.4 million) and, to a lesser extent, in Canada (2.8 million in 1996) and Australia (2.4 million). In Germany, there are nearly 3.4 million foreign workers, compared to 1.6 million in France and 1.2 million in the United Kingdom. Classified accordin g to the pro po rtion of foreigners in the total labour force, four groups of countries, of comparable size, could be distinguished in 2000. The first group was made up of countries in which the proportion exceeded 10%, and comprised Luxembourg, the United States, Australia, Canada and Switzerland. The second group consisted mainly of former European immigration countries such as Austria, Germany, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom and Sweden. In these countries, foreign labour accounted for between 4 and 10% of the labour force. A third group of countries, where foreign workers accounted for between 3 and 4% of the labour force, was made up mainly of countries where immigration was more recent and was rising steeply; these included Greece, Ireland, Italy and Norway, while the Netherlands could also be put in this group. In a final group of countries, foreign workers were particularly few in number (less than 3% of the labour force). This group included Japan and Korea, and also Spain, Portugal, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Denmark and Finland. Despite these differences in level, the share of foreign workers has grown over the last five years in all the OECD countries, with the exception of Germany, France, the Netherlands and Switzerland. On the whole, this classification mirrors the share of foreigners in the total population, with a few differences due to the relative importance of the family component in migration flows across countries. Allowance has, however, to be made for temporary immigrat io n fo r e mplo y me n t pu rpo se s, wh ich va rie s significantly across countries and is tending to increase more rapidly than permanent immigration by foreign workers (see above). Assessments differ markedly, moreover, in a number of countries, especially the countries of southern and central Europe, according to the statistical sources used (work permits, employment surveys or population census). © OECD 2003


Table I.13.

Foreign or foreign-born labour force in selected OECD countries, 1995 and 2000 Thousands and percentages Foreign labour force Thousands

% of total labour force Source data

Austria Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Japan1 Korea Luxembourg2 Netherlands Norway Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom

1995

2000

1995

2000

366 327 .. 54 18 1 566 3 505 71 21 42 100 88 52 65 281 59 21 4 121 186 729 1 011

377 366 28 78 34 1 571 3 429 163 30 60 246 155 123 77 298 75 104 4 227 205 717 1 220

9.7 7.9 .. 2.0 0.8 6.3 9.1 1.7 0.5 3.0 0.5 0.1 0.3 39.1 3.9 2.7 0.5 0.2 0.8 4.2 18.6 3.6

9.8 8.4 0.5 2.8 1.3 6.1 8.8 3.8 0.7 3.5 1.1 0.2 0.6 42.0 3.7 3.2 2.2 0.2 1.4 4.8 18.3 4.2

LFS LFS LFS LFS LFS LFS LFS LFS WP LFS LFS WP R LFS LFS LFS LFS WP LFS LFS WP LFS

Foreign-born labour force Thousands

% of total labour force Source data

Australia Canada (1996) United States

1995

2000

1995

2000

2 139 2 839 14 083

2 365 .. 17 384

23.9 19.2 10.8

24.5 .. 12.4

LFS C LFS

Note:

Data based on Labour force surveys cover labour force aged 15 to 64 with the exception of Australia (labour force aged 15 and over). Data from other sources cover the labour force aged 15 and over. 1. Foreign residents with permission for employment. Excluding permanent and long-term residents whose activity is not restricted. Overstayers (most of whom are believed to work illegally) are not included either. 2. Resident workers (excluding cross-border workers). Sources: C: Census; E: Estimates by the National Statistical Institute; LFS: Labour force survey; R: Population register or register of foreigners; WP: Work permits.

Regularisation operations (see below Part I.D) reflect, a posteriori, the extent of illegal employment of foreigners. They also emphasise the scale of the phenomenon in certain OECD countries. While it is, by definition, impossible to know the number of undocumented foreign workers, it is probable that taking them into account would substantially alter the above estimates. In Japan, for example, the number of foreign workers varies in the ratio of one to five, depending on whether or not the number of foreigners who remain in Japan after their residence permits have run out are taken into account. In the case of the United States, and according to the latest census

© OECD 2003

figures, it is estimated that there are some 8.5 million foreign-born persons in an illegal situation. 2.

Participation rates of foreigners by gender and place of birth: persistent imbalances

D e s pi t e t h e re ce n t im pr o ve me n t in t h e employment situation in the majority of OECD countries, there are still big differences between nationals and immigrants when it comes to labour market integration. The figures for 2000-2001 confirm the finding already contained in the previous two editions of the annual report Trends in International

59


foreign or immigrant women was under 50% in Belgium, Australia, France and the Netherlands, illustrating how difficult it is for foreign women to enter the labour market in these countries. Even lower rates are to be found among certain communities where female participation rates are also low in the country of origin, this being the case of the Turkish and North African communities and of people from the Middle East and Afghanistan.

Migration, namely that foreigners or immigrants generally have lower participation rates than nationals, and that there are big differences in this respect between men and women (see Table I.14) and depending on the nationalities in question. The participation rates of foreign women are systematically lower than those of men, the genderbased disparity even exceeding 30 points in some host countries, examples being Italy, Greece and Be lgium. The abo ve observation u su ally also applies in the case of nationals, but in some countries the gap between male and female participation rates is at least twice as big for immigrants as it is for nationals. In France, for example, the male participation rate for nationals is 12 points higher than for women, whereas the gap is 28 points where foreigners are concerned. In Finland, the differences by gender are even more marked, reaching 4.9 and 23%, respectively, for nationals and foreigners. Similar large gaps are to be found in Denmark and the United States. In 2000-2001, the participation rate for

Table I.14.

In a number of OECD countries, foreign or immigrant men have higher participation rates than nationals, this being true in particular in host countries where employment-related migration predominates, as in the countries of southern Europe (Italy, Greece) and Hungary. In the Netherlands, on the contrary, and in the countries of northern Europe (notably Sweden and Denmark) which traditionally receive a lot of refugees, foreigners have appreciably lower participation rates than natives. Another finding is that the participation rates of foreign-born men are higher than those of nationals in the United

Participation rate and unemployment rate of nationals and foreigners by sex in selected OECD countries, 2000-2001 average Participation rate Men

Austria Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary (2001) Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom Australia1 Canada (1996)1 United States1

60

Unemployment rate Women

Men

Nationals

Foreigners

Nationals

Foreigners

78.9 73.3 78.7 84.1 79.4 75.1 78.9 76.2 67.6 79.2 73.6 74.0 84.9 84.6 79.0 76.9 77.3 78.0 89.2 83.1 75.0 73.8 80.7

85.1 72.4 87.8 71.2 83.1 76.6 77.6 89.2 77.8 77.0 87.7 79.7 69.5 82.1 81.5 79.4 85.4 63.1 89.5 75.6 67.0 68.4 85.6

62.4 57.0 63.3 76.2 74.6 63.3 64.7 49.0 52.2 55.9 46.6 47.7 67.2 76.8 64.0 63.2 50.9 74.2 73.3 68.4 59.1 60.2 71.4

63.3 41.0 56.3 53.0 60.2 48.6 50.7 56.0 51.8 56.2 50.7 57.7 49.0 67.2 65.3 51.8 59.1 60.3 68.6 55.8 48.2 52.9 61.7

Nationals

3.9 4.6 7.1 3.6 10.0 7.1 7.2 7.2 6.4 4.1 8.0 1.2 1.9 3.7 3.1 19.8 9.3 5.5 1.3 5.5 6.7 10.3 4.9

Women Foreigners

8.4 14.2 7.6 12.2 24.2 17.1 13.4 7.6 .. 5.1 7.4 2.5 4.7 5.3 8.4 26.2 12.9 16.1 4.3 9.8 6.6 9.9 4.4

Nationals

3.9 7.0 10.1 4.9 11.2 10.7 7.8 16.2 4.9 3.8 13.9 1.7 2.9 3.4 5.1 18.6 19.8 4.6 2.6 4.4 5.8 9.5 4.1

Foreigners

8.6 16.5 12.9 7.2 29.9 23.9 11.7 17.6 5.5 6.2 21.3 3.8 7.0 4.5 9.6 17.0 17.2 13.0 6.4 7.9 6.9 11.6 5.6

Note: Data cover the labour force aged 15 to 64 with the exception of Australia and Canada (15 and over). 1. The data refer to the native and foreign-born populations. Sources: Labour force surveys, figures supplied by Eurostat (second quarter 2000 and 2001) and by Australian Bureau of Statistics (August 2000 and August 2001); 1996 Census, Statistics Canada; Current Population Survey March Supplement (2000 and 2001), US Bureau of the Census.

© OECD 2003


States, in contrast with the situation in Australia and Canada. The participation rate usually depends on individual characteristics such as age, level of education, professional experience and family structure. Where foreigners are concerned, it also depends on the length of stay, it being apparent that people who have been resident in a host country for more than 10 years are better integrated in the labour market than those who immigrated more recently. Some 40% of foreigners living in the United Kingdom for between one and 10 years are not active, whereas the proportion falls to under 30% for those who have been resident for more than 10 years. For France, the percentages are 54 and 67%, respectively. In the United States, the participation rate rises from 68.8 to 76.8% depending on whether people have been there for more or less than 10 years. However, these figures mask differing situations in the sense that in the United States, and to a lesser extent in France, virtually all of the variations observed are attributable to the increase in the female participation rate, which is not the case in the United Kingdom. These findings are confirmed by a multivariate analysis (see the annex at the end of Part I), which incorporates possible changes in the individual characteristics of the people who make up each of the groups considered (for example, people resident for at least one year but less than 10, as opposed to those who have been resident for more than 10 years). 3.

Sectoral breakdown and trends in the employment of foreigners.

Char t I.13 com pa res th e tre nd in fo re ign employment and total employment since the start of the economic upturn (first half of the 1990s). In the former European immigration countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, United Kingdom), employment growth can be seen, initially, to have mainly benefited nationals. After between 4 and 6 years, however, foreign employment increases sharply, despite the strains that have by then appeared on the labour market, and the acceleration in growth due in particular to the development of ne w te chn ologie s. T he same so rt o f catch-u p phenomenon is also apparent in Australia, even if the said process would not appear to be totally confirmed in that country at the end of the period in question. © OECD 2003

In the ne w immigration cou ntrie s such as Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain, but also the United States, the trend is very different in the sense that foreign employment has been on an upward slope since the beginning of the economic upturn. In these countries, foreign employment is growing under the impetus of new entries of foreign workers and not, as in the previously mentioned countries, as a result of former immigrants re-entering the labour market. In a detailed analysis in the Employment Outlook (OECD, 2001), it was concluded that foreign employment is more sensitive to cyclical fluctuations. It is true that immigrants are often harder hit by unemployment during periods of recession because of their individual characteristics (skills, professional experience, length of stay), their concentration in the sectors most exposed to the effects of the economic situation (construction and civil engineering, hotels and catering) and also, in some cases, because of certain forms of discrimination. During expansionary phases, mobilising the foreign labour force makes it possible to meet the increase in demand for labour and helps to reallocate native labour into sectors that are more dynamic and more highly thought of socially. This phenomenon is an example of the theory of labour market segmentation, which has it that activities low down on the social scale are very unattractive and reveal chronic labour shortages which foreign workers are willing to make good. In countries where the geographic and sectoral mobility of the native population is limited, foreign labour can also give added flexibility to the labour market and thereby facilitate its development. Dissemination of foreign jobs in the service sector… Table I.15 gives an overall view of the sectoral breakdown of foreign labour in the OECD countries in 2000-2001. It is noticeable, in particular, that foreigners are over-represented in certain sectors, meaning that they account for a larger proportion of employment in those sectors than they do in the total labour force. In the majority of OECD countries, that over-representation occurs in secondary sector activities. In Germany, Japan and Italy, for example, more than one-quarter of foreign employment is concentrated in mining and manufacturing. Foreigners are also over-represented in the construction sector in Austria, Belgium, France and the countries of southern Europe, and in Australia and the United States as well.

61


62

Chart I.13.

Changes in foreign and total employment during economic recoveries in selected OECD countries Index: Trough = 1001, 2 Foreign employment

Ireland

370

Portugal

370

340 310 280 250 220 190 160 130 100 70 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Belgium

150

Italy

370

340 310 280 250 220 190 160 130 100 70 1994 1

Total employment

340 310 280 250 220 190 160 130 100 70 1995 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Netherlands

150

340 310 280 250 220 190 160 130 100 70 1995 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

United Kingdom

150

1994 1

140

140

140

130

130

130

130

120

120

120

120

110

110

110

110

100

100

100

100

90 1994 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Germany

120

90 1993 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

France

120

© OECD 2003

115

110

110

110

105

105

105

100

100

100

95

95

95

90

90 1994 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Australia

120

115

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

4

5

6

7

8

9

7

8

9

United States

1992 1

2

3

4

5

1990 1

1.

2

3

4

5

6

Data for Australia and the United States refer to the foreign-born population. 2. The troughs in activity are determined by estimations of the business cycle produced by the OECD (Economic Research Cycle Institute in the case of Australia). In the case of Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain, the troughs in activity correspond to the greatest disparity between actual and potential GDP, estimated by the OECD. Sources: Labour force surveys, figures provided by Eurostat, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the US Bureau of the Census.

90 1994 1

3

90 1992 1

115

2

150

140

90

Spain

370

6

7

8

9


Table I.15. Employment of foreigners by sectors, 2000-2001 average Percentages of total foreign employment Mining, Wholesale Agriculture Manufacturing Construction and and fishing and Energy retail trade

Hotels and restaurants

Austria Belgium Czech Republic Denmark France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Japan Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom

1.3 1.2 – – 3.1 1.5 2.8 – 4.5 0.4 0.8 3.8 – 7.8 – 1.2 –

26.5 23.0 24.9 16.2 18.0 32.8 17.5 17.6 28.9 60.0 10.0 22.3 17.8 10.4 23.3 22.5 13.2

12.2 8.5 11.3 – 17.4 9.2 27.1 8.1 11.1 2.2 15.9 4.0 5.6 13.0 – 9.9 4.4

12.9 13.8 27.3 11.9 11.4 12.3 11.0 9.3 9.7 8.3 14.1 13.1 13.3 11.7 9.2 15.5 11.5

10.7 8.3 5.2 9.5 7.4 10.6 9.5 11.9 7.9

Australia2 Canada2 United States2

2.1 2.4 3.5

17.9 19.6 18.0

7.8 5.0 7.7

16.5 24.1 22.0

Education

Health and other Households community services

Admin. and ETO

Other services

8.9 7.2 6.4 15.9 7.4 6.0 9.9

2.2 3.6 – 5.9 3.0 2.5 – 6.4 2.8 .. 2.4 3.6 8.0 4.1 9.6 5.2 7.9

6.1 6.9 – 18.5 4.8 6.8 – 8.9 4.6 .. 6.4 9.4 20.0 1.7 14.8 11.6 13.9

– 1.0 – – 6.5 0.5 18.1 – 10.8 .. 3.6 .. – 15.7 – 1.2 1.5

4.2 9.0 – – 2.5 2.2 – – 2.4 .. 9.5 2.6 2.9 – – 2.3 4.1

23.3 24.7 19.7 30.1 25.8 21.4 10.3 32.1 17.4 29.1 28.3 34.0 24.2 19.1 30.6 24.8 33.2

6.0

6.2

1

3

1

5.7

10.0 24.6 10.0

3.2 .. 1.9

3.3 3.8 2.0

26.9 20.4 29.3

1

Note:

The numbers in bold indicate the sectors where foreigners are over-represented (i.e., the share of foreign employment in that sector is higher than the share of foreign employment in total employment). The sign “–” indicates that the figure calculated was not statistically significant. 1. The “Hotels and restaurants” category is included in the “Wholesale and retail trade” category. 2. The data refer to the foreign-born population. 3. The “Education” category is included in the “Health and other community services” category. Sources: Labour force surveys, figures supplied by Eurostat and by the Australian Bureau of Statistics; Ministry of Labour (Japan); 1996 Census, Statistics Canada; Current Population Survey March Supplements, US Bureau of the Census.

Th e diss e min a t io n an d c o n ce n tr a ti o n o f foreigners in the services is also very obvious. In Canada and the United States, foreigners employed in retailing account, respectively, for 24 and 22% of all foreign jobs. In Spain, some 16% of foreign jobs are in the hotel and catering trade and almost as many in services to households. In Denmark and Norway, 18.5 and 20% of employed foreigners work in the health sector, while in Sweden nearly 10% of foreigners are employed in education. The lowest percentage of foreigners is usually to be found in public administration owing to regulations that reserve the majority of jobs for nationals. With the exception of Spain and, to a lesser extent, the Netherlands and the United States, relatively few foreigners work in agriculture. However, that observation has to be qualified because the survey data on which these estimates are based are not always well adapted to reflecting the seasonal activities © OECD 2003

and temporary migration that predominate in the agricultural sector. … that does not, however, automatically mean an improvement in job quality The fact that the breakdown of foreign and native employment is becoming more similar indicates that the process of labour market entry for foreigners is on the increase. In the European OECD countries, for example, with the arrival on the labour market of young, second-generation immigrants who usually have a higher level of education than that of their parents, labour supply among young foreigners is gradually moving towards jobs matching the “national profile”, i.e., which are not of the same nature as those filled by first-generation immigrants. This optimistic finding is, however, partly offset by an analysis of the characteristics of the jobs filled

63


Chart I.14.

Atypical employment by nationality in selected European OECD countries, 2001 Percentage of total employment according to nationality Foreigners

% 60

Proportion of temporary jobs

Nationals

Proportion of part time jobs

% 35 30

50

10

25

40

Proportion of secondary jobs

% 12

8

20 30

6 15

AT: Australia BE: Belgium CH: Switzerland

0

DE: Germany DK: Denmark ES: Spain

FR: France IT: Italy LU: Luxembourg

NL: Netherlands NO: Norway PT: Portugal

IT

0 D K N O D E FR SE

2

IT AT ES

IT AT

ES PT SE N L D K FR U K N O D E C H BE

0

5

N L U K C H BE LU

10

D K FR

4

10

N O C H SE N L U K AT BE D E ES

20

SE: Sweden UK: United Kingdom

Sources: Labour force surveys (2nd quarter 2001), figures provided by Eurostat.

by foreigners. The 2001 edition of the Employment Outlook (OECD, 2001) showed, for example, that foreign employment is on the whole more concentrated than native employment in the lowest sociooccupational categories (blue-collar jobs). This is particularly striking in Austria, France and Japan. The jo bs br e a kdo w n i s re l at iv e ly s pe ak in g m o re balan ced, h o wev er, in Can ada a nd Au str alia, whereas in the United Kingdom there are relatively more white-collar workers in the employed foreign labour force than in total employment.

64

Chart I.14, which shows the share of “atypical” jobs by nationality in a number of OECD countries, partly confirms the specificity of foreign employment. In all the countries considered, the probability of being in a temporary job is appreciably greater for foreigners than for nationals, the gap being all the greater the more widespread temporary work is in the country in question. It is at its widest in Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands. In some countries, however, this observation is influenced by the preponderance of traineeships for young, first-time labour market entrants, this being particularly true in Germany, Switzerland and, to a lesser extent, the United Kingdom. In most of the countries considered,

a relatively larger proportion of foreigners employed part time say that they want to work full time. In contrast with what has just been said as regards temporary jobs, foreign workers do not appear to be employed part time to a disproportionate degree. As far as having a secondary activity is concerned, it is apparent that relatively speaking more foreigners are found to have at least two jobs, but the differences remain fairly small by comparison with the total employed labour force. France is the exception in this respect in that a significantly smaller proportion of foreigners have second jobs in that country. Self-employed foreign workers In a number of OECD countries, setting up a company or building up an individual activity are the most usual ways for foreign workers to enter the labour market. Because very few foreign workers are able to be self-employed in agriculture – unlike nationals – the arguments that follow do not take agricultural activities into account. Self-employed foreign workers are relatively numerous in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Spain, Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States (see Table I.16). In other member coun© OECD 2003


Table I.16.

Self employed by nationality, 2001 Thousands and percentages

Stock of foreign self-employment (Thousands)

Austria Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary (2000) Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland (2000) United Kingdom United States1

24.6 51.7 7.3 7.1 3.0 119.3 285.5 15.5 3.8 11.6 42.5 4.8 32.1 3.7 14.9 52.7 16.1 76.2 144.6 1 707.2

Foreign self-employment as a % of total self-employment

5.2 8.7 1.0 3.2 1.0 4.7 7.4 1.1 0.7 4.1 0.7 36.4 3.6 2.3 1.4 1.8 3.9 12.4 4.7 13.5

Foreign self-employment as a % of total self-employment in non-agricultural activities

7.8 9.1 1.1 3.1 1.5 5.8 8.2 1.6 0.7 5.3 0.8 41.2 3.8 3.2 1.9 2.2 4.4 14.5 4.9 14.3

% of foreign self-employment in non-agricultural activities relative to their share in total labour force

0.8 1.1 1.8 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.4 1.0 1.2 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.2

1. The data refer to the foreign-born population. Sources: Labour force surveys (2nd quarter 2001), figures supplied by Eurostat; Current Population Survey March Supplement, US Bureau of the Census.

tries, on the other hand, foreigners are under-represented in non-salaried employment, this being the case in Greece, Austria, Italy and Switzerland. That being said, the actual situation differs a great deal from one country to another. One of the classic arguments used in economic theory to explain the relatively large numbers of foreign entrepreneurs is based on the selective nature of migration, the suggestion being that immigrants are more dynamic and less reluctant to take risks than natives. There is, however, little available empirical evidence to confirm this argument in those terms. Another argument, which is in fact the converse of the one above, emphasises the case of foreigners who have specific difficulties in securing salaried jobs, though not on account of their intrinsic qualities. The said difficulties can be attributable to discrimination or result from inadequate access to information or to share capital. In such cases, foreigners are relatively more inclined than nationals to create their own jobs. The development of economic activities aimed specifically at immigrants’ communities of origin (ethnic businesses) is a third explanation for the relative magnitude of non-salaried activities among foreign workers. Such activities can include the © OECD 2003

provision of traditional or specific services, notably in the field of health, education and the hotel/caterin g t ra de, o r th e y can inv o lve str en g th en in g merchandise trade with countries of origin. The case of the United States and the United Kingdom is often quoted, but mention may also be made of Germany and Luxembourg where more than 30% of foreign entrepreneurs are in the hotel and catering sector. Community-type activities often extend beyond the somewhat restricted framework of the ethnic community and sometimes even foster integration in the host society. The Italian, Turkish, Indian and Asian culinary specialities that are now an integral part of our eating habits were, for example, largely introduced by immigrants. Much the same is true as regards traditional oriental medicines and African and Latin American music. In contrast, the complexity of the legislation in force in host countries, coupled with the difficulty of obtaining credit, can sometimes curb the propensity of foreigners to set up companies. Lastly, some of the professions can be hard for foreigners to enter because of the institutional provisions involved (certification procedures, for example, in the medical professions) or the specificity of the knowledge required (legal professions).

65

Employment in education, IT and health professions according to citizenship in selected OECD countries, 2001 Thousands and percentages Austria

Belgium

France

Germany

Italy

Netherlands

Norway

Switzerland

United Kingdom

United States

Teachers, college and university1

Total Foreigners

25.3 –

16.5 2.4

97.5 5.1

110.7 8.7

78.9 –

19.4 –

16.7 1.6

8.7 –

307.7 34.7

1 241.9 242.5

Teachers, except college and university2

Total Foreigners

116.0 2.1

243.5 6.1

677.1 16.3

985.6 22.5

993.7 3.1

323.5 4.3

30.5 –

156.6 19.8

929.2 37.9

5 824.1 344.8

3.0

3.3

2.8

2.8

0.3

1.6

4.3

13.0

5.9

8.3

Percentage of foreign teachers Information and Technology professionals (IT)3

Total Foreigners

17.3 4.1

68.9 4.0

316.9 16.3

355.6 16.1

16.9 –

146.7 5.2

43.0 2.2

138.4 27.0

498.7 36.8

3 124.8 587.5

Other Information and Technology specialists4

Total Foreigners

59.2 2.3

17.5 –

190.6 5.0

379.9 25.5

261.1 –

147.1 3.1

20.5 –

21.1 3.7

278.5 13.2

393.3 57.1

8.3

6.0

4.2

5.7

0.4

2.8

4.3

19.3

6.4

18.3

Percentage of Information and Technology foreign specialists Health professionals5 (except nursing)

Total Foreigners

41.7 –

60.7 4.4

310.5 6.8

458.9 13.0

281.9 3.7

65.3 –

23.4 2.4

61.3 10.0

238.6 30.9

1 364.4 257.5

Other health professionals6

Total Foreigners

133.4 9.6

175.7 5.0

622.3 8.9

1 136.2 57.5

508.4 4.4

403.7 5.6

97.6 4.5

233.0 38.5

934.9 60.4

7 448.6 907.3

6.3

4.0

1.7

4.4

1.0

1.4

5.7

16.5

7.8

13.2

Percentage of foreign health professionals

Note: The sign – indicates that the figure calculated was not statistically reliable. 1. Category 231, ISCO-88. 2. Categories 232 to 235, ISCO-88. 3. Category 213, ISCO-88. 4. Categories 312 and 313, ISCO-88. 5. Category 222, ISCO-88. 6. Categories 223 (nursing and midwtfery professionals), 322 and 323, ISCO-88. Sources: Labour force surveys (2nd quarter), figures supplied by Eurostat; Current Population Survey March Supplement, US Bureau of the Census.


66

Table I.17.

© OECD 2003


Some OECD member countries have specific immigration programmes to attract foreign investors, but these usually involve limited numbers because of the scale of the financial guarantees required. In 2000, for example, Canada received 1 390 foreign investors, each worth at least C$ 800 000, plus a little over 1 600 entrepreneurs. In the case of Australia, nearly 7 250 people, each with at least A$250 000 to invest, entered the country in 2000-2001 in the Business Skills category. Foreign specialists increasingly sought after Recent strains on the labour market, or strains that are anticipated because of future population trends, have prompted several OECD member countries to relax their policies regarding the recruitment of foreign, and especially skilled workers (see Part II of this report). The said trends more especially concern jobs in the information technology and communications sector, as well as in health and education. Several countries have introduced programmes aimed at attracting computer scientists (Germany), doctors (United Kingdom) and foreign university professors (United States). Sometimes these programmes also target people with intermediate-level qualifications, such computer and electro nic techn icians, nur se s o r secon dary le vel teachers. Table I.17 shows the number of foreigners in the health, education and computer science professions in 2001 in selected OECD countries. It shows that the numbers recorded are not necessarily in the professions most sought after in the present economic situation. With the exception of the United States, no more than a few dozen computer, health and education specialists have been recruited in absolute terms, but in some cases they do account for a far from negligible share of total employment in the professions considered. This is the case as regards health workers in Switzerland and the United Kingdom in particular. Also of interest is the fact that, in France, foreign employment concerns university professors just as much as computer engineers. In Germany, foreign employment concerns health professionals (notably nurses and midwives) more than computer specialists. In the United Kingdom, there are more foreign teachers in secondary level education than there are doctors or nurses, while in the United States there are approximately twice as many foreign specialists in the health sector as there are in computer sciences. © OECD 2003

4.

Foreigners are more vulnerable to unemployment than nationals

There are a great many reasons why foreigners are on the whole more vulnerable to unemployment than nationals. In almost all European OECD countries, the share of foreign or immigrant workers in the total number of jobless is larger than their share in the labour force (see Chart I.15). The latter chart shows that it was in Sweden that the ratio was highest over the period 2000-2001, but it was also high in Finland, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, as well as in Portugal and France. In each of these countries, the proportion of foreigners amongst the jobless was at least twice what it was in the labour force. Between 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, the relative share of foreigners in unemployment rose very sharply in Italy and appreciably in Sweden, Spain and France. In the Netherlands, the United States, Switzerland and Portugal, on the other hand, it fell. One way of assessing the scale of the effort needed to offset the specific problems foreigners or immigrants face on OECD country labour markets is to calculate the number of jobs it would theoretically be necessary to create to bring the foreign unemployment rate into line with that of nationals, assuming no change in the latter. This would have the effect of bringing the ratio shown in Chart I.15 down to a value equal to 1 for each of the countries considered. The results for 2001 are shown in Table I.18. What emerges is that, even in countries where foreigners are hard hit by unemployment, such as Belgium, Finland, Sweden and France, the theoretical number of jobs to be created is in fact relatively small. In the Netherlands, where the unemployment differential between foreigners and nationals is big, the overrepresentation of foreigners among the jobless would in fact be eliminated by creating 6 500 jobs for foreigners, which represents barely 0.1% of the labour force. Even in France and Belgium, where the situation may seem problematic, the objective is no doubt within reach. In France, more than 800 000 jobs were created between 1998 and 2000 (as against 160 000 in Belgium), but in theory the creation of some 170 000 jobs for foreign workers (32 000 in Belgium) would suffice to bring foreign unemployment down to a level comparable to that among nationals. Achieving this objective in the medium term nevertheless means thinking about strengthening active measures in favour of employment, developing specific measures and also stepping up the campaign against discrimination.

67


Chart I.15.

Proportion of foreigners in total unemployment related to their proportion in the labour force 2000-2001 average

3.0

3.0

2.5

2.5

2.0

2.0

1.5

1.5

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

Sw

ed

en

d

k

an nl

Fi

D

en

m

iu lg

Be

ar

m

s

l

nd

N

et

he

rla

e

ga tu

nc

Po r

nd

Fr a

er itz

Sw

ni

te

la

tri

a

m do

ng Ki d

Au s

an y

g

m er G

xe

m

bo

ur

nd

ay

la

w

ly Ita

or

Ire Lu

U

ak

N

n ai

C

ov Sl

ze

R

ep

ch ubl ic R ep ub lic

e ec

Sp

re G

tra

Au s

a

at

ad d

St

an C

te ni U

lia

0 es

0

Note: Labour force aged 15 to 64 years. Foreign-born population for Australia, Canada and the United States. August 1999 for Australia; 1996 for Canada; 2001 for Hungary. Sources: Labour force surveys (Eurostat, Australian Bureau of Statistics and US Bureau of the Census); 1996 Census (Statistics Canada).

Table I.18. Theoretical calculation of the number of jobs to be created to absorb the discrepancy between national and foreign unemployment rates in selected OECD countries, 2001 Number of jobs to be created for the unemployment rate of foreigners to equal the one for nationals (Thousands)

Austria Belgium Finland France Germany Netherlands Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States

17.5 31.7 4.9 167.9 183.7 6.5 19.4 23.1 44.9 46.9

Number of jobs to be created as a % of total labour force

0.5 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.03

Sources: Labour force surveys (Eurostat); Current Population Survey March Supplement, US Bureau of the Census.

68

Unemployment among foreign women (see Table I.14) is usually higher than for men, except in Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom. The differential is especially wide in Greece and Italy and, to a lesser extent, France. The differential between the

rate of unemployment among nationals and among fo reig ne rs a lso ten ds to be mo re ma rke d for women than for men. Foreign women are therefore both less active participants on the labour market and distinctly more vulnerable to unemployment in almost all the OECD countries (see Box I.7). This

© OECD 2003


Box I.7. Young foreigners and the labour market Theme box on the Integration of Immigrants For young foreigners, labour market integration is extremely problematic in a number of OECD countries, and particularly the European OECD countries. Chart I.16 shows, in fact, that unemployment among young people is systematically higher than for the population as a whole (15-64), the exception being Germany because of the scale of its apprenticeship system. It also seems that young foreigners have a lot more difficulty entering the labour market than do young nationals, though this finding does not apply in Italy, Norway and the United States and needs to be qualified in the United Kingdom and Spain. In some OECD countries, such as Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, unemployment is low overall, with fewer than 6% of young foreign members of the labour force being in search of employment. In France, Denmark and Belgium, on the other hand, the figure is over 20%. In the case of Denmark, the differential between the unemployment rate for young nationals and young foreigners is as high as 13 percentage points, illustrating how hard it is for young immigrants to enter the labour market in that country. The problem of labour market integration for young foreigners has to be looked at from the economic standpoint, i.e. from the point of view of labour supply and demand. On the supply side, it is clear that some of the young people looking for jobs lack both the skills and, in some cases, the linguistic ability that are essential prerequisites for finding a job. In some cases, a further barrier to labour market entry can be non-recognition of the diplomas and training received abroad. On the demand side, the emphasis has to be placed jointly on the role of government, employment intermediaries and firms. In several OECD countries, public sector jobs are still broadly speaking closed to foreigners, even though the authorities encourage private sector firms to recruit young foreigners or young people born abroad. The authorities also need in some cases to clarify the rules and legislation aimed at combating all forms of discrimination, particularly as regards recruitment. Public employment services and recruitment agencies should, for their part, expand training schemes to make their staff aware of the existence of discrimination and make firms more alive to the need to give young immigrants or young people of immigrant origin a chance. In practical terms, what is needed is multidimensional and coordinated action aimed at strengthening the links between the different actors: young people, government, the education system, public employment services, firms and associations.

Unemployment rate of youth unemployment according to nationality in selected OECD countries, 2001 Percentage of labour force Young foreigners (15-24)

Young nationals (15-24)

Total labour force (15-64)

35

30

30

25

25

20

20

15

15

10

10

5

5

0

0

he

la

Ita

ly Ire

rla

bo et N

xe

m

er Lu

iz Sw

nd

g ur

nd la

an y m

tri

ay w or

er G

Ki

U

ni

te

d

N

do

m

ng

lg

iu

en Be

nc

ed Sw

k Fr a

ar m en D

nd

35

s

40

a

40

m

45

e

45

Au s

Chart I.16.

Source: Labour force surveys, figures provided by Eurostat.

© OECD 2003

69


Percentage of long-term unemployment according to nationality1 2000-2001 average2

Chart I.17.

Foreigners

Nationals

50

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

0

0 e

iu

C

ze

ep

ch

R

Be

lg

ly

ec

Ita

re G

a

at

ad

St d

U

ni

te

tra

an C

Au s

m

60

ub li G er c m an y Sp ai n Fr an N et he ce rla nd s U S w ni ed te d e n Ki ng do m A Lu ust ria xe m bo Sw u itz rg er la n Fi d nl an d

60

es

70

lia

70

1. Data for Australia, Canada and the United States refer to foreign-born and native populations. 2. Population aged 15 to 64 with the exception of Australia and Canada (15 and over). Sources: Labour Force surveys (Eurostat, Australian Bureau of Statistics and US Bureau of the Census); 1996 Census (Statistics Canada).

ph eno meno n is, h oweve r, le ss marked in the settlement countries (Australia, Canada and the United States), where the discrepancy between the unemployment rates of those born abroad and those born in the country is considerably lower than that observed between foreigners and nationals in Europe. Foreigners are also strongly represented in th e figu re s for lo n g-term unemployment (see Chart I.17). In Sweden, for example, almost 45% of foreign jobless have been unemployed for over a year, compared with less than 30% in the case of nationals. This is also true, though to a lesser degree, in Australia, Belgium, Canada, France and Switzerland. In the recent immigration countries of southern Europe (Spain, Greece and Italy), where it is migration for employment purposes that predominates, foreigners figure less prominently than nationals among the long-term unemployed.

70

The disparities between unemployment rates for foreigners and nationals (see Table I.14) and the fact that, depending on their nationalities, foreigners are not all affected by unemployment to the

same degree, are attributable in particular to economic trends and the nature of the jobs held by foreigners. They also depend on the demographic structure of the foreign population and how long ago the different waves of migration arrived in the various host countries. Migrants’ profiles also determine how employable they are. Variables such as age, gender, nationality, skill level, professional experience and the length of stay in the country play an important role in explaining the degree of vulnerability to unemployment. Knowledge of the language of the host country also contributes importantly to integration in the labour market and in society as a whole (see Box I.8).

C.

RECENT TRENDS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION IN ASIA AND CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE

The 2001 edition of Trends in International Migration focused on Asian Migration to OECD countries. In the current report, particular is accorded to migration flows within Asia. The trends presented below concern © OECD 2003


Box I.8.

Linguistic competence and integration into the labour market Theme box on the Integration of Immigrants

Proficiency in the language of the host country is an essential factor in the successful integration of immigrants into the labour market. This facilitates communication at the workplace and is a condition of access to the information network (access to job vacancies, social exchanges, labour laws…). The acquisition of linguistic skills is dependant on numerous elements, such as the length of stay, age at the time of migration, the level of educational attainment of the migrant and his/her parents, whether or not there is a large ethnic group in the area of residence or whether there is any link between the mother tongue and the language of the host country. (see for example Dustman, 1994, in Germany; Carliner,1995, in the United States; Chiswick and Miller, 2000, in Canada; Shields and Price, 2001, in the United Kingdom; Chiswick, Lee and Miller in Australia). Since the pioneer work of Reimers (1983) and Grenier (1984), up to the more recent studies undertaken by Chiswick and Miller (2002), most studies identify a significant and positive impact, on a comparable scale, of the effects of linguistic competence on employment and the conditions of pay.1 However, all things being equal, it must be noted that immigrants capable of expressing themselves, who are able to write and understand the language of the host country, will receive a salary of at least 10% higher than those who lack these competencies. This result is confirmed if we take into consideration the bias of selective recruitment and the problems of evaluating linguistic ability. In the case of Israel, several studies present estimations of salary differences of over 20% (e.g. Berman et al., 2000; Chiswick, 1998). Besides, mastering the language of the host country seems equally to facilitate access to the labour market as well as positions of responsibility (Minns, 1999; Miller and Neo, 1997; Koussoudji, 1988). Linguistic competence exerts, nevertheless, an impact of a certain importance according to gender (i.e. notably in the case of women – Shields and Price, 2001; Beiser and Hou, 2000; Chiswick and Miller, 1999), depending on the origin of the immigrants (e.g., more notably for Cubans and Portoricans than for Mexicans in the United States – Reimers, 1983), according to level of education (i.e. illustrating a phenomenon of complementarity between education and linguistic competence – Chiswick and Miller, 2002), relative to the place of residence (i.e. higher in urban areas than in rural zones – McManus, 1990) or relative to the size of the ethnic group (i.e. decrease in importance when the ethnic group is a large one; MacManus, 1990). Finally, some authors find that familiarity in speaking the language is more important than competency in reading and writing (Chiswick, 1991), while some place a high emphasis on the role of writing (Gonzales, 2000; Dustman, 1994) other recognise the cross-effect (e.g. the necessity of reading and speaking well – Chiswick and Miller, 1999). 1. Hayfron (2001) in the case of Norway as well as Cornelius and Tsuda (2002) for Japan are, to our knowledge, the only two studies which do not find a link between the linguistic competence of immigrants and their labour market performance. The representative element of the data used in these two studies must, however, be viewed with caution.

several countries of East and South-East Asia and are based on information collected within the framework of the Annual Workshop on international migration and the labour market (Tokyo 4-5 February 2002). This workshop was organised by the Japanese authorities with the participation of the ILO and the OECD. Concerning migration in Central and Eastern Europe, the focus is on trends in migrations flows from and in this region as well as on the impact of the EU enlargement on migration. 1.

Recent developments in migration flows within East and South-East Asia6

a)

Background and major recent trends

The fragility of East and Southeast Asian economies was revealed in the aftermath of the terrorist © OECD 2003

attacks on the World Trade Center in New York on September 11 2001. Just as they appeared to be recovering from the effects of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, these economies were once again thrust into an en viron me nt of declining regional an d global demand. There are, of course, significant variations but most Asian economies had resumed growth by 1999 and several, including Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea and Malaysia had achieved rapid growth by 2000 (see Table I.19). Then came a rapid reversal. In 2001, Singapore was in its first recession since independence; Hong Kong, too, experienced negative growth and Japan, which had never really recovered from the collapse of its bubble economy in 1989, was in full recession. Even Chinese Taipei, which had avoided the worst effects of the Asian financial crisis, appears to be entering a period of slower growth. Only Korea may be on a more sustained course to recovery.

71


Table I.19. Real GDP growth in selected Asian countries and in Australia, 1996-2001 Percentages

Chinese Taipei Hong Kong (China) Japan Korea Singapore Indonesia Malaysia Philippines Thailand China Vietnam Australia

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

6.1 4.5 3.5 6.8 7.7 8.0 10.0 5.8 5.9 9.6 9.3 4.0

6.7 5.0 1.8 5.0 8.5 4.5 7.3 5.2 –1.4 8.8 8.2 3.5

4.6 –5.3 –1.1 –6.7 – –13.2 –7.4 –0.5 –10.8 7.1 4.4 5.4

5.4 3.0 0.7 10.9 6.9 0.9 6.1 3.3 4.4 7.8 4.7 4.5

5.9 10.5 2.4 9.3 10.3 4.8 8.3 4.0 4.6 8.0 6.1 3.4

–1.9 0.1 –0.4 3.0 –2.0 3.3 0.4 3.4 1.8 7.3 6.8 2.4

Sources: Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific Countries, 2002 and OECD Economic Outlook, No. 71, June 2002.

Even during the brief recoveries in economic growth in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis, unemployment proved persistent and rose markedly in the renewed downturn in 2001. It is now at all-time highs in the recent histories of Hong Kong, Singapore and Chinese Taipei with no suggestion of a reversal in the immediate future (see Table I.20). The structural adjustments that these tiger economies and Japan are undergoing that have seen an export of labourintensive manufacturing and an increasing reliance on high-tech industries, underlies this persistence of unemployment. While labour deficits emerge in modern sectors, labour surpluses increase in more traditional sectors. The East and Southeast Asian economies under consideration are all characterized by movements both into and out of their respective territories. It is altogether too simple to conceptualize economies into sending and receiving areas. All have inflows as

Table I.20.

well as outflows, although the composition and relative volume of the flows vary. For example, the Philippines can be considered as a country of emigration par excellence with over 7 million of its citizens living or working overseas, but that country, too, also imports highly skilled migrants to assist in certain key sectors of the economy. In 1999, there were almost six thousand foreign workers in the Philippines, the majority of whom were Japanese executives, a tiny number compared with the number of emigrants but nevertheless significant for the local economy. Indonesia also follows this general pattern, while Thailand and Malaysia both import and export large numbers of workers and Japan, Korea, Chinese Taipei, Singapore and Hong Kong are all economies of net immigration. Any population movement in Asia has to be placed in its demographic context of declining fertility in the region. Fertility levels have fallen

Unemployment rates in selected Asian countries and in Australia, 1996-2001 Per cent of total labour force

Chinese Taipei Hong Kong (China) Japan Korea Singapore Indonesia Malaysia Philippines Thailand China Vietnam Australia 72

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2.6 2.8 3.4 2.0 3.0 4.9 2.5 8.6 1.1 3.0 5.9 8.2

2.7 2.2 3.4 2.6 2.4 4.7 2.6 8.7 0.9 3.1 6.0 8.3

2.7 2.7 4.1 6.8 3.2 5.5 3.2 10.1 3.4 3.1 6.9 7.7

2.9 2.9 4.7 6.3 4.6 6.4 3.4 9.7 3.0 3.1 6.7 7.0

3.0 3.4 4.7 4.1 4.4 6.1 3.1 12.0 2.4 3.1 6.4 6.3

4.4 6.7 5.0 3.5 5.0 – 3.7 – – 3.6 – 6.7

Sources: Asian Development Bank, Asia Recovery Information Centre and OECD Economic Outlook, No. 71, June 2002.

© OECD 2003


Table I.21. Total fertility rates in selected Asian countries, 1980, 1990 and 1999 Births per woman

Chinese Taipei Hong Kong (China) Japan Korea Singapore Indonesia Malaysia Philippines Thailand China Vietnam

1980

1990

1999

2.5 2.0 1.8 2.6 1.9 4.3 4.2 4.8 3.5 2.5 5.0

1.8 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.7 3.0 3.8 4.1 2.2 2.1 3.6

1.6 1.0 1.5 1.6 1.5 2.6 3.0 3.3 1.9 1.9 2.3

Sources: Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific Countries, 2001.

precipitously in Japan and most of the Chinese culture areas (see Table I.21). With the exception of China itself, these areas tend to be the destinations for migration as economies come to terms with very slow growth in their labour forces. Conversely, those countries with higher fertility tend to be areas of origin of migration. The stock of foreign workers has increased steadily throughout the 1990s in Japan, Hong Kong, S i n g a p o r e , C h i n e s e Ta i p e i a n d K o r e a ( s e e Table I.22). Among these countries, only in Korea can an “Asian financial crisis” effect be seen, with a sharp reduction in the number of foreign workers during 1998. The situation among those economies lower down the development hierarchy is different.

Table I.22.

There, the crisis effect was more marked in population migration with the numbers of foreign workers declining in Malaysia and Thailand as well as in Indonesia. Here, however, considerable caution needs to be used in the interpretation of the available figures. In contrast to Japan and the tiger economies, data-gathering systems are not as well developed in those Southeast Asian nations. More important, is the fact that the long land and sea borders, so common in that part of the region, are difficult to control adequately and it is easy for people to cross from one country to another without detection. Undocumented movements account for a very significant proportion of total international migration among the large countries of Southeast Asia and it is difficult to know to what extent the figures provided represent the real situation. The summary figures on foreign workers in Asian countries have been subdivided as far as possible to indicate three sub-classes: the legal and highly skilled; the legal unskilled; and the undocumented unskilled. These data are not available for all countries and again it must be emphasized that differences in definition and coverage make ready comparison deceptive. Nevertheless, general trends can be identified with respect to the various categories. It should be pointed out that for Hong Kong there is a class of immigrant that is virtually unique among the countries under consideration. This covers one-way permit holders from China who are granted residence rights in the Special Administrative Region (SAR). Essentially, this category refers to a family reunification or settlement programme with

Stocks of foreign workers in selected Asian countries, 1996-2001 Thousands

Chinese Taipei Hong Kong (China)1 Japan2 Korea2 Singapore Indonesia3 Malaysia2 Philippines3 Thailand2 China3 Vietnam3

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

– 164.3 610 210.5 – 24.9 745.2 4.3 1 033.9 80 –

245.7 171.0 630 245.4 – 24.4 1 471.6 6.1 1 125.8 82 –

255.6 180.6 660 157.7 – 21.3 1 127.7 5.3 1 103.5 83 –

278.0 193.7 670 217.4 530.0 14.9 818.7 6.0 1 089.7 85 –

326.5 216.8 710 285.5 612.2 16.8 799.7 – 1 102.6 – 30

– – – 330.2 – – 805.0 – – 60 –

Note: Official estimates. 1. Foreign domestic workers only. There are no stock figures for the highly skilled workers. 2. Includes estimates of undocumented workers. 3. Foreign experts, primarily professionals, highly skilled workers and teachers. Source: National Statistical Offices.

© OECD 2003

73


the majority entering the city under this category as either minor children or spouses of Hong Kong men. Their number is currently set at 150 a day. It is worth reiterating that many of those who leave Asian economies as immigrants or as more or less permanent settlers are highly skilled. Almost one third of the emigrants from Hong Kong to Australia and one seventh of immigrants arriving in Canada in the early 1990s were holders of a university degree. The fact that many choose not to become permanent immigrants but become either return migrants, migrants to third country destinations or transnational circulators after obtaining a new citizenship does not invalidate the essentially longer-term intent of this migration flow. While these groups will not be entirely ignored in the following discussion, the focus will be more on highly skilled worker and student flows. b)

Flows of highly skilled workers: must we speak about brain drain?

During the second half of the 1990s, Asians made up between one third to two fifths of settler arrivals to Australia and a significant trend has been the substantial shift towards skills and business migration and away from family-based criteria. Canada was the pioneer of managing its migration through a points-based system of selection and now takes over a quarter of its total intake from just two countries, China and India. The United States, while still maintaining its emphasis in its immigration on family reunification, has adjusted its intake to increase the proportion of independent, qualified and business immigrants.

74

Quite apart from these trends in long-term immigration policy an equally significant shift has been towards admitting increasing numbers of workers to North American countries and Australia under some form of temporary admission programme. In the United States, the numbers admitted under the H-1B programme, introduced in 1992 with an annual ceiling of 65 000. The ceiling was increased to 115 000 in 1999 and then again to 195 000 between 2001 and 2003 showing the marked growth in importance of this channel. China, India, Japan and the Philippines accounted for almost two thirds of the 65 000 intake in 1999, with India accounting for the vast majority. Migrants who enter with a H-1B visa are entitled to remain in the United States for up to six years. Australia, too, appears to have shifted towards a greater reliance on temporary entrants who may, in

the late 1990s, have reached over 400 000, or 2-3% of the resident population. While destination countries have increased their intake of the highly skilled through shifts in settler intake and by developing shorter-term entry programmes, the countries of origin can consider the loss of personnel not to be in their best interests. The so-called “brain drain” has tended to be seen as negative for countries of origin. It has to be considered however in the context of “brain gain” and “brain exchange”. It is important to bear in mind that the total number of highly skilled who are moving in, among and from Asian countries is quite small relative to the total populations of the economies concerned and even relative to the available pool of skilled labour itself. Nevertheless, the movement of small numbers of highly qualified people can have a significant impact on particular sectors of the labour market and on social and economic development, particularly in the context of an increasing competition for skills in the globalised economy. The debate can perhaps be best illustrated by examining the movement of students from Asian economies to tertiary institutions overseas. The United States has for long been the principal destination with 30% of the 34 232 foreign students in 1954/55 coming fr om Asian co u nt rie s. By 2 000 /01, th e re we re 547 867 foreign students registered in degree-granting institutions in the United States, with seven of the leading eight sources of the students being Asian countries (see Table I.23). Nearly 21% came from China and India alone. Taking the example of Chinese Taipei, it can be seen that relatively few students returned during the early period of student migration overseas in the 1960s and 1970s. The numbers of those returning accelerated throughout the 1980s until the mid-1990s when government subsidies for return were removed and many returnees, coming back on their own account, may not have registered. Thus, the more recent data are not strictly comparable. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, by the 1990s, development in Chinese Taipei had reached the level where significant numbers of students returned and fewer chose to leave in the first place, being able to receive a quality education at home. Only 937 students returned to Chinese Taipei in 1980 compared with some 6 510 in 1994 and the return rate in 1988 was estimated at around 32%, three times the return rate in 1980. While many highly skilled migrants may have returned to Chinese Taipei, or to Korea, return rates © OECD 2003


Table I.23. Stocks of students in degree-granting institutions in the United States, 1954/55, 1974/75 and 2000/01 Top 15 countries of origin as ranked in 2000/01 Thousands

China India Japan Korea Chinese Taipei Canada Indonesia Thailand Turkey Mexico Germany Brazil United Kingdom Malaysia Hong Kong (China) Other countries Total Source:

1954/55

1974/75

2000/01

– 1.7 1.6 1.2 2.6 4.7 – – 1.2 0.8 – 0.7 – – 6.9

– 9.7 5.9 3.4 10.3 8.4 – 6.3 – 4.0 – – 2.8 – 11.1 31.4

59.9 54.7 46.5 45.7 28.6 25.3 11.6 11.2 11.0 10.7 10.1 8.8 8.8 8.1 7.8 199.1

21.4

93.3

547.9

Institute of International Education, Report on International Educational Exchange, 2002 and various years.

for countries at lower levels of development such as Malaysia and China appear to be much lower. Perhaps about 14% of Chinese students to the United States returned during the period 1978-1999. Whether these countries will follow a similar path to the tiger economies and see greater numbers of returnees over time remains to be seen. The Asian financial crisis did affect the numbers of students going overseas, however, with reduced government grants and personal finances among the middle classes bringing about either a reduction or very slow growth in the number of students from Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia. Paradoxically, the rate of creation of domestic talent, or the increase in the proportion of the highly educated so necessary for development, may be related to the possibilities for emigration that exist from an economy. People deliberately choose to pursue education specifically because it will give them a greater chance of emigrating. Thus, some loss of skilled personnel may be in the best interests of an economy as it is a factor in the generation of overall human capital. Where the loss, however, is greater than either the supply or the net exchange, then negative consequences may be more apparent, giving rise to the interesting idea that there may be an “optimal level of emigration”. Be that as it may, ILO studies suggest that two-way skill mobility, that © OECD 2003

is, the exchange of brains, make an economy more attractive for foreign investment than in cases where there is no emigration of the educated at all. The loss of skilled personnel cannot be seen, however, simply in economic terms; there are significant social impacts. For example, the loss of large numbers of nurses from the Philippines has almost certainly led to a deterioration in health services in that country. Over 70% of the annual number of 7 000 nurses who graduate each year leave the Philippines and there are an estimated 30 000 unfilled positions in government and private sectors, particularly in rural areas. Centres for the training of brains are evolving within the Asian region itself. Japan traditionally has been a magnet for students from other Asian countries, particularly China in the early years of the last century, and universities in Hong Kong and Singapore have emerged as centres of excellence in their respective regions. Satellite campuses of core western universities are proliferating throughout the region and a series of centres in China are emerging as significant destinations for students. For example, there were 78 812 foreign students in Japan in 2001, up from 51 047 in 1997, some 44 711 in China in 1999, 23 000 in Malaysia in 2000 and 7 300 in Chinese Taipei in 2000. The majority of these students come from other Asian countries. Thus, the creation of brains is increasingly occurring within the region. A key policy issue will be how to retain this talent within the region. c)

Flows of unskilled workers

In terms of numbers, unskilled workers make up the largest number of migrant workers in the Asian region. There are two principal components; documented workers, or those moving through formal legal channels to fill specific jobs under contract, and undocumented workers. It should be emphasized, however, that in both of these streams, the documented and the undocumented, educated, even skilled people may be moving to undertake unskilled jobs (for example the case of domestic workers to Hong Kong). Asian economies have emerged as labour-deficit areas over the last 10-15 years and several have seen a transition from areas of net-emigration to areas of net-immigration. The pattern of the legal importation of workers over the second half of the 1990s has been o n e o f s u s t a i n e d g r o w t h i n C h i n e s e Ta i p e i , Hong Kong and Japan and of growth punctuated by the Asian financial crisis in Korea, Malaysia and

75


Thailand. In the latter cases, the stock of legal workers declined somewhat from 1997-1998 but resumed an upward course quite quickly in Korea and Malaysia. The official data suggest that the number of legal migrants stabilized in Thailand, but at a considerably lower level than before the crisis. The onset of the recession in 2001 h as se en lo wer n umbers of unskilled workers in Chinese Taipei but not in Hong Kong. In early 2002, there are reports of large numbers of Indonesians being expelled from Malaysia, either those who are found to be illegally in the country or those whose contracts have expired. Malaysia would like to reduce its dependence on workers from Indonesia who can easily “disappear” into the local population and increase recruitment of workers from a greater diversity of sources. Given Malaysia’s geography, and the demography of neighboring countries, any such policy would not appear to have a high probability of success. Many of the high-tech industries that East Asian economies are promoting, for example, also require substantial numbers of unskilled workers who are involved with packaging and dispatch of high-tech products. These activities are low-paid, involve long hours are boring and involve hard work that an increasingly highly educated local labour force is unwilling to undertake.

76

Several of the East and Southeast Asian countries are still significant suppliers of unskilled workers through official labour recruitment programmes, both government and private. The Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and China all fall into this category. China sends workers to some 181 countries and territories, plus large numbers to regional fishing fleets. In November 2001, China had 460 000 workers abroad who were involved with contracts worth USD13.3 billion in 2001. The Philippines is the country of origin of workers par excellence, with some 866 590 workers overseas in 2001, up from 837 020 in 1999. The numbers of Filipinos employed in Asia, however, actually declined over this period, with m arke ts in Eur ope a nd t he M iddle Ea st compensating for these losses. Remittances from these workers that pass through official channels were estimated to have exceeded USD 6 billion in 2000 although this figure was down from a record USD 6.8 billion in 1999. Thailand, perhaps because of its greater reliance on Asian markets, particularly Chinese Taipei, saw a slight decline in the number of workers overseas from 202 416 in 1999 to 193 041 in 2000. Thai workers overseas remitted some USD 1.5 billion in 2000. As emphasized earlier, a

considerable amount of the monies remitted passes through informal channels as do many of the workers themselves. d)

Foreign workers in an irregular situation

The total numbers of undocumented workers are much more significant in the countries of Southeast Asia than they are in East Asia. Also, the data on those who entered illegally or who entered legally and overstayed their visas or changed their designated terms of entry are likely to be much more reliable for economies in the latter region than for Southeast Asian countries. The numbers of illegal entrants to Hong Kong, primarily from China, who were caught and deported declined markedly from 14 892 in 1998-99 to only 4 397 in 1999-2000 – a far cry from the tens of thousands of would-be entrants to the city of just a few decades ago. The creation of widespread opportunities in the Pearl River delta region and continued tight control along the border have all but eliminated irregular migration as a major policy concern in the SAR. In Singapore, too, the number of illegal immigrants apprehended declined sharply from 23 000 in 1998 to 16 500 in 2000. The principal reason given for the decline is the Asian financial crisis although, like the relationship between Hong Kong and Shenzhen, the creation of intervening opportunities for migrants across the causeway in Malaysia surely played a part. In Chinese Taipei, on the other hand, rising illegal migration from China appears to be a growing problem. It is estimated that just over half of all those who enter legally into Korea as trainees “disappear” into the wider labour force and become overstayers. Korea, the worst affected of the original tiger economies, saw a sharp reduction in undocumented workers from 148 048 in 1997 to 99 537 in 1998 following an amnesty for illegal workers that allowed them to leave the country without paying a fine. As the Korean economy resumed rapid growth the number of undocumented workers, too, accelerated markedly from 1998 to reach 250 756 in November 2001. Estimates of up to 1.43 million illegal migrants have been made for Malaysia before the onset of the financial crisis. Official estimates of illegal migration in Malaysia are based on annual apprehensions that are difficult to translate into stock estimates. Since 1997, however, the numbers of those appreh e n d e d u n de r t h e O ps N y a h e x e r ci se s h a v e increased and it would seem doubtful that the © OECD 2003


number of those eluding capture and residing illegally in Malaysia had declined. The social distance between certain Indonesian groups, such as the Minangkabau of Sumatra, for example, and ethnic Malays in peninsular Malaysia is much less than between the Minangkabau and the Javanese of the capital, Jakarta. In both peninsular Malaysia and East Malaysia, there are virtually invisible minorities from neighboring countries. Similarly, in Thailand, the data on the numbers of undocumented workers appear to be distinctly “spongy”. Under the new Prime Minister, Taksin Shinawatra, a concerted effort has been made to register undocumented workers and by the end of October 2001, 562 527 workers had registered for legal work permits, although it was estimated that a further 300 000-400 000 undocumented workers remained in the country. Despite statistics to show that 319 629 workers were arrested in 1999 and 444 636 in 2000 these apprehensions do not seem to have decreased significantly the numbers of undocumented workers in the country. e)

Main themes of migration policies

Two generalisations can be advanced in terms of policy response in the Asian region: first, that the responses have been various depending upon the priority of each economy and, second, that there is little evidence to suggest that any policy intervention has been effective in controlling numbers or managing migration in desired directions over anything but the immediate short term. Clearly, policies vary dependin g on whe ther the y are directed towards receiving workers or sending workers overseas. If we examine policies directed at receiving migrants, of the countries participating in the discussions only Australia could be said to have a well-developed policy that essentially achieves its objectives. The Australian policy is well described in Hugo but, because of its settler tradition, cannot be used as a model for the majority of Asian countries at this stage of their development. Apart from Hong Kong’s policy to allow the entry of one-way permit holders from China, no Asian country actively seeks immigrants sensu stricto or extends the benefits of citizenship to foreigners. Those few examples, such as Singapore’s policy to bring skilled and semiskilled workers from Hong Kong in the early 1990s or Thailand’s assimilation of long-term migrants from Vietnam in the late 1990s, were all limited target and short term. Singapore and, from February 2002, Hong Kong both have investor programmes that grant © OECD 2003

permanent residence to those willing to invest large sums of money in the economies. In the case of Hong Kong, some USD 830 000 is required, a considerably larger sum than investor programmes in Canada or Australia. Policies in Asian economies are designed essentially to deal with workers, not immigrants. And the worker policies implemented are still strongly biased towards the unskilled, leaving vague or unstated any policy towards the attraction or retention of the highly skilled. Within Asia, the general approach is to welcome an d e nco urage h igh ly skille d migrants bu t to discourage or closely control unskilled workers. Policies for the latter often stipulate ceilings on intake, sectors in which foreign workers can be employed and terms and conditions of employment. Japan only laid down the basic principle for a migration policy as recently as August 1999 and even then it only addressed skilled migrants leaving unskilled workers for future careful study. The policies can be project-specific or of limited life. For example, the policy to allow workers into Hong Kong for the construction of the airport indeed terminated with the completion of the project in March 1999 and the General Labour Importation Scheme, introduced in May 1989 to allow employers to bring in up to 14 700 workers was wound down after a review in 1995. Local legislators and union leaders were instrumental in opposing the scheme in the face of rising domestic unemployment. In other economies, policies are aimed fundamentally at dealing with undocumented migrants. Thailand has seen the evolution of a series of policies that attempted to regularize the number of foreigners already working illegally in the country. From virtually a total ban on foreign workers, Thailand has moved through identifying particular parts of the country, and particular sectors of the economy, where foreigners would be permitted to work, to the present policy that is countrywide and that includes 10 general types of business occupations. Chinese Taipei, Japan, Malaysia, Korea and Singapore all have policies that have been implemented at one time or another to deal with the issue of undocumented migrants. Policies to return migrants forcibly to their home areas appear to have had little more than short-term impact and can be expensive. Again, amnesties have met with limited success. The substitution of newly unemployed domestic labour for foreign labour is unrealistic as the domestic employed are often to be found in other parts of the country from where foreign labour is employed and,

77


more importantly, the domestic unemployed are unwilling to undertake the kinds of jobs that foreign labour is willing to do. Policies like the current Thai policy, that seek to register all those already working in the country without threat of deportation, are more realistic. The likely impact of that policy on the volume and direction of future migration is, however, unknown. It seems probable that, as in the case of skilled migration, countries need to plan for the exchange of unskilled migrant workers, facilitating their circulation between origins and destinations. Three other types of migrant worker policy are relevant to the region. The first relates to emigrant worker policy or attempts by countries of origin to seek out markets for their workers. In the wake of the Asian financial crisis, for example, Thailand sought to find countries that could absorb the newly unemployed. Vietnam plans to increase its export of workers, skilled and unskilled, to 100 000 by 2005 and provide a special fund for their training and loans for prospective migrant workers. The second type of policy refers to the protection of migrants: to ensure that they are accorded the same rights and privileges as local workers and to guar ante e t hat the y are n ot discriminate d against because of citizenship or ethnicity. To achieve this objective, countries need to become pa rt y t o in te r n a tio n a l co n v e n ti on s a im e d at protecting migrant workers and their families, the elimination of child labour and the suppression of trafficking. Clearly, these objectives are of greater importance to countries of origin of migrants but their implementation lies in the hands of destination countries. The Philippines, in particular, has worked extensively, though not always successfully, through international forums to reach agreements on the protection of the large number of its workers overseas.

78

The third and last type of policy deals with issues of return and reintegration. Migrant workers accustomed to regular employment or high wages relative to their areas of origin may face problems of adaptation and re-integration when they either return, or are returned, home. They may not find employment or remuneration at levels similar to those overseas and their overseas experience may not be relevant, recognized or even applicable. Although the cases of forced return may pose greater problems of readjustment than for those

who have returned voluntarily, both can and do experience difficulty. It is not only the migrant worker who returns home; those from settler societies, too, go back to retire after a working life in Australia, Canada or the United States. 2.

Trends in migration flows in Central and Eastern Europe

Many OECD member countries count among their population a significant number of immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe (CEEC) and other countries of the Community of Independent States (CIS). The pending membership of certain CEECs to the European Union is raising concern over increasing flows from the CEECs and towards member countries of the European Union. However, this apprehension seems unjustified as demonstrated by the majority of studies analysing the prospective migratory flows as a result of the enlargement of the European Union (see the 2001 Edition of Trends in International Migration, p. 72). Moreover, certain CEECs have progressively become countries with significant immigration flows. Ten years after the political changes in Central and Eastern Europe, we can take stock of migration trends in the region (see for detailed presentation of trends in migration flows in Central and Eastern Europe the 2001 Edition of Trends in International Migration, pp. 68 to 76). Analysis is complicated by the difficu lty o f co lle ctin g re li able da ta in cou n tr ie s undergoing far-reaching economic and administrative reforms, and also by the diversity of economic and social conditions in the region, including the countries of the former Yugoslavia and the CIS. This diversity accounts to a considerable degree for the nature and scale of East-West movements and those within and towards the region. The following analysis brings out a number of trends with regard both to East-West movements and to the characteristics of flows within the zone. The political and economic changes in 1990 led to sizeable migration movements and to concerns over the possibility of large-scale population transfers. These concerns have not been materialised. Although emigration flows continue, notably towards Western Europe, it would appear that the Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) are becoming the theatre of much more complex movements than a straightforward westward flow towards the European Union and North America. © OECD 2003


a)

Development of emigration flows towards the European OECD countries, the United States, Canada and Australia since 1990

Shortly after the opening of the borders, EastWest migration flows motivated by economic, political or ethnic reasons intensified. Throughout the 1990s, flows of ethnic minorities into Western Europe largely went to Germany (around 220 000 Aussiedler came from Poland, Russia and Romania annually between 1991 and 1995). Since 1996, there has been a constant decrease an d th e 95 000 eth nic German s wh o arrived in 2000 were almost uniquely coming from the former Soviet Union. Similar movements were recorded in Turkey (more than 120 000 Bulgarian nationals), Finland (around 20 000 persons of Finnish origin from Russia and Estonia since 1989) and Hungary (more than 100 000 Hungarians from Romania, the Slovak Republic, the Ukraine and Voivodina since 1990). However, total entries of permanent immigrants from CEECs, as a percentage of total immigration flows, have fallen since 1991 in Denmark, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Sweden. The fall in emigration to OECD countries in most cases is very marked for Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian citizens. More recently, there has been a decline in the number of immigrants from the former Yugoslavia. The nature of emigration also seems to be changing. Its chief feature is now short and frequent movements related to (seasonal) employment opportunities. The largest emigration flows during the 1980s were from Poland (with some 800 000 people leaving the country, chiefly for Germany) and Romania (300 000 Romanians left, chiefly to Hungary and the United States). With the exception of inter-German migration, flows from other countries in the region were on a lesser scale. These movements largely concerned ethnic minorities: around 500 000 people of German ethnic origin (Aussiedler) and Hungarian minorities were involved here. A number of countries in Western Europe and North America have been longstanding hosts for most of the communities of Central and Eastern Europe (see Table I.24). Links with established emigrant communities may accordingly explain the direction, nature and size of the post-1989 EastWest flows. Among the OECD European member countries, Germany is the principal host country for nationals © OECD 2003

of the CEECs, the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union with a total of 1.45 million. They represented 20% of the resident foreign population in 2000. They are also quite numerous in Austria (around 370 000, or nearly 70% of the resident foreign population), and to a lesser degree in Italy (around 305 000, or nearly 22% of the total). In 2000, a very large number of nationals of the former Yugoslavia reside in Western Europe (nearly 1.2 million in Germany, more than 334 000 in Switzerland), as are the Poles (nearly 300 000 in Germany, over 50 000 in France). In Australia, among the top five groups of immigrants born in Central and Eastern Europe, those from the former Yugoslavia are estimated around 210 000 followed by the Poles (68 000). In Canada, the latter are the most numerous (almost 194 000), followed by residents originating from the former Yugoslavia and Russia. In the United States, immigrants born in the former USSR represent the first nationality (almost 400 000), followed by th e Po le s an d th e fo rme r Yu go slavia (se e Table I.24). The decline in the number of migrants from the CEEC, the former Yugoslavia and the former USSR in some OECD countries is mainly due to the number of immigrants originating from the region who have acquired the nationality of the receiving country. Table I.25 shows that in Hungary, more than 91% of new acquisitions of Hungarian nationality are citizens from Romania, the former Yugoslavia and the former USSR. In Germany, this percentage is around 71% and includes, in addition, citizens from Poland and Romania. Sweden has registered a large proportion (42%) of acquisitions of nationality from citizens originating from Bosnia Herzegovina, the former Yugoslavia, Romania and Poland. Among the new acquisitions of nationality in Italy, citizens from Romania, Albania, Poland and the former USSR represent almost one fourth of the total. Of the officially recorded emigration flows from the Baltic States, those to the OECD countries are increasing as a proportion of the total, although not in absolute terms. Poland is a major destination fo r migrants from Lithuania; Finland , Germany and the United States for Estonia; the United States, Germany and Israel for Latvia and Lithuania. However, overstayers by nationals of the Baltic States are apparently numerous, particularly in some European countries, and hence the actual distributions could be very different. For example, whereas between 1991 and 1999 fewer than 30 Lithuanians

79


Top five nationalities of citizens from Central and Eastern Europe residing in selected OECD countries, 2000

Table I.24.

Thousands Foreign citizens from Central and Eastern Europe in some European OECD countries Austria (foreign workers)

Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Bosnia Herzegovina Croatia Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia Total foreigners Above countries (% of total foreigners) Total foreign workers (as a % of total labour force)

Czech Republic

75.6 37.4 24.6 4.2 242.2 58.6

Ukraine Slovak Republic Poland Russian Federation Bulgaria Total foreigners Above countries (% of total foreigners) Total foreigners (% of total population)

Total foreigners Above countries (% of total foreigners) Total foreigners (% of total population)


Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Poland Croatia Bosnia Herzegovina Russian Federation Total foreigners Above countries (% of total foreigners) Total foreigners (% of total population)

Italy

48.6 15.3 7.6 4.1 3.8 127.0 62.5 1.3

Sweden

Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Poland Bosnia-Herzegovina Croatia Russian Federation

50.2 44.3 17.1 13.0 4.0 201.0 64.0 2.0

662.5 301.4 216.8 156.3 115.9 7 296.8 19.9 8.9

10.5

Hungary (1999)

Romania Former Yugoslavia Ukraine Slovak Republic Russian Federation

Germany

Netherlands (1999)

Albania Romania Former Yugoslavia (others) Poland Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia Total foreigners Above countries (% of total foreigners) Total foreigners (% of total population)

142.1 Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia 68.9 Bosnia Herzegovina 40.0 Poland 31.4 Russian Federation 22.0 Croatia 1 388.2 21.9 2.4

7.2 6.1 5.6 3.3 1.6


651.5 3.7 4.1

Switzerland

20.2 16.7 22.8 7.5 5.7 477.3 15.3 5.4

Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia Bosnia Herzegovina Croatia Poland Total foreigners Above countries (% of total foreigners) Total foreigners (% of total population)

190.7 55.9 44.3 43.6 4.0 1 384.4 24.5 19.3

Immigrants born in Central and Eastern Europe in some OECD countries Australia

Former Yugoslavia Poland Former USSR Hungary

Canada (1996)

210.0 68.3 54.9 28.0

Total of foreign-born 4 517.3 Above countries (% of total foreign-born) 8.0 Total foreign-born (% of total population) 23.6

Poland Former Yugoslavia Former USSR Hungary Former CSFR

United States (1990)

193.4 122.0 108.4 54.2 41.2


Former USSR Poland Former Yugoslavia Hungary Romania

389.9 388.3 141.5 110.3 91.1


Sources: Australia: estimates made by the Australian Bureau of Statistics; Austria: work permits; Censuses for Canada and the United States, residence permits for Italy and population registers for the other countries.

were recorded as having settled in the United Ki ngd om, during the year 2000, m ore than 1 351 were deported.

80

Germany is traditionally the most important destination for emigrants from Poland and the inflows have increased during the last ten years. More than 62% of all legal immigrants in Greece in 2000 were from Albania (131 600), making Greece the biggest

receiver of immigrants of one single CEEC nationality. Germany is also a very important destination for migrants from Russia (27 800), Bosnia Herzegovina (10 300) and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (87 800). Italy appears as another popular destination for migrants from the CEECs in 2000: Albanians (31 000), followed by Romanians (20 100), Poles (7 000) and Ukrainians (5 300). People from Russia are the main immigrant group in Finland in 2000 as © OECD 2003


Table I.25. Foreigners residing in some Central and Eastern European countries, by major nationality, latest available year Bulgaria (2000)

CIS EU Europe (other) Middle East Asia Africa America Central Europe Australia Others Total % of total population

Czech Republic (2000)

Thousands

%

34.9 18.5 10.1 10.1 6.3 5.9 3.3 2.6 0.1

34.5 18.2 10.0 10.0 6.2 5.9 3.3 2.6 0.1

9.4

9.3

101.3

100.0 1.2

Ukraine Slovak Republic Vietnam Poland Russian Federation Germany Bulgaria Belarus Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia China Others Total % of total population

Poland (1999)

Hungary (1999)

Thousands

%

50.2 44.3 23.6 17.1 13.0 5.0 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.6 36.4

25.0 22.0 11.7 8.5 6.5 2.5 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 18.1

201.0

100.0 2.0

Thousands

%

Romania Former Yugoslavia Germany China Ukraine Slovak Republic Russian Federation Poland Vietnam Bulgaria Others

48.6 15.3 8.5 7.7 7.6 4.1 3.8 2.5 2.2 1.3 26.8

38.2 12.0 6.7 6.0 6.0 3.2 3.0 2.0 1.7 1.0 21.1

Total % of total population

127.0

100.0 1.3

Romania (2000)

Thousands

%

Ukraine Russian Fed. Vietnam Belarus Germany Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia United States Armenia Bulgaria France Others

7.0 4.4 3.3 2.3 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.2 0.8 17.5

16.4 10.4 7.6 5.4 4.5 3.8 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.0 40.9


42.8

100.0 0.1

Slovak Republic (1997)

Thousands

%

8.2 7.1 7.0 5.3 5.0 3.3

11.8 10.2 10.0 7.6 7.2 4.8

Czech Republic Ukraine Poland Former Yugoslavia

Others

33.6

48.5


69.4

100.0 0.3

Republic of Moldova China Turkey Italy Greece Syria

Thousands

%

5.8 3.5 2.8 2.0

23.3 14.1 11.3 8.2

Others

10.7

43.1


24.8

100.0 0.5

Sources: Data for Poland is estimates on the basis of the Ministry of the Interior’s Registers; figures for Romania correspond to the number of persons who hold a temporary residence visa (valid for at least 120 days). For the other countries, data is issued from population registers and is the number of foreigners who hold a permanent or a long-term residence permit.

they accounted for 27% of total entries of immigrants. The next largest groups were Swedes at 7.7% and Estonians at 7.2%, while all other individu al na tio n alit ies acco u nt ed fo r con side rabl y smaller percentages. b)

Trends in intra-regional migration

One of the characteristics of migration movements in Eastern Europe is the persistence of significant intra-regional flows. Some trends stem from the liberalisation of trade in 1990 and border readjustments (movements of ethnic minorities), while others highlight the economic dimension of migration flows within the region (movements of labour, irregular flows). © OECD 2003

As in the case of East-West migration flows, those within the CEECs, brought about by the opening of the borders in 1990, were initially composed of persons with family links with the host country and the movement of ethnic minorities. These were largely Hungarian (originating from Romania and the Slovak Republic), Polish (from Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Siberia) and Bulgarian (from the former Soviet Union). The readjustment of the borders in the region (in the former Yugoslavia, CSFR and Soviet Union) also led to population movements. The split of the Czech and Slovak Republics in 1993 led to substantial e xch anges ( aroun d 20 000 people entered the Czech Republic from the new Slovak Republic between 1994 and 1999, and 8 000 moved in the other direction). Emigration of Russian

81


nationals continues to be observed today in the Baltic countries. H ungary reports an increase in inflows of Hungarian ethnic minorities. The flows reached a high level in 1999, particularly for people from Romania and the Ukraine. The increase may be explained by the apprehension that Hungary will shortly introduce the admission rules applied in the EU, which are restrictive for Romanian and Ukrainian nationals. Roma minorities are present in most countries in the region and flows both to Western Europe and within Central Europe were very substantial once borders opened; they have since fallen considerably overall. At the same time, countries such as Finland sa w n u mb e r s o f Ro m a m ig r a n t s r i se i n 1 9 9 9 (1 500 from Slovakia and 300 from Poland). A number of countries (the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Bulg aria an d H un ga ry) ar e co n duct ing activ e programmes to integrate Roms socially and economically, often with funding under programmes by the European Union (PHARE) and/or the Council of Europe. Such investments may, over the long term, mean that they settle permanently. But Roms are frequently marginalised and their living conditions are deplorable. They often live on the edges of larger towns (Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, the former Yugoslavia, and the Czech Republic) or in villages entirely inhabited by Roms (Bulgaria, Romania).7 In the majority of cases, Gypsies have a level of education much lower than the rest of the population and are more vulnerable to unemployment. A degree of rejection by the rest of the population renders the success of active policies targeted towards this group more difficult. As a result, these minorities are still much inclined to emigrate.

82

Annual intra-regional migrant flows are generally modest, varying between around a hundred persons in Bulgaria to a few thousand in the Czech Republic. Hungary, however, attracted well over 10 000 immigrants from other CEEC countries in 1999. Part of these movements appears to be triggered by historical ties. The greater part of migrant movements from the Slovak Republic and within Europe were to the Czech Republic, although the movements of Czechs have decreased dramatically after the split of the Federation in 1993. Likewise, in the Czech Republic, in 1999, the biggest group of migrants were Slovaks, followed by Ukrainians; Russians took a fifth place (after Vietnamese). In

Hungary, similarly to previous years, most immigrants in 1999 arrived from neighbouring countries – predominantly Romania – and most of them were ethnic Hungarians. In 2000, around 61 000 Bulgarians of Turkish origin emigrated to Turkey. Likewise, the return migration of the so-called “Russian speaking population” – Russians, Belarussians, Ukrainians – although diminishing, remains the dominant component of emigration flows from the Baltic States. In the case of Latvia, after a decline from 80% to 70% during 1998, the proportion fell to 67% in 1999; in the case of Lithuania, the corresponding figures were 60%, 55% and 48%. Detailed data on the ethnic composition of Estonia’s emigration flows were not made available in 1997 and in 1999; in 1998, those leaving for either Russia, Belarus or the Ukraine accounted for approximately 60% of the total. The inflow of persons to Poland underwent a noticeable change in 2000. The number of arriving foreign visitors declined, breaking with a long lasting past trend. This is mainly caused by a decline in the number of short-time visitors arriving from borderlands of relatively well-off countries (Germany, the Czech Republic and Slovakia) for whom Poland is an attractive shopping destination. This more than offsets a growing numbers of petty traders and occasional irregular workers coming from Belarus and the Ukraine where the economies are weak. However, the number of long-term arrivals of citizens from Belarus and the Ukraine grew strongly by 28% and 17%, re spe ctively. Cit ize ns fro m CEECs form, together with Vietnamese, the bulk of the long-term arrivals in Poland. In CEECs, the main groups of residing foreigners originate from the CIS region, accounting for a large percentage of the total foreign population (see Table I.25). However, while citizens from CIS countries are currently the largest group of permanently residing foreigners, their share is expected to decrease, reflecting the decline in foreign trade and economic relations with the CIS countries. In the Czech Republic, Ukrainian and Slovak citizens accounted in 2000 for 25% and 22%, respectively, whilst Germans accounted for less than 3%. Czech and Ukrainian citizens accounted for 23% and 14% respectively in the Slovak Republic. The share of Roman ians an d forme r Yug oslavia citizen s in Hungary accounted in 1999 respectively for 38% and 12% of the total foreign population. © OECD 2003


c)

Trends in asylum seekers

Border openings gave rise to important movements of asylum seekers, which was later increased by the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. The movement of refugees from the former Yugoslavia peaked between 1992 and 1993, but still continues to Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Norway and Canada. Many migrants from Kosovo have since returned home. Within Central and Eastern Europe itself, there is currently an increase in the transit flows of people coming from outside the region and seeking to enter Western Europe. A substantial part of this is irregular migration. These flows eventually leading to Western European countries were at the root of significant changes in the process of dealing with examination of a s y lu m r e qu e st s i n m o s t We s t e r n c o u n t r ie s between 1993 and 1997 and in 2001. Important differences exist between countries as to the nationality of asylum seekers from Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS. In Belgium, for example, the number of applicants from Russia has increased significantly in the last two years. In Finland, most applications came from Poland, the Slovak Republic and Russia. Sweden saw an increase in the number of applications, from 11 300 to 16 300 in 2000, the bulk of the increase (3 800) being on account of Bosnians. In Norway the bulk of the asylum seekers from Croatia, Bulgaria and Russia appear to have been lured by travel agencies specialising in “asylum tours”. Such agencies advertise generous benefits for asylum seekers in Norway, easy-to-get well-paid jobs and long processing times that guarantee at least a year’s lawful residence. Almost all Bulgarian asylum seekers in 2001 came in chartered bus tours in the time span of a few weeks between the end of June and the beginning of July. Their applications were deemed to be unfounded, and by the end of September all of them had been returned to their home country. The authorities thereby sent the signal, in particular to the people of Central and Eastern Europe, that although Norway may need foreign labour and although labour immigration may be encouraged, the asylum route is not the way to go for job seekers. The applications of Bulgarians and Croatians have since been processed in an accelerated procedure. Most applications are rejected, and more accurate information about the prospects for a successful asylum application is distributed through local media. In Austria there is a marked difference in the procedures for refugee intakes from Kosovo and Bosnia Herzegovina. While Bosnians had hardly © OECD 2003

registered as asylum seekers – they were called warrefugees rather than asylum seekers – Albanian Kosovars tended to choose the asylum route. The issue of settlement in Austria is in the forefront with Kosovars, while repatriation had been the general understanding when Bosnians entered a couple of years earlier. As it turned out, hardly any Bosnians returned to their country of origin, while most Albanians tended to return. d)

Illegal migrant flows and border crossings

While the influx of Kosovars in Italy ended after 1999, irregular immigration continued along the southern and south-eastern coasts, and many of those arriving requested asylum. Almost all of the persons landing on the Italian coast (more than 80%) were citizens from the Balkan region; in 9 out of 10 cases their immigration was undocumented. These immigrants requested asylum and moved northwards into the richer parts of Italy and often, but not always, to other countries. Many foreign workers take advantage of Italy’s large informal seasonal economy and then return to their countries. This is particularly true for Eastern Europeans who come from countries for which no visa is required to enter the Schengen area – Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia. For many migrants seeking to enter Western Europe or North America, the CEECs constitute a stage on their journey. Most of these migrants are documented, having entered as tourists, businessmen or students. Due to their common border with Germany, the countries most affected by this are Poland and the Czech Republic. Hungary is also a transit country, on account of its borders with Austria. Bulgaria is a transit country for migrants seeking to enter Greece, as well as those seeking to reach other parts of Western Europe. Transit migration encourages the development of illegal immigration and employment in a number of the CEECs. These migrants come from neighbouring countries such as Turkey, Albania or the former Yugoslavia, but also from Asia (Bangladesh, India, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq). T h e G e r m a n b o r d e r p o l i c e i n t e r c e pt e d 28 500 illegal immigrants in 2001. Nearly 20% came from Romania and the former Yugoslavia. Illegal crossings are concentrated on the borders with Poland, the Czech Republic and Austria but a large proportion have been in transit from other countries, as organised by traffickers. In the case of the Slovak Republic, inflows prevail at the Hungarian and Ukrainian borders, outflows dominate at the Czech, Austrian and Polish borders. The main countries of

83


origin of illegal migrants are the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Romania. Overall, South Asian migrants seem to be dominating the illegal flows. In 2000, two-thirds of all registered illegal border crossings in Hungary were attempts to leave the country, indicating Hungary’s transit role in illegal migration. A contributing factor might be that migrants from Romania, the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union can easily enter Hungary legally, but find it difficult to get the necessary visas to the West. The largest group among more than one hundred nationalities who were caught crossing the H u n ga ri an bo r de r s il le g al ly w a s Ro ma n ia n s, followed by people from the former Yugoslavia. In other cases, transit is carried through legal channels. In Austria, until 1989, asylum seekers and refugees (the majority from Eastern Europe) used Austria as a stepping stone for emigration to the traditional immigration countries overseas. Austria never conceived of itself as a settlement country for refugees. In 1999, as the number of asylum applications had reached record levels and affected integration of immigrants. Asylum seekers tended to leave again in larger numbers, in particular to other countries within Europe (two-thirds of all outflows). However, in 2000, 4 000 or 81% of the 5 900 efugees leaving Austria travelled to the United States, perhaps reflecting stricter admittance practices in other European countries. e)

Developments in labour migration

Some Western European countries make significant use of workers from the CEECs. Most initial work permits in Finland in 2000 (over 78%) were granted for temporary work, most applicants from neighbouring areas, above all Russia and Estonia (over 70% of initial work permits). Altogether, Russians and Estonians accounted for almost 74% of temporary workers; these were largely seasonal workers for agriculture and horticulture, especially strawberry pickers.

84

In Austria, the proportion of persons from CEECs in initial work-permit applications is increasing (by 21% on 1999), most importantly from Hungarians. In 2000, around 30% (7 500) came from CEECs, in particular from Hungary (2 700), the Slovak Republic (2 000), Poland (1 400) and Romania (700). Of the remaining 18 400 short-term foreign work permits, the major share went to citizens of the former Yugoslavia. Of all permanent licence holders, the proportion of citizens of CEECs has been rising from the early 1990s to 1998. Increasing intra-regional opportunities within the CEEC caused the recent decline.

In the case of the Czech Republic, the highest numbers of economic migrants are Slovaks, taking advantage of the special conditions to access the Czech labour market. Second and third most important foreign workers are Polish and Bulgarian. In Hungary, more than 15 000 Romanians and around 4 400 Ukrainians had work permits and formed the largest groups among the foreign labour force. Fourth after the Chinese came the Czechs, whose share is growing. The number of Polish workers in the Hungarian labour market has dropped drastically. f)

EU enlargement and the impact on migration

Ten CEECs are currently candidates for the next stage of European Union enlargement in 2005: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovak Republic and Slovenia. Other countries in the region will be included in subsequent waves of enlargement. Recent discussions of enlargement among current EU members show that a number of them are appreh en sive a bou t in flow s o f CEEC w or ke rs a fte r enlargement, under the principle of free movement of persons (see Box I.9). Accordingly, the accession treaties for the first wave of countries are likely to include a transitional clause, meaning that workers from CEEC countries cannot freely enter the labour market throughout the Union. Other countries, like Norway, look to CEECs for help in alleviating their labour shortages. Some estimates, however, indicate that the countries joining the European Union may well experience return movements by their nationals resident in the West. Net East-West flows could accordingly be smaller, or indeed negative, after the CEECs join the European Union (see for more detail Migration Policies and EU enlargement. The Case of Central and Eastern Europe. OECD, Paris 2000). Conclusion The movement of asylum seekers and migrants from the former Yugoslavia to Western European countries has diminished in recent years, and quite spectacularly in some countries, but continues to be – in 2000 – a major source of migrants for many OECD countries. Illegal border crossings account for a significant part of total movements of CEEC citizens, particularly in Hungary, Germany, Poland and Greece. Clearly, East-West migration flows persist but inflows into most CEECs have increased and diversified. Most of these countries are becoming a prime © OECD 2003


Box I.9.

EU enlargement and impact on migration from the CEECs

Enlargement raises some apprehension in EU member countries, such as Germany and Austria, which fear large-scale inflows of workers from the CEECs, under the principle of free movement. The European Commission signed agreements with the candidate countries which precluded free access to the labour markets of EU countries for a maximum period of seven years after accession. Recent research to assess the impact of EU enlargement on worker migration concludes, however, that East-West flows are unlikely to have a major impact on the labour markets of the current fifteen EU countries, and that over the long term they could dwindle or possibly reverse. 1 That report employs variables such as income differentials and employment rates in host and sending countries. The research is based on a number of assumptions, including per capita GDP convergence of 2% a year between East and West, and no change in unemployment rates in the EU and the CEECs. According to these estimates, in 30 years’ time, the population of CEEC origin in the current EU members would represent at most 3.5% of the CEEC population. Another research paper estimates the flows at between 267 000 and 336 000 a year.2 The immigration of workers from the CEECs would have different effects on individual EU countries, and for different categories of labour. According to Boeri et al., immigration is expected to go chiefly to Germany (65%) and Austria (12%). In addition, the inflows would raise competition among unskilled workers, who could be affected both by lower wages and higher unemployment. Assuming accession by Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic in 2005, the Austrian research institute WIFO forecasts that the number of migrants from those three countries into Austria would be 144 000 in that year, and then fall off subsequently.3 For Germany, two recent estimates about the immigration potential from CEEC come to different results. According to a study by the IFO institute, over a fifteenyear period after free accession, between 3.2 and 4 million immigrants from five countries (Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Czech Republic and Hungary) will have settled in Germany which would correspond to around 4 to 5% of the population of their countries of origin. For the other countries which the study argues to be those most likely be included in the first wave of EU membership (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovak Republic, Czech Republic and Hungary), migration potential to Germany is estimated at 3.4 to 4.3% of their population, or 2.5 to 3.3 million people. This estimate is significantly higher than one by the DIW, according to which after full mobility is implemented “only” between 1.8 and 2.4% of the population of the CEECs (including Bulgaria and Romania) will migrate to Germany.4 1. Boeri, T., Brucker, H. et al. (2001), The Impact of Eastern European Enlargment on Employment and Labour Market in the EU Member States, European Integration Consortium, Berlin et Milan. 2. Hille, H. et Straubhaar, T. (2001), “The impact of the EU enlargment on migration movements and economic integration: results of recent studies” in Migration Policies and EU Enlargment, Paris, OCDE. 3. Breuss, F. (2001), “Macroeconomic effects of EU enlargment for old and new Members”, WIFO, Working Papers, N° 143, April. 4. Sinn, H.W. et al. (2001), EU-Erweiterung und Arbeitskräfte Migration, Wege zu einer schrittweisen Annäherung der Arbeitsmärkte, IFO, Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung.

destination for migrants from the East and the South (the CIS and, to a lower extent, the former Yugoslavia). D.

AN OVERVIEW OF MIGRATION POLICIES

Migration policies of OECD member countries can be divided into four sub-sections. The first consists of measures adopted at national and international levels to strengthen the control of flows, including those of asylum seekers. The second concerns the fight against irregular migration and the illegal employment of foreign workers. The third sub-section covers all measures that aim to promote the employment of foreigners and to ensure a better integration of migrants in the host country. This also includes the main conclusions of a Seminar on the Integration of Young Migrants. The last sub-section concerns co-operation at international level in the © OECD 2003

area of migration. Country notes (see Part III of this report) are particularly detailed this year, especially concerning migration policies. Consequently this section will focus on selected presentation of the main changes occurring in the countries participating in the SOPEMI network. In the 2001 edition of this annual report, a special chapter was devoted to the student mobility between and towards OECD countries. This year, we follow up with new development prospects for the exchanges of researchers, students and teachers. 1.

Policies for regulating and controlling flows

a)

New laws concerning immigration

Several OECD member countries have recently modified their legislation and implemented new provisions governing the entry, residence and

85


employment of foreigners. While some reforms have led to improvements in the status of foreigners already settled in the host country, most of them have been aimed essentially at tightening border controls, simplifying and speeding up the procedure for examining asylum applications and amending conditions for entry, residence and employment. It remains difficult to measure the impact of the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States on migration flows and policies. It seems, however, that entry procedures were more affected than migration policies. Several law proposals have been cancelled or postponed; border controls and international co-operation measures against irregular immigration were reinforced. Most OECD countries have already put in place stricter reviews of asylum applications and foreign student visas. In the long term, though, non-economic migration flows are more likely to be affected directly. As part of the Government of Canada’s AntiTerrorism Plan, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced the introduction of a permanent resident card. In addition, the Government of Canada amended the current Immigration Act in order to enhance the government’s ability to deal with security concerns. Some of the main modifications related to the selection grid for skilled workers. The new selection system emphasises education, job experience and official language ability. Some of the changes introduced in the new Act intend to ease family reunification. In particular, a new “conjugal partners” category has been added to the Family Class to accommodate common-law partners who do not meet the one-year cohabitation requirement. The major change affecting the Refugee Class is the e limin at io n o f t he Un do cum en te d P ro te cte d Persons in Canada (UPPC) category: this allows a more strategic use of detention, which is expected to discourage claimants from destroying documents.

86

The Terrorist attacks of September 11 have had and will continue to have a significant impact on the operations of US immigrant admission systems although the focus is largely on anti-terrorism issues. The number of Immigration Naturalization Services (INS) Border Patrol Agents tripled and Customs inspectors along the Canadian border were reinforced. A new Act requires the implementation of a foreign studen t visa monito ring progr am and encourages the establishment of a co-ordinated entry and exit system. New aviation security legislation reinforces these policies by the in-depth review of the list of passengers flying to the United States.

In addition, there are increased security checks on all male non-immigrant visa applicants between ages 16 and 45 from Arab or Muslim countries. This has resulted in increased waiting periods to enable names to be checked against an FBI database. In the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Romania, legislation on residence and work of foreigners is the subject of important revisions intended to align existing measures with those presently applicable in the European Union. In the Czech Republic, amendments to the Law of Stay of Foreigners introduced notably constrained visa applications. Visas are now required for visitors originating from Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine. New regulations also tightened the application procedure for long term visas, by introducing the requirement to submit the application abroad. Poland created the Office for Repatriation and Foreigners in July 2001. The responsibilities of this new office will include the co-ordination of migration activities among public entities responsible for granting visas. This office will also manage repatriation, family reunion, residency of and penalties to foreigners, the register of foreign residents and centres for refugees and asylum seekers. Hungary has created a new administrative body within the Ministry of the Interior to be responsible for police, border guards and the refugee office. Moreover, a Status law was passed in 2001, granting preferential treatment to ethnic Hungarians living abroad (estimated at 3 million), by offering financial aid and other special benefits in education, employment, travel and culture. Several provisions of this law, however, are currently being reviewed by the EU in the context of Hungarian admission to determine whether they are discriminatory. In Romania, in addition creating policies to combat irregular migration (for example, training of border control personnel), the Government also aims to reduce the number of Romanians travelling abroad illegally. It decided to check travel agencies involved in the illegal trafficking of people and to introduce a system of certification for employment agencies sending Romanians abroad. Central to the new German immigration law that is expected to come into effect on January 1, 2003 is the new definition about the rights of foreigners to remain and work in Germany. EU citizens can work and establish themselves freely anywhere in the country and are exempted from the need to obtain special residence permits. In addition, the distinction between residence and work permits has disappeared: a new single © OECD 2003


document, replacing the two separate documents, will indicate whether or not the foreigner is allowed to work. The number of permits will be brought down to two: a temporary residence permit and a permanent residence permit. These documents will contain a description of the immigration motives, whether study, work, family reunion or asylum. Conversion from a temporary to a permanent residence permit is possible after a minimum of five years of residence. However, this conversion is subject to certain conditions. For instance, foreign employees must have made sixty monthly contributions to the obligatory pension fund and must speak German. To promote the integration of foreigners, support in the form of language courses and integration training will be made available to all foreigners who reside legally in the country. In June 2002, the Italian Parliament approved tougher immigration legislation. The new Italian law increases patrols of the Italy’s coastlines and requires

Box I.10.

non-EU citizens to be fingerprinted in order to remain in Italy. Residence permits are will be linked to work permits, so that non-EU citizens would have to leave Italy within six months of unemployment, down from twelve months. Italian employers sponsoring foreign workers have to provide them with housing and post bail to cover the cost of removing their foreign workers in case of unemployment. b)

Measures aimed at dissuading false asylum seekers

Several OECD member countries, including Austria, France, Ireland, Norway, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Switzerland have been experiencing a sharp rise in asylum applications for more than a year. More recently, important inflows of asylum seekers have been registered in the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic and, to a lesser extent, Hungary. In addition, unaccompanied minors are becoming a growing phenomenon and matter of concern (see Box I.10).

Unaccompanied minors: an increasing phenomenon and matter of concern Theme box on the Integration of Immigrants

Data on immigration of unaccompanied minors or on separated-asylum-seeking children are not easy to obtain and appears to be incomplete although the phenomenon appears to be increasing in most OECD countries. This could be due to several reasons such as human trafficking, the disappearance or death of a family member in the home country as a result of war, pauperisation or aids. Only a few OECD countries report data on non-accompanied minors and they use quite different definitions and methods of measurement. In addition, trafficking and frequent disappearances from reception centres means that part of the problem is invisible. At any one time there may be up to 100 000 non-accompanied minors in Western Europe alone but only a fraction apply for asylum. UNHCR estimates for 15 European countries show that the number of non-accompanied minors seeking asylum in these countries increased from 12 100 in 1998 to 16 100 in 2000; on average their share in the total number of applications has gone up from 3% to 4%. In the Netherlands the number of applications from unaccompanied minors has increased by 34% on 1999 and almost doubled in Hungary. With 15% of all asylum applications (6 700 in 2000) coming from unaccompanied minors, the Netherlands is a much more popular destination country than two other major host countries, the United Kingdom (2 750) and Hungary (1 200). Most of the inflow in the Netherlands comes from China (67%), whereas there are relatively few unaccompanied minors among Chinese asylum applications in the United Kingdom (3%). However, the Chinese account for only 3% of all asylum applications in the Netherlands but for 5% in the United Kingdom. This suggests that the trends in unaccompanied minors are quite distinct from general asylum patterns. For other OECD countries, available statistics on unaccompanied minors also indicate that arrivals may be substantial. According to the INS, the number of unaccompanied juveniles arriving in the United States (mostly from China, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvadora) has more than doubled in the last five years, rising from 3 400 in 1997 to 5 400 in 2001. Almost a third of them are detained in secure facilities. Canada registers only few asylum applications from separated children (671 in 2000), mostly from China and Sri-Lanka, but the figure has increased significantly over the last couple of years and does not accurately reflect a much wider phenomenon linked to child trafficking. Australia reports that the number of unaccompanied minors decreased significantly in the 1990s but has increased steadily over the past few years. Most of these minors are boys from Afghanistan. This phenomenon, besides being a source of serious humanitarian distress, creates concrete problems for receiving countries in terms of adaptation of their legislation and of the availability of reception facilities. When return is not an option, the integration into the host society of those children requires very specific handling and resources. 87

© OECD 2003


Several OECD member countries have adopted a set of measures aimed at dissuading false asylum applications, accelerating the application review process and distributing asylum seekers more evenly in accommodation centres across the country. In the United Kingdom, several measures were recently adopted within the framework of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act enacted in 2002. This law sets conditions to process applications more rapidly and shorten appeal processes. It also follows other EU member states by declaring that asylum applications received from EU candidate countries are unfounded. In addition, asylum seekers who have not registered their application immediately upon their arrival will encounter more barriers to application review. In Ireland, steps have been taken to further augment the number of public service staff engaged in dealing with asylum applications (a total of 650 civil servants). In administrative terms, the aim is to attain as soon as possible a position whereby all applications are completed (including appeal process) within a period of six months. In Norway, the volume of social housing is insufficient to meet the needs of asylum seekers who have been granted refugee or humanitarian status or accepted for resettlement. As of January 2002, a new procedure established a quota-based distribution of refugees to each Norwegian county. Municipalities within each county are responsible for the distribution of the refugees amongst themselves.

88

2.

Reinforcement of legislation concerning the fight against irregular migration and illegal employment of foreigners

a)

Combating irregular migration

N ew legislatio n en tered into force in September 2001 will significantly boost the fight against people smugglers and strengthen the integrity of Australia’s borders. The main measures include minimum prison terms for people smugglers and increasing employers and labour suppliers’ awareness of their obligation to combat the illegal employment of foreigners. The proposed penalties have been deferred until the measures are implemented, though an administrative warning system has been implemented.

In Spain, new legislation that came into force in July 2001 allows the possibility of immediately deporting foreigners in an irregular situation. Permanent residence permits now can be obtained only after 5 years of residence and work in Spain. The fight against the illegal employment of foreigners was strengthened as in Australia, Finland and New Zealand. In Japan, new stricter penalties can be imposed on illegal entrants and the period of refusal of landing was extended from one to five years. In addition the number of immigration officials was increased to fight against the resurgence of illegal entries and undocumented foreign workers. Greece has stepped up border controls, particularly in th e no rth an d e ast of the co untry, and has incre ased sanctio ns against e mplo yers h iring migrants in an irregular situation. Employers now face 3 to 6 months imprisonment and a fine ranging from € 2 940 to € 14 700. In Portugal, a new law was adopted on immigration and foreign workers. In particular, the legislation includes measures which will make it easier for employed immigrants to gain residency and allow illegal immigrants to regularise their situation. Korea, which registered an increasing number of visa overstayers in the country (mostly from China, Bangladesh, Mongolia and the Philippines), has also adopted restrictive measures regarding foreign workers in an irregular situation. In Spain, the strengthening of sanctions is mostly aimed at employers. Combating illegal immigration is also on the agenda of Central and Eastern European countries. Legislation focuses specifically on sanctions against people smugglers and traffickers. In Lithuania, for e xample , t h e crimi na l co de wa s a men de d t o increase the maximum punishment for people smugglers to 15 years imprisonment (the most se ve re pu nish me nt in Eu ro pe) . Rom an ia h as adopted two laws: one on the legal status of its national border and another on the organisation and f u n c t io n s o f t h e R o m a n i an bo r d e r p o li c e . A programme for the training of border patrol personnel is scheduled through to 2004. Romania has drafted border-related agreements (based on the Schengen Agreement) with its neighbouring countries and initiated steps to align its visa policies with EU member states. Persons found to have been involved in creating a trafficking organisation can be imprisoned from 3 to 10 years. Under the new Italian law (June 2002), non-EU foreigners found residing illegally in Italy will be

© OECD 2003


barred from legal re-entry for 10 years instead the current 5 years. Moreover, penalties for re-entering Italy illegally were increased, with 6 to 12 months of detention for the first illegal re-entry and 1 to 4 year s for su bse quen t e nt ries. Fin ally, le gal migrants can be detained 60 days before renewal, up from 30 days. Foreigners who apply for asylum after being detained will remain in detention.

b)

Recent regularisation programmes and their results

An increasing number of OECD countries have held regularisation programmes in the past decade and many are debating whether to either initiate or reinstall such programmes. Each country applies different criteria in order to define precisely the population who will benefit from regularisation programmes. Often, regularisation is granted based on prior work, sometimes restricted to a particular industry (for example, the current regularisation programme in Italy is restricted to healthcare workers and people providing services to the elderly). Other programmes cover persons who have been present in the country for a certain period of time; for example, the 1997 regularisation programme in France was based on family criteria. Still other programmes include asylum seekers who have faced delays in their processing or who did not qualify under existing asylum criteria (Belgium, Switzerland and Luxembourg). The most common criterion for eligibility is the right acquired through employment, which may lead to a perverse effect insofar as it could encourage illegal employment in the hope of an amnesty. This is the case most recently in Italy, Spain and Portugal. Italy has conducted four regularisation operations in less than fifteen years and has experienced extensive fraud in its occupation-based amnesties with applicants submitting false job contracts. Targeting particular nationalities is very rarely observed among regularisation programmes. It is, however, a practice in Mexico, which has recently regularised Guatemalans, and in the United States, which has undertaken different regularisation operations principally aimed at nationals from Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Nicaragua. Also, before the September 11 terrorist attacks, the United States were considering the implementation of a regularisation programme focusing solely on Mexican citi© OECD 2003

ze ns. Spain has re cen tly proce eded with th e regularisation of nationals from Ecuador. Table I.26 describes the main regularisation programmes carried out recently in several OECD countries. Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal are among the countries having implemented the most important regularisation programmes, especially in light of the relatively small number of foreign residents living in these countries in the early 1990s. Of significant interest is the diversity of nationalities b enef iting f rom the va rious reg ula risa tion programmes, especially in the case of Italy and Portugal. These two countries also are noting a growing number of immigrants from the Balkan and Central Europe, for the former, and from the Ukraine and Moldavia, for the latter. The decision to establish a regularisation programme is extremely complex, having a large number of very significant pros and cons. Such programmes bring persons out of the shadows and provide them with the status and rights necessary to become more successful members of society. Regularisation can also be viewed as a wise course of a ctio n fr o m a pu blic se cu rit y per spe ctiv e. It provides important information to governments on the numbers of persons in irregular status, their networks and their settlement patterns. Also, by opening up broader employment opportunities for migrants, these programmes may discourage the pursuit of unlawful activities. There are, however, potential negative consequences in establishing a regularisation programme. The most frequently cited is that regularisation programmes often encourage future illegal migration, sometimes even at greater rates than those occurring before the programme. A second argument against regularisation, related to the previous one, is that such programmes reward law-breaking. For those countries having a legal immigration system – whether of a temporary or permanent nature – regularisation programmes can essentially result in queue-breaking, with irregular migrants entering before those who have been waiting their turn. Another possible drawback of establishing regularisation programmes is that they may prevent countries from creating formal admission systems, particularly those directed towards low skilled workers. Largely due to these negative consequences, a number of OECD countries (e.g., Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland) have had either extremely limited regularisation programmes or none at all.

89


Table I.26.

Main regularisation programmes of immigrants in an irregular situation in selected OECD countries, by nationality Thousands

Belgium

France

(2000)1

Greece

(1981-1982)2

Dem. Rep. of Congo Morocco

8.8 6.2

Other

36.9

Tunisia Morocco African countries Portugal Algeria Turkey Other

Total

52.0

Total

(1997-1998)3

(1997-1998)

17.3 16.7 15.0 12.7 11.7 8.6 39.1 121.1

Algeria Morocco China Dem. Rep. of Congo Tunisia

12.5 9.2 7.6 6.3 4.1

Other

38.1

Albania Bulgaria Romania Pakistan Ukraine Poland Other

Total

77.8

Total

(2001)4

239.9 24.9 16.7 10.8 9.8 8.6 60.3 371.0

Total

351.0

Italy (1987-1988)

Morocco Sri Lanka Philippines Tunisia Senegal Former Yug. Other

21.7 10.7 10.7 10.0 8.4 7.1 50.1

Total

(1996)5

(1990)

118.7

Morocco Tunisia Senegal Former Yug. Philippines China Other

49.9 25.5 17.0 11.3 8.7 8.3 97.1

Total

217.7

(1998)5

Morocco Albania Philippines China Peru Romania Other

34.3 29.7 21.4 14.4 12.8 11.1 120.8

Albania Romania Morocco China Senegal Egypt Other

Total

244.5

Total

39.0 24.1 23.9 16.8 10.7 9.5 93.2 217.1

Portugal (1992-1993)

Angola Guinea-Bissau Cape Verde

12.5 6.9 6.8

Brazil Sao Tome and Principe Senegal Other

5.3

Total

(2001)6

(1996)

Angola Cape Verde Guinea-Bissau Sao Tome and Principe

6.8 5.0 4.0

Ukraine Brazil Moldova

42.6 22.6 8.5

2.0

Romania

7.0

1.4 1.4 4.8

Brazil

0.3

Other

3.7

Cape Verde Russia Other

39.2

Total

21.8

Total

5.2 4.8 29.5 120.2

Spain (1985-1986)

7

(1991)

Morocco Portugal Senegal Argentina United Kingdom Philippines Other

7.9 3.8 3.6 2.9 2.6 1.9 21.1

Morocco Argentina Peru Dominican Rep. China Poland Other

Total

43.8

Total

49.2 7.5 5.7 5.5 4.2 3.3 34.7 110.1

Morocco Peru China Argentina Poland Dominican Rep. Other Total

Switzerland

90

7.0 1.9 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.8 7.8 21.3

Morocco Ecuador Colombia China Pakistan Romania Other Total

(2001)9

45.2 20.2 12.5 8.8 7.3 6.9 63.1 163.9

Ecuador Colombia Morocco Romania Ukraine Bulgaria Other Total

48.8 36.4 19.9 18.8 7.6 6.4 78.4 216.4

United States

(2000)10

Sri Lanka Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Bosnia Herzegovina Turkey

(2000)8

(1996)

(1986)

8.9

Mexico

4.9 0.6 0.3

El Salvador Caribbean Guatemala Colombia Philippines Other

Other

0.5

Total

15.2

Total

11

(1997-1998)12

2 008.6 152.3 110.5 64.0 30.3 25.7 293.5 2 684.9

El Salvador / Guatemala Haiti Nicaragua Eastern Europe Cuba

Total

(2000)13

300.0 50.0 40.0 10.0 5.0

405.0

Total

400.0

© OECD 2003


Table I.26.

Main regularisation programmes of immigrants in an irregular situation in selected OECD countries, by nationality (cont.)

1. A regularisation programme started in January 2000. Asylum seekers who were residing in Belgium in October 1999 and who fill in certain conditions could apply. Figures indicate the number of persons who applied (including dependents). A total of 35 000 dossiers have been received. 2. Excluding seasonal workers (6 681 persons) and around 1 200 small traders not broken down by nationality. 3. Persons who had been granted a white card (first stage of the regularisation). Data by nationality are preliminary. 4. Number of applications of work and residence permits according to the October 2001 law. 5. Number of permits granted based on estimates done by M. Carfagna, “I sommersi e i sanati. Le regolarizzazioni degli immigrati in Italia” in Stranieri in Italia: Assimilati ed esclusi, A Colombo and G Sciortino (eds.), Mulino, Bologna, 2002. 6. The new foreigners act (January 2001) allowed the regularisation of undocumented Non-EU citizens in possession of registered work contracts. The process took place during 2001 and the data presented correspond to the permanence permits delivered between the 10th of January and the 4th of December 2001. 7. Number of applications received. 8. Regularisation programme held from 23rd March to 31st July 2000. 9. “Arraigo” programme. Total number of permits granted by 15 April 2002. 10. Programme called “Action humanitaire 2000”. People accepted should have been in Switzerland since 31 December 1992 and have encountered big troubles. 11. Data refer to all persons granted a permanent residence permit (excluding their dependents) during the period 1989-1996 following the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act. Data are broken down by country of birth. 12. Including some estimates of foreigners who are eligible for the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (November 1997) and for the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (October 1998). 13. Estimates of applications for legalization under the Legal Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act. Sources: Switzerland: Office des étrangers; France: Office des migrations internationales; Greece: National Employment Observatory; Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain: Ministry of the Interior; United States: Immigration and Naturalization Service.

3.

Policies for the integration of immigrants

In the previous edition of this annual report (see Trends in International Migration, OECD 2001) particular attention was given to the definition of population targeted by integration measures. This year’s report will briefly summarise integration measures recently taken by member countries, such as those regarding the acquisition of the host country’s language and the fight against discrimination. The main conclusions of a Seminar on the Integration of Young Migrants, organised in June 2002 by the OECD and the Belgium Authorities, are presented in Box I.11. Particular attention is also devoted to the evolution of the naturalisation rate in several OECD cou ntries. Section A o f Part I discusses measures taken to facilitate the recruitment of highly qualified foreign workers and relaxing the conditions for students to change their status at the end of their studies (see above and for more detail, Trends in International Migration, OECD 2001). a)

Measures regarding the fight against discrimination and the acquisition of the host country’s language

An Act strengthening the legislation on racism and xenophobia and extending the prerogatives of the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism was adopted on 15 July 2002 in Belgium. Another law prohibiting all forms discrimination was © OECD 2003

also passed. In Canada, th e Ho st Pro gramme matches Canadian volunteers with arriving immigrants to facilitate their integration and settlement. There is also a programme aimed at providing arriving immigrants with instruction in the o fficial languages of Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Canada is currently conducting a longitudinal study o n immigrants in co-operation with Statistics Canada. This study is examining the economic and social aspects of integration and, in particular, newcomers’ needs in this regard. In January 1999, the New Act on Immigration came into force in Denmark and includes, among other measures, a new three-year introduction programme for newly arrived immigrants and refugees. Particular focus is given on compulsory language acquisition. A similar programme is expected in Austria and France has adopted this measure, though without the obligatory nature. In Spain, the Higher Council for Policy on the Regularisation and Co-ordination of Foreigners and Immigration (GRECO) is responsible for co-ordinating the three levels of government (central government, autonomous communities and municipal councils) with the aim of developing an overall immigration policy embracing social integration and employment. A consultative and advisory body, The Forum for Integration, makes recommendations to the government on questions relating to the integration of foreigners. To reduce the unemployment rate of immigrants, Norway has introduced numerous programmes on job

91


training, reinforcing Norwegian language competencies and acquiring qualifications. In Sweden, the Ombudsman against Ethnic Discrimination has published and disseminated guides providing relevant advise for employers. Other initiatives include the use of antidiscrimination clauses in public procurement arrangements (which makes certain subsidies conditional upon anti-discrimination measures) and training the National Labour Market Board staff in discrimination issues. In Switzerland, the Federal Council passed an ordinance, effective 1 October 2001, which primarily deals with providing Federal subsidies to assist the integration of foreigners. Among the main objectives of this law and the allocated budget for the various project are the promotion of linguistic competencies and work development and the training of key persons (e.g., translators, mediators, youth workers, sports trainers) to promote an intercultural work environment. b)

Main conclusions of the Seminar on the integration of young immigrants into the labour market

The OECD Secretariat organised, with the support and co-operation of the Belgian authorities (Ministry of Employment and Labour), a seminar in Brussels on 6-7 June 2002 on the integration of yo u n g im mig ra n ts in t he la bo u r ma rk e t (s ee Box I.11). The Seminar had three main objectives: • To identify the obstacles to integration of young immigrant men and women into the labour market and particularly discrimination in recruitment and at work. • To present the measures implemented by local or regional actors and the active public policies to help overcome these obstacles. • To evaluate the impact of such measures with a view to improving the degree of employability of immigrants and to develop proposals and recommendations to policy makers.

92

In conclusion, the seminar made it possible to identify the different areas of responsibility – for enterprises in the social policy field and for the State and public services – in presenting a positive image of immigration and in highlighting its benefits both for the host country and countries of origin. Lastly, local and regional actors as well as migrants and members of their families have their own responsibility in improving integration into labour markets and society in general.

c)

The evolution of the naturalisation rate

Acquiring the citizenship of a host country reflects a process of gradual economic and social integration and, in fact, may facilitate their integration. The number of naturalisations depends essentially on the magnitude and time of migration waves as well as the liberal characteristics of the legislation concerning citizenship. It is also linked to how much importance foreigners place on acquiring the citizenship of their host country and the consequences of the possible loss of their original citizenship. The basis on which countries determine how citizenship can be acquired and granted – being birth place, and/or duration of residence, kinship (for the first two the principal is jus soli, for the latte jus sanguinis) – plays a fundamental role in the distinctions drawn between foreign and national foreign populations. Changes in naturalisation procedures occurred in the past few years in several OECD countries with the liberalisation of laws considered too restrictive (see for more detail the special chapter on the acquisition of citizenship in Trends in International Migration, OECD, 1995). In Germany almost 190 000 foreigners obtained German citizenship in 2000. Turks were over-represented, accounting for 44% of all naturalisations compared to their share in the foreign population. As of 1 January 2000, adult foreigners may obtain German citizenship after 8 years of legal residence, as compared to 15 years in previous conditions. This change in law explains part of the increase of the naturalisations; in 2000, about 40% of all naturalisations were on the basis of the new law. Also as of 1 January 2000, children born of foreign-born parents can obtain German citizenship if one of their parents legally resided in the country during the last 8 years; in 2000, of the 91 000 children that were born of foreign parents, 40 800 have obtained citizenship as a result of this new law. The number of applications for Australian citizenship lodged in 2000/2001 concerned more than 77 000 persons, a small increase on the previous fiscal year. Person s ho lding British passports accounted for 17% of all naturalisations, followed by New Zealanders and Chinese nationals. In Austria, the number of naturalisations increased substantially between 1998 and 2000, from 18 300 to 24 700. Most naturalisations were former guest workers such as Yugoslavs (30%) and Turks (27%). In Belgium, the revised Nationality Code which came into force on 1 May 2000 led to a substantial © OECD 2003


Box I.11. Seminar on the Integration of Young Immigrants in the Labour Market (Brussels, 6-7 June 2002) Theme box on the Integration of Immigrants The documents presented at the Seminar and the discussions among the various participants show that the targeted population is very heterogeneous: recently arrived immigrant youth and second and even third generation youth, many of whom have obtained the nationality of their country of residence. It was also widely acknowledged that statistical tools were inadequate for identifying the populations concerned; the question was to know whether temporal monitoring supported by longitudinal surveys were required to ascertain the degree of integration or insertion of a given part of the population. Regarding integration, the vocabulary fluctuated between assimilation (acceptance of the value system of the host country and even renouncement of one’s own culture) and insertion into the labour market and integration into society (a concept which acknowledges the respect of the host country’s laws). The fundamental issue, on which there was a consensus, was how to develop the human resources of an entire segment of the labour force (foreign or foreign-origin) which has difficulty integrating into the labour market. The aim should be to use most effectively the competencies of these young men and women, who are a source of potential wealth for both the economy and society at large. It is clear that a proportion of young job seekers lack skills, and some cases language skills, which are essential for integration into the labour market. Non-recognition of diplomas and training was also widely mentioned as a problem. Lastly, the critical role of the education system in the future insertion of immigrants into the labour market was underscored. Concerning public policy measures, the bulk of the discussions focussed on whether across-the-board measures or more specific, targeted measures are most effective. Across-the-board measures are aimed at all disadvantaged categories and emphasise education, vocational guidance, training and policies to promote entrepreneurship and employment, similarly to those in force notably in France and Sweden. Specific measures implemented within the framework of public employment services essentially consist of policies to follow up and help young immigrants or the descendants of immigrants to integrate into the labour market. This is particularly the case in Belgium. The United Kingdom, for example, has placed an emphasis on vocational training, while others countries like the Netherlands have put in place “binding” partnerships with firms which oblige them to recruit a given percentage of immigrant youth in the event of job vacancies. With regards to discrimination, the State has a leading role to play in ensuring that the existence of discrimination is recognised and in devising an effective legal framework for combating it. Public employment services must also develop training initiatives to raise staff awareness of the existence of discrimination and to modify their attitudes in order for them to be able to convince firms to give young immigrants or the children of immigrants a chance. A whole new approach needs to be developed in terms of the relationships and partnerships with firms and especially with the heads of personnel departments. It is necessary to strengthen ties between the various actors – youth, the state, public employment services and other public services, firms and charitable organisations – and to improve co-ordination between the various levels (local, regional and national) in policy framing and implementation. To form a better picture of the effectiveness of current policies and measures, it would be necessary to improve analytical tools and to reflect in more depth on the means of evaluation. In this respect, the example of the United Kingdom demonstrates how it is necessary that the means of evaluation be taken into account when measures to facilitate the insertion of youths into the labour market are being designed or implemented. Analyses aimed at measuring the effectiveness of policies should be budgeted at the outset. They are highly recommended in order to know and to make known which measures work, so as to exchange new measures that incorporate best practices.

growth in the number of naturalisations in 2000. Approximately 63% of all foreigners naturalised that year were Moroccans or Turks. In Denmark, after relative stability be twe en 1991 an d 1997, th e number of naturalisations almost doubled in 1998 and grew by m ore than 51% from 12 400 to 18 800 between 1999 and 2000. People of Asian origin were more likely to request Danish citizenship than other immigrants. In 2001 the number of naturalisations declined to 12 000.

© OECD 2003

Some 12 000 people obtained Spanish nationality in 2000 which was about 25% down on the previous year. Three-fifths of those naturalised were from South America, mainly from the Dominican Republic and Peru, while 20% were of African origin. Preliminary statistics for 2000 and 2001 show that naturalisations in the United States were respectively around 900 000 and more than 610 000. In France, 150 000 acquisitions of French nationality were approved in 2000, which was the highest figure

93


Chart I.18. Naturalisation rate in selected OECD countries, 1990-2000 Annual average, per 100 foreigners at the beginning of the year 1990-1994

1995-1999

2000

10

10

9

Increase in naturalisation rate over the period

Decrease in naturalisation rate over the period

9

1

0

0

ga

ur

tu Po r

ly m

bo

Ita Lu

xe

ai

Ja p

Sp

tra

Au s

G

er

m

w

ay

ry ga

or N

un H

et N

Sw

itz

he

er

rla

la

nd

nd

a

at

tri

St d

U

ni

te

Au s

an nl

do Ki

d te ni U

Fi

a ad

ng

an

m iu

nc C

Fr a

lg Be

m

ar

en ed

en D

Sw

l

1

g

2

an

3

2

n

3

lia

4

an y

5

4

s

5

es

6

d

7

6

m

7

e

8

k

8

Note: Number of naturalised persons as a per cent of stocks of foreigners (stocks of foreign-born for Australia, Canada and the United States) at the beginning of the year. Source: See the notes related to Table A-1-6 at the end of the Statistical Annex.

ever recorded. Applications by European nationals declined while applications by African and Asian nationals increased. Preliminary date for 2001, though, indicate a decrease in the number of naturalisations (around 128 000). In Hungary, more than half of the 7 600 naturalisations in 2000 were attributed to former Romanian citizens. Other naturalisations included citizens from the former Yugoslavia (22%) and the Ukraine (about 12%). In Italy, of the new citizens in 2000 (11 570), approximately 85% were naturalised following marriage with an Italian citizen. In Norway, more than 9 500 foreigners acquired Norwegian nationality. The number of naturalisations of Pakistani and Turkish nationals rose sharply.

94

In 2000, about 50 000 persons acquired Dutch nationality. The biggest group continues to be that of Moroccans (13 500). More than 4 200 foreigners acquired Slovak nationality in 2000 and the three leading nationalities receiving grants of citizenship were the Czech Republic, the Ukraine and the United States. In 2000, around 1 100 applicants were granted Czech citizenship, most of whom were originally from the Ukraine, Bulgaria, Vietnam or Russia. There were 43 500 naturalisations in 2000 in Sweden, an increase over the 1999 figure of 37 800. The three

leading nationalities receiving grants of citizenship are nationals from Bosnia Herzegovina, followed by Iraqis and Somalians. The number of people acquiring Swiss nationality in 2000 increased by 40% on 1999, reaching 28 700, the largest annual increase recorded during the 1990/ 2000 period. Most naturalisations were nationals from EU and EFTA. Chart I.18 describes the naturalisation rate in selected OECD countries. It covers the periods 1990-94 and 1993-99 as well as the year 2000. The left side of the chart concerns OECD member countries which have registered in 2000 a naturalisation rate higher than during the two previous periods. The rate of naturalisation is the highest in Sweden, Denmark and Belgium compared to those registered in Austria, the United States and Switzerland. On the right size of the chart, the rate of naturalisation, though being relatively high in the Netherlands, Hungary and Norway, remains lower compared to those registered during the period 1995-99. 4.

Migration and international co-operation

International co-operation in the area of migration principally concerns the regulation and control © OECD 2003


of migration flows. Mechanisms for bilateral or multilateral co-operation are in place, whether on the question of visa or border control. Agreements also exist principally for the recruitment of highly skilled workers, to attract foreign investors or simply to encourage the return of emigrants (see for more detailed International Mobility of the Highly Skilled, OECD, 2002). New perspectives are in view for increasing exchanges of researchers, students and teachers in the context of European and international relations. a)

International co-operation in the area of regulation and control of migration flows

Mechanisms for multilateral international cooperation in the field of immigration and asylum are still relatively limited, except in the case of ongoing negotiations for EU enlargement (for more details, see Migration Policies and EU Enlargement. The Case of Central and Eastern Europe, OECD, 2001). OECD member countries have a preference for bilateral agreements to deal with the recruitment of foreign workers and the re-admission of foreigners in an irregular situation. Bilateral re-admission agreements aiming to combat unauthorised immigration are been reached increasingly often and sometimes are linked with worker recruitment programmes. Regional economic integration is also included in the area of international co-operation on migration as illustrated by the ongoing discussions between the United States and Mexico, on one hand, and Switzerland and the EU member countries on the other hand. Moreover, the OECD member countries which have an important number of their citizens living abroad continue to reinforce the links with the members of their own community. It is the case notably of Greece, Turkey and, more recently, Hungary (see above in this Section: 1.a). In Australia, short-term business entry arrangements across APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation) have been improved as economies collectively agreed to issue multiple entry visas to frequent APEC business travellers. Under the Industrial and Technical Training Programme (ITTP), Korea an nually recruits trainees of which approximately one-third are taken from the network of affiliated Korean enterprises established overseas. As of 1997, a certain number of these trainees with a maximum stay extendable to 3 years are permitted to legally engage in paid employment at the end of their training period. Very often, they carried out low-skilled jobs in the field that brought them to Korea. In 2000, the number of trainees was 127 000, of which two-thirds © OECD 2003

had been recruited through the Korean Federation of Small Business. In 2001, more than 145 000 trainees had been recruited, a sharp increase, compared to the previous year. During the fiscal year 2000/2001, New Zealand established a new Working Holiday Scheme with Germany, Italy, Hong Kong (China), Chile and China. T his programme has bee n imple ment ed with Australia and the United Kingdom for many years, and more recently with Norway. It allows young people of both countries to work while on holiday in the partnering countries. Commonwealth citizens aged between 17 and 27 wishing to work in the United Kingdom for limited periods are exempt of work permits and fall under the Working Holiday Makers Scheme (see above). The annual number employed in this category rose from 23 000 in 1990 to more than 38 000 in 2000. Australian nationals constitute the most important group followed by South Africans. In the interest of economic co-operation and development, the Czech Republic concluded new reciprocal employment agreements with Hungary, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Mongolia. Romania reached a similar agreement with Portugal and plans to pursue an inter-governmental agreement on the status of Romanian workers in Israel to ensure their social protection. In 2001, Spain signed three bilateral agreements with Ecuador, Colombia and Morocco and, more recently, with Romania, Poland and the Dominican Republic. The se agree me nts are designed to “prevent illegal immigration and the economic exploitation of undocumented foreigners”. They also serve to establish a procedure for the selection of foreign workers, with the following salient points: communicating job opportunities using Spanish embassies, specifying the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of labour requirements outlined in the framework of the quota system; selecting candidates with the participation of employers and determining living and residence conditions in Spain; guaranteeing that foreign workers enjoy the same rights and working conditions as nationals; drawing up special provisions for temporary workers; and helping temporary workers by means of voluntary return programmes. Italy signed recently readmission agreements with Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Georgia and Nigeria. The agreements signed with Tunisia provide an increase in the legal channels for migrant workers in regular situation. Other agreements currently are being negotiated with Malta,

95


Senegal, Egypt, the Ukraine, Pakistan, the Philippines and China. In 2000, Bulgaria signed several re-admission agreements, in particular with countries in the former USSR and the former Yugoslavia. A re-admission treaty with Turkey is currently being drafted. Bulgarian and Romanian nationals no longer require visas to enter the Schengen area since 2000 and 2002, respectively. Greece has signed a re-entry agreement with Turkey in November 2001, whereby illegal immigrants from Turkey are deported back to that country unless they have submitted asylum applications that are not visibly groundless. In order to facilitate the process of enforcing statutory deportation orders, the Irish Government has signed readmission agreements with Romania, Nigeria, Poland and Bulgaria. These are designated to provide a structured repatriation procedure for the return of nationals from these countries who are residing without authorisation in Ireland. The Baltic States have introduced various changes with the primary aim of bringing their laws and regulations into line with those prevailing in the European Union. Some problematic areas remain, one of which is the abolition of a simplified visa regime for border residence of Belarus and the Russian Federation. With the aim of preparing for the abolition of visa regime privileges for citizens of the Russian Federation and Belarus, an action plan has been drafted for expansion and strengthening of consular institutions in Belarus and the Kaliningrad region of the Russian Federation by the end of 2003. Romania has received since autumn 2000 financial aid from the European Union PHARE Programme, enabling it to strengthen frontier controls and adopt a passport system that is compatible with the Schengen criteria.

96

Mexico and the United States have been negotiating proposals relating to authorised migration on a pe r m an e n t b as is a n d t o t h e e n l ar g e m e n t o f programmes concerning temporary workers, border security and the regularisation of undocumented Mexicans in the United States. The terrorist attacks of September 11, tho ugh, slowe d do wn th ese discussions. Bilateral agreement between Switzerland and EU Member states for the free movements of persons (for residency and work purposes) came into force in June 2002. The Treaty will gradually led to complete freedom of movemen ts betwee n Switzerland and the EU and is expected to pave the way for Switzerland’s accession to the Schengen/ Dublin agreements. Swiss nationals will be granted

full right to work and settle in a EU country from June 2004 but EU nationals will have to wait until sometime between 2004 and 2014. In the early 1990s, a programme was launched for assisting returning and ethnic Greeks. The program led to the establishment of a National Foundation for the Reception and Settlement of Repatriated Greeks to assist with housing and economic integration; it was deemed inadequate, however, given the high numbers of returning and ethnic Greeks. Consequently, a new Act was passed in 2000 to step up the scheme and provide more accommodation, vocational training and job opportunities, social and cultural integration and publicsector jobs. Subsidies have also been granted to host regions. In addition, Greek culture has been promoted actively by setting up cultural schemes and cultural centres in other countries, signing employment agreements, setting up Greek chambers of commerce abroad to strengthen economic ties with Greece and providing assistance for Greek citizens abroad. Turkey’s 8th (2001-2005) Five-Year Plan focuses on the cases of Turkish citizens living abroad and pays particular attention to their social and economic problems as well as the safeguard of their rights and interests. One of the most emphasised issues in this Plan is the situation of Turkish workers who engaged in small and medium size entrepreneurships, mainly in Germany. Such Turkish workers are estimated at more than 47 000 in Germany and are responsible for creating more than 200 000 employment opportunities in that country. Another significant policy item in the Plan is the needed co-operation between main migration actors. Two Committees had been created since 1998 and both are chaired by the Prime Minister, the Supreme Committee on Turkish Citizens Living Abroad and the Consultancy Committee of Turkish Citizens Living Abroad. b)

New development prospects for exchanges of researchers, students and teachers in the framework of European and international relations8

Technological changes have boosted international co-operation and accelerated the mobility of the highly skilled, researchers and knowledge (see International Mobility of the Highly Skilled, OECD 2002). M o b il i t y pr o g r a mm e s s u c h a s S CI E N CE a n d LEONARDO DA VINCI have been developed specifically for research scientists and vocational trainees. © OECD 2003


The success of European acade mi c e xc h an g e programmes (ERASMUS student exchanges hit the one million mark in 2002) is now inspiring university mobility programmes in other parts of the world (UMAP was launched by the APEC countries in 1991 and an information network on academic mobility, RIMA, has been set up by the MERCOSUR countries). For many years, the rules of international trade were seldom applied to economic activities in the field of research and education. Explanations for this situation relate less to the feared brain drain effect or to the social and cultural dimension of education, but reflect more the fact that these activities were deemed to be non-tradable services. Despite some reluctance during the Treaty of Rome negotiations and proposals for special arrangements that remained unheeded, EC rules on the free movement of persons and services eventually benefited researchers, students and teachers wishing to move around the Common Market. Following the EU discourse, a period of greater freedom of economic movement between countries began for researchers, students and teachers and has continued with the expansion of international trade in services in other regions (e.g. NAFTA) and throughout the world with the Uruguay Round negotiations. Globalisation, together with the development of knowledge-based economies, is fostering migration policies that facilitate entry for researchers and students. It has led to greater co-operation on education and research matters, particularly within the framework of the European Union, and to new prospects for liberalisation in both sectors under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Development of co-operation on education and research with a view to setting up a European Knowledge Area (EKA) The determination to foster the development of a European knowledge-based society and economy has led to an increase in mobility-targeted funds mobility in Community programmes promoting education, training, research and organisational development. The SOCRATES II programme, adopted by the 24 January 2000 decision, has been given a budget of € 1 800 million, double the amount initially allocated to SOCRATES 1. A proposal to attract students and teachers from third countries with a new ERASMUS WORLD programme was also submitted on 17 July 2002. This was supplemented with a recent © OECD 2003

proposal (dated 7 0ctober 2002) for a Council Directive on the entry and residence of students from third countries, based on EU jurisdiction with respect to immigration. Designed to promote a European Research Area (ERA), the new Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities for 2002-2006, adopted by the 27 June 2002 decision, increases funding for initiatives to promote mobility among researchers by a war ding M arie Cur ie F ell ow ships. A spe cial programme adopted on 30 Septembe 2002 provides financing for more diversified forms of mobility, with a view to structuring ERA. In particular, it promotes special fellowships to tackle problems such as the brain drain from less developed regions and the need to attract scientists from third countries, but does not set aside a budget for such initiatives. On 20 June 2001, as requested by the European Council in Lisbon, the Commission published a strategy to promote mobility among researchers with the goal to developing a European Research Area (ERA). The strategy aims to remove practical barriers to such mobility, in particular related to funding, return to the country of origin and the lack of information on posts abroad. Accordingly, it proposes to set up Mobility Centres that will assist researchers seeking to move abroad, create an EC researcher card or scientific visa and an increase in financial support. Prospects for greater liberalisation of trade in research and educational services in a global economy During the Uruguay Round, few specific commitments were made to “Mode 4” R&D services (see above Box I.3), which only 46 out of the 130 WTO Members had included on their lists. These lists usually referred back to horizontal commitments on the movements of people. Researchers seeking mobility, however, are not exempt from the requirements on work or residence permits. The prospect of greater liberalisation for Mode 4 services will benefit researchers who are service providers or seconded employees subject to national immigration procedures. The problems in reaching an agreement in this area could be offset by measures to facilitate temporary movements of natural persons for the provision of specific services. The expansion of distance learning and the d e r e gu la t io n o f h ig h e r e du c a ti o n i n E u r o pe prompted the WTO to set up a working group in 1998.

97


Its report envisaged greater liberalisation for educational services, now a controversial issue in future negotiation rounds. Some countries, such as the United States, have come out in favour of new commitments in this key economic sector, whereas others, in particular France, see a risk to their public education systems. Largely contingent on new commitments made under the Mode 4 negotiations, growth in the international mobility of students and teachers will also depend on the development of mechanisms for the international recognition of academic qualifications. Consumer protection requirements in response to the emergence of new private educational service providers might warrant international systems of professional accreditation and quality assurance based on self-

regulation. Proposals made within UNESCO for an international regulatory framework for higher education in the era of globalisation could foster the introduction of such systems. To conclude, while trade negotiations are being held at a global level, regional organisations appear to want to keep pace with the knowledge economy by encouraging their member countries to facilitate educational and scientific exchanges within their own region. At a time when national institutions responsible for promoting cultural co-operation are in crisis in several countries, international economic co-operation appears to be emerging as the most appropriate framework in which to develop the international mobility of students, teachers and researchers in years to come.

NOTES 1. An estimated 3 million Canadian senior citizens make these moves during the long winter season.

5. See, for example, Mayer J. and R. Riphahn (1999) for a study based on German data and PPIC (2002) for a study based on American data.

2. Hitzelsberger F., J. Reuter and W. Steinle, (2001), Scientific Report on the Mobility of Cross-Border Workers within the EEA. Commissioned by the European Commission, DG Employment and Social Affairs. 3. P. Pedersen (1996), “The common Nordic Labour Market: an experiment in free mobility”, in The Nordic Labour Market in the 1990’s, Vol. I, E. Wadekjo (ed.), Elsevier.

6. This sub-section on Asia was written by Ronald Skeldon, Professorial Fellow, School of African and Asian Studies, University of Sussex and consultant to the OECD. 7. Report by the ROMEUROPE network, presented at the Symposium Roms, Sintés, Kalés - Tsiganes en Europe: Promouvoir la santé et les droits d’une minorité en détresse, 19-20 October 2000, Paris.

4. This is the highest fertility rate in the EU and equal to the rate recorded for Ireland.

8. This sub-section has been written by Stéphane Lalanne, Researcher in International Law, Consultant to the OECD.

98

© OECD 2003


BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABELLA, M. (1994), “Turning points in labor migration”, Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, Vol. 3(1), special issue. ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (2002), Key Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific Countries, www.adb.org/ Documents/Books/Key_Indicators/2002/default BEISER, M. and HOU, F. (2000), Gender Differences in Language Acquisition and Employment Consequences among South-East Asian Refugees in Canada, Canadian Public Policy, Vol. XXVI, No. 3. BERMAN, E., LANG, K. and SINIVER, E. (2000), “Languageskill complementarity: returns to immigrants language acquisition”, NBER Working Paper No. w7737. CARLINER, G. (1995), “The language abi lity of US immigrants: assimilation and cohort effects”, NBER, Working Paper No. 5222.

DUSTMANN, C. (1994), “Speaking fluency, writing fluency and earnings of migrants”, Journal of Population Economics, Vol. 7 (2). GO, S. P. (2002), “The Philippines”, in OECD, Migration and the Labour Market in Asia: Recent Trends and Policies, Paris, OECD. GONZALEZ, A. (2000), “The acquisition and labor market value of four english skills: new evidence from NALS”, Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol. 18, No. 3. GRENIER, G. (1984), “The effects of language characteristics on the wages of Hispanic-American males”, The Journal of Human Ressources, Vol. 19, No. 1. HAYFRON, J. (2001), “Language trai ning, l anguage proficiency and earnings of immigrants in Norway”, Applied Economics, No. 33.

CHISWICK, B. and MILLER, P. (2002), “The complementarity of language and other human capital: immigrant earnings in Canada”, IZA Discussion Paper No. 451.

HITZELSBERGER, F., REUTER, J. and STEINLE, W. (2001), Scientific Report on the Mobility of Cross-Border Workers within the EEA. Commissioned by the European Commission, DG Employment and Social Affairs.

CHISWICK, B. and MILLER, P. (1999), “Language skills and earnings among legalized aliens”, Journal of Population Economics, Vol. 12.

HUGO, G. (2002), “Introduction”, in OECD, Migration and the Labour Market in Asia: Recent Trends and Policies, Paris, OECD.

CHISWI CK, B. and M ILLER, P. (2000), “A model of destination language acquisition: application to male immigrants in Canada”, RIIM Working Paper No. 00-13. CHISWICK, B. and MILLER, P. (2002), “Immigrant earnings: language skills, linguistic concentrations and the business cycle”, Journal of Population Economics, Vol. 15, No. 1. CHISWICK, B. (1991), “Speaking, reading and earnings among low-skilled immigrants”, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 9, No. 2. C H I S W I C K , B . (1 9 98 ), “ H e b re w l an g ua g e u s ag e : de te rmin an ts and e ffec ts on ea rnin gs am o ng immigrants in Israel”, Journal of Population Economics, Vol. 11, No. 2. CHISWICK, B., LEE, Y. and MILLER, P. (2002), “Immigrants’ language skills: the Australian experience”, University of Western Australia, Discussion Paper No.° 02.07. CORNELIUS, W. and TSUDA, T. (2002), “Labor market incorporation of immigrants in Japan and in the United States: A comparative analysis”, CCIS Working paper No. 50. DUSTMANN, C. and SOEST, A. (1998), “Language and earnings of immigrants”, CEPR Discussion Paper No. 2012.

© OECD 2003

IIE (2001), Open Doors 2000-2001: Report on International E d u c a t i o n a l E x c h a n g e , N e w Yo r k , I n s t i t u t e o f International Education. ILO (1998), The Social Impact of the Asian Financial Crisis, Bangkok, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific of the International Labour Organization. KEE, P. and SKELDON, R. (1994), “The migration and settlement of Hong Kong Chinese in Australia”, in R. Skeldon (ed.), Reluctant Exiles? Migration from Hong Kong and the New Overseas Chinese, New York, M. E. Sharpe. KOUSSOUDJI, S. (1988), “English language ability and the labor market opportunities of Hispanic and East Asian immigrant men”, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 6, No. 2. LINDLEY, J. (2001), “The English language fluency and earnings of ethnic minorities in Britain”, Research Paper Series 2001/15 Leverhulme Centre University of Nottingham. LUO,Y-L. and WANG, W-J. (2002), “High-skill migration and Chinese Taipei’s industrial development”, in OECD, International Mobility of the Highly Skilled, Paris, OECD. MARTIN, P. (2002), “Economic trends and professional labour migration: US experience and implications for Asia” in OECD, Migration and the Labour Market in Asia: Recent Trends and Policies, Paris, OECD.

99


MAYER, J. and RIPHAHN, R. (1999), “Fertility assimilation of immigrants: evidence from count data models, IZA Discussion Papers 52. Mc MANUS, W. (1990), “Labor market effects of language enclaves: Hispanic men in the United States”, The Journal of Human Ressources, Vol. 25, No. 2. M I L L E R , P. a n d N E O , M . ( 1 9 9 7 ) , “ I m m i g r a n t s unemployment: the Australian experience”, University of Western Australia, Department of Economics, Discussion Paper No. 974. MINNS, C. (1999), “English language skills and the labour market performance among American immigrants in the 1910”, Miméo. NATIONS UNIES (2000), Migration de remplacement : est-ce une solution pour les populations en déclin et vieillissantes ? OECD (1998a), Maintaining Prosperity in an Ageing Society, Paris. OECD (1998b), Immigrants, Integration and Cities. Exploring the Links, Paris.

PPIC (2002), “How fertility changes across immigrant generation”, Research Brief No. 58. REIMERS, C. (1983), “Labor market discrimination against Hispanic and Black Men”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 65, No. 4. RUSSELL, S. (1992), “Migrant remittances and development”, International Migration, Vol. 30(3/4): 267-287. SHIELDS, M and PRICE, W. (1999), “The English language fluency and occupational success of ethnic minority immigrant men living in English metropolitan areas”, Journal of Population Economics, Vol. 15, No. 1. SHIELDS, M and PRICE, W.(2001), “Language fluency and immigrant employment prospects: evidence from Britain’s ethnic minorities”, Applied Economics Letters, N° 8. SKELDON, R. (1994), “ Hong Kong in an international migration system”, in R. Skeldon (ed.), Reluctant Exiles? Migration from Hong Kong and the New Overseas Chinese, New York, M. E. Sharpe.

OECD (2000 and 2001b), OECD Employment Outlook, Paris.

TODARO, M. P. (1969), “A model of labor migration and urban unemployment in less developed countries”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 59 (1).

OECD (2002), International Mobility of the Highly Skilled, Paris, OECD.

VISCO, I. (2001), “Ageing Populations: The Economic Issues and Policy Challenges”, OECD.

OECD (2002), Economic Outlook, No. 71, June, Paris, OECD.

YUKAWA, J. (1996), Migration from the Philippines, 1975-1995: An Annotated Bibliography, Quezon City, Scalabrini Migration Center.

OECD (2001a), OECD Economic Outlook, No. 69, Paris.

OECD (2002 and 2003), Migration and the Labour Market in Asia, Recent Trends and Policies, Paris. PEDERSEN, P. (1996), “The common Nordic Labour Market: an experiment in free mobility”, in The Nordic Labour Market in the 1990’s, Vol. I, Edit. E. Wadekjo, Elsevier.

ZHANG, G. and LI, W. (2002), “International mobility of China’s resources in science and technology and its impact”, in OECD, International Mobility of the Highly Skilled, Paris, OECD.

100

© OECD 2003


ANNEX, PART I Probability of foreigners aged 15 to 64 to be out of the labour force according to duration of residence and selected individual characteristics

Austria Standard deviation Chi2 Belgium Standard deviation Chi2 Denmark Standard deviation Chi2 Finland Standard deviation Chi2 France Standard deviation Chi2 Germany Standard deviation Chi2 Greece Standard deviation Chi2 Hungary Standard deviation Chi2 Ireland Standard deviation Chi2 Italy Standard deviation Chi2 Luxembourg Standard deviation Chi2 Netherlands Standard deviation Chi2 Norway Standard deviation Chi2 Portugal Standard deviation Chi2 Spain Standard deviation Chi2 Sweden Standard deviation Chi2 UK Standard deviation Chi2 Source:

Constant

Sex

Age

Education

European

Duration of residence

–0.181 0.079 5.2 0.533 0.099 29.0 0.143 0.210 0.5 0.650 0.228 8.1 0.392 0.071 30.9 –0.093 0.034 7.4 0.027 0.101 0.1 –0.242 0.231 1.1 0.406 0.087 21.7 0.210 0.109 3.7 0.160 0.093 3.0 0.487 0.087 31.7 0.382 0.160 5.7 –0.249 0.163 2.3 –0.591 0.090 42.9 0.825 0.176 22.0 0.883 0.086 105.1

–0.675 0.066 105.0 –0.733 0.072 102.6 –0.317 0.151 4.4 –0.818 0.159 26.5 –0.676 0.050 179.9 –0.680 0.028 599.3 –1.106 0.077 204.4 –0.489 0.170 8.3 –0.633 0.059 115.4 –1.125 0.088 162.9 –0.706 0.056 160.0 –0.657 0.068 92.2 –0.602 0.132 20.8 –0.653 0.129 25.4 –1.001 0.077 169.5 –0.123 0.100 1.5 –0.510 0.060 71.8

0.060 0.015 17.0 0.023 0.016 2.1 0.067 0.038 3.1 –0.027 0.031 0.8 0.023 0.011 4.5 0.062 0.006 102.4 –0.060 0.017 12.4 0.090 0.034 7.1 0.040 0.013 10.2 –0.033 0.020 2.9 0.028 0.012 5.0 0.099 0.016 37.8 –0.008 0.031 0.1 –0.073 0.027 7.5 0.054 0.016 10.7 –0.003 0.022 0.0 –0.050 0.014 13.4

–0.391 0.054 52.2 –0.303 0.045 44.8 –0.213 0.109 3.8 –0.332 0.110 9.2 –0.116 0.034 11.3 –0.179 0.020 81.5 –0.039 0.053 0.5 –0.358 0.123 8.4 –0.445 0.038 137.2 –0.279 0.064 18.9 –0.221 0.037 36.4 –0.401 0.046 75.7 –0.444 0.089 24.6 –0.053 0.105 0.2 –0.237 0.048 24.2 –0.328 0.066 24.8 –0.515 0.037 189.6

0.276 0.091 9.2 –0.546 0.078 49.0 –0.740 0.190 15.2 –0.371 0.208 3.2 –0.236 0.056 17.9 –0.268 0.032 71.8 0.469 0.140 11.2 0.011 0.251 0.0 –0.455 0.065 49.6 0.052 0.135 0.1 –0.348 0.076 20.9 –0.652 0.073 80.8 –0.485 0.134 13.1 0.481 0.157 9.4 0.315 0.087 13.1 –0.332 0.112 8.8 –0.179 0.064 7.8

–0.051 0.009 29.9 –0.003 0.008 0.1 –0.043 0.021 4.1 –0.061 0.022 7.5 –0.061 0.007 85.9 –0.037 0.004 113.6 –0.010 0.012 0.7 0.007 0.022 0.1 –0.017 0.008 5.3 0.005 0.012 0.2 –0.017 0.007 5.7 –0.047 0.009 25.7 –0.019 0.017 1.2 0.024 0.016 2.1 0.034 0.010 12.1 –0.099 0.018 29.4 –0.047 0.009 29.3

Data extracted from national labour force surveys, 2001. – Sex: 1 for men, 0 for women; – Education: 2 for tertiary level, 1 for secondary level, 0 otherwise; – Duration of residence: 1 if more than 10 years, 0 otherwise; – European: 1 if citizenship is European, 0 otherwise.

© OECD 2003

Likelihood –989.4 Likelihood –826.4 Likelihood –194.6 Likelihood –185.3 Likelihood –1 702.9 Likelihood –5 472.1 Likelihood –777.2 Likelihood –152.7 Likelihood –1 242.0 Likelihood –609.5 Likelihood –1 380.2 Likelihood –954.6 Likelihood –259.5 Likelihood –259.2 Likelihood –769.3 Likelihood –431.6 Likelihood –1 188.8

101

Part II

LABOUR SHORTAGES AND THE NEED FOR IMMIGRANTS: A REVIEW OF RECENT STUDIES1

Introduction Economic, demographic and political developments, combined with the mounting concern about the future of labour supply have renewed the attention of policy-makers on labour migration issues. A good economic climate and years of economic growth in some OECD countries have led to increasing employment, higher participation rates and lower unemployment rates. Employers started to experience difficulties in filling vacant posts, concerns about the availability of labour on domestic markets arose and the first calls for immigrant labour echoed. The increasing diversity of migrant’s nationalities and of the migration channels used, as well as the growing proportion of movements of temporary and skilled workers in total migration flows reflect the influence of increasing internationalisation on international migration. Migration has not, however, accelerated at a pace comparable to trade flows and capital movements (Tapinos and Delaunay, 2000). Demographic developments in OECD countries imply an ageing workforce and ultimately result in a declining population of working age. The possibility that these developments also result in labour shortages at the macro-level has added an extra dimension to discussions on the need for immigrants. In the medium term, as early as 2015 for some countries, the increasing number of retiring baby-boomers will in some occupations lead to a replacement labour demand that may be hard to fill from domestic labour supplies. Some countries with low labour force participation rates may be able to use their large labour reserves. Policy makers have various instruments available to react to potential labour shortages. Increas© OECD 2003

ing participation rates, postponing retirement ages, stimulating the labour market participation of women and immigrants are among those instruments, as is facilitating selective employmentrelated immigration policies. Whilst each of these instruments may contribute, no single instrument in itself can promise the complete solution. However, faced with the urgent need to meet a growing demand for workers with specific skills in certain sectors, some countries have already started to facilitate labour market access for skilled immigrant workers. Some countries have considered recruitment of immigrants on the basis of their human capital, i.e., through selective immigration, to compensate for an ageing workforce. Hence, the policy re le vance of considerin g the comple te set of options as well as the advantages and limits of selective labour immigration. The aim of this chapter is first to show how a number of OECD member countries estimate the current and forecast labour shortages (A). The role of migration in alleviating future labour market needs will be then presented (B). Section C will review sector specific and micro-level studies making the link between labour shortages and the need for selective employment-related immigration policies. A.

MEASURING CURRENT LABOUR SHORTAGES

Labour shortages are not easy to measure. At the macroeconomic level, reference is made to falling unemployment rates and increasing employment, sometimes coupled with accelerating real earnings to indicate growing labour market tightness. However, labour market tightness is better measured by comparing actual unemployment rates

103


with structural rates of unemployment; frictional and structural labour market rigidities can be a cause of persisting unemployment combined with wage inflation. Because structural rates of unemployment are not readily available, unemployment rates are sometimes given in relation to the vacancy rates for a specific occupation (defined as ratio of the number of vacancies and the number of employed in that occupation). Zimmerman et al. (2002) have calculated Beveridge curves for 1980-95 for 40 occupational groups in Germany.2 They have found indications of shortages in the early 1990s for engineers, stone masons and technicians, persisting until 1995 for health-related occupations. In France, the occupational job-seekers ratio, defined as the ratio of the number of job-seekers in a specific occupation to the total of job-seekers and employed workers in that occupation, provides a disaggregated illustration of the tightness in the labour market. It indicates increasing tightness in the labour market in construction and mechanical industries (DARES, 2001a and 2001b).3 1.

Trends in national statistics on the number of registered vacancies by sector of employment and occupational category

Increases in the number of vacancies in and outside the high-tech sectors 4 in non-European OECD countries give similar indications of strongly increasing numbers of unfilled job vacancies, concentrated in a small number of not necessarily highly-skilled occupations. For example, the Australian vacancy bank Job Search listed as the top four most wanted occupational groups among the total of 40 500 job vacancies in mid December 2001: Labourers, Factory and Machine Workers (9 000); Food, Hospitality and Tourism (5 600); Sales Assistants and Storepersons (4 200); and Gardening, Farming and Fishing (3 700) (DEWR, 2002).

104

Another possible measure of labour market shortages is found in employers’ reports where th e y e xpr ess th e ir con ce rn a bou t th e co n se quences of developing shortages of qualified workers in certain occupations. The surveys confirm the picture that vacancy data give: shortages appear to be concentrated in specific sectors but these sectors are not the same across countries. The results also show that employers experience shortages mainly at higher skill levels, but not exclusively (see Annex II.1).

2.

Causes of labour shortages

Labour shortages have a variety of causes. They may occur because of a lack of geographical mobility on the part of the workers. They may be the result of a mismatch between qualifications. For example, there is evidence of a mismatch between the low qualifications of the numerous unemployed and in a cti ve wo rk e rs a nd t h e h ig h qu a lifi cat io n s needed in Germany’s technology intensive industry (Winkelman, 2001; Munz and Ochel, 2001; Süssmuth, 2001). Zimmermann et al. (2001) find evidence of mismatch-unemployment in shifting Beveridge curves for welders, technicians, electricians, occupations in the food industry and construction workers, carpenters and painters. In other cases, the occupation’s image is not good enough, at the going wage rate, to attract a sufficient number of workers, even if supply is abundant. Klaver and Visser (1999) find this effect for different sectors in the Dutch economy. Among the other important factors explaining labour shortages are demographic factors, rapid technological progress and the resulting change in employment structure towards highly skilled labour cyclical variations in demand, production and the derived labour demand, rigid wage structures and collective agreements (Munz and Ochel, 2001; Australian Productivity Commission, 2000). The Netherlands, for example, argue that labour shortages would develop less if the number of separations were reduced5 (Tweede Kamer, 2001b). The Belgian Federal Planning Bureau (FPB) finds in the absence of a positive wage drift and inflation the indication that general labour shortages are neither an issue now nor in the medium term. However, demographic developments may change the situation for the longer term (FBP, 2001). Austria considers labour shortages as a consequence of mismatches in the labour market, but takes the demographic developments into account when predicting the medium term consequences (Biffl and Walterskirchen, 2001). The various explanations of the existence of current labour shortages and the potential effects of demographic trends result in a number of different definitions of labour shortages. To sum up, the different causes of labour shortages identified from the studies discussed in this chapter can be summarised as follows: • Continuing technological change may lead to a structural shortage of workers in possession of the needed skills: workers neither had the © OECD 2003

Labour Shortages and the Need for Immigrants: A Review of Recent Studies

time nor the opportunity to invest in these skills. • Slow adjustments in the labour market may cause shortages. It takes time for employers to recognise labour shortages and to react to them, for example by offering higher wages. It also takes time for workers to recognise better opportunities elsewhere and to react to them. Employers may be reluctant to raise wages or are tied to collective agreements or inflexible remuneration structures. • Mismatch: wrong education investment decisions resulting in too few engineers, scientists and doctors, for example. • Insufficient regional labour mobility. • Institutional or demographic causes: a high number of people in retirement or invalidity pensions, low female participation rates. There is no universally applied definition of labour shortages. In part this reflects the fact that they are not easy to measure. Macroeconomic data do not reveal that tightness can be severe for some occupations whilst absent in others. Employer reports and surveys confirm that shortages occur in specific occupations and at different skill levels. However, employers report on recruitment difficulties but not on labour shortages per se. The studies discussed in this chapter define labour shortages in different ways to explain their possible different causes and forecast their potential development. 3.

Labour reserves exist but it would be difficult to mobilise them rapidly

The arguments in favour of attracting immigrant workers to solve labour shortages rest partly on the assumption that the resident labour supply is insufficient, or of inferior quality, to meet labour demand. But if the number of resident unemployed and inactive people can largely fill labour demand in quantitative terms, then why not proceed that way? The answer to this adds considerably to the sensitivity of the issue of labour migration. Some governments hold the view that the unused resident labour supply is sufficient to solve the present and future labour shortages – for example, Finland and the Netherlands – and do not envisage any changes to the existing restrictions on labour immigration rules. At the same time, both these countries, like many others, facilitate the immigration of highly skilled workers for occupations where the national labour market cannot supply sufficient labour. © OECD 2003

The need for immigrant labour depends in large part on a country’s initial situation. Countries with low unemployment rates and high activity rates, like Norway, might exhaust earlier opportunities to retrain unemployed workers and inactive people than countries with a more abundant stock of people not in work. Two factors play a determining role: the size of the potential labour force and the obstacles to labour-market integration that certain groups face. The resident potential labour supply consists of unemployed people, people available but not participating in the labour market and people not available and not participating. There also is potential labour supply among people who are employed involuntarily in a part-time job. The group of unemployed people can be further divided into recently unemployed people and people who have been unemployed for a longer period of time. The former could be referred to as frictional unemployment, which is caused by a number of people in the process of changing jobs. The second group of people, the nonparticipants, is a much more heterogeneous group than that of the unemployed. Other than the unemployed, not all non-participants are available for work – they may be facing serious obstacles. A considerable part of this group consists of people whose health does not allow them to work. Another part is formed by people who are otherwise not available for work either because care-giving tasks occupy their time or simply because they do not wish to work. The unavailability for work may be temporary, as for students and others temporarily or partly inactive because of education or professional training.6 But there are also a number of people who are in principle available for work although they are not actively looking for work.7 The size of the unused labour supply varies enormously, ranging in 2000 from 18 to 22% in Switzerland and Sweden to 40% in Italy (OECD, 2001e). Some research argues that for countries like the Netherlands (Tweede Kamer, 2001a and 2001b) and Belgium (Feld, 2002) latent labour supplies are such that general labour shortages are not likely to develop. The OECD has recently started to investigate the potential labour supply.8 Based on the observation that on average for the OECD slightly more than 55% of the working age population in 1999 was in full-time employment, the OECD report aims to

105


indicate the potential for full-time employment among people in part-time employment, unemployment and inactivity. The remainder, 45%, is either (partly) unemployed or (partly) inactive and, in theory, represents the latent labour supply. Unemployed people accounted for 5% and the biggest chunk, more than 27% of the entire population of working age, was not in the labour force for various reasons.

rates on the one hand are very low – well below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman – and falling. On the other hand, people’s life expectancy at birth continues increasing, which goes together with improving prospects of a healthy old age. The combination of low fertility and increasing longevity means that population growth rates are slowing down and that there is an increasing proportion of elderly in the total population.

Labour Force Survey questions on the reasons for not looking for work are subject to a certain amount of interpretation. For example, respondents referring to family responsibilities may mean that they are unable to free themselves of these responsibilities because of non-availability of child-care or because they do not wish to work under current conditions. The availability of child-care could be the object of a policy initiative whereas changes in the individual’s personal situation or in labour market or policy inducements to participate could change his/ her preference to work. In this regard, the answers to the questions on the desire to work would help distinguish “real” impediments from what could be termed “competing activities” (OECD, 2002d). However, respondents who indicate no desire to work may well change opinion, for example students in their final year.

The prospect of rising shares of the elderly in the population and falling shares of the population of employment age to support pension and health systems has been an issue of previous OECD work (OECD, 1998a and 1998b). Population ageing will have far-reaching effects, some of which are of particular importance for the discussion of the role of migration policies:

A considerable portion of the working age population is not actively engaged in any form of employment or study. This is referred to as the resident latent labour force. To the extent that governments succeed in mobilising this unused potential, current labour shortages can be alleviated, reducing the need for immigrant labour. The analysis shows that the most important potential is among middleaged inactive women, most of whom have less than intermediary qualifications. Another important target group is youth, a state of things caused by a mismatch between education out-turn and labour demand. Further work is needed to obtain timely quality labour force data for the OECD countries. More analysis is also needed to establish the type of education and recent experience of the latent supply.

106

B.

THE ROLE OF MIGRATION IN ADDRESSING FUTURE LABOUR MARKET NEEDS

1.

Demographic challenges

Two phenomena mark current demographic trends in most industrialised countries. Fertility

• Demographic developments will change labour supply. The labour force changes in composition as the share of older workers grows, and it may dwindle if people continue retiring early. The number of new entrants into the labour market may be insufficient to replace retiring workers. • The ageing of the workforce may adversely affect macroeconomic performance if future labour supply is inadequate to meet the qualitative and quantitative need for workers to sustain economic expansion or preserve present welfare levels. • The growing number of people relying on retirement benefits will shift the balance between working people (contributors) and inactive people (beneficiaries) to an extent that may put the finance of social security systems at risk. The role of migration in addressing these challenges, in particular the third issue of financing social security, was the subject of a recent UN report (UN, 2000). The report concluded that keeping old age dependency ratios at current levels through migration alone seems out of reach because of the extraordinarily large numbers of migrants that would be required. The study presented different scenarios with regards to international migration streams needed to achieve specific population objectives: to maintain the size of the population and of the working population or to maintain the old age dependency ratio at a constant level. The study estimated that to keep the old age dependency ratio constant at the highest level it would reach in © OECD 2003


the absence of migration after 1995, “for the EU alone a total number of 674 million migrants over the 2000 to 2050 period, or 13 million per year” would be needed. In comparison, the 1998 revision Population Prospects (medium variant) on the basis of current flows estimated the total over the entire period at 13.5 million or a yearly average of 270 thousand (UN, 2001). Despite its extraordinarily high estimates the UN report has attracted a lot of media attention and certainly has helped to put the discussion of labour migration issues back high on the political agenda. Increased immigration has the advantage of having an immediate effect on the age and composition of the population because of the younger age structure of net migration. In addition, fertility rates of immigrant women are often relatively high, which can boost fertility and hence long-term population growth. However, the role of migration policies in addressing these challenges can only be complementary to other policies and is subject to a number of practical and political constraints (OECD, 1991). Tapinos, for example, noted with reference to the UN report that further analysis of the practical and political issues involved in the implementation of an effective demographic and labour market oriented policy is needed. This would enable OECD member countries to have a clearer picture of the extent to which international migration can contribute to positive outcomes (Tapinos, 2000). He quoted different reasons why immigration cannot be a sole solution to population ageing: • Most OECD countries share the same demographic pattern and the bulk of immigration would have to come from outside the OECD area. • Migration cannot be treated as a control variable because there are too many factors that limit the ability to control and select migration flows. In addition, migration policies have limited effects on return migration. • Because the means available to monitor the trend of net migration differ across countries, it is unclear whether migration policy targets are actually attained. • Finally, immigrants have a better chance of integrating in a society that experiences a natural increase, which reduces the value of immigration as a substitute for declining fertility rates. © OECD 2003

Two important observations moderate the extreme hypothesis of the UN report. First, the choice of time horizon is essential to the evaluation of the demographic effects of migration and, more relevant to the present context, of the effects of demographic developments on the labour market. The second observation is that the UN uses its projections of the old age dependency ratios on the assumption that labour force participation and retirement ages do not change. The development of the size of the labour force is under those assumptions proportional to the size of the working age population as shown in Chart II.1. Chart II.1A shows that Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Canada, and the United States are exempted from the trend of declining working age populations. In many other countries, the working age population will decline rapidly and will fall well below its present levels by 2030. Chart II.1B shows a number of OECD countries with decreasing working age populations. The countries are grouped by the size of their populations. The working-age population will decrease, according to UN projections, slowest in France (–8% by 2050) and fastest in Italy (–42% by 2050). In the Nethe rlands, the working-age populatio n will decrease by 14% by 2050, in Austria by 36%. The decline of the working age population appears to be relatively moderate in Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Norway and France, but rapid in most other countries. In this context, Tapinos notes that the old age dependency ratio is a demographic ratio that compares age groups and should more realistically be replaced by the ratio of retired persons to employed persons (Tapinos, 2000). Depending mainly on female participation, average retirement ages and on employment rates, there may be a significant difference between the two ratios. The following discussion shows how some countries take account of expected changes in labour force participation rates and retirement ages in the forecasting of labour force developments. Migration and sustaining the labour force9 Ba se d o n t h e U N P op ul at io n P ro j ect io n s of 1999, the Council of Europe has analysed the effects of demographic changes in the working age population on employment and unemployment (Council of Europe, 2000). The study addresses the question of how and to what extent labour migration may be affected by labour shortages, thereby taking into account the possibility that activity rates change

107


Chart II.1.

Projections of the working age population (15-64) in selected OECD countries A.

Countries with working age populations increasing by 2050 2000 = 100

New Zealand

Ireland

Australia

United States

Canada

130

130

125

125

120

120

115

115

110

110

105

105 100

100 2000

2030

B.

2050

Countries with working age populations decreasing by 2050 Thousands

2000

2030

2050

100 000

100 000

80 000

80 000

60 000

60 000

40 000

40 000

20 000

20 000

0

0 Germany

Japan

Italy

United Kingdom

France

Spain

Poland

12 000

12 000

10 000

10 000

8 000

8 000

6 000

6 000

4 000

4 000

2 000

2 000 0

0 Netherlands

108

Portugal

Belgium

Sweden

Austria

Switzerland

Denmark

Finland

Norway

Source: United Nations, 2001.

© OECD 2003


over time and across countries. It does not, however, take account of the effects of possibly changing actual retirement ages. Up to 2010, the size of the labour force is projected to increase in all countries. Projections are given up to 2020 for France, Poland, the Netherlands and Austria; a declining labour force can be seen in Austria, France and Poland. Chagny et al. (2001) forecast the development of the European labour force, taking into account the effects of migration and changing participation rates. Allowing for an annual immigration that rises from 7 00 0 00 pers ons in the 19 95 -2 00 0 period t o 900 000 persons by 2020, the authors expect the European labour force to decline rapidly after 2015. Taking the analysis of the interactions between demographic trends and the labour force one step further, Feld (2001) looks at 15 EU countries for the period of one generation (25 years) ahead. The author specifically addresses the question whether population ageing will lead to labour shortages and, if so, whether large-scale immigration will be necessary. Bringing together information from different countries using a common methodology, Feld calculates when the labour force in the EU countries will fall back to its 2000-level. He distinguishes between demographic effects (fertility, life expectancy and migration) and behavioural effects (participation rates, retirement age, size of the school-going population). According to Feld’s estimate, behavioural effects can compensate for demographic effects in Denmark, France, the Netherlands and the United

Box II.1.

Kingdom, but not in the other countries. This could imply a need for more migration, except in the cases of Ireland and Portugal, where the demographic effects are positive. Feld concludes, however, that the evaluation of the role of migration in attenuating the expected declines of the labour force has a number of methodological and political problems. Forecasts of labour force developments assume that migratory flows in respect of age composition and participation rates are identical to the host country population and neglect the fact that net migratory flows involve inflows and outflows that may vary hugely in composition and magnitude (see also Box II.1). Another issue is that situations of neighbouring countries may vary considerably; labour shortages in some countries may occur 10 or even 20 years before they emerge in other countries. For Scandinavian countries, the Nordic Council of Labour Ministers recommends a number of actions to deal with the expected decline of the labour force. First and foremost, they intend to mobilise the latent labour supply among four target groups: the ageing population; inactive and unemployed youth; inactive adults and inactive and unemployed foreign-born residents. They do not, however, give quantitative estimates of the potential impact of any of these measures but compare best practices among Nordic countries. One of its conclusions confirms the findings for the EU quoted above (increased migration might contribute to

Gains and losses in high skilled labour through migration

Migration involves inflows and outflows that may vary hugely in composition and magnitude. Some countries have recently drawn up the balance of skill gains involved in immigration and skill losses involved in emigration. As a result of the international movement of skilled workers to and from Australia over the five-year period 1995-1996 to 1999-2000, Australia registered a net “brain gain”. There was a net loss of skilled residents but this loss was more than offset for almost every occupation by gains from permanent and temporary immigration. The lack of quality data leaves open the possibility that Australia is losing high quality residents and replacing them with lower quality settlers and visitors, albeit in greater numbers (Birrell et al., 2001). Canada suffered a net loss of skilled workers to the United States in several economically important occupations during the 1990s, although the numbers involved have remained small in an historical sense and small relative to the supply of workers in these occupations. (See also Bordt in OECD, 2002b.) However, whilst losses of highly skilled workers to the United States accelerated during the 1990s, so too did the influx of highly skilled workers into Canada from the rest of the world. The balance is neutral: the number of master’s and doctoral graduates entering Canada from the rest of the world is equal to the number of university graduates at all levels leaving Canada for the United States (Zhao et al., 2002). 109

© OECD 2003


shifting the trend of an ageing workforce). Restricting the immigration of people with low qualifications to prevent integration difficulties is among the policy options; the Nordic Council of Labour Ministers cautions that in this case integration policies need further attention (Nordic Council, 2000). At the level of individual European countries, studies of demographic impacts on the labour market often confirm the expected trends summarised in the preceding paragraphs. Some of them illustrate the role migration could play in combination with other policies. • For France, Blanchet (2001) finds contradictory evidence in a literature review of demographic impacts on trends in wages, employment and unemployment. Domingues Dos Santos (2000) looks into the budgetary effects. She argues that to maintain the financial sustainability of the social security system (i.e. pension system) with the given unemployment rate, either the retirement age should be raised by 11 years, benefit levels reduced by 14% or contribution rates increased by 4.5%. Whilst both papers discuss the demographic impacts on the labour market, they do not refer to migration as a policy alternative. • The German Institute for Employment Rese ar ch (IAB) e stimat es th e po te nt ial domestic labour supply from 1996 to 2048 under different assumptions about female participation rates and higher immigration (Fuchs and Thon, 1999; IAB, 1999). IAB argues that German labour supply will decline, whatever policy is chosen. However, high immigration does postpone the year when labour supply will start to decline, especially in combination with an increase in labour participatio n rates. For example, in the scenario whereby female participation rates catch up with male participation rates and net immigration is zero, the labour force would start to decline by 2000. If in a similar situation, 500 000 immigrants per year as of 2000 are admitte d, th e o nset o f the labo ur fo rce decline could be postponed by 20 years to 2020.

110

• The Netherlands Bureau for economic policy analysis (CPB) established on the contrary that ageing will have fairly modest economic consequences in the Netherlands, because

the demographic change is limited compared to other EU countries and because it has a large second pillar of privately funded occupational pension schemes (Van Ewijk et al., 2000). However, the study makes some assumptions about participation rate, life expectancy, productivity growth and world interest rates (which might not hold), and fiscal policies alone may not be enough to achieve budget neutrality. The CPB assumes that the bulk of immigrants will come from Third World countries and argues that because their current participation rates are much lower than for natives, they are much more likely to be benefit dependent and add to the stock of inactive persons living off public money. The Australian Treasury directly links the growth of working-age population to economic growth, thus implying positive effects of net immigration (Australian Treasury, 2000). Withers (1999) demonstrates that a proper estimation of migration rates should include dependency ratios and related budget costs. This can result in an argument in favour of much higher immigration; it would have the effect of halving the public cost of an ageing population. However, McDonald and Kippen (2001) argue that the budgetary effects of higher migration are not clear because the immigrant population also ages. In their estimates, net immigration of about 80 000 persons a year makes a reasonable contribution to the reduction of the ageing of the population. Higher numbers are less effective, mainly because the immigrant population also ages. By comparison, Australia’s net immigration has ranged between 80 000 and 107 000 between 1995 and 1999 (OECD, 2001d). For the United States, the Centre for Retirement Research finds that men and women between 25 and 54 years old account for 71.7% of the labour force in 1998 but expects that their share will fall to 68.1% as early as 2006 (Hammermesh, 2001). As the oldest baby boomers will begin to retire, the implication s for t he workfo rce cou ld be en ormo us (Gottschalk, 2001). The current tight labour market situation could be exacerbated, hindering prospects of economic growth and putting a greater burden on those remaining in the workforce, perhaps forcing them to work longer hours. After 2008, as more and more baby boomers reach retirement age, the impact of their retirements will continue growing (Dohm, 2000). © OECD 2003


2.

Special studies on the economic need for migration

The developments raised in this chapter, combined with the mounting concern about the future of labour supply have triggered a number of special studies of the economic effects of international migration and the need for foreign labour. The motivation for each of the studies is to provide a basis upon which policy-makers can decide on the need to review migration practices and policies and on the manner in which eventually such revisions could be made. It appears that employer reports of a shortfall of qualified labour supply and studies on the demographic impacts on the labour force and labour market have not been sufficient. Germany Th e G e rma n co mmissio n o n imm igra tio n (Süssmuth Commission) has undertaken a study of the role of migration in the economy, now and in future (Süssmuth, 2001). Among its main findings are: • Large pools of unused labour reserves consisting of unemployed and inactive people co-exist with increasing labour demand. Lack of qualifications is the main reason for the unemployment of around 4 million people. However, the report does not give a clear answer as to the extent to which the present labour demand can be met through activating and upgrading the skills of the unemployed. • Immigration can contribute to maintaining present economic welfare levels conditional on the good integration of migrants. Better qualified and younger migrants have more im me diat e a nd mo r e size a ble po sit iv e effects. • If Germany maintains a net immigration at 200 000 yearly – the average level for the past 20 years – the decline of the German population will be limited to 12 million people. Without immigration, it will shrink by 23 million people by 2020 compared to 1999/2000.10 The share of older people in the population (relative ageing) will increase whatever the migration scenario, because migrants age as well. • Immigration has significant effects on wageflexibility and investment in education. Therefore immigration intake should start at modest levels to give the market time to © OECD 2003

adjust to immigrant labou r. If migration started with 100 000 yearly, implying a cut in migration compared to the actual situation,11 increasing to 150 000 a year by 2020 and then further to 300 000 a year the active labour force would decline least and economic growth would be maximised. The activities of the Süssmuth Commission have led to an entirely new and coherent immigration law that should come into force on the 1st of January 2003. This law establishes clearly the rights of foreigners to remain and work in Germany and simplifies the existing law. As to labour migration, the law distinguishes high-skilled from low-skilled workers. Only the highly-skilled are eligible for a permanent permit. However, where shortages exist, the decision to resort to temporary immigrants can be made at a regional level. The law refers to a points-system, yet to be developed, as an additional instrument to attract immigrants. Such a system would be subject to separate approval by the German Länder. The United Kingdom The Home Office, in charge of immigration and integration, has published a study aiming to contribute to: “a sound understanding of the impact of existing policies affecting migration and migrants, and a framework for assessing the costs and benefits of potential alternatives” (Glover et al., 2001). The study looks at migration “in the round”; proceeding with a discussion of the Government’s higher level objectives and examining the social and economic outcomes that current policy delivers. The study embraces the idea that migration enables industries to expand. Using the information technology (IT) industry as an example: “so if migration of workers in particular sectors is restricted […] then it will not be primarily the case that supply of, and wages of native British IT workers will increase. The IT industry will simply shrink relative to what would have happened with a less restrictive policy.” The estimate is that a 1% population growth through migration could be associated with a 1.25 to 1.5% increase in GDP for European countries. Like the German report, the Home Office study is an ad-hoc report that focuses not only on the need for foreign labour and migration policy but analyses the past and present effects of migration as well. Both studies result in a number of policy recommendations. But whereas the German study is

111


very detailed and extensive, and definitive in that it has led to a proposal for a new immigration law, the UK study serves as a basis for further work. It does not address any of the issues related to the demographic impact on labour supply nor a humanitarian immigration and family reunion, which the German report covers, and hardly touches on the need for good integration policies. However, the study also fits into a broader government-commissioned framework making use of existing infrastructure to improve the documentation on current and future labour market bottlenecks, analysing why companies ask for workers with new skills and – ultimately – assessing labour demand and skill needs (DFES, 2001c; Haskel and Holt, 1999). Austria A particularly sizeable study by the Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO), co-funded by the European Social Fund (ESF), the Ministry of Economics and Labour (BMWA) and the Ministry of the Interior (BMI) covers demographic challenges, the educational attainment of foreign-born residents, foreigners’ labour market integration, crowding-out effects on the labour market, family reunion, social costs and macroeconomic aspects of immigration. Among the main conclusions are (WIFO, 2001): • Net immigration can contribute to sustained economic growth and to solving problems related to the sustainability of the social security system, next to a better use of the resident labour potential. However, current migration policies are not adequate to deliver these contributions because family reunion and humanitarian immigration play a dominant role, while labour immigration is marginal.

112

• Increasing participation rates of the sizeable foreign-born resident population will only have limited success because their qualification structure is too much concentrated on skills that are in low demand. The integration of immigrants’ children could be accelerated by le ga lisin g accompa nyin g families as quickly as possible, thereby helping them in establishing an education career and helping Austrians in building a higher skilled labour force. However, the Austrian education system is as yet not set up to train the relatively small cohorts of the future labour force for tho se qualificatio ns that are in growin g demand.

• Austria has become a net-immigration country without developing the instruments for an immigration policy. The basics for a targeted immigration policy do not exist yet. Inconsistent data about the foreign population do not give sufficient insight into the resident labour supply. Acknowledging the potential contribution that a qualifications-oriented migration policy can make to solve many economic and social problems may ease the introduction of such policies. Norway Against the background of tight labour markets in 1997 and 1998, the Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, which has the responsibility for immigration and integration, commissioned a pan-departmental task force with a study of labour market needs and recruitment possibilities from abroad (Kommunal-og Regionaldepartementet, 1999). The task force proceeded in two steps. First, it identified 11 strands to immigration policy; second, it made recommendations as to the feasibility of each of these strands. Their final report gives very little attention to the evaluation of current labour shortages, other than stating that shortages can be observed but cannot be forecast. Depending on the world-economy, however, and given the near-full utilisation of Norwegian domestic labour supply, present shortages are likely to persist, although they may well shift from one sector to another. Demographic developments will inevitably lead to growing labour market tightness. The main text appears to take the need for foreign labour for granted, although the magnitude may vary according to the scenario. The report stresses the fact that labour immigration inevitably involves the immigration of people with differing needs for housing, public services, etc. Some options or decisions may cause a conflict with the leading principle in Norwegian politics that all citizens should have equal opportunities, rights and obligations. What to do, for instance, with temporary residents? The task force recommends facilitating the entry of high-qualified specialists and seasonal workers. This needs relatively few adjustments to immigration law and may offer a flexible framework in reaction to the ever-changing labour demands. It will have many positive and few negative side effects. © OECD 2003


mends selective and temporary labour migration (WRR, 2001a).

The Netherlands The major government institutions in th e Netherlands have produced a vast body of research covering microeconomic effects of immigration, the demographic challenges as discussed above, issues of social and labour market integration and case studies of immigration experiences in neighbouring countries and in the United States. • The Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB) for the first time since 1972 has estimated the labour market effects of migration for the Netherlands (Roodenburg and Van den Boom, 2000). They find that the international evidence need not necessarily hold in Holland among other things because oldage pensions are largely capital funded and more or fewer migrants will hardly effect its affordability. However, they also argue that the social security system is relatively generous compared with that of the United States (where most evidence is based) and costs/ benefit ratio may well be negative. They observe that the high population density in the Netherlands may cause much more serious congestion effects than elsewhere. • The Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR), considering that the Netherlands has developed into an immigration country, h as initiate d a n ew stu dy on th e MultiCultural Society (WRR, 2001a). In the context of the study, the WRR has asked several researchers to compile the information necessary to form a solid empirical foundation for policy advice. The issues covered mostly deal with the integration of foreigners into society, ranging from the institutions of Islam in the Netherlands and the demographic profile of f o r e i g n bo r n c it iz e n s t o t h e e f fe c t s o f advanced economic integration and migration policies in other EU countries. In its final and concluding report on the study, the WRR recommends that policy should facilitate immigrants’ integration, but at the same time oblige immigrants to fully participate socially and economically in all segments of society. As to labour migration, the WRR recommends that the government should consider international labour migration as a form of international labour participatio n and simplify bureaucratic procedures. It explicitly recom© OECD 2003

• The Social and Economic Council (SER), commissioned by the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment, has looked into possibilities for improvement of the low intra-EU labour migration and to analyse the potential benefits for the Dutch labour market, in particular in alleviating current labour shortages (SER, 2001). The study identifies obstacles in legislation that should enable EU-citizens to reside and work in an EU-country of their choice. But more importantly, the SER has found that the access to certain professions is limited for citizens from other EU-countries. Examples are jobs where certain certificates are required that may not be obtainable in other EU countries, the incapacity of employers to judge the value of foreign degrees and certain government-jobs that are closed to foreigners. The SER also makes recommendations to better enable job-seekers to orientate themselves in other EU job-markets. C.

STUDIES ON LABOUR SHORTAGES AT MICRO-LEVEL AND THE NEED FOR IMMIGRANT WORKERS

Macroeconomic studies may establish the positive overall effects of migration, the consequences of ageing and the effect of raising participation rates and lowering retirement ages on labour supply; they cannot explain on what migrant-characteristics selective immigration policies could be formulated. Nor can they explain how many immigrants could and should be recruited to meet labour market n e e ds a n d fo r h o w l o n g th e s e n e e ds ca n be expected to last. These questions are important against the background of the general tendency, particularly in European and Scandinavian countries, to call for restrictions on migration. Studies by sector or occupation exist in many countries but only some of them relate the development of labour demand to labour supply. These studies often give an indication of labour market prospects for an occupation or a specific kind of education related to that occupation. More recently, kinds of education with good job prospects have been related to labour market tightness. The very limited number of studies that establish a direct link between emerging labour shortages and the need for immigrant labour will be discussed below.

113


1.

Sector-level studies on the need for immigrant workers

The overview in Annex II.1 of employer association’s reports and surveys among employers suggested that employers have a pretty good picture of the recruitment difficulties that they can expect in the near future. Economic studies on labour shortages, on the other hand, indicate that precise quantitative estimates may not be that straightforward to give. • The Centre for International Economics (CIE), commissioned by Australia’s association information and communication technology (ICT) employers, estimates that Australia will experience shortage of ICT-professionals. The shortfall of ICT professionals with a university degree is in this study estimated quite precisely at 27 500 persons for the period 2000-2005, over and above the number of graduates and migrants that are already expected to join the industry during that period. Among the reasons for the shortage the CIE mentions a too restrictive immigration policy and emigration to the United States (CIE, 2001).

114

• The Technology Administration of the United States Department of Commerce has for a number of years drawn attention to the looming shortage of information technology (IT) workers (USDOC, 1997a and 1997b, 1999b). The Technology Administration has weighed the views of employers, who believe that there is not enough trained labour supply, and employees, who believe that labour supply is sufficient both in quality and in quantity, but that industry does not do enough to mobilise existing labour pools. A recent report describes trends in sector-level labour supply and demand and discusses signals of labour market tightness. It anticipates a need for more than 2 million new IT workers in the 2000-2008 period, of whom 15% are to replace retiring and departing workers and 85% to support new job creation. Of these jobs, more than three fourths require at least a bachelor’s degree. The report gives signals of developing labour market tightness and implies important shortages at higher skill levels. It discusses developing the latent labour supply of women and older workers, improving the IT-sector’s image and interesting

more youth in IT-oriented studies, but does not give estimates of the extent to which these shortages could be covered by the domestic labour force. The report apparently believes that this is sufficient to cover labour needs because recruiting professionals from abroad is not among the policy recommendations to meet the future IT labour-market challenges (USDOC, 1999a and 2000). • In 1999, the German Ministry for Labour and Social Affairs gave an estimate of 75 000 unfilled job vacancies in the ICT sector and a growth potential for 250 000 jobs in the 1999-2008 period. It drew consequences for migration policies from this observation and gave the starting sign for a programme to strengthen the supply of ICT specialists. The best-known element of this programme is the “Green-Card” initiative to ease the entry of ICT-specialists from outside the European Economic Area (EEA). After 11 months, only 8 000 Greencard visas had been gr an te d, in st ea d of t h e planned 20 000 (BMA, 2001). The main drawback of the initiative is seen to be the temporary nature of the visas, which are limited to five years. However, the initiative did yield some benefits. First and foremost, it intensified the discussion on the topic of immigration and has contributed to the coming-into-being of the Independent Commission on “Immigration” (Werner, 2001). Also, being part of a bigger programme, it proved successful in raising training places and educational slots at schools, universities and within companies. It is also worth noting that those companies who did employ foreign IT workers with a Green Card showed some important positive spin-offs of immigration. In particular (BMA, 2001): – For each Green Card holder, 2.5 complementary posts have been created; – More than four out of five companies report having obtained a higher competitive standard through employing the Green Card holder, and nearly half say they have eliminated capacity problems; – Nearly one-fifth of all participating companies have renounced plans to relocate a part of their business abroad. © OECD 2003


2.

Studies on labour shortages by occupation

A great number of studies project employment growth either two, five or ten years ahead but give no indication of labour shortages. They do not analyse the development of labour supply and are not linked to immigration policy questions. In general, occupational demand projections estimate future replacement and expansion demand: • Labour demand as a result from the need to replace workers who leave a specific job, switch occupations or leave the labour market altogether is a function of the number of people taking retirement, the average age of (early) retirement, mortality and invalidity. But temporary separations, for example people taking sabbatical leave, functional mobility and emigration, also play a role. If employment growth is low or nil, labour demand will mostly consist of replacement demand.12 • The demand for labour to support business expansion is a function of economic developments, the phase in the economic cycle, economic policy, technological progress and globalisation, among other factors but these factors need not influence the demand in different occupations across the labour market to the same extent. Economic growth in the last decade has stimulated labour demand in some sectors more than in other, i.e., ICT and construction. The changing structure of economic growth, in favour of the tertiary sector, or the above-average growth of specific occupations, add an extra dimension and difficulty to the forecasting of labour demand.13 Studies of labour demand by occupation can predict where employment growth will be the fastest. Annex II.2 gives an overview of projections of occupation-level labour demand for 12 OECD countries. The United States, for example, annually publish the Occupational Outlook Handbook. The Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections, under the Department of Labor, develops information about the labour market for the nation as a whole for 10 years in the future. Total employment is projected to increase by 20.3 million jobs over the 1998-2008 period, rising from 140.5 million to 160.8 million, according to the latest projections of the Bureau of Labor Statistics – (BLS, 2002). Although employment growth rates will go down compared with those of the previous 10-year period, the economy will continue generating jobs for work© OECD 2003

ers at all levels of education and training. Growth rates are projected to be faster, on average, for occupations requiring at least an associate degree than for occupations requiring less training. However, the largest volume of job creation will be in occupations requiring less formal education or training, even though many of these occupations are projected to have below-average growth rates. There will also be numerous job openings resulting from the need to replace workers who leave the labour force or move to other occupations (Braddock, 1999; see also Thomson, 2000). Note that BLS has just started with a Job Openings and Labour Turnover Survey (JOLTS) to measure labour market tightness and labour market (matching) efficiency but has not yet analysed the issue of labour shortages using JOLTS. To quantify the need for workers in short supply estimates of both the quantity and quality (i.e., the skill-level), of labour supply, also need to be made. The supply of labour for a specific occupation consists of first-time labour market entrants, unemployed people and people who move jobs, and suitable people temporarily outside the labour market. The number of first-time entrants in any forecast period can be worked out by grossing up the number of students leaving education in that period and the number of people who have left education just before the forecast period and did not gain employment. A complicating factor in making accurate prognoses about labour supply is the link between educ a ti o n a n d e m pl o y me n t. It i s i m po s si bl e t o determine the supply of labour-market entrants on an occupation-specific level on the basis of the annual number of graduates. To begin with, it is not accurate to determine specific levels of qualifications from the various types of schools. Some schools deliver a standard qualification level but for other qualifications, notably those required for ICToccupations, there are no fixed standards of reference. Another difficulty in the forecasting of firsttime entrants by occupation or by type of education is that the influence of labour market developments and education policy on young peoples’ decisions to choose a certain occupation or a certain type of training is almost impossible to model. The most obvious method to estimate future labour market tightness for first-time entrants is to work out the development of demand by occupation and to determine which type of education is most wanted for the various occupations. If the demand of first-time entrants with a certain type of

115


education is greater than the supply, labour market tightness may result. However, a number of things can obscure the resulting picture: • Employers may react to abundant supply by adju sting th eir re cruitmen t criteria and employ people who are overqualified (in a slack labour market) or underqualified (in a tight labour market) for the job.14 • Difficulties exist in translating the expected employment growth by sector in the development of total employment at the occupational level and the future employment structure by qualification. A key of correspondence has to be used, which inevitably results in some aggregation and hence, a loss of precision.

116

One example of a study of the labour market prospects of graduates is the regular employment projections carried out by the Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA), commissioned by the government of the Netherlands (ROA, 2001a). The forecasts apply to a total of 207 occupational groups and 104 different education types across the labour market. For these groups, the numbers of people moving into the labour market and separating from the labour market are forecast for specific future time periods. The demand for labour consists of the demand to replace departing workers and the demand to realise business expansion. Labour demand for business expansion is estimated on the basis of short and medium term forecasts of the economy by the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB). Labour demand is further distinguished by occupational group and by type of education. A systematic comparison with labour demand by type of education results in a summary of the labour market perspectives for new entrants by type of education, and the future possible recruitment difficulties by type of education. The value of the Indicator Future Labour market perspectives (ITA) indicates for which types of education a future mismatch between supply and demand can be expected. Reminiscent of the Australian and Canadian practice describing labour market prospects, the indicator takes the values “Mediocre”, “Good”, “Very Good” or “Fair”. Government migrationpolicy discussion documents (Tweede Kamer der Staaten Generaal, 2001a and 2001b) and the main advisory bodies to the government (WRR 2001a, 2001b and 2001d), (SER, 2001) frequently quote these results. This is in recognition of the fact that the mirror image of good labour market perspectives for a certain occupation is the difficulties that employers

are expected to have in recruiting workers for that specific occupation. Applying a similar methodology, the ROA has assessed whether the higher education systems in the EU Member States will provide sufficient numbers of Science and Technology (S&T) graduates to meet the demand for scientists and engineers (RSE’s) up to 2002 (Marley et al., 2001). The report identifies opportunities for international labour mobility to solve the labour market bottlenecks. The forecasts use four alternative scenarios and indicate considerable shortages of RSEs in one or more fields of study in all EU Member States except Belgium, Greece, Spain, Finland and the United Kingdom. At the same time, for the EU as a whole there is excess supply in each of the four fields of study distinguished, illustrating the importance of international labour mobility. Comparable institutions can be found, for example, in Australia, Canada and in the United Kingdom. The Australian Department of Employment and Workplace Relations publishes the Job Outlook Report, a guide to the skills projected to be in demand in the future and highlights occupations with good prospects. Job Outlook Online is an on-line version accessible to all interested job-seekers and aspirant immigrants (DEWR, 2002). The Australian Job Outlook publishes job prospects with a rating. Nearly 400 occupations are listed with an indication of the career prospects (“Good”, “Average”, “Limited”) they offer to first-time labour market entrants. The prognoses applied to the 2001-2006 period is very accessible and includes the National Skill Shortage List (see Annex II.2). There are two important differences with the Dutch ROA study. First, the DEWR pays considerable attention to regional differences in labour market tightness and draws up State skill shortage lists. Second, there is an explicit link with immigration policy through: • The facilitating of immigration for people with skills that feature on the National Shortage List (more on this in the last section). • The Skills Matching Database. Introduced in 1997, the database contains information about skilled workers who have lodged migration applications outside Australia in the Skilled-Independent and Skill-Matching visa classes. On the one hand, it is designed to assist State and Territory governments and employers to attract skilled migrants to areas of Australia who wish to increase their skilled © OECD 2003


migration intake and help regional employers to meet skill shortages where they cannot fill skilled positions from the local labour market. On the other hand, it aims to assist independent skilled migrants by creating potential links with employers and employment opportunities in Australia (DIMA, 2002). Human Resource Development Canada has developed the Overview of Outlooks by Occupation. The Overview presents overall trends and average ratings related to current and future labour market conditions by skill level, the amount of education and training required to work in an occupation; and finally, skill type and the broad industry category in which occupations are concentrated. Like Australia and the Netherlands, HRDC does not give numeric estimates of labour surpluses or shortfalls but categorises job prospects as “Good”, “Fair” or “Limited”. The Outlooks, presented under the general heading Job Futures 2000, are primarily directed at job-seekers and those who have to make a choice about education. It provides an assessment of several economic indicators that people may want to take into account when making education or career choices. Like the Australian study, it emphasises the regional context. It presents a sample of occupations with favourable outlooks over the next few years for Canada as well as for each province (HRDC, 2002). However, there is no apparent link with the Canadian Government’s yearly immigration plan (CIC, 2002). The United Kingdom has made use of existing infrastructure to improve its documentation on current and future labour market bottlenecks. The Institute for Employment Studies (IER) carries out Projections of Occupations and Qualifications as a continuation of the Review of the Economy and Employment, which has been in place for 20 years. The employment projections (covering the years 1999-2010) are done on multi-sectoral and regional levels and include 17 broad se ctors and 79 occu pational groups. The projections take account of demographic developments in the labour force (to estimate replacement demand) and estimates of the number of new labour market entrants (DFES, 2001a and 2001b). These projections are carried out for the Department for Education and Skills to estimate future labour demand and skill needs. They do not feature on the standing Occupational Shortage List, used with reference to facilitating the entry of immigrants with much-wanted skills, which are drawn up on the basis of current reported labour shortages. © OECD 2003

The Austrian Institute for Economic Research, WIFO, has a very impressive record in this type of projection. It has carried out detailed projections about labour demand and demographic changes in the labour force since the 1960s (Biffl and Walterskirchen, 2001). Austria carries out regular occupational job prospects and publishes quantitative estimates of expected shortfalls in labour supply on an occupationspecific level. Its occupational labour shortage lists for the year 2002 are based on a combination of prognoses with a microeconomic forecasting model and employer surveys. The indication is a labour shortage of 17 600 persons in various professions, mainly ICTprofessions, by 2002 (BMWA, 2001). An example of a study that forecasts labour shortages on the basis of an analysis of the age structures of different occupations and the expected number of retirements can be found in France. The number of job-openings that will be available to first-time labour market entrants is estimated for three e ducational levels. The study forecasts employment growth based on replacement and expansion demand for 23 sectors and 74 different occupations. Over the 2000-2005 period, the standard scenario (global variation) forecasts the strong e st e m plo y me n t g ro w th fo r th e ve r y h ig h ly qualified (16%). Mainly as a result of replacement demand, the demand for the least qualified workers will grow strongly as well (12.5%), labour demand for workers with the intermediary-level skills will grow by 9%. As the supply of highly qualified labour is estimated to grow by 10%, demand will exceed supp l y b y m o r e t h a n 2 % i n 2 0 0 5 ( Tio p o l , 2 0 0 1 a and 2001b; Duchamp and Amar, 2001). However, these estimates of the shortfall in labour supply do not take account of the expected number of firsttime labour entrants like the quoted Australian, Canadian and Dutch studies do. In theory, if their numbers are sufficiently high, there is no shortfall. Conclusion In spite of the methodological problems that may be involved in assessing labour shortages, all the available data and research as set out in the review of recent studies confirm that labour markets are tight in several OECD member countries. However, factors such as the amount of pressure on the market, the type of shortages involved (absolute/relative, short/long term), their key features (sectors/skill levels affected) and their determinants (skills mismatch, inadequate labour supply, persistent

117


labour-marked rigidities) all vary markedly across countries.

resolve current and future imbalances on OECD labour markets.

A number of specific studies were reviewed. Some of them underline current and future labour market needs and refer to the necessity to increase labour migration in order to alleviate labour shortages. Other studies do not mention at all this possibility. While substantial research has shown that migration alone could not alleviate the impact of population ageing, the question remains open as to whether selective labour recruitment policies can

Migration policies in several OECD countries tend to facilitate the recruitment of foreign workers, particularly the more skilled but there are limits to selective employment-related immigration policies. Current efforts to introduce a raft of measures to tap existing labour reserves should therefore be encouraged and pursued. It is also important to improve the way present and future generations are prepared and trained to meet the needs of the labour market.

NOTES 1. This Chapter is a shortened version of a document prepared by Marco Doudeijns, Consultant to the OECD and presented to the Working Party on Migration during its meeting in June 2002 (OECD, 2002e). 2. The Beveridge curve is used to describe the theoretical relation between unemployment and unfilled job vacancies for a specific occupation in a situation of labour market equilibrium. 3. However, the quoted surveys cover only construction and industry. 4. See the OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard (OECD, 2001g) for an overview of the extent to which innovation, science, technology and economies are becoming global; this study also reviews the new growth industries and occupations, and includes indicators of the international mobility of human capital. 5. In 1998, 110 000 persons separated from the labour market because of invalidity and a further 35 000 took early retirement (CPB, 2001b). 6. However, because the obtained qualifications are as yet unknown, students’ availability for the labour market can only be determined after they have finished their studies. 7. These are often referred to as discouraged workers. 8. The Potential Labour Supply, OECD Working Party on Employment and Unemployment Statistics. (OECD,

2001f and 2002d). The analysis is based on analysis of Labour Force Survey data. 9. A vast body of research on the social and labour market consequences of ageing has been produced within the OECD. The implications of population ageing for fiscal, economic and social policies have been analysed in depth (OECD, 1998). Recently, more emphasis was given to the potential effects of changes in retirement ages (OECD, 2000). 10. Note that Germany’s own calculations show even more drastic declines than the latest UN projections (UN, 2001). 11. In 2000, net immigration amounted to 202 000, of which 118 000 was net external migration (OECD, 2001d). 12. It has to be noted, however, that not every temporary or permanent separation from the labour market needs to result in replacement demand for labour for a specific occupation. The employer may wish to respond to a decreasing employment trend through not replacing people who retire or leave their jobs for other reasons. Thus the increase in the incidence of (early) retirement need not have a one-on-one relation with an increasing replacement demand. 13. See Takenouchi (2001) for an in-depth analysis of this issue. 14. Using data for the Netherlands, Wieling and Borghans describe the different adjustment processes on the labour market (Wieling and Borghans, 2001).

118

© OECD 2003


BIBLIOGRAPHY

ACCI (Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry) (2002), www.acci.asn.au

CBS (2002), Sociaal-Economisch Maandstatistiek, Jaargang 19, February, www.cbs.nl/nl/producten/

AETAT (2001), Rapport om Arbeidsmarkedet, Number 1, 2001, AETA, Oslo.

CCP (2000), Les difficultés de recrutement : quelles réalités ? Quels remèdes ?, Report presented by Jean-Paul Vermès, Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie, Paris. CGP (2000), Les effets démographiques sur l’offre de travail, Commissariat général du Plan, Paris. – November 14, Meeting of the workshop “Prospective des métiers et qualifications”. – January 16, 2001meeting of the worshop “Prospective des métiers et qualifications”. CGP (2001), Difficultés de recrutement : effets récurrents et structurels, se souvenir pour prévoir, Commissariat général du Plan, Paris, Seminar, 15 May. – Eymard-Duvernay, Francois, “Savoir recruter, pas si facile”. – Sauvageot, Claude, “Face aux difficultés de recrutement quelles interrogations et quelles réponses possibles du système éducatif ?” . – Géry Coomans, “Peut-on mesurer les difficultés de recrutement en […] Europe ?”. CHAGNY, O., DÖPKE, J., PLANE, M. and SCHMIDT, R. (2001), Labour Supply and Labour Force Participation in Europe – A Discussion of Some Recent Developments and Projections, Kiel Working Paper No. 1049, Institüt für Weltwirtschaft (IFW), Kiel. C IC (2002), Citizensh ip and Imm igratio n Can ada, www.cic.gc.ca CIE (2001), Breaking the Skills Barrier, Centre for International Economics, Canberra and Sydney, Australia. COPPEL, J., DUMONT, J.C. and VISCO, I. (2001), Trends in Immigration and Economic Consequences, OECD Economic Department Working Papers No. 284. COUNCIL OF EUROPE (2000), La Population et le marché du travail en Europe au-delà de l’an 2000, Vol. I & II, Editions du Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg.

AUSTRALIAN PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION (2000), The Increasing Demand for Skilled Workers in Australia: The Role of Technological Change, www.pc.gov.au AUSTRALIAN TREASURY (2000), “Demographic influences on long-term economic growth in Australia”, Economic Roundup Spring 2000, www.treasury.gov.au BIFFL, G. and KRATENA, K. (2001), Die Zukunft der Österreicherischen Berufs- und Qualifikationslandschaft bis 2005, Gutachten im Auftrag der Wirtschaftskammer, Vienna. BIFFL, G. and WALTERSKIRCHEN, E. (2001), Knappheit an Arbeitskräften, WIFO (Österreichisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung) Gutachten im Auftrag der Wirtschaftskammer, Vienna. BIRRELL, B., DOBSON, I.R., RAPSON, V. and SMITH, T.F. (2001), Skilled Labour: Gains and Losses, Centre for Population and Urban Research, Australian Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. B L A N C H E T, D . ( 2 0 0 1 ) , L’ i m p a c t d e s c h a n g e m e n t s démographiques sur la croissance et le marché du travail : faits, théories et incertitudes, Sirey Editions, Revue d’économie politique, 111 (4) July-August. BLS (2002), Employment Projections, Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, 8 April. BMA(2001), Erster Bericht “Monitoring des IT-Sofortprogramms” von 2. Juli 2001, Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Sozialordnung, Berlin. BMA (2002), BMA Pressestelle 16/01, www.bma.bund.de, Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Sozialordnung, Berlin. BMWA (2001), Fachkräftemangel 2002, Presseunterlage BM Dr. Martin Bartenstein, 28 May, Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit, Vienna. BRADDOCK, D. (1999), “Occupational employment projections to 2008”, Monthly Labor Review Online, Vol. 122, November, Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor, http://stats.bls.gov/emp/home.htm CARNEIRO, R., PISCO, M., FAZENDEIRO, A., FIALHO, J.S, MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY, FERNANDEZ, A.P., FARO, A.C., FERNANDES, N., ROCHETEAU, S. (2001), Diagnóstico e prospectiuva a curto prazo das, Necessidades de mão-de-obra em Portugal, unpublished Working Paper, Portugal.

© OECD 2003

– The Immigration Plan for 2002. – Introducing a Multi-year Planning Process and the Immigration plan for 2001 and 2002. – Reports on Plans and Priorities 2001-2002. – Performance Report for the Period ending March 31, 2001. – Building a Strong Foundation for the 21st Century; New Directions for Immigration and Refugee Policy and Legislation. CPB (2001), Macro Economische Verkenningen 2002, Centraal Economisch Planbureau, The Hague, Netherlands. CSSA (2001), Lat est News, The Computi ng Services and Software Association www.cssa.co.uk

119


DA (2001), Arbejdsmarkedsrapport 2001, Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, Copenhagen. DARES (2001a), Premières informations : Les tensions sur le marché du travail en décembre 2000, March, No. 12.3 ; various issues, Direction de l’animation de la recherche, des études et des statistiques, Ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité, Paris. DARES (2001b), Premières synthèses : la dimension régionale des difficultés de recrutement, Situation en juin 2000, October, No. 43.1, Direction de l’animation de la recherche, des études et des statistiques, Ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité, Paris. DENEUVE, C (2002), Besoins de main-d’œuvre des entreprises et recours à l’immigration : Quelles perspectives ?, Document de travail No. 55, Centre d’pbservation économique, Paris. DEWR (2002), Labour Market Information – Skills Shortages and Vacancy Trends, on the same site: Job Outlook Online, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, www/workplace.gov.au/Workplace DFES (2001a), Opportunity and Skills in the Knowledge-driven Economy, A final Statement of the Work of the Skills Task Force from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, Department for Education and Skills, Nottingham, United Kingdom. DFES (2001b), Projections of Occupations and Qualifications 2000/ 2001, Vol. I, Department for Education and Skills, Sheffield, United Kingdom. DFES (2001c), Skillsbase, Department for Education and Skills, www.skillsbase.dfee.gov.uk/default.asp DIMA (2002), Fact Sheet No. 59 – Assisting skilled and business people, Australian Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Canberra. DOHM, A.. (1999), “Gauging the labor force effects of retiring baby-boomers”, Monthly Labor Review Online, Vol. 122, November, US Department of Labor, http://stats.bls.gov/ emp/home.htm DOMINGUES DOS SANTOS, M. (2000), “Vieillissement démographique et chômage”, Revue française de l’économie. DUCHAMP, P. and AMAR, M. (2001), “Construction d’un indicateur de tension du marché du travail par niveau de qualification à l’horizon 2005”, DARES, No. 46, June, Direction de l’animation de la recherche, des études et des statistiques, Ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité, Paris. EC (2001a), Employment in Europe 2001, Recent Trends and Prospects, European Commission Directorate General for Employment and Social Affairs, Unit A.1 Employment Analysis, European Communities, Belgium. EC (2001b), The Role of Immigrants in the Labour Market, survey among Member States. ECOTEC (2000), Admission of Third Country Nationals for Paid Employment or Self-Employed Activity, ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd, Brussels, Belgium. 120

FBP (2001), Economische Vooruitzichten 2001-2006, Federaal Planbureau, April, Henri Bogaert, Belgium.

FELD, S. (2001), “Labour Force Trends in the European Union (2000-2025) and International Manpower Movements: an Initial Outlook”, Paper presented at the XXIV General Population Conference, Salvador, Brasil, 18-24 August, Université de Liège (GRESP), Belgium. FELD, S. (2002), Évolution démographique, population active, migration internationale et pénurie de main-d’œuvre en Belgique. Premières analyses, Unpublished working document, Université de Liège (GRESP), Belgium. FNV (2001), Notitie Arbeidsmigratie, 19 October, Federatie Nederlandse Vakverenigingen. FUCHS, J. and THON, M. (1999), Nach 2010 sinkt das Angebot and Arbeitskräften – Selbst hohe Zuwanderung wird diesen Trend nicht stoppen können, IAB Kurzbericht No. 4, Institut für Arbeit- und Berufsforschung, Nürnberg, Germany. FUCHS, J. and THON, M. (2001), Wieviel Potenzial steckt in den heimischen Reserven?, IAB Kurzbericht No. 15, Institut für Arbeit- und Berufsforschung, Nürnberg, Germany. FULLERTON, Jr., H.N. (1999a), “Labor force projections to 2008”, Monthly Labor Review Online, Vol. 122, November, Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor, http://stats.bls.gov/emp/home.htm FULLERTON, Jr., H.N. (1999b), “Labor force participation: 75 years of change, 1950-98 and 1998-2025”, Monthly Labor Review Online, Vol. 122, November, US Department of Labor, http://stats.bls.gov/emp/home.htm GLOVER, S., GOTT, C., LOIZILLON, A., PORTES, J., PRICE, R., SPENCER, S., STINIVASAN, V. and WILLIS, C., (2001), Migration: an Economic and Social Analysis, RDS Occasional Paper, Home Office, London, United Kingdom. GOTTSCHALK, P. (2001), What can we learn from the Cohort Size Literature about the Future Demand for the Greying Baby-Boomers? Centre for Retirement Research, The Brookings Institution. HAMMERMESH, D.S. (2001), Older Workers in the Coming Labor “Shortage”: Implications on Labor Demand, Centre for Retirement Research, Boston (www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/ csom/executive/crr/public_spe.shtml). HASKEL, J., and HOLT, R. (1999), Anticipating Future Skill Needs: Can it be Done? Does it Need to be Done? Skills task Force research Paper 1, Department for Education and Skills, Nottingham. HECKER, D.E. (2001), “Occupational employment projections to 2000-10”, Monthly Labor Review Online, November, Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor, http://stats.bls.gov/emp/home.htm HRDC (2001), “The Quest for Workers: A portrait of Job Vacancies in Canada”, The Evolving Workplace Series, Human Resource Development Canada. HRDC (2002), JOB FUTURES 2000, http://jobfutures.ca/jf-ea/ jf.page?p=WHATISJF#whatis IAB (1999), Arbeitslandschaft 2010 – Teil 1 und 2, IAB Kurzbericht No. 9 and 10, Institut für Arbeit- und Berufsforschung, Nürnberg, Germany. ITAA (2000), Bridging the Gap: Information Technology Skills for a New Millennium, Information Technology Association of America, Arlington (VA), United States.

© OECD 2003


KARR, W (2001), Fachkräftebedarf oder Fachkräftemangel, Inwieweit signalisieren die gegenwärtigen Besetzungsdauern offener Stellen Anspannungstendenzen?, unpublished IAB manuscript, 09/03/01, Institut für Arbeit und Berufsforschung, Nürnburg, Germany. KLAVER and VISSER (1999), Evaluatie Wet Arbeid Vreemdelingen, Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, The Hague, Netherlands. KÖLLING, A. (2001), Fachkräftebedarf und unbesetzte Stellen – Ergebnisse des IAB Betriebspanels 2000, Unveröffentiches Manuskript, Instutut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung, Nürnberg, Germany. KOMMUNAL- OG REGIONALDEPARTEMENTET (1999), Arbeidskraftbehov og rekruttering fra utlandet, Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, Oslo, Norway. MAGVAS and SPITZNAGEL (2001), Personalmangel – Hemmnis für Wachstum und Beschäftigung? Erste Ergebnisse der Erhebung zum gesamtwirtschaftlichen Stellenangebot, 4. Quartal 2000, Institut für Arbeit- und Berufsforschung, Nürnberg, Germany. MARLEY, P., de GRIP A., CÖRVERS, F. (2001), Forecasting the Labour Markets for Research Scientists and Engineers in the European Union, ROA-W-2001/3E, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA), Maastricht, Netherlands. McDONALD, P. and Kippen, R. (2001), “The Impact of Immigration on the Ageing of Australia’s Population”, in International Migration in the 21st Century, M.A.B. Siddique (editor), Edward Elgar. MEDEF, 2000, Rapport sur les pénuries de main-d’œuvre, November 14, Paris. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION IN SWEDEN (2001), Report on Migration and need for Skills (“En framtidsberäkning vad gäller tillgång och efterfrågan av arbetskraft,”), Discussion report, July, nistry of Employment and Solidarity in France, www.travail.gouv.fr/dossiers/dossiers_f.html MKB (2001), Vacaturemarkts mkb 2001, Koninklijke Vereniging MKB-Nederland, Delft, Netherlands. MKW (2001), Obstacles to Mobility of Workers in the Digital Culture in the European Union, MKW Wirtschafsforschung GMBH, Munich, Germany. MUNZ, S. and OCHEL, W. (2001), Fachkräftebedarf bei hoher Arbeitslosigkeit, Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (Ifo), Munich, Germany. NEW ZEALAND IMMIGRATION SERVICE (2002), Labour Market Shortage List, 1 February 2002 – 1 May 2002, www.immigration.govt.nz/work/ NORDIC COUNCIL (2000), Supply of Labour in the Nordic Countries, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. NORDIC COUNCIL (2001), Labour Force Mobility, Meeting of Nordic Council of Ministers in Hämeenlinna, October 22, Finland. OECD (1991), Migration. The Demographic Aspects, Paris. OECD (1998a), Ageing Populations. The Social Policy Implications, Paris. OECD (1998b), Maintaining Prosperity in an Ageing Society, Paris.

© OECD 2003

OECD (2000), Reforms for an Ageing Society, Paris. OECD (2001a), Review of Systems of Retirement Income Provisions in Nine Countries: Social Policy responses to Ageing, Internal discussion document, OECD, Paris. OECD (2001b), Society at a Glance: OECD Social Indicators, OECD, Paris. OECD (2001c), “Work and family life: How do they Balance Out?, Employment Outlook, Paris. OECD (2001d), Trends in International Migration, various issues, OECD, Paris. OECD (2001e), Employment Outlook, OECD, Paris. OECD (2001f), The Potential Labour Supply, Discussion document for the OECD working party on employment and unemployment statistics, Paris. OECD (2001g), Labour Market Policies and the Public Employment Service, OECD, Paris. OECD (2002a), Service Providers on the Move: A Closer Look a t L ab o ur M ob i l i t y an d t h e G AT S , O E CD , Pa r i s . (www.oecd.org/ech) OECD (2002b), International Mobility of the Highly Skilled, OECD, Paris. OECD (2002c), Main Economic Indicators, OECD, Paris. OECD (2002d), The Potential Labour Supply, Discussion document for the OECD Working Party on Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Paris. OECD (2002e), Labour Shortages and the Need for Immigrants: A Review of Recent Studies, Discussion document for the OECD Working Party on International Migration, Paris PARKKINEN, P. (2001), “Regional Reserves of Employment”, Government Institute for Economic research, Helsinki in Finnish Labour Review, Ministry of Labour, Helsinki, Finland. PERSSON, O. L. (2000), Emerging Patterns of Labor Mobility in the Knowledge Economy, Presentation at the migration symposium “Muuttoliikesymposium 2000” in Turku, Finland. PINOMAA, S. (2001), “Will there be Enough Labour in Fi nland?”, Government Insti tute for Economic research, in Finnish Labour Review, Ministry of Labour, Helsinki, Finland. ROA (2001a), De Arbeidsmarkt naar Opleiding en Beroep tot 2006, Researchcentrum voor Onderwijs en Arbeidsmarkt, Maastricht, Netherlands. ROODENBURG, H. and van den BOOM, L. (2000), “Economische Gevolgen van Immigratie”, Tijdschrift voor Politieke Ekonomie, jaargang 2000, nummer 3, The Hague, Netherlands. SER (2001), Arbeidsmobiliteit in de EU, Sociaal Economische Raad, Advies 01/04, The Hague, Netherlands. SCHERER, P. (2001), “Age of withdrawal from the labour market in OECD Countries”, Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers, No. 49, OECD, Paris. STATISTICS FINLAND (1999), Foreigners and International Migration 1998, Väestö 9, Vaanta, Finland. STATISTICS SWEDEN (2001), Analysis, Trends and Forecasts for the Labour Market, Labour Market Page www.scb.se/eng/ arbetsmarknad/arbetsmarknad.asp

121


122

SÜSSMUTH, (2001), Zuwanderung Gestalten, Integration Fördern, Bericht der Unabhängingen Kommission “Zuwanderung”, Berlin, Germany. TAKENOUCHI, M (2001), International Division of Labour and Migration as a Global Labour Supply – A Theoretical Perspective to International Migration, Discussion paper, University of Tokyo, Japan. TAPINOS, G. (2000), The role of migration in moderating the effects of population ageing, contribution to the Working Party on Migration June 2000, ref. DEELSA/ELSA/ WP2(2000)6, OECD, Paris. TAPINOS, G. and DELAUNAY, D. (2000), “Can one really talk of the globalisation of migration flows?”, in Globalisation, Migration and Development, OECD, Paris. THOMSON, A. (1999), “Industry output and employment projections to 2008”, Monthly Labor Review Online, Vol. 122, Nov 1999, US Department of Labor, http://stats.bls.gov/ emp/home.htm TIAINEN, P. (1999), Employment and Welfare in Finland in the Years 1860-2030, Labour Policy Study 211, Ministry of Labour, Helsinki, Finland. TOPIOL, A. (2001a), Prospective des métiers à l’horizon 2010 : une approche par familles d’activité professionnelles, DARES, wp No. 47, June. TOPIOL, A. (2001b), L’évolution des sorties d’emploi vers la retraite et la préretraite – une approche par métiers, DARES, wp No. 48, July. TWEEDE KAMER DER STATEN GENERAAL (2001a), Knelpunten op de Arbeidsmarkt en Arbeidsmigratie, Brief van Vermeend aan de Tweede Kamer, 28 September, The Hague, Netherlands. TWEEDE KAMER DER STATEN GENERAAL (2001b), Regeringsnotitie: Het Nederlandse Standpunt over het communautair immigratiebeleid, 15 October, (Parlando Systeem 19 637, nr. 616), The Hague, Netherlands. UN (2000), Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?, Population Division, Department of Economics and Social Affairs, New York. UN (2001), World Population Prospects 1950-2050 (The 2000 Revision), February 2001, New York. USDOC (1997a), Building the 21st Century Workforce, United States Department of Commerce, Technology Administration Office, Speech by Kelly H. Carnes on April, 11. USDOC (1997b), America’s New Deficit: The Shortage of Information Technology Workers, United States Department of Commerce, Technology Administration Office, Speech by Andrew Pincus on September, 29. USDOC (1999a), The Digital Workforce: Building Infotech Skills at the Speed of Innovation, United States Department of Commerce, Technology Administration Office. USDOC (1999b), The American Workforce in the New Millenium, The Growing Demand for Skills, United States Department of Commerce, Technology Administration Office. USDOC (2000), Update: The Digital Workforce, United States Department of Commerce, Technology Administration Office. Van EWIJK, KUIPER, C., B., ter RELE, H., van de VEN, M. and WESTERHOUT, E. (2000), Ageing in the Netherlands,

CPB (Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis) The Hague, August. VATT (2000), The Finnish Welfare State at the Turn of the Millenium, Government Institute for Economic Research, Helsinki, Finland. VBO (2001a), Immigratiebeleid heeft Internationaal Kader nodig,Verbond van Belgische Ondernemingen, Persbericht 29 June, Brussels, Belgium. VBO (2001b), Immigratiebeleid: houding van het VBO, Verbond van Belgische Ondernemingen, Perscontact 29 June, Brussels, Belgium. VENERI, C.N. (1999), “Can occupational labor shortages be identified using available data?”, Monthly Labor Review Online, Vol. 122, November, Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor, http://stats.bls.gov/emp/home.htm VNO-NCW (2002), Bestuurscommissie buigt zich over International Arbeidsmobiliteit, 14 January, The Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers, (www.vnoncw.nl/indrecht.html?code=340) WALWEI, U. (2001), Arbeitsmarktbedingte Zuwanderung und bedenkenswerte Alternativen, Strategien zur Erschliessung van Personalreserven, IAB Werkstattbericht Nr 4/21, March, Institut für Arbeit und Berufsforschung, Nürnburg, Germany. WERNER, H. (2001), From Guests to Permanent Stayers? – From the German “Guestworker” Programmes of the Sixties to the Current “Green Card”Initiative for IT-Specialists, IAB Werkstattbericht. 43, March, Institut für Arbeit und Berufsforschung, Nürnburg, Germany. WIELING and BORGHANS, L. (2001) “Discrepancies between supply and Demand and Adjustment Processes on the Labour Market”, Labour, Vol. 15, pp. 33-56. WIFO (2000), Arbeits- und Qualifikationsnachfrage im Telekomund Mediensektor, WIFO presseinformationen, www.wifo.at WIFO (2001), Arbeitsmarktrelevante Effekte der Ausländerintegrati on in Österreich, Österrei chi ssches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Wien WINKELMANN, R. (2001), Why do Firms Recruit International l y ? R es u l t s f r o m t he I Z A I nt e r nat i o nal Em pl o ye r Survey 2000, IZA Discussion Paper No. 331, Institute for the Study of Labor, July 2001, Bonn, Germany. WINKELMANN, R., KUNZE, A., LOCHER, WARD, L. M. (2001), Die Nachfrage nach Internationalen Hochqualifizierten Beschäftigden, IZA International Employer Surveys 2000, IZA Research Report No. 4, May, Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn, Germany. WITHERS, G. (1999), A Younger Australia?, Discussion paper No. 63, Public Policy Program, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. WITSA (2000), International Survey of E-Commerce, World Information and Technology Services Alliance, Arlington (VA), United States. WITSA (2001), WITSA Inventory on IT Skills and Workforce Initiatives, World Information and Technology Services Alliance, USA, Arlington (VA), United States. WRR (2001a), Nederland als Immigratiesamenleving, WRR Rapport No. 60, Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, The Hague, Netherlands.

© OECD 2003


WRR (2001b), A Comparison of American and Dutch Immigration and Integration Experiences; What Lessons can be Learned?, Werkdocumenten W.120, Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, The Hague, Netherlands. WRR (2001c), Oude en Nieuwe Allochtonen in Nederland, Een Demografisch Profiel, Werkdocumenten W.60, Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, The Hague, Netherlands. WRR (2001d), Immigratie- en Integratieregimes in vier Europese Landen, Werkdocumenten W.125, Wetenschappelijke R a ad v o o r h e t R e ge r in g s b el e id , Th e H a g u e , Netherlands.

ZANFRINI, L. (2002), Learning by Programming, Secundo rapporto sui fabbisogni professionali delle imprese italiane e la politica di programmazione dei flussi migratori, Fondazione Ismu, Centro Studio Unioncamere, Franco Angeli, Milano, Italy. ZHAO, J., DREW, D. and SCOTT MURRAY, T (2002) Brain Drain and Brain Gain: The Migration of Knowledge Workers to and from Canada, Website http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_ecnmy/ mera/engdoc/07.html ZIMMERMANN, K.F., BAUER, T.K., BONIN, H., FAIR, R. and HINTE, H. (2001), Arbeitskräftebedarf bei hoher Arbeitslosigkeit, Ein ökonomisches Zuwanderungskonzept für Deutschland, Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit (IZA), Bonn, Germany.

123

© OECD 2003

Employer surveys of labour shortages

Kind of body involved in the study (employers, public body…)

Scope (sectors, regions)

Period of time (forecast period; date of the survey)

Results (labour shortages, calls for or recommendations on immigration)

Employer Associations

IT sector

2001-2006

27 500 IT-professionals with university degrees

Chamber of Commerce

All Sectors

2002

Dept. of employment and Workplace Relations

All Sectors

Monthly

Skills shortages and seasonal shortages are an increasingly important issue “Occupational wastage” is an important factor in explaining some skill shortages, otherwise reasons are complex and varied (economic, demographic and education factors; technological change)

Academic Institution

ICT-sector

2000-2003

Ministry of Labour

All sectors

2002

Belgium

Statistical Institute Employers associations

IT sector All sectors

2001 2002

5 000 persons No shortages for skilled personnel, shortages for lower skilled occupations, calls for unskilled immigration

Canada

Official source

All Sectors

2000-2006

No shortage in IT sectors; 50% of recruitment difficulties in retail trade and consumer services

EC

European Commission

All Sectors

1999-2001

Indications of shortages found in 7 countries across the EU

Finland

Employers Associations

IT- sector

2000-2001

2 500-5 000 persons, calls for skilled immigration

WITSA 2001

France

Statistical office

Construction and Industry

2001

Recruitment problems are in low-skills occupations

DARES 2001a&b

Germany

Employment Office

All sectors

2001

Chemical, industry, finance, IT, R&D

Autumn 2000

Regular survey, Official estimates seem to underestimate shortages relative to academic studies Incidental study, covers France, Britain, Germany and Holland; limited to highly skilled workers

Magvas and Spitznagel 2001; Kölling 2001

Institute for the Study of Labour

15% of MSE in services, investment and consumer goods sectors face recruitment difficulties, refer to immigration Foreigner’s complementary knowledge is main reason for recruiting (wishing to recruit) from abroad, not labour shortages.


IT-sector

2001: 10 770 persons; 2002: 3 400

Approximate calculations

Fenit 2002


Construction and trade

2001 and beyond 2002-2003

Australia

Austria

© OECD 2003

Netherlands

13 000 persons; recommendations on selective labour immigration policy 10 200 persons mainly in technical, commercial, health and gastronomic occupations

50% of all hard-to-fill vacancies are on low skills levels, calls for unskilled immigration

Comments (regularity, lacks, reliability)

Takes account of proposed policy changes, including immigration

Source

CIE 2001

ACCI 2002 State wide, regional or metropolitan skill shortages are defined as recruitment difficulties

DEWR 2002 (National and State Skill Shortage List)

WIFO 2000 Regular, not strictly a survey, based on institutional analytical work also

BMWA 2001

Incidental, no forecasts given

WITSA 2001 VBO 2001a

HRDC 2001 and 2002

Based on regular harmonised labour market surveys

EC 2001a

Winkelmann 2001

VNO-NCW 2002


124

Annex II.1.

© OECD 2003

Annex II.1.

Norway

Sweden

Kind of body involved in the study (employers, public body…)

Scope (sectors, regions)

Statistical office

All Sectors

3rd quarter 2001 Growing tighness in non-commercial Quarterly vacancy survey services and small businesses (general)

CBS 2002

Employers Association

IT-sector

2001-2003

45 000 specialists lacking in total

WITSA 2001

Labour Market Administration

Economy-wide

2001-2002

Labour shortage of 39 000 persons, asks for intentions to hire abroad

Statistics Office

All sectors

2001

Difficulties dominate in education, health and IT sectors

IT sector

Immediate future

Ministry of Education and Skills

All sectors

2001

51% of members believed that the Government was not effectively reducing the skills shortages. 20% of hard-to-fill vacancies in crafts

Employer Organisations

IT-sector

2000-2001

843 328 persons on annual basis

United Kingdom Employer Associations

United States

Employer surveys of labour shortages (cont.)

Period of time (forecast period; date of the survey)

Results (labour shortages, calls for or recommendations on immigration)

Comments (regularity, lacks, reliability)

Norway School of Management , incidental Regular survey, official small-scale survey, possibly overestimates shortages

Source

AETAT 2001

Statistics Sweden 2001 Survey methodology unclear – WITSA 2001; CSSA 2001 liable to various biases Part of large-scale evaluation

DFES 2001

Small sample telephone survey

ITAA 2000


125

Projections of occupational labour demand in OECD countries

Model

Detail

Projection period

Outcomes

Australia

Job Prospects Matrix – economic model

400 occupations

2001-2006

Occupations with good prospects are generally DEWR 2002 more highly skilled

Austria

WIFO projections – employer survey and economic model

Data on 300 000 employers; forecasts on 6 educational levels

1999-2005

An economic expansion between 1999 Biffl and Kratena 2001 and 2005 will hardly be restrained by a shortfall in labour supply; only in the IT sector problems might occur

Canada

1. Job Futures 2000 – economic 1. Prospects by occupation, 1. one year model field of study for each Province

Good prospects mainly in IT and technical but also in hospitality occupations

Sources

HRDC 2002

© OECD 2003

2. Occupational Projection System

2. 512 occupations and 62 sectors on provincial and national levels

2. one year

EU

ROA Labour Market Forecasting Model

4 broad S&T fields in 14 EU countries

1998-2002

Considerable shortages in one or more fields in Marley et al. 2001 all countries except Belgium, Greece, Spain, Finland and the United Kingdom.

Finland

Ministry of Labour Shortage lists: surveys and economic model

Outcomes on sector level

20 years

In the base scenario, where employment will vary between 2 100 000 and 2 200 000 jobs, the study forecasts some drastic changes in the structure of employment.

Tiainen 1999

France

Flip-Flap economic model

22 sectors and 55 occupations

5 years

Over the 2000-2005 period, employment growth is strongest for the very qualified (16%)

Duchamp and Amar 2001; Dares 1999

Germany

1. IFO study – employer survey and economic model

22 sectors; 21 occupations; 11 educational levels

15 years

Munz and Ochel 2001

2. IAB/Prognos – economic model

Forecasts on sector level

1998-2010

Most employment creation in occupations requiring technical college training or higher degrees (Health/social; Socio-cultural jobs; Technical jobs; Construction; Administrative) Labour demand in the primary sector, the processing industries and in the trade sector are expected to decline by 2010. Commercial and non-commercial services and trade are expected to grow while banking and public administration are expected to remain stable

Italy

Excelsior – economic model

Regional and occupational labour shortages

One year

To establish yearly immigration quota: 2002 quotas total 80 000 persons

Zanfrini 2002

Netherlands

ROA – CPB economic model

207 occupational groups; 2001-2006 104 different educational types

Prospects are excellent for university graduates, good for people with postsecondary education, reasonable for the low skilled and mediocre for other groups – big occupational variations

ROA 2001a

New Zealand

Labour Market Skills Shortage Lists

Nation wide

4 months

Qualified aircraft engineers, technicians, auto electricians and mechanics and bakers are on top of the list

New Zealand Immigration Service 2002

Portugal

Attempts underway

Occupational labour shortage projections

1 year

Will serve to establish yearly immigration quota

IAB 1999

Carneiro et al. 2001


126

Annex II.2.

© OECD 2003

Annex II.2. Projections of occupational labour demand in OECD countries (cont.)

United Kingdom

United States

Model

Detail

Projection period

Outcomes

Sources

1. Projections of Occupations and Qualifications – economic model and surveys

17 sectors, 79 occupations

2000-2010

2. Skill Shortage Lists

Nation wide

1 year

The strongest job growth caused by expansion DFES 2001b demand will occur in professional services and to a lesser extent in distribution hotels and catering. Exhaustive list of skill deficiencies and skills DFES 2001c demand by employers

Bureau of Labor Statistics economic model

82 occupations, 24 sectors, 2 years 53 education types on 5 levels

Growing skills deficit especially in the IT sector Fullerton 1999a; Hecker 2001


127

Part III

RECENT CHANGES IN MIGRATION MOVEMENTS AND POLICIES (COUNTRY NOTES)

AUSTRALIA Introduction By the end of the 1999-2000 fiscal year, the Australian economy had completed its ninth year of continuous growth, the longest economic expansion since the 1960s. Over this period, the growth of output averaged just over 4%, which compares favourably with the performance of most other OECD countries. The upswing was accompanied by solid employment gains and the substantial reduction in unemployment to a low of 6% (standard unemployement rate). Estimated resident population in Australia in June 2000 reached 19 141 000, with 23.6% of Australia’s population born overseas. Migration policy initiatives implemented in 2000/2001 focused notably on entry requirements imposed on immigrants would continue to align with Australia’s economic and social needs, especially by providing States with more flexibility to attract skilled migrants. 1.

Trends in migration flows

Between March 2000 and March 2001, net overseas migration was assumed to be 107 600, compared with 98 000 from March 1999 to March 2000. However, due to data problems, less reliance should be placed on the former figure than usual.* Inward and outward flows of foreign-born The Migration Programme allowed 80 610 entry visas in 2000/2001, a 14.8% rise (or 10 000) on the previous year (see Table III.1). Most visas were granted under family (33 470, up 4.6% on 1999) and skill-based categories (44 740, up 26.6%). The Programme’s shift toward skilled migration, which began in 1996, continued in 2000: more than 55% of the 2000/2001 visas came from the Skill Stream, the highest number of grants since 1990/1991. The Programme further increased capacity by planning for 4 000 new places in 2001/2002, while maintaining the proportions between family and skill-based visas. The skill contingency reserve, which * Net overseas migration and other statistics on overseas migration are calculated using data from passenger cards completed by people arriving in or departing from Australia, together with other information available to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The Department has recently automated the processing of passenger cards. This has resulted in a delay in receiving relevant data, and as a result the Australian Bureau of Statistics has calculated preliminary estimates of net overseas migration using sampled data rather than a full enumeration of permanent and long term arrivals and departures.

© OECD 2003

129


Table III.1.

Permanent and temporary migration programme outcomes, 1998-20011 and planning levels for permanent settlers for 2002, by category, Australia Thousands 1998

1999

2000

2001

Planned 2002

67.1 31.3 34.7 6.0 5.4 0.2 13.3 9.5 – 0.4

67.9 32.0 35.0 5.6 6.1 0.2 13.6 9.3 – 0.2

70.2 32.0 35.3 5.4 6.3 0.1 15.6 7.9 – 0.1

80.6 33.5 44.7 5.8 7.3 0.2 19.8 7.2 4.5 0.1

85.0 37.9 45.5 6.0 7.9 0.2 25.1 6.4 – –

1.1

0.9

2.9

2.4

1.6

Humanitarian Programme Refugees and special humanitarian Special assistance Other

12.1 8.6 1.8 1.6

11.4 8.3 1.1 2.0

10.0 6.9 0.6 2.5

13.8 7.1 0.9 5.7

13.6 7.3 .. 6.3

Temporary Resident Programme4 Economic programme Social/cultural programme International relations programme of which: Working Holiday Maker (WHM)5

125.7 37.3 17.2 71.2

136.2 37.0 20.0 79.2

148.6 39.2 23.5 86.0

161.1 45.7 23.0 92.4

55.6

62.6

71.5

76.6

.. .. .. .. .. ..

63.6

67.2

74.4

86.3

..

2

Migration Programme (excluding the Humanitarian Programme) Family Skill Employer nomination/labour agreements Business skills Special talents Independents Skilled Australian linked3 Skill Stream contingency reserve Other Special eligibility 2

Student Programme

5

1. Data refers to fiscal years (July to June of the given year). 2. Figures include persons who change status (temporary to permanent). 3. Certain family members (brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, children and parents of working age) can be sponsored by the Australian relatives or by permanent residents. In order to be eligible, they must meet certain conditions regarding age, professional qualifications and linguistic aptitudes. 4. Including Long Stay Temporary Business Programme. 5. Comprises only those applications made outside Australia. Source: Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs.

accommodates demand generated by businesses, State/Territory governments, regional certifying bodies or eligible overseas students, was increased in planning levels from 5 000 (4 500 used) to 8 000 for 2001/2002. In 2000/2001, the total number of student visas was 146 577 (excluding those grants with permission to work or change education provider), up 23.1% on the previous year. The principal source countries continued to be China (6%), the United States (5%), Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong and Japan (all at 4%). Under Australia’s Temporary Resident Programme (which excludes students), the total number of visas granted reached 161 100 in 2001. This is the fourth increase in a row, the number of temporary visa granted jumping by more than 35% since 1997. Illegal immigration The bulk of illegal immigrants in Australia entered the country legally and remained beyond the expiration of their visa. In 2000/2001, overstayers increased by 2.3% on 1999/2000. Of the 60 100 overstayers, 82.5% entered on a tourist visa. One-quarter overstayed their visa by less than one year and half by more than three years. 130

The Australian government has undertaken a wide range of measures to deter, detect and remove illegal immigrants. In 2000/2001, 8 926 visas were cancelled (up 17% on 1999/2000) where visas were obtained by © OECD 2003

Australia

fraudulent means or non-citizens failed to meet visa conditions. In 2000/2001, nearly 9 050 overstayers were removed compared with 8 800 the previous year. The number of persons detected whilst attempting to illegally enter the country by boat has risen sharply over recent years: excepting 1994/1995, the number did not exceed 600 between 1989/1990 and 1997/1998; in 1998/1999 just over 900 were detected and in 1999/2000 almost 4 200. Refugees and asylum seekers Refugees entering Australia with proper authority are entitled to a permanent protection visa, enabling them to benefit from permanent residence, social security and access to the labour market and employment programs. Asylum seekers arriving illegally, but found to warrant protection, are granted a three-year temporary protection visa, with which they can work and obtain health and income support benefits. Unlike permanent residents, they are not entitled to family reunion or re-entrance into Australia. They may apply for permanent protection visas if, after 30 months, they are found still to warrant Australia’s protection. In 2000/2001, 15 134 places (12 000 new places, together with unused places from previous years) were available for the Humanitarian Programme. A total of 13 700 visas were granted, of which 8 000 were granted offshore. Of people receiving offshore visas, 43% were from the former Yugoslavia, 27% from the Middle East and southwest Asia and 25% from Africa. Australia received 13 015 asylum applications in 2000/2001, a 2.4% increase on 1999/2000. This level is significantly higher than in previous years, when less than 9 000 applications were made. Iraq and Afghanistan together accounted for 25% of the applications and, as in the previous year, were the largest source countries. Large increases were observed from Afghans (from 1 770 to 2 210), Indonesians (from 640 to 995) and Iranians (from 380 to 690). Applications by Iraqis declined (from 2 390 to 1 180). Family reunion Of the 33 470 visas granted for family reunification, nearly 74% were allocated to spouses and only 6% to children (including foreign adoption). 2.

Structure and changes in the foreign-born population

Numerical trends As of June 2000, 23.6% of the Australian population was born overseas. Only three foreign countries individually represented more than 10% of Australia’s population: UK with 6.4%, New Zealand with 2% and Italy with 1.3%. People born in Europe and the former USSR accounted for 12.6% of the total population, down 0.8% from 1999. Conversely, between 1999 and 2000, residents born in India, China, the Philippines, New Zealand and Malaysia increased their presence in Australia. Mixed marriages Since 1991, the proportion of mixed marriages to all marriages has fluctuated around 23%. More Australian-born women have married men born overseas than vice versa in each year. The United Kingdom is the principal origin of foreign-born partners, although the number and proportion of such mixed marriages declined from 11 200 in 1991 (9.8% of total marriages) to 8 300 (7.3%) in 2000. Five other main countries of origin for foreign partners include New Zealand, the United States, Italy, Germany and former Yugoslavia. Naturalisations The number of applications for Australian citizenship lodged in 2000/2001 was 63 751 (77 166 persons), a small increase from the 61 132 (72 487 persons) applications lodged in 1999/2000. Having declined by almost one-third in 1998/1999, the number of people granted Australian citizenship fell by 7% in 1999/2000 and increased slightly (1.75%) in 2000/2001. Persons holding British passports accounted for 17.3% of all naturalisations followed by New Zealanders (15.3%) and Chinese nationals (9.6%). © OECD 2003

131


3.

Migration and the labour market

Migration for employment and work permits Economic-based migration in 2000/20001 stems from Skill Stream of the Permanent Migration Programme (44 730) and the Economic Programme of the Temporary Resident Programme (45 650) (see Table III.1). The Economic Programme includes visas for temporary businesses (19.4% increase on 1999/2000), independent executives (up 23.4%), medical practitioners (up 33.7%) and education (down 3.3%). Some 76 600 visas were issued under the Working Holiday Maker (WHM) Programme in 2000/2001, continuing the increase of recent years from around 50 000 in 1996/1997. A moderate increase is expected in 2001/2002. Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Hong Kong joined the scheme in 2001, bringing the number of countries with reciprocal arrangements to 12 (others include the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, Ireland, Netherlands, Korea, Malta and Germany). Since July 2000, only citizens from those countries with WHM arrangements are eligible to apply for a Working Holiday visa. Labour market integration In August 2001, 58.4% of foreign-born workers came from non-English-speaking countries (NESC). The labour force participation rate of persons born in Australia was 66.9%, but the participation rate of foreign-born persons was lower, at 57.4%. Foreign-born workers from main English-Speaking countries (MESC) are better off than NESC migrants as the former’s labour participation rates are higher: MESC participation is 64.0% and NESC participation is 53.4%. Manufacturing employs 15.8% of working migrants compared to 10.8% of Australian-born workers. The most frequent migrant occupations are: professionals (21.3% of overseas-born employed in August 2001); intermediate clerical, sales and service workers (15.5%); and tradespersons and related workers (12.6%). NESC and MESC migrants have higher rates of employment as professionals and associated professionals than the Australian-born. NESC migrants are disadvantaged, though, compared to MESC migrants because they are present at higher rates in low skill or service industries such as elementary clerical, sales and service workers (18.4% compared to 14.3%) and labourers and related workers (18.5% compared to 14.3%).

Box III.1.

Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia

The Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia (LSIA), launched in March 1994, collects two sets of data. The first set (LSIA 1) was obtained from 5 192 new settlers and their families through interviews at 6, 18 and 42 months after their arrival in Australia between September 1993 and August 1995. The second survey is being conducted among 3 124 migrants and their families who entered the country between September 1999 and August 2000; they will be interviewed at 6 and 18 months after arrival. The two surveys will provide reliable data to enhance immigration and settlement policies and to analyse policy changes made since 1996. Both surveys show that unemployment among migrants varies substantially by visa classes. The only comparable data available from both surveys is an analysis of the information collected from participants 6 months after entry. Compared with LSIA 1, a drop in unemployment in nearly all entry categories is recorded for LSIA 2. Both surveys show that Business Skills and Employer Nomination scheme migrants had the lowest unemployment rates. LSIA 2 Independent migrants had an unemployment rate of 10%, one-third of the rate for similar migrants in LSIA 1. Humanitarian migrants had the highest unemployment rates in both surveys. A slight overall increase in labour force participation rates is recorded between LSIA 1 and 2. Migrants from the Concessional Family/Skilled-Australian linked category had a large increase in participation rates (from 68% to 80%) while those in the Humanitarian category had the largest fall (from 41% to 15%). LSIA 2 recorded an increase in the employment to population ratio for its participants, compared with LSIA 1. 132

© OECD 2003

Australia

Unemployment tends to be higher among foreign-born migrants (7%) than among the Australian-born (6.5%) as of August 2001. MESC migrants had lower unemployment rates (5.8%) than NESC migrants (7.7%). 4.

Policy developments

Policy changes in the Migration Programme between 1999/2000 and 2000/2001 included reinforcing immigration controls and adding the proposition to give states the flexibility to help attract skilled migrants. A key point on humanitarian immigration was reinforced to enable Australia to respond effectively to international crises in a flexible manner. Admission and residence (including integration measures) Several new aspects of the 2000/2001 Migration Programme were set to improve economic benefits of migration to Australia. Criteria for the Skilled Stream were significantly refined to increase the migration of skilled migrants who would contribute to the Australian economy. The Skilled Stream contingency reserve was given higher priority to processing skilled ICT migrants. Eligible overseas students studying in Australia were given permanent residence under the specific skill-based categories without leaving Australia. Finally, changes were implemented to increase Australia’s competitiveness for business-skilled migrants. In mid-2001, the Overseas Student Programme obtained greater transparency to reduce the infraction of illegal immigrants entering on student visas. Varying levels of criteria were established to assess the risk of overstay and other non-compliance with visa conditions. Australia has various programmes to assist in the integration of migrants and refugees, including a National Integrated Settlement Strategy which links services available to them. Programs include: free tuition for language courses; nationwide translating and interpreting services for migrants and refugees; marketing of Settlement Information kits in 18 languages; and community-based programmes providing advice and referral services for migrants. Naturalisation Minor legislative amendments were proposed to tighten “good character” provisions and to ensure Australian citizens acquiring another citizenship do not lose their Australian one. In 2001, Australia established an annual Australian Citizenship Day, celebrated each September. It also ran a citizenship promotion campaign in the second half of that year. Refugees and asylum Administrative changes to the processing of protection visa applications enabled refugees to be identified and offered protection as quickly as possible. A temporary visa was introduced to cater for temporary safe haven visa holders requiring on-going medical treatment in Australia. New legislation to apply from September 2001 will significantly boost the fight against people-smugglers and strengthen the integrity of Australia’s borders. The main measures include: • Strengthening deterrence of unauthorised arrivals through a new visa regime and minimum prison terms for people-smugglers. • Preventing unauthorised arrivals to those territories from applying for a visa. • The possible detention and removal from those territories of unauthorised arrivals. • A clear legal definition of “refugee”. • A limit to the grounds for judicial reviews. • Prohibition of class actions in migration litigation. • The possibility that adverse inferences may be drawn when visa applicants fail to provide supporting information and documentation. © OECD 2003

133


Measures to combat the employment of undocumented foreigners Australia is proposing to implement measures to prevent the employment of people who have no right to work in Australia. These include a system of sanctions to discourage business owners, employers and labour suppliers from employing, or referring illegal workers for employment. Proposed penalties include issuing infringement notices for minor offences whilst prosecuting more offences that are serious. Initial measures were introduced in November 2000 to enhance employers’ and labour suppliers’ awareness of their obligations, and to provide support and information to such persons in checking working rights and interpreting visa conditions. The proposed penalties have been deferred until these measures have been implemented, though a system of administrative warnings has been implemented. International agreements Short-term business entry arrangements across APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) have been improved as economies collectively agreed to issue multiple entry visas to frequent APEC business travellers.

134

© OECD 2003

Austria

AUSTRIA Introduction Since the mid 1990’s, economic growth in Austria has been roughly in line with the EU average. In 2000, real GDP growth totalled 3%, but an economic slowdown was apparent in the second half of 2000. Growth in 2001 is forecasted at 1%, due to a combination of international and domestic factors. The annual inflation rate increased to 2% in 2000, after a record low of 0.5% the year before. This was largely due to increased oil prices and weakened exchange rate. Employment growth rose by 1% in 2000 to 3 064 million, nearly all due to increased female participation. In 2001, employment growth is expected at 1%. Unemployment rate (for people age 15 to 64) declined to 4% in 2001, its lowest level in the all decade. Of the 8 110 200 people residing in Austria in 2000, 757 900 were foreign citizens (9.3%), a 1.3% increase on the previous year. Persons who were born abroad account for 10.4% of the population. 1.


Emigration Recent trends in increased emigration by Austrians were reversed in 2000 when net outmigration fell to 5 900 from 9 600 the previous year. The principal destinations were Switzerland and Germany. Inward and outward flows of foreigners Flow analysis is limited by the government’s collection of data according to the following categories: foreign workers, family members, students, and refugees. The initial work permit (Erstantrag) is a weak indicator of the inflow of foreign workers, since it includes foreign workers re-entering the labour market after a period of unemployment (exceeding 6 months) or changing workplace, as well as family reunions. In 2000, the number of initial work permits was 44 300, down 3% in 1999. Net migration of foreigners has declined from a peak of 91 000 in 1991 to 9 400 in 1995. Since then, net migration figures have remained at broadly this level until 1998, which saw an increase to 14 300 followed by a large jump to 29 400 in 1999. The net migration figure in 2000 saw a slight decline to 23 200 but still remains high compared to most of the 1990s (see Table III.2). Illegal migration The number of expulsions from Austria rose slightly in 2000 to 9 600, from 9 500 the year before. Rejections at the border have declined dramatically since Austria has become a fully-fledged member of the Schengen agreement. In 1996 there were 134 000 rejections at the border, falling to 80 700 in 1997 and thereafter continuing to decline to 19 100 in 2000. In 2000, slightly fewer people (8 400) were returned to their home country compared to 1999 (10 000) though that year had seen a substantial increase on previous years. Refusals of residence are largely the result of persons entering as tourists and attempting to work illegally. Numbers of refusals have remained broadly stable over the last five years at between 12-13 000. Refugees and asylum seekers Reform of asylum legislation in 1991 resulted in a temporary reduction of asylum seekers with a bottom reached in 1993 (4 750). Since 1998 though, asylum applications have increased significantly (mostly due to Kosovar refugees) with 20 100 in 1999. Although 2000 saw a slight decline to 18 300, the figure for 2001 showed © OECD 2003

135

Current figures on the components of total population change, on flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Austria All figures in thousands unless otherwise indicated 1997

Components of population change1 Total population Population (annual average) Population increase of which: Natural increase Net migration Austrians Population (annual average) Population increase of which: Natural increase Net migration Naturalisations Foreigners Population (annual average) Population increase of which: Natural increase Net migration Naturalisations Asylum seekers and refugees Asylum seekers Outflows of refugees

1998

1999

2000

1997

1998

Work permits issued to foreigners, by category Initial permits issued Extensions issued Permanent permits issued

119.5 52.7 24.3 42.5

110.3 47.7 20.9 41.7

98.5 45.7 22.6 30.2

101.9 44.3 34.1 23.5

Stock of the holders of a work permit (excluding EEA)2 Short-term work permits Work entitlements Permanent permits

247.3 36.6 67.3 143.4

240.5 28.9 45.5 166.1

239.1 23.3 29.5 186.3

242.2 25.9 20.4 195.9

Stocks of foreign workers, by nationality3 Former Yugoslavia (%) Turkey (%) EU (%) Other (%) Share of foreign employment in total employment (%)

298.8 49.3 17.7 8.3 24.7 9.8

298.6 49.8 18.2 9.0 23.0 9.7

306.4 49.8 18.2 9.7 22.3 9.9

319.9 49.6 17.9 10.1 22.4 10.2

7.1 8.4

7.2 8.7

6.7 8.2

5.8 7.5

74.8 12.8

72.2 11.5

70.2 11.2

62.6 11.7

80.7 4.8 13.3 6.9 105.7

25.5 6.6 12.0 5.6 49.7

24.7 10.0 12.6 9.5 56.8

19.1 8.4 12.7 9.6 49.8

8 072.2 7.6

8 078.4 7.4

8 092.3 20.2

8 110.2 18.8

4.6 3.0

2.9 4.5

–0.1 20.3

1.5 17.3

7 339.5 4.1

7 341.2 1.9

7 344.1 6.6

7 352.4 10.9

–4.7 –7.0 15.8

–6.1 –9.8 17.8

–9.0 –9.1 24.7

–7.5 –5.9 24.3

732.7 3.5

737.3 5.5

748.2 13.7

757.9 7.9

Unemployment rate, total4 Unemployment rate, foreigners

9.3 10.0 –15.8

9.0 14.3 –17.8

9.0 29.4 –24.7

9.0 23.2 –24.3

Employment of Austrians abroad5 Austrian employees in Federal Republic of Germany Austrian employees in Switzerland

6.7 1.3

13.8 1.7

20.1 5.0

18.3 5.9

Legal measures taken against foreigners Total rejections at border Removals to home country Refusals of residence Expulsions from Austria Total

1999

2000

1. Estimates on the basis of census results. The naturalisations refer to persons residing in Austria. 2. Data given as an annual average. The data exclude the unemployed and self-employed and citizens of the European Economic Area (EEA). Several types of permits are issued: – Short term permits: granted to an enterprise for a maximum duration of one year (renewable) and for a specific activity. Data include persons entering the labour market for the first time, seasonal workers, those who are changing jobs or taking up activity after a period of unemployment of at least six months and holders of provisional permits (when the application process takes more than four weeks). Extensions of permits are also included. – Work entitlements: granted for a maximum duration of two years (renewable). May be obtained after one year of work in Austria. – Permanent permits: granted after five years of work and valid for five years (renewable). 3. Annual average. Employment of foreigners based on social security data records. 4. Data are based on the unemployment register. 5. Data as of June for Germany, August for Switzerland. Sources: Central Alien Register; Central Statistical Office; Ministry of the Interior; Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs; Social Security database on labour force.


136

Table III.2.

© OECD 2003

Austria

an increase of 64.5% on 2000. The number of asylum seekers receiving public financial and food support has not risen to match the increasing inflow. In 2000, 23% of asylum seekers originated from Afghanistan, 14% from Iran and 13% from Iraq and India. The massive inflow from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia declined greatly to 8.1%. Asylum seekers from Asia are rising (13 700 or 75%); in contrast, only 8% of all asylum seekers originated from Africa. In 2001, nearly half of all refugees were from Afghanistan. The average acceptance rate of asylum cases was 21.9%, but was significantly higher for Afghanis and very low for Africans and Indians. Outflow data for refugees show a sharp increase between 1999 and 2000 from 5 000 to 5 900. In 1999, integration became difficult, asylum seekers left in larger numbers to other countries within Europe (3 000) and to the United States (1 000). In the year 2000, 4 100 or 81% of asylum seekers left for the United States. Family reunion Most immigrants have the right to family reunion, except when they have entered the country on a quota limited permit. In those cases, family reunion is limited to quotas as well. Waiting lists for family reunion are growing in most Austrian provinces, which can restrict granting family reunion. In the first half of 2001, at least 4 725 permanent residence permits were granted to persons seeking family reunion with non-EU foreign citizens. Just over 200 temporary residence permits were granted for family reunion purposes. Those seeking family reunion with Austrian, EU or EEA citizens do not face a quota: 6 252 permanent residence permits were granted in this category. A total of 238 883 residence permits exist for family reunion purposes in Austria (2001). 2.

Structure and changes in the foreign population

Numerical trends The population of Austria grew by 18 800 (0.2%) in 2000 to 8 110 200 (see Table III.2). The relatively high population growth stemmed from the decrease in net emigration of Austrians and a high net inflow of foreigners (23 200 in 2000 vs. 29 400 in 1999). The number of foreign residents in Austria increased by 1.3% (7 900) in 2000. The share of foreigners in the total population increased slightly to 9.3%. The share of EU citizens in the total population was 1.3%. Mixed marriages While 2000 saw a 5% decrease in marriages between foreigners, it also experienced a slight increase in the proportion of mixed marriages to all marriages from 15% in 1999 to 16.3% in 2000. Austrian men marrying a foreign spouse accounted for 10.7% of all marriages and Austrian women marrying a foreign spouse for 5.5%. Overall, there was a 7.2% increase in the number of mixed marriages between 1999 and 2000. Naturalisations Naturalisations (including those granted to persons living abroad) increased substantially since 1998 from 18 300 to 24 700 in 2000. Most naturalisations were former “guest workers”, such as Turks (6 700 or 27.3%) and Yugoslavs (7 600 or 30.7%). The third large cohort of new citizens was originally from Central and Eastern Europe (4 800 or 19.3%). The naturalisation rate (naturalisations in percent of foreign population) was 3.3% in 2000. The large number of naturalisations reflects the fact that the large migration inflow from the early 1990s has reached citizenship eligibility. The residence requirement for naturalisation varies in length from 4 to 10 years, depending on where the application is filed. Since 1993, Vienna has toughened its stance on citizenship and yet the number of naturalisations has increased, reflecting the growing difficulty foreign citizens (particularly non-EEA nationals) face in obtaining work permits. Turks and nationals of the former Yugoslavia head the list, followed by citizens of Central and Eastern Europe. © OECD 2003

137


3.


Migration for employment and work permits According to social security data, the share of foreign workers of total employment rose by 4.4% to 10.2% (319 850) in 2000 (see Table III.2) and was responsible for more than half the national employment growth in 2000. The structure of foreign workers by nationality has changed slowly over the past decade. The number of EU-citizens in the foreign workforce, mainly Germans, has been rising since 1994 and reached 32 000 in 2000 (i.e. 10.1% of total foreign workers). The share of workers from Croatia and Slovenia, while low (2.6% and 1.1% respectively in 2000), is increasing. Bosnians have increased more rapidly, as they received preferential treatment on humanitarian grounds when applying for work permits; they accounted for 6.6% of all foreign workers in 2000. Yugoslavians have been declining for decades (peak of 78.5% in 1973) to 38.8% in 2000, as have the Turks from 23.4% (1989) to 17.9% (2000). The share of “others”, mostly from Eastern Europe, has declined from 25.9% (1994) to 22.8% in 2000. Short-term permits include mostly initial work permits and extensions. The former are compulsory for foreign citizens entering the labour market for the first time (a first work permit), re-entering after six months of unemployment or changing worksite (both re-entry work permits). In 2000, the sum of initial work permits issued (excluding EEA/EU citizens) was 44 300, down 3% from 1999. When disaggregating the flow into first and re-entry permits, the number of the former has increased significantly, by 39% since 1999 to 25 400. The increase in 2000 resulted mainly from seasonal workers entering to work in tourism and agriculture sectors. The decline in work permit extensions since 1994 was the result of workers transforming initial work permits into a more secure status (either work entitlements or permanent work permits). As the entry of family members of foreigners into the labour market became easier, due to labour shortages and efforts to foster the integration of resident foreign families, the number of extensions of entry permits rose again. In 2000, though, work permits extensions nearly doubled from the 1999 count to 34 100 permits. The initial work permit can be transferred within one year to a work entitlement with restricted labour mobility within regions or, within five years, to a permanent work permit granting full labour mobility within Austria. Work entitlements peaked in 1995 with 109 100 permit holders but, as foreigners became increasingly eligible for permanent licences, the stock of work entitlements dropped to 20 400 in 2000, or 30.9% (9 100) less than in 1999. The nationality-mix of foreigners with work entitlements reflects the wave of foreigners entering Austria in the early 1990s, especially refugees from the former Yugoslavia. In 2000, Bosnians account for 46.8% of all work entitlements, Croatians for 10.4%, and Serbs for 16%. The other large groups include citizens from Eastern Europe with 10.8% and Turks (7.6%). Permanent licence holders have increased continuously since 1994 and reached 195 900 in 2000, or 5.1% (9 600) more than 1999. The proportion of citizens from Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) rose until 1998 (14.3%) and has experienced a slight decline to 13.9% in 2000. The slowdown of CEEC inflows following the fall of the Iron Curtain has been replaced by the eligibility of these citizens for “permanent” licences and settlements. In 2000, the majority of permanent licence holders are Serbs originating from the former Yugoslavia, with 67 427 (34.4%). Other large groups represented include Turks (21.7%), Eastern Europeans (13.9%), Bosnians (11.9%), and Croatians (10.2%). Labour market integration The 1997 legislation to promote the integration of long term foreign residents by facilitating their relatives’ access to the labour market was counteracted initially by tighter controls upon the employment of foreigners. Although 1999 and 2000 saw a more successful labour market integration of resident migrants, the increased inflow of seasonal workers in 2001 has been a cause for the unemployment rate of foreign residents to increase.

138

The share of foreigners amounted to 25 800 (13.3%) out of 194 300 total registered in 2000. The number of foreign unemployed declined by 1 500 (5.3%), but this is less than the 12.4% drop in national unemployment numbers. The 2000 unemployment rates of foreigners, while dropping, continue to lag behind the national © OECD 2003

Austria

unemployment rates. The unemployment rate of foreign men was 7.8% (down from 8.5% in 1999), which remains higher than the national male unemployment rate of 5.8%. Foreign women had an unemployment rate of 6.9% in 2000 (down from 7.5% the year before), also lower than the national unemployment rate of women (5.9% in 2000). Turkish workers have traditionally had the highest unemployment rates of any foreign worker group, even though their unemployment rate has declined continuously in the last three years to 9% in 2000. The unemployment rate of Yugoslavs declined to a lesser extent in 2000 from 8% to 7.4%. The unemployment rates of Austrians by occupation were particularly high in tourist services (15.3% in 2000), agricultural occupations (14%), and clothing and shoe industries (12.8%). Foreign workers, in contrast, tended to have slightly different unemployment rates by occupation: the highest are construction (11.1%), agriculture (10.5%), tourism (10%), clothing and shoe industries (7.6%), and metalworkers and electricians (7.2%). In a few industries, such as tourism, foreigners have lower unemployment rates than nationals partly due to the influx of foreign seasonal workers. The difference in unemployment by industry can also be explained by the fact that foreigners tend to be concentrated in low skills sectors with low wage and low adjustment cost jobs. The most significant industry sectors for foreign employment were agriculture and forestry (where the foreign worker share of employment was 27.6% in 2000), tourism (27.1%), and textiles/ clothing/leather industries (26%). Integration of Bosnian refugees who arrived mostly between 1992 and 1995 has been particularly successful. The majority of Bosnians had continued employment with a permanent license (27 800 or 62.4%) or a work entitlement (11 600 or 26%) by mid-2000. 4.

Policy developments

Admission and residence (including integration measures) Austria is considering amendments to its immigration law that would make it easier to key employees to enter, but would require other immigrants to learn German within four years of their arrival within a so-called “integration contract”. The foreigners would have to pay some of the cost of the courses. As regards key workers, the definition would be jointly based on education and training criteria and a minimum wage threshold (60% of the maximum basis of social insurance has been considered). These proposals have raised lots of criticism and are still under discussion. Naturalisation In 1999, citizenship legislation was amended so that in the case of mixed marriages (between Austrian and non-EU citizenships), foreign citizens would only become eligible for Austrian citizenship after 5 years of marriage with the same partner.

139

© OECD 2003


THE BALTIC STATES Introduction Led by sustain export growth, and away from the effects of the Russian crisis, the economies of the Baltic States grew substantially in 2000. Real GDP grew by 6.9% in Estonia, 6.6% in Latvia and 3.9% in Lithuania. Assuming that they successfully enter the EU in 2004, the IMF predicts that the 3 countries will grow over 4% in 2002 and between 5.3 and 6% during the three following years. However, high unemployment persist (i.e. 13.7% in Estonia in 2000, 15.4% in Lithuania in 2000 and 7.8% in Latvia in December 2000), especially in rural areas. Regarding the total migration flows, it should be noted that the statistical agencies of these three countries are now revising most of their statistics for the past decade on the basis of new population censuses, conducted in Estonia and Latvia in 2000 and in Lithuania in 2001. Awaiting the results of these revisions, some general remarks are made here concerning the likely extent of net migration. 1.


Until recently, all migration data available for the Baltic States were designed to cover only the part of migration officially recorded as “permanent”. This definition did not cover unreported moves, nor those regarded as “temporary” (less than a year). The full extent of unrecorded migration remains unknown, but the census results indicate that net emigration from the Baltic States has been greatly under-estimated until now. Thus, following publication of preliminary census results, the total population estimates for 2000 were revised downwards by 69 000 (4.9%) in Estonia, 45 000 (1.9%) in Latvia and 200 000 (5.7%) in Lithuania. Several factors probably contributed to the previous over-estimations of the total populations, but unrecorded emigration has emerged as a principal explanation. If it is assumed, for simplicity, that the whole difference between previous and revised population statistics was a result of unrecorded emigration, then it would seem that the accumulated net emigration from 1990 until the end of 2001 corresponded to over 9% of the total population in Estonia and around 6% in Latvia and Lithuania (see Table III.3). Of this net migration, the part recorded as “permanent” – mostly in the early 1990s, largely to CIS countries – accounts for approximately 5 percentage points in Estonia and Latvia and a little more than 1% in Lithuania. In other words, unrecorded net emigration may have reduced the populations by over 4% in Estonia and Lithuania and by about 1% in Latvia. Little is known about the precise

Table III.3.

Components of population changes since 1990, Baltic States

Number of inhabitants at the end of 2001 Percent decline since 1990 of which: Natural change (births – deaths) Net migration1 of which: Net migration recorded as “permanent”2

140

Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

1 361 000 –12.9

2 351 400 –11.0

3 482 300 –5.6

–3.4 –9.4 –5.2

–4.6 –6.4 –5.1

– –5.7 –1.3

1. The net migration figures are calculated residually using annual population estimates and data on births and deaths. The net migration figures are calculated residually using annual population estimates and data on births and deaths. 2. Based on registrations of immigrants who stated their intention to live permanently in the country and emigrants who decided to reside permanently abroad. Source: Statistical Offices of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

© OECD 2003

The Baltic States

timing or destination of these unrecorded flows, but a significant part probably went to OECD countries. Moreover, judging from revised total population data for different years in the 1990s – published in Latvia and Lithuania – statisticians have assumed that substantial parts of the previously unrecorded net emigration occurred towards the end of the decade. If these assumptions are correct, total net emigration per year from Lithuania may be assessed – as a very preliminary estimate – at around 6 per thousand inhabitants in each of the four years of 1997 to 2000. The corresponding estimates for Estonia and Latvia are probably somewhat lower. Immigration and return migration Whereas the visa requirements for the temporary stay of nationals of countries other than the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) have become less strict, all three countries retain restrictive policies with regard to entry for permanent settlement. Such entry is essentially limited to three categories of person: returning nationals (i.e. those of Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian ethnic affiliation), family reunion and business-linked migration (which is still not numerous). This policy, which to a considerable extent promotes or blocks the arrival of certain categories of migrants, has the effect of shaping the ethnic structure of migration flows. Hence, in the case of Latvia 19% of the immigration flow in 1999 were those whose ethnic affiliation was to that country and a further 60% were Russian, Belarussian or Ukrainian (the large majority of whom, it is believed, have relatives who have resided in the country since the Soviet period); the corresponding figures for Lithuania were 30 and 45% respectively. (Data on the ethnic origin of Estonia’s immigrants have not been made available since 1996 when the corresponding figures were 24% and 59%.) It is worth noting that whereas in the case of Lithuania the proportion of those with an ethnic affiliation to the country has remained broadly constant since 1994 (fluctuating around 30%), the corresponding proportion in the inflow to Latvia has been declining steadily, having been at 41% in 1994. The majority of migrants come from Germany and the United States. In the case of Estonia most migrants come from Finland, however they are relatively few in number. Illegal migration The emergence of illegal (transit) migration, migrant trafficking in the Baltic States and its gradual increase can be understood only in the context of its development in a broader area, mainly the former Soviet Union. During the Soviet period any kind of illegal foreign migration (immigration, emigration, transit migration) within the Baltic States, as well as throughout the former Soviet Union, was practically impossible. Having soldiers as border guards, and pursuing a closed door immigration/emigration policy, the Soviet Union (and the Baltic States, as part of it) was neither an easily accessible nor attractive country for migrants. Such a migration policy, whilst having of course many negative consequences, also resulted in practically nonexistent illegal migration. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union the situation changed. The phenomenon of illegal migration and illegal transit migration in the Baltic States first manifested itself in Estonia. However, due in large part to the strong support from the Nordic countries this illegal flow was reduced to a very low level by the mid-1990s. Since this time the phenomenon has mainly concerned Lithuania which is the only one of the Baltic States sharing an overland border with the West (Germany via Poland). This country has in turn, with the support of the international community, improved its border controls and implemented additional measures to combat traffickers. That the number of illegal immigrants detected in Lithuania has fallen from 1 500 in 1997 to 550 in 1998 and to 350 in 1999 would indicate that the increased efforts are enjoying some success. Just over one third of those apprehended in 1999 were Afghans; the proportion from the Indian sub-continent, which had reached nearly 90% in 1994, was less than 20%. It is the view, however, of the border police of both Lithuania and Belarus (through which the majority of illegal migrants enter Lithuania) that the decrease in illegal migration through the Baltic States is partly due to changes in the routes taken by illegal migrants and traffickers. Surveys of those apprehended in 1996 and in 2000 would suggest that Lithuania is increasingly becoming a country of final destination: one third of those asked stated that they had been seeking to stay in the country as compared to less than 3% in 1996. © OECD 2003

141


Although re-admission agreements with the countries of Western Europe have been signed, they have, with the exception of that of the Ukraine, been unable to secure agreements with the principal source countries. The reluctance of Belarus and Russia in this regard is a particular source of concern. Given that it has been estimated that there are about 200 000 illegal migrants in Belarus and approximately 500 000-1 000 000 in Russia, it is considered unlikely that such agreements will be concluded in the near future without Belarus and Russia first concluding similar agreements with their eastern and southern neighbours. Refugees and asylum-seekers By the middle of 1997 all three Baltic States had passed special laws on refugees and asylum-seekers and had ratified the relevant Geneva Convention and Protocol. Nevertheless, real implementation of these laws, i.e. consideration of claims for refugee status could start no earlier than the establishment of refugee reception centres and the introduction of a computerised system for data collection, processing and transmission. Therefore, until mid-1998 only the part of these laws which is related to the creation of the infrastructure for accepting refugees was in force. Until recently with very limited support from the governments of the three Baltic States, this work was mainly dependent on outside financial contributions (from the UNHCR, the IOM and the Nordic countries). Applications remain few in number and until 1999 were mostly made by Afghans, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Somalis and Vietnamese. In 2000 a new trend was observed – asylum seekers of Chechen nationality (Russian Federation) increasingly appeared and already formed more than 50% of asylum applications in Lithuania. In addition, more and more applications are made on the state border – additional indication that Lithuania is becoming a target rather than a transit country. However, for all three countries combined, the total number of applications remains rather low – 217 in 1998, 182 in 1999 and 308 in 2000, of which, mirroring its position as the country the most affected by illegal immigration, over 90% were made in Lithuania. With the introduction of the non-refoulement principle in mid-1999 in Lithuania, foreigners can apply for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds – in 2000 104 out of 303 asylum applications were made on a humanitarian basis. 2.


During the Soviet period, the proportion of Russians, Belarussians and Ukrainians steadily increased in all three Baltic States; following the reversal in migration flows in the early 1990s it has been diminishing. In 1999 almost 45% of Latvia’s permanent residents were of other than Latvian ethnicity, the majority were Russians, Belarussians, Ukrainians; in 1997 the corresponding figure for Estonia was 35% and for Lithuania 17%. Quantitative differences in the size of foreign population have led to certain qualitative differences in the manner in which their residence status has been resolved. Foreigners (non-citizens) form a much bigger proportion in Latvia and Estonia – correspondingly 22.8 and 20% (the majority of which are people who’s citizenship is undetermined) as compared to Lithuania, where foreigners account for no more than 1% of permanent residents. That is why, Estonia and Latvia adopted special laws specifically governing the rights, obligations and legal status of aliens (former USSR citizens). 3.

142

Policy developments

In all three Baltic States, the general approach towards migration related policy was established in the early 1990s. The various changes in migration policy introduced since then have for the most part, been made in line with the established approach or, as has been the case most recently, with the primary aim of bringing their laws and regulations into line with those prevailing in the European Union. However, there are still some problematic areas, one of them being the abolition of a simplified visa regime for Border residents of Belarus and the Russian Federation. By 2001 Latvia and Estonia had made progress in this area, whereas Lithuanian visa policy is still to be revised before accession to the EU. With the aim of preparing for the abolition of visa regime privileges for citizens of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus, an action plan has been drafted for expansion and strengthening of consular institutions in the Republic of Belarus and the Kaliningrad Region of the Russian Federation by the end of 2003. © OECD 2003

The Baltic States

Another extremely politically-sensitive area for Lithuania – the future arrangements for transit of persons between Kaliningrad and mainland Russia (Lithuania being the main country of transit not only of people and goods, but also an area of military transit). Currently residents of Kaliningrad enjoy a visa-free regime for travelling to or through Lithuania, which is to be abolished in July 2003. Running parallel with this is a full visa regime to be introduced for transit through Lithuania. Russia is strictly against such developments and claims that introduction of visas for residents of the Kaliningrad region, as well as transit visas, aims to tear Kaliningrad from the rest of Russia, that this is a violation of human rights and a case of double standards on the part of the leaders of the EU. This is not a new problem – already since 1995 Russian citizens travelling to the Kaliningrad region by car via Lithuania require visas. In addition, so as not to block movements of Russian citizens, visas are supposed to be inexpensive and multiple entry/exit visas may be issued to those who need them for professional reasons, etc. On the other hand Russian suggestions on “Transit corridors” are not considered as viable options, given the EU’s safety and security concerns about the frontiers of an enlarged EU. Combating illegal immigration Aware that action taken to combat irregular migration should be taken on the basis of national and international laws and should not violate international conventions providing for basic and fundamental human rights (which rules out previous practice of detaining illegal immigrants on the sole basis of Ministerial instructions, for example), the Baltic States modified relevant legislation in 1998 and 1999 in order to bring them into line with the requirements of the European Union. In Estonia, the “Obligation to Leave and Entry Ban” Act, was passed in October 1998, which set out the legal basis and rules concerning the detention of illegal migrants and their return or deportation, came into force in April 1999 at the same time as the amendments passed in February 1999 to the Alien’s Act, which set out sanctions which may be imposed on aliens staying in Estonia unlawfully. On the basis of this latter Act, persons who facilitate illegal immigration through providing employment or accommodation are also liable to punishment. In September 2000, in order to combat the passage of illegal immigrants towards the European Union, Estonia unilaterally introduced a full-visa regime at the Russian-Estonian border, ending the previous simplified regime for those living near the border. The Lithuanian Ministry of Internal Affairs started implementing active measures against illegal migration in January 1997 with the establishment of the Foreigners’ Registration Centre in Pabrade which accommodates all apprehended illegal foreign nationals. At the beginning of 1998, the “Regulations for the Return of Foreigners” were passed. At the same time, the administration of the Border Police was reorganised and the personnel redistributed in order to tighten the control of the border with Belarus. Moreover, in view of the extensive involvement of traffickers in the illegal migration process, the Criminal Code was amended to increase the maximum punishment for migrant traffickers to 15 years’ imprisonment, along with the forfeiture of their property (the most severe punishment for trafficking in Europe). This legislative change has been accompanied by increased efforts on the part of the police to apprehend them. Asylum-seekers and refugees A new Refugee Act came into force in Lithuania in September 2000. This new act has been primarily designed to bring Lithuanian legislation on refugee matters into line with the European Union acquis communautaire. Firstly, the new Refugee Law introduces completely new refugee status determination procedure with new asylum-related concepts, such as safe third country, safe country of origin, manifestly unfounded applications and the right to family reunion. It also introduces a new procedure whereby the admission of asylum seekers into Lithuanian territory is determined at the Lithuanian border. Asylum seekers may appeal to the Court against such a refusal. On the other hand, since July 1999, in accordance with Art. 19 of the new Lithuanian law “On Legal Status of Aliens”, foreigners can apply and receive residence permits on humanitarian grounds, following the non-refoulement principle or due to illness. In Latvia the new Statute on Refugees is closely in line with the acquis and entered into force in March 1999. Even if the law refers to the Geneva Convention, the Appeal Council grants refugee status on humanitarian grounds by, inter alia, applying the European Convention on Human Rights. © OECD 2003

143


Amendments to the Estonian Refugees Act passed in February 1999 came into force in September of the same year. Responsibility for decisions on asylum applications was thereby transferred to the Citizenship and Migration Department. An initial reception centre closer to the capital, was created and a state register for asylum-seekers and refugees was established. An amendment to the Aliens Act passed in February 1999 and which came into force in October of the same year renders persons who have been refused refugee status but who cannot be sent back to their country of origin, eligible to apply for a Estonian residence permit.

144

© OECD 2003

Belgium

BELGIUM Introduction Since 1997, the Belgian economy has been relatively dynamic and real GDP has risen in line with or above potential GDP, with expansion fuelled largely by domestic demand and exports. In late 2001, however, Belgium was hit hard by the slowdown in world trade. Like other countries in the Euro zone, the fall in exports from the first quarter of 2001 onwards was followed by declining investment and major destocking. While GDP had grown by 4% in 2000, it grew by only 1.1% in 2001 and the outlook for 2002 shows little change. At the same time, total employment picked up strongly in 2001 (+45 000), as a result of which the unemployment rate based on the active population aged 15 to 64 fell sharply to 6.2% from almost 10% in 1995. There is some doubt, however, as to whether these positive labour-market trends will continue in 2002. The main developments on the immigration front were an increase in naturalisations following amendments to the Nationality Code in Spring 2000, and a decline in the number of asylum applications in 2001. 1.


Emigration and the return of nationals In 2000, net migration of Belgian nationals remained negative (–9 590). In all, slightly fewer than 18 000 Belgians left the country, including 8 500 women and 9 500 men (see Table III.4). Inflows and outflows of foreigners The year 2000, like the 1990s, was characterised by largely positive net migration of foreigners (+21 700). Since 1990, the figure has averaged over 20 000. The influx of foreigners was mainly due to the arrival of EU nationals (some 43% of total immigration in 2000), reflecting the central role played by Brussels as a host to European institutions. Overall, French and Dutch nationals accounted for the largest shares of total inflows (8 108 and 7 178, respectively), followed by Moroccans (5 667). Refugees and asylum seekers For refugees to be admitted to Belgium, they must first submit an application to the Office for Foreign Nationals. It will then be examined closely in accordance with the Geneva Convention. The number of asylum applications has risen steadily since 1994, with the exception of 1997, and peaked at 42 700 in 2000. In 2001, however, the number of applications fell drastically by 43% (24 500 persons). From 1992 to 1993, nationals of the Democratic Republic of Congo constituted the largest group of asylum seekers. From 1994 to 1999, nationals of the Republics of the former Yugoslavia formed the largest group but, since the year 2000, nationals of the Russian Federation have headed the list. Some 94% of applications were filed on Belgian soil and 6% at the borders. 2.


Numerical trends As of 31 December 2000, Belgium had a population of some 10.2 million inhabitants, of which just under 862 000 were foreigners, i.e. 8.4% of the total population (see Table III.4). This figure is down on that of the previous year. From 1985 to 2000, twelve nationalities accounted for over 85% of the foreign population © OECD 2003

145

All figures in thousands unless otherwise indicated 1997

Components of population change Total population Population (on 31 December) 10 192.3 Population increase from beginning to end of year 22.1 of which: Natural increase 12.1 Net migration 6.0 Statistical adjustment 4.0

1998

1999

2000

10 213.8 21.5

10 239.1 25.3

10 263.4 24.3

9.7 6.7 5.1

8.6 12.3 4.5

10.0 12.1 2.2

9 289.1 30.8

9 321.8 32.6

9 342.0 20.3

9 401.7 59.8

8.1 –8.6 31.6 –0.2

6.4 –7.7 33.9 –0.3

5.4 –9.1 24.1 –0.2

7.3 –9.6 61.9 0.1

903.1 –8.8

892.0 –11.1

897.0 5.0

861.7 –35.3

4.0 14.7 –31.6 4.1

3.3 14.4 –33.9 5.3

3.1 21.3 –24.1 4.7

2.7 21.7 –61.9 2.2

Inflows of foreigners by region EU Other European countries Africa America Asia Oceania Region not specified

49.2 27.6 5.2 7.1 5.0 4.0 0.3 0.1

50.7 27.4 6.4 7.8 4.7 4.1 0.2 0.1

68.5 28.0 11.1 8.8 5.0 4.4 0.3 10.9

68.6 29.6 7.5 9.7 5.1 4.9 0.3 11.4

Asylum seekers

11.8

22.1

35.8

42.7

Nationals Population (on 31 December) Population increase from beginning to end of year of which: Natural increase Net migration Acquisitions of nationality Statistical adjustment Foreigners Population (on 31 December) Population increase from beginning to end of year of which: Natural increase Net migration Acquisitions of nationality Statistical adjustment

1997

1998

1999

Acquisitions of nationality Morocco Turkey Italy Dem. Rep. of Congo Former Yugoslavia Others Total

11.1 6.9 1.7 0.8 0.4 10.8 31.7

13.5 6.2 1.5 1.2 0.5 11.1 34.0

9.1 4.4 1.2 1.9 0.8 6.9 24.3

21.9 17.3 3.7 3.0 2.2 14.1 62.1

Mixed marriages % of total marriages Marriages with an EU citizen

6.0 12.5 3.0

6.4 14.4 3.1

6.8 15.4 2.9

7.1 15.7 2.9

Total work permits issued (Initial and renewed) by nationality1 United States 1.2 1.7 Japan 0.9 0.9 Morocco 0.7 0.8 Former Yugoslavia 0.3 1.2 Democratic Rep. of Congo 0.4 0.7 Other 5.4 6.6 Total 9.0 11.8 of which: Initial work permits 5.2 7.3

1.6 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.1 7.6 13.2 8.7

1.5 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 7.5 12.1 7.5

Migration flows of cross-border workers by country of origin/destination Inflows by country of origin 18.6 20.5 22.9 of which: France 12.7 14.1 16.4 Netherlands 5.2 5.5 5.6 Outflows by country of destination 48.5 51.6 46.4 of which: Luxembourg 19.4 21.0 20.0 Netherlands 14.2 15.1 15.8 France 5.8 5.9 5.8 Stock of foreign workers2 % of total labour force

377.4 8.8

390.7 8.8

386.2 8.9

2000

25.0 18.2 5.7 49.5 22.8 16.4 5.4 .. ..

Note: Figures on European Union include the 15 members of the Union. 1. Work permits are issued either for unlimited periods (A permits) or for limited periods (B permits). EU citizens do not need a work permit. 2. For details by nationality, please refer to Table B.2.3. in the Statistical Annex. Sources: Institut National de la Statistique and Registre national de la population; Ministère de l’Emploi et du Travail; Office National de l’Emploi, Commissariat Général aux Réfugiés et Apatrides; Institut National d’Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants (INASTI).


146

Table III.4. Current figures on the components of total population change, on flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Belgium

© OECD 2003

Belgium

resident in Belgium. In the year 2000, some 65% of that population consisted of EU nationals, primarily from Italy, France, the Netherlands, Spain and Germany. The largest non-EU communities consisted of Moroccans and Turks (see Table B.1.5 of the Statistical Annex). Owing to the high number of naturalisations in both communities in 2000 (see below), their numbers have declined noticeably since 1999. Women accounted for 48% of the foreign population resident in Belgium in 2000, i.e. 3.4 percentage points below the share of women in the Belgian population. Over the previous ten years, the total population grew by an average of 0.2% per year. The foreign population contributes to growth in the total population through the natural increase in foreigners, which accounted for 27% of the natural increase in 2000, and through positive net migration. Naturalisation The revised Nationality Code, which came into force on 1 May 2000, led to substantial growth in the number of naturalisations (37 809, an increase of over 155%) compared with 1999. In 2000, some 63% of all foreigners naturalised were either Moroccans or Turks (see Table B.1.6 of the Statistical Annex). There was also substantial growth in the number of successful applicants from the Republics of the former Yugoslavia (up 189.3% from 1999 to 2000). Regularisation On 10 January 2000 an Act regularising the status of certain categories of foreigners resident on Belgian soil came into force. In all, 50 600 people including over 23 000 children applied for regularisation. The government’s initial aim was to complete the process by June 2001 at the latest, but it took longer than planned and 2 500 applications were still outstanding as of 1 May 2002. By that date, of the 37 000 applications filed, 24 400 had been successful, while over 10 000 had been rejected, or declared to be inadmissible or nonapplicable. Almost 37 000 applications were filed with local authorities and the Office for Foreign Nationals. They were then forwarded to the Secretariat of the Commission for Regularisation, with its seven French-speaking and four Flemish-speaking chambers. Each chamber comprised a magistrate, a lawyer and an NGO representative. The Secretariat conducted an initial examination of the applications before forwarding them either to the Ministry of the Interior and recommending their acceptance or rejection, or to a chamber of the Commission for Regularisation if they were incomplete. By 24 October 2001 a total of 14 171 applications had been submitted to the various chambers (60% to the French-speaking ones, 40% to the Flemish-speaking ones) by the Secretariat and the Ministry of the Interior. Some 80% of the applications examined were successful. 3.


Migration for employment and work permits Belgium issues two categories of work permit: A permits of unlimited duration and valid for all paid occupations; and B permits, which are valid for a maximum of 12 months and limited to a single employer. Over the past five years the proportion of B permits has been rising and currently accounts for over 80% of the total number of permits granted to foreign workers. The number of new entrants to the labour market, measured in terms of the number of initial work permits issued, amounted to 7 467 in 2000, an overall decrease of 14% on 1999 (the number of work permits granted to women was down 31%). Initial permits were granted mainly to nationals of the Republics of the former Yugoslavia (10%), the United States (9.2%) and Morocco (8.6%). Overall, including renewals, 12 100 permits were granted in 2000, i.e. 1 100 fewer than in 1999 (see Table III.4). According to data gathered by the Eurostat labourforce survey, foreigners accounted for 8.4% of the total active population in 2001, i. e,. in absolute terms, they amounted to 358 000 people (aged 15 to 64). Their shares in unemployment and in total employment were 16% and 7%, respectively. The decrease in unemployment recorded between 2000 and 2001 has also been to the foreigners’ advantage, even though © OECD 2003

147


their unemployment rate (14.3% in 2001 for foreigners aged 15 to 64) remained twice as high as the rate based on the total population aged 15 to 64. By nationality, the groups most affected by unemployment are Italians, Moroccans and Turks. In 2001, the participation rates of the total and the foreign populations were 63.6% and 56.4%, respectively. The majority of foreign workers (around two-thirds) were from the European Union, mainly Italy and France. Among non-EU nationals, Moroccans formed the largest group. The breakdown by nationality of those in salaried employment closely mirrored these proportions, but the breakdown for self-employed workers was markedly different, with the Dutch, Italians and French forming the three largest groups and the Moroccans ranking only 6th. Of just over 439 100 workers unemployed as of 30 June 2000, some 19.2% were foreign nationals. The nationalities hardest hit by unemployment were Italians (18 556 job-seekers in 2000), Moroccans (13 741) and Turks (9 083). 4.

Policy developments

In March 2000, the Government adopted an Action Plan to combat all forms of discrimination and strengthen the legislation on racism, one aim being to bring Belgium into line with its European obligations under Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Directives of June and November 2000. An Act strengthening the legislation on racism and xenophobia and extending the prerogatives of the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism was adopted on 15 July 2002, amending previous legislation dating back to 30 July 1981. Furthermore, a General Act prohibiting all forms of discrimination, including those based on other than national or ethnic grounds, was adopted in a plenary session of the Senate on 21 December 2001 and is currently before the second chamber. A new Act on social support for applicant refugees came into force on January 2001. It changes the previous system of cash payments to payments in kind, with a view to diminishing Belgium’s reputed attraction for asylum seekers. The Minister of the Interior has indicated his determination to speed up the removal of unsuccessful asylum applicants by tripling the “deportation capacity” of infrastructure and police at Zaventem. The target is 150 deportations per day. A circular dated 8 March 2001 from the Office for Foreign Nationals sets out details of the removal procedures. This firm policy on removals was backed up by a ruling from the Court of Appeal in March 2001, stating that appeals lodged with the Council of State under the asylum procedure did not have automatic suspensive effect and did not prevent the applicant’s removal.

148

© OECD 2003

Bulgaria

BULGARIA Introduction The Bulgarian economy has been enjoying steady, buoyant growth, registering 4% in 2000 and 5% in 2001. The introduction of a currency board regime in 1997 has settled the problem of endemic inflation previously faced by the country. Unemployment, however, remains very high. After heavy migratory inflows and outflows over the past four to five years, movements have gradually declined. Migration accordingly has a limited impact on demographics and the labour market in Bulgaria. Yet it plays a major political role, particularly as regards the reforms to be implemented for accession to the European Union. Bulgaria is a member of the Helsinki group of countries expected to join the EU in 2007. 1.


Emigration Bulgaria is still an emigration country, in spite of the declining number of departing nationals in recent years. The decline mainly concerns emigrants to neighbouring countries, with the exception of Turkey, whereas emigration to Western Europe and North America is on the rise. In Western Europe, a growing number of Bulgarian nationals are moving to Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. Skilled workers and students tend to prefer the United States. According to the Greek employment services, some 100 000 to 150 000 Bulgarians live in Greece. Recent changes in Greek immigration law have enabled many of them to regularise their status, thereby facilitating their integration into the Greek labour market and society at large. Inflows and outflows of foreigners Bulgaria, like other Central and Eastern European countries, is attracting a growing number of foreigners, either as residents or in transit to the European Union. Most immigrants are self-employed workers. A very small but growing number of immigrants are managerial and other staff of foreign firms investing in Bulgaria. Illegal immigration The number of foreigners living in Bulgaria illegally (which some estimates put at 10 000) is believed to be relatively low compared with the situation in other Central and Eastern European countries. There are numerous reasons for this: some outstay their visas, some enter the country illegally, while others hold false identity documents or residence permits. Most illegal immigrants are in transit to other countries in Central Europe or the European Union (e.g. Greece, Austria or Germany). Refugees and asylum seekers Bulgaria ratified the Geneva Convention in 1993 and has set up an Agency for Refugees to deal with all issues relating to asylum seekers and refugees, including decisions, identity documents, accommodation, language courses and vocational training. In spite of the crises in the Balkans and Kosovo, the number of asylum seekers remains low. Between 1998 and 2000, however, it more than doubled from 830 to 1 760 applications (see Table III.5). In 2000, the acceptance rate for refugee status was similar to that of previous years and did not exceed 13%. Asylum seekers are mainly from Afghanistan, Iraq, the former Yugoslavia and Armenia. While flows from the © OECD 2003

149


Table III.5.

Current figures on the foreign flows and stocks in Bulgaria Thousands 1997

1998

1999

2000

Stock of foreign citizens A. Permanent residents CIS EU Central Europe Other European countries Middle East Asia Africa America Stateless Other Total

28.8 1.8 2.4 1.9 1.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 1.9 1.4 40.6

28.9 1.9 2.5 2.0 1.7 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.8 1.3 41.1

26.4 2.2 2.3 2.1 1.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.7 0.7 38.7

26.2 3.3 2.4 2.2 1.9 0.7 0.5 0.5 1.8 0.7 40.2

B. Long-term residents EU Central Europe Other European countries CIS Middle East Asia Africa America Other Total

11.9 0.1 5.5 4.7 8.8 3.4 5.0 2.4 3.8 45.4

13.6 0.1 6.5 6.2 6.4 4.1 5.1 2.6 7.0 51.7

16.2 0.3 8.6 8.8 8.5 5.7 5.5 3.0 6.9 63.5

15.2 0.2 7.9 8.7 8.3 5.6 5.4 1.5 8.3 61.1

Asylum seekers1

0.4

0.8

1.3

1.8

Naturalisations

1.1

2.3

2.2

2.0

1. Number of applications. Some dependents accompanying the applicant are not counted. Sources: National Employment Service, National Statistical Institute, and UNHCR.

first two groups have been fairly steady for several years, there has been a marked increase in immigrants from the former Yugoslavia. To provide refugees with adequate accommodation services, Bulgaria requires assistance and funds from donor organisations. The Red Cross, the UNHCR and the DAFI scholarship programme sponsored by Germany contribute to medical insurance, provide financial support for students and set up food and sanitation programmes for the more vulnerable refugees. 2.


Numerical trends Apart from censuses (the latest data available being from 1992), the National Statistics Institute does not collect data on Bulgaria’s foreign population. The estimated number of foreigners living in Bulgaria is therefore based on the number of residence and work permits issued (including to recognised refugees) and the number of asylum seekers. On this basis, an estimated 101 000 foreigners (irrespective of category) were resident in Bulgaria in 2000, i.e. approximately 1.2% of the total resident population (see Table III.5).

150

Since 1998, data on Bulgaria’s foreign population have been made available in two categories: those with permanent residence status and those with what is known as “long-term residence permits”. The first group covers foreigners married to Bulgarian citizens (proportionately the most numerous), people of Bulgarian origin, the children or parents of Bulgarian citizens, and foreigners who have been in the country legally for more than five years or legally invested over USD 250 000. The second type of permit, which is valid for one © OECD 2003

Bulgaria

year and renewable, is generally granted for employment purposes, although people with sufficient funds to stay in the country without imposing a financial burden on the State are also eligible. The adverse situation on the Bulgarian labour market is not conducive to the immigration of foreign workers. Consequently, most permanent immigrants have entered the country following mixed marriages. The number of permanent residents remains stable at around 40 000. In the year 2000, the largest group of permanent residents were from countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States (26 200). Next came EU nationals (3 300), whose numbers have doubled since 1996. The number of long-term permit holders is markedly higher, and stood at around 61 000 in 2000. EU nationals form the largest group (some 25% of the total), followed by nationals from the CIS (some 14%) and countries bordering on Bulgaria (around 13%). Most long-term residents are self-employed entrepreneurs. Naturalisations The criteria for obtaining Bulgarian citizenship have been amended and clarified by an Act which came into force in 1999. Eligible applicants are mainly those who have been resident in the country for at least five years, as well as the foreign spouses of Bulgarian nationals. In the year 2000, some 2 050 people acquired Bulgarian citizenship (see Table III.5). This figure has not increased significantly since the legislation was amended, as there were 2 300 naturalisations in 1998. Applicants for Bulgarian citizenship are mainly from CIS countries. Conversely, some 550 people lost their Bulgarian citizenship in 2000 after acquiring foreign citizenship abroad. Migration and the labour market Since 1990 the Bulgarian labour market has been experiencing a high rate of unemployment. While averaging around 20%, it can be as high as 40% in some parts of the country. Consequently, Bulgaria’s policy on foreigners in the labour market has been fairly restrictive over the past ten years or so. A work permit is required by anyone seeking salaried employment, and the labour-market situation is taken into consideration when reviewing a foreigner’s work-permit application. In recent years, however, there has been a rise in the number of permits issued. The main beneficiaries are high-level sportsmen, most of them from the CIS, the former Yugoslavia and Brazil. Another category of workers gradually on the rise consists of managers of multinational enterprises and highly skilled workers, mainly from the European Union. 3.

Policy developments

Motivated by the strong political will to join the EU, the main focus of migration policy has been on bringing the existing legislation regarding foreigners into conformity with the acquis communautaire, combating illegal immigration both to and through Bulgaria, and creating an effective system for the administration of asylum applications and the integration of recognised refugees. With a view to promoting the country’s economic and political development, an active policy has also been launched to encourage dialogue with and the return of expatriate Bulgarians. First the focus was placed on bringing identity documents (passports and driving licences) into line with western security standards. Since 1999 virtually all Bulgarian identity papers have been replaced, and the same process is now being applied to foreigners’ residence permits. Bulgaria’s policy on visas is also being brought into line with that of other EU Member States, one measure being the creation of visas for nationals from the former USSR. The border police has been demilitarised and is now an independent agency. Border police have a new training centre, and technical co-operation has been planned with services in EU Member States. Regulations concerning the implementation of the Foreigners Act (in force since January 2000) were issued in May 2000. Foreign residents must declare the purpose of their visit, provide an address and complete an “information card”, which is held by the relevant authorities until they leave the country. Any change of address must be reported within seven days to the administration dealing with foreign residents. Services for the administrative control of foreigners monitor the flow of foreigners in compliance with the new © OECD 2003

151


regulatory frameworks. Visa extension is subject to very strict criteria and procedures. Permission can only be granted by the head of police in the relevant region. The new regulations also impose further restrictions on the scope for claiming “engagement in entrepreneurial activities”. Government efforts have also focused on the rights of foreigners living in Bulgaria. The right to family reunion has been extended to people who have spent at least one year in Bulgaria. The entry of foreign students from developing countries residing in the European Union has also been facilitated. Finally, the development of institutions that deal with expatriate Bulgarians is still a priority for the present government. In 2000 the President hosted a major gathering of eminent Bulgarians resident abroad. International agreements In 2000 Bulgaria signed several re-admission agreements, in particular with countries in the former USSR and the former Yugoslavia. A re-admission treaty with Turkey is currently being drawn up. Since 2000, Bulgarian nationals no longer require visas to enter the Schengen area.

152

© OECD 2003

Canada

CANADA Introduction After its impressive performance in the late 1990s and until the autumn of 2000, the Canadian economy has slowed in 2001 as foreign demand has faltered in 2001. The GDP growth rate shrunk from 4.4% in 2000 to 1.5% in 2001. Nonetheless, as in the United States, the Canadian economy has rebounded much earlier than expected. After falling to its lowest level since the mid-1970s in 2000 (i.e. 6.8%), the standardised unemployment rate increased significantly in the late 2001 to 8%. It has decreased since, although remaining significantly above the OECD average and the United States unemployment rate. The number of immigrants increased significantly in 2001 as in 2000 and exceeded the target set in the Annual Immigration Plan. A new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Bill C-11) has been proclaimed on June 28, 2002. The new legislation strengthens enforcement practices to better manage access to Canada while reinforcing efforts to attract skilled workers and entrepreneurs and to expand family class. Provisions within the bill reinforce the government’s commitment to gender equality. The legislation also introduces key measures to strengthen the integrity of the refugee determination system. 1.


Inward and outward flows of foreign-born persons In 2000, approximately 227 300 permanent residents were landed. This figure, an increase of 20% in comparison to 1999, is 1% above the range anticipated by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), which had expected to attract between 200 000 and 225 000 immigrants. The figure for 2001 reached 250 400, which represents almost a 10% increase with regard to the previous year (see Table III.6). The planing range for 2002 is from 210 000 to 235 000. In 2000, 27% of immigrants entered on the basis of family reunion (60 500 people, compared with an anticipated 57 000 to 61 000). Approximately 58% of them were in the skilled worker and business classes (132 100 people, 2% above the ceiling of the expected range of 115 500 to 129 300) and 13% in the refugee class (30 030 people, compared with an anticipated 22 100 to 29 300). In 2001, of the 250 400 who came to Canada, 61% were economic immigrants, 27% were family class immigrants, 11% were refugees and 1% were from other categories. Analysis of flows by sending country reveals the increasing concentration of sources of immigration. In 2000, some 53% of immigrants were from the Asia-Pacific area (51% in 1999) and 19% were from Europe (20% in 1999). Immigration from Hong Kong (China) has declined significantly (1997: 22 200; 1998: 8 000; 1999: 3 700; 2000: 2 900). It is now the seventeenth largest source of immigration to Canada, after ranking first in 1996 and 1997. For the past three years, the Chinese (36 700 in 2000) and Indians (26 000 in 2000) have been the two largest groups of immigrants. Between 1999 and 2000, the number of nationals from the People’s Republic of China has risen by 26% while the number of Indians has increased by 50% and the number of Pakistanis by 52%. In 2000, Filipinos (10 000) and Koreans (7 600) constitute the fourth and fifth largest groups and have been relatively stable for the past two years. With regard to immigration from OECD countries, Korea remained the top ranking country (2000: 7 600 and 1999: 7 200) with a 6% increase. Immigration from Germany declined (–18%) while the number of French nationals increased by 11%. Immigration from the United States (+5%) and the United Kingdom (+4%) increased at a much lower rate. Immigrants also tend to be concentrated in certain Canadian regions and cities. In 2000, as in the past, the majority of immigrants intended to reside in the province of Ontario (59%), followed by British Columbia (16%) © OECD 2003

153


Table III.6.

Immigrants1 by category, 1998-2001, Canada Thousands 1998

1999

2000

2001

50.9

55.3

60.5

66.7

Skilled workers Principal applicants Accompanying dependents

81.3 36.0 45.3

92.5 41.5 50.9

118.5 52.1 66.4

137.1 .. ..

Business Principal applicants Accompanying dependents

13.8 3.8 10.0

13.0 3.6 9.4

13.7 3.8 9.8

14.6 .. ..

Refugees Government assisted3 Privately sponsored3 Recognised refugees4 Dependants abroad5 Kosovo refugees

22.8 7.4 2.2 13.1 .. –

24.4 7.4 2.3 14.6 .. –

30.0 10.7 2.9 16.5 .. –

27.9 7.3 3.6 11.9 3.7 1.4

2.9 2.4 0.4

3.3 2.6 0.6

2.8 2.3 0.5

2.8 .. ..

Family 2

Live-in-Caregiver 6 Principal applicants Accompanying dependents Other immigrants7

2.5

1.5

1.7

1.3

Immigrants, total

174.2

189.9

227.2

250.4

Note: Backlog cases are included in immigrant categories. 1. An immigrant corresponds to a person obtaining the right of permanent residence, either within Canada or from abroad. Includes accompanying dependants. 2. Figures include the Independent class and the Assisted Relatives class. Selection criteria are only applied to the principal applicants. 3. Including persons in “designated classes”, who do not strictly satisfy the United Nations convention on refugees criteria but are resettled for humanitarian reasons. 4. Asylum seekers who have been granted refugee status. 5. Dependants (of a refugee landed in Canada) who live abroad. 6. Programme for child care workers and assistants for elderly people in private households. 7. Includes Provincial/Territorial Nominees, Deferred Removal Orders Class (DROC) and Post-Determination Refugee Claimants in Canada Class (PDRCC). Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

and then Quebec (14%). In these three provinces, respectively, the cities of Toronto (48%), Vancouver (15%) and Montreal (12%) attract the largest number of immigrants. The demographic characteristics of immigrants are relatively stable: 75% of those entering Canada were between 15 and 64 years of age, with 102 women per 100 men in 2000. Due to the selection criteria, immigrants have relatively high levels of education, with 58% having reached the post-secondary level. Economic immigration Immigration of skilled workers and business persons and their dependants increased by 25% in 2000 after an 11% increase between 1998 and 1999 (see Table III.6). With regard to immigration by skilled workers, the most significant change since 1997 is the 92% decline from Hong Kong, China (2000: 400). Immigration of skilled workers from Asia has shown significant increases between 1999 and 2000: China (+27%), India (+67%), Pakistan (+77%), and the Philippines (+85%). The exception was a 35% decline for Chinese Taipei. Ontario took in 63% of skilled worker immigrants in 2000 while Quebec received 14%.

154

The inflow of investors, self-employed and entrepreneurs (business persons) increased by 5% in 2000. Immigration from Hong Kong (China) dropped sharply (–29% between 1999 and 2000 following a 58% decline between 1998 and 1999) but still ranked fourth in absolute terms. The immigration of investors, self-employed and entrepreneurs from China increased by 88%. Nearly 90% of entries in this class were concentrated in just three provinces: Ontario (33%), British Columbia (28%) and Quebec (27%). © OECD 2003

Canada

Refugees and asylum seekers Each year, in line with its humanitarian traditions and international commitments, Canada takes in between 20 000 and 30 000 refugees and displaced persons. In 2000, 30 000 refugees obtained permanent resident status (27 900 in 2001, see Table III.6). In 2000, the upward trend in the number of refugees observed since 1998 was no doubt due to the crisis in Kosovo. Over half of all refugees were selected overseas, while the remainder claimed asylum on arriving in Canada and had their claim accepted by the Immigration and Refugee Board. Nationals of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia accounted for 13% of all refugees in 2000, a share that increased from 3% in 1999 due to the landing of Kosovo refugees who had arrived in 1999 as part of a special humanitarian movement. The number of refugees from Sri Lanka (3 200) increased by 24% in 2000 and the number from Afghanistan (2 500) by 40%. Bosnia Herzegovina accounted for 3% of all refugees, a decline from 11% in 1999. The number of refugees from Somalia and Croatia also declined significantly. It should be noted that the vast majority of Somalis, Sri Lankans, and Algerians obtained refugee status as asylum seekers. In 2000, approximately 5 700 people who were not granted refugee status had to leave Canada, accounting for 67% of all removals, a 6% increase in comparison to 1999. Family reunion Immigration under family reunion arrangements is the second largest category. In 2000, an estimated 60 500 people became permanent residents via this channel (10% higher than in 1999), accounting for 27% of total entries. Family reunion’s share of total immigration levelled off between 1998 and 1999 at 29% and then fell slightly in 2000. India continues to be the leading source of family reunion immigrants (20%) in 2000. There were significant increases in flows from India (+26%) and Vietnam (+30%) while the number from the Philippines declined by 16% and from Jamaica by 7%. Family reunion immigrants from Hong Kong (China), on the decline since the mid-1990s showed a slight increase between 1999 and 2000. 2.


The 1996 census put Canada’s total population at 28.5 million. The number of immigrants (i.e. persons born abroad who have been granted permanent resident status) was 5 million, 17.4% of the total, and rose by 27% be tween the 1986 and 1996 ce nsuses. Immigran ts from Euro pe were still the largest grou p (2.3 million) in 1996, but for the first time in this century they accounted for less than half of all immigrants. Although the numbers of immigrants from other parts of the world increased over those ten years, only immigrants from Asia formed particularly significant groups in 1996 (Asia: 1 562 800; Africa: 229 300; Central and South America: 553 700). In 1996, recent immigrants, i.e. those who had arrived since 1991, had a higher level of education than the native-born population. Slightly more than 21% of new immigrants 15 years of age or older held a university degree, compared with 12.2% of the Canadian-born. Within the total immigrant population, 77.7% spoke English only, compared with 64.8% of the non-immigrant population. 3.


Data from the 1996 census show that immigrants account for approximately 19% of Canada’s labour force. In aggregate terms, their labour market participation, as illustrated by employment and unemployment rates, is very similar to that of native-born Canadians: the employment rate is slightly lower (60.7% compared to 66.9%), but unemployment rates are virtually the same (10.5% compared to 9.9% in 1996). According to the 1996 census, the employment rate of new immigrants is 59.1%, and 18.6% of them are seeking employment. By law, no person other than a Canadian citizen or permanent resident is permitted to be employed in Canada without an employment authorisation. Temporary work permits may be issued to asylum seekers whose applications have provisionally been determined to be acceptable as well as to foreign students and © OECD 2003

155


people with special skills lacking on the labour market. In addition, citizens from the United States, Mexico and Chile are eligible to work temporarily in Canada under free trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement (CCFTA). In 2000, over 91 300 people (including seasonal re-entries) entered Canada temporarily to work (asylum seekers and foreign students are not included). Their number has been rising for several years (1998-99: +7%; 1999-2000: +8%) but the breakdown by country of origin has remained relatively stable. The bulk of temporary work permits are issued to nationals of OECD countries: United States 27 000, Mexico 9 900, United Kingdom 6 700, France 5 300, Japan 4 300, Australia 4 000, and Germany 2 500. In all these cases, temporary immigration of foreign workers is on a larger scale than the permanent inflows. The reverse is generally true for other countries. In 2000, the stock of foreign workers in Canada (on December 1st) numbered approximately 92 200, a 5% increase in comparison to 1999. 4.

Policy developments

Main changes in the immigration policy In October 2001, as part of the Government of Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Plan, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced the introduction of a permanent resident card to replace the existing paper record. In November 2001, the Government of Canada introduced the Public Safety Act which proposes amendments to a number of existing acts including the current Immigration Act in order to enhance the government’s ability to deal with security concerns. A new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Bill C-11), tabled by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in February 2001, received royal assent on November 1, 2001 and has been be proclaimed on June 28, 2002. Changes concern all categories of immigrants. Some of the main modifications relate to the selection grid for skilled workers destined to provinces and territories other than Quebec, (under the 1991 Canada-Quebec Accord, Quebec sets its own selection criteria). The new selection system emphasises education, job experience and official language ability: • More points have been allocated for applicants with a trade certificate or a second degree. • The maximum number of points available for proficiency in both English and French combined has been increased and workers who are proficient in both languages will score more points. These changes are expected to result in more bilingual (English and French) workers being admitted to Canada. • The total number of points available for “experience” has been reduced but more points will be awarded for one to two years of work experience in order to attract younger workers who may have higher levels of education but fewer years of experience. • The “age factor” has been adjusted upwards, so that workers between the ages of 21 and 49 will score the maximum number of points (10 points). • The pass mark has been set at 75 points to respond to concerns raised by the provinces and territories and others that a high pass would bar many skilled immigrants. A number of changes have also been made to the Business Immigrant category, including changes to the definitions of “investor” and “entrepreneur”. An applicant’s net worth must be “legally obtained”, and immigration officers will be provided with the ability to examine the propriety of the accumulation of net worth. A requirement for “experience” has been incorporated into the definition of self-employed. Some of the changes introduced in the new Act intend to ease family reunification. In particular, a new “conjugal partners” category has been added to the Family Class to accommodate common-law partners who do not meet the one-year cohabitation requirement.

156

The major change affecting the Refugee Class is the elimination of the Undocumented Protected Persons in Canada (UPPC) category. The UPPC provision called for a three-year delay in landing for people unable to obtain original identity documents from certain countries. This provision was not meeting its objectives. The new Act allows a more strategic use of detention, which is expected to discourage claimants from destroying © OECD 2003

Canada

documents. The Regulations have also been amended to include new rules to allow more immigrants to use alternative documents to establish their identity. The implementation of the Refugee Appeal Division is being delayed, as previously announced. As a result, the Regulations pertaining to stays of removals have been amended to reflect the delay. The stay and integration of foreigners Immigration policy is managed at all levels of administration. Citizenship and Immigration Canada manages immigration issues at the federal level, its role being to set standards for immigration programmes in Canada and define the broad guidelines for immigration policy. CIC also concludes agreements on the settlement of immigrants with Canada’s provinces. There are also services abroad (Canadian Orientation Abroad) to enable future immigrants to adjust when they arrive in Canada. At the federal level, Citizenship and Immigration Canada has a number of programmes aimed at facilitating the integration of immigrants into Canadian society, such as the Immigrant Settlement and Adaptation Programme (ISAP), which funds orientation and counselling, translation and job search assistance for foreigners. The Host Programme matches Canadian volunteers with arriving immigrants to facilitate their integration and settlement. There is also a programme aimed at providing arriving immigrants with instruction in the official languages of Canada (Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada, LINC). Citizenship and Immigration Canada has recently signed agreements with provincial governments regarding immigration. The agreements on nominees, for instance, enable the provinces to introduce active recruitment policies: agreements of this kind were concluded in May 2001 with the Yukon Territory and in June 2001 with Prince Edward Island. Settlement Services Agreements, designed to simplify the administrative procedures relating to settlement, were concluded with Manitoba in June 1998 and with British Colombia in May 1998. Under the 1991 Canada-Quebec Accord, Quebec has sole responsibility for the selection of independent immigrants and refugees from abroad and administers federally funded integration services. Citizenship and Immigration Canada is currently conducting a longitudinal study on immigrants in cooperation with Statistics Canada. This study is examining the economic and social aspects of integration and in particular, newcomers’ needs in this regard and how public services are meeting them. Integration-net, in operation since January 2000, provides a means to exchange information among agencies involved in settlement, including federal and provincial governments, service providers and the immigrants themselves. Refugees and asylum A refugee claimant receives Canada’s protection when he or she is found to be a Convention refugee as defined by the United Nations’ 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and its 1967 Protocol. Under the Convention, a refugee is protected from forced repatriation to the place where he or she would face persecution. Members of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) determine refugee status at an oral hearing. The IRB is an independent tribunal, which makes decisions on a quasi-judicial basis. In June 2001, Citizenship and Immigration Canada revised the list of countries for which asylum seeker status may be granted on humanitarian grounds (Humanitarian Designated Classes: the Country of Asylum Class and the Source Country Class). This list includes Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, El Salvador, Guatemala and Sudan and Sierra Leone. The abolition of the tax levied on arrival in Canada was announced in February 2000.

157

© OECD 2003


Box III.2.

An overview of the structure and approach of Canada’s immigration programme

There are two main mechanisms through which foreigners may legally enter Canada for periods longer than allowed under short-term tourist and business-travel arrangements: i) with permanent residence status through the permanent immigration programme, and ii) on a temporary basis as students, refugee claimants or for temporary employment. Because it is possible to transfer from temporary to permanent resident status under some conditions, total issue of permanent residence (often referred to as “landed immigrants”) include persons who have been in the country for some length of time as temporary residents. About 15% of applications for permanent residence are processed in Canada; the remainder is processed overseas. Permanent immigration Acquisition of permanent residence status is possible under three main classes of entry: i) the “family class” who enter on the basis of having close relatives in Canada; ii) those entering for employment and business reasons, the “skilled worker and business classes”; iii) those entering as refugees. The system works through a highly developed set of rules for each class of entry. There are no numerical limits or other mechanisms for capping the number of permanent immigrants, the source of control being solely through the rules of entry. As a result, there is no mechanism for effecting immediate and precise determination of the numbers granted permanent residence status (in contrast to the system used in Australia). By November 1st of each year, the Minister responsible for Citizenship and Immigration Canada issues a statement on the “planned” migration intake for the following year, which is based on an assessment of the numbers who are likely to enter under the existing set of regulations. Note that the Canadian authorities often refer to issues of permanent residence as immigrant landings. Entry under the family class is based on sponsorship by a Canadian citizen or permanent resident. There must be evidence of the sponsor having a bone fide relationship with the applicant. In addition, the sponsor must demonstrate an ability to provide financial support for those sponsored Entry under the skilled worker class is based on a selection test consisting of criteria against which points are awarded to determine whether persons can become successfully established in Canada. The mix of specific selection criteria and their weighting pattern are designed to reflect what is needed to succeed in Canada’s labour market. Only the principal applicant is assessed. Entry under the business class is based on a requirement to make a minimum investment in a Canadian business (or business investment fund) or a requirement to establish, purchase or invest in a designated business that will create employment opportunities for others. The business class is comprised of investors, entrepreneurs and self-employed. Refugee status is granted both to Geneva Convention refugees and those who do not quite satisfy the conventional refugee requirements but are nonetheless admitted for humanitarian reasons. There are three major sub-groups of refugees: government-assisted refugees selected abroad; privately sponsored refugees selected abroad; and asylum seekers who come to Canada and claim refugee status and who subsequently receive a positive determination on their claim. Asylum seekers are issued an employment authorisation for a period of nine months once certain requirements are met (such as a credible basis for their claim and a medical examination). Temporary immigration Temporary immigration to Canada is tracked through data on employment authorisations and student authorisations (by law, no persons other than a Canadian citizen or permanent resident is permitted to be employed or to study in Canada without an employment or student authorisation). Foreign students may work in Canada under certain conditions and will be required to apply for an employment authorisation. The motivation for issuing temporary employment authorisations is both humanitarian and economic. Some authorisations have to be “validated”, i.e. Human Resources Development Canada ensures that there is no Canadian citizen or permanent resident available to fill the position. However, some authorisations are exempt from validation. Those exempt include a wide variety of applicants such as persons awaiting results of an application for permanent residence from within Canada, applicants for refugee status and some foreign students. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) allows for temporary entry to Canada by citizens of the United States or Mexico under four categories of employment: “trader and investor”, “business visitor”, “professional” and “inter-company transferee”. Most of the entries under NAFTA are in the “professional” category where entry is based on an agreed list of specific professions. 158

© OECD 2003

Czech Republic

CZECH REPUBLIC Introduction The performance of the Czech economy in recent years has been significantly influenced by the 1997 currency crisis and the subsequent restrictive macroeconomic stabilisation package. Against this background, the nascent recovery was already seen to be visible towards the middle of 1999. Despite the precarious international economic environment, the GDP growth rate stood above 3% in 2000 and 2001. The forecast for 2002 and 2003 is 3 and 3.7% respectively. The unemployment rate among the 15 to 64 age group decreased to 8.1% in 2001 from 8.8% the previous year. Following the example of other EU candidate countries, the Czech Republic has significantly revised its legislation on immigration to make it compatible with the “acquis communautaire” and has strengthened border controls. Recent changes in migration policy, for instance related to asylum, are in the same vein. 1.


Between 1997 and 2000, net foreign migration significantly decreased. While emigration increased by 18% between 1999 and 2000, immigration decreased by more than 21% (see Table III.7). Emigration After the intensive outflow of Czech nationals after the opening of the borders (early 1990s), emigration of nationals has subsided, particularly due to restricted measures adopted in most EU countries and the lowering of wage disparities between the Czech Republic and European countries. Current estimates of Czech nationals working in EU member states fluctuates around 20 000 with approximately half working in Germany. Other preferred destinations are: Austria, Italy, Ireland, France, the Netherlands and Sweden. Inward and outward flows of foreigners The Slovak Republic remains the primary country of origin for immigrants, with its share of all immigrants having increased between 1999 and 2000 from 32.6% to 36.2%, despite a fall in numbers (from 3 200 to 2 800). Its share had fallen as low as 24% in 1997. Other important countries of origin (1999 data) include the Ukraine (1 700), Vietnam (800), Russia (700) and Germany (560). In 2000, total emigration increased to 1 300 from 1 100 (1999), with Slovak nationals accounting for 32.7% of all emigrants. Illegal migration In 2000, the number of foreigners attempting to illegally cross the Czech border was 30 761, which was a similar figure to 1999. The majority (84.3%) of total illegal migration (32 720 including Czech nationals) was due to people leaving the Czech Republic. Illegal migrants were originating mainly from Romania (4 300), Afghanistan (3 700), Moldova (3 000), India (2 600), Bulgaria (2 300) and the Ukraine (2 300), with the last four groups increasing significantly compared to 1999. In 2000, 2 300 aliens were expelled from the Czech Republic. About 46% were expelled by the authorities for unlawful residence: most were from the Ukraine, Romania and Moldova. The remaining 1 200 aliens were expelled as a result of legal action following a criminal act: nearly half of this group was from the Ukraine (47.7%), followed in number by Slovaks and Bulgarians. © OECD 2003

159

Current figures on flows and stocks of migrants, Czech Republic Thousands 1997

1

Total population Total population change from beginning to end of year Natural increase Net migration

1998

1999

2000

10 299 –9 –21 12

10 290 –10 –19 9

10 278 –12 –20 9

10 267 –11 –18 7

12.9 9.8 3.1

10.7 7.8 2.9

9.9 6.7 3.2

7.8 5.0 2.8

Outflows Departures (excluding those to Slovak Republic)3 Departures to Slovak Republic4

1.4 0.5 0.9

1.3 0.9 0.4

1.1 0.8 0.3

1.3 0.9 0.4

Inflows of asylum seekers

2.1

4.1

7.2

8.8

Inflows2 Arrivals (excluding those from Slovak Republic) Arrivals from Slovak Republic

Stocks of foreign residents by type of permits and nationality Holders of a permanent residence permit Poland 11.9 Slovak Republic5 12.7 Ukraine 4.6 Vietnam 5.1 Russian Federation 2.5 Bulgaria 2.4 Other 17.1 Total 56.3 Holders of a long-term permit6 Ukraine Slovak Republic Vietnam Russian Federation Poland China Bulgaria Other Total 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

38.8 39.5 15.8 6.5 13.1 4.4 4.2 31.2 153.5

12.0 14.1 6.2 6.8 2.9 2.3 19.6 63.9

11.6 13.0 7.8 8.0 3.5 2.3 20.6 66.8

11.8 11.1 8.8 8.2 3.8 2.3 20.9 66.9

46.4 35.5 16.1 7.2 10.1 4.1 3.6 32.8 155.8

58.1 27.3 16.9 13.4 6.7 4.2 2.7 32.8 162.1

41.4 33.1 15.3 9.2 5.3 3.4 1.7 24.7 134.1

1997

1998

1999

2000

25.2 13.7 3.3 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.5 11.3 61.0

19.3 9.9 2.7 1.6 2.0 1.4 2.0 11.0 49.9

16.7 6.9 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 9.4 40.3

15.8 7.7 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.1 9.7 40.1

69.7

61.3

53.1

63.6

Holders of a business authorisation by nationality Ukraine 8.7 Vietnam 24.7 Slovak Republic 7.6 Germany 1.5 Other 21.0 Total 63.5

9.9 15.5 6.2 0.9 12.5 45.0

19.5 18.9 6.6 0.9 12.5 58.4

21.4 19.3 6.7 0.8 13.1 61.3

194.2

156.2

151.8

165.0

Czech workers employed in Germany Contract workers Seasonal workers

1.4 2.3

1.1 1.8

1.4 1.9

0.6 3.2

Illegal migrants caught at the border (including Czech nationals)

29.3

44.7

32.3

32.7

Registered foreign workers by nationality Ukraine Poland Bulgaria Germany Moldavia United States Belarus Other Total Slovak workers8

Total foreign workers

7

© OECD 2003

Population on the 31 December of the given year. Permanent residents who had their change of address registered. Czech and foreign citizens leaving the Czech Republic permanently are supposed to report their departure to the authorities. Figures represent the total number of registered departures. The data are issued by the Slovak Statistical Office and refer to the registrations of permanent residence in the Slovak Republic. Up to 1 January 1993, Czechoslovak permanent residents were registered in the National Population Register. Since the split of the Czech and Slovak Republics, Slovak citizens residing in the Czech Republic are subject to the same rules as any other foreign resident and they are therefore registered in the Central Register of Foreigners. 6. In 2000, the figures relate to holders of visa for a period over 90 days (according to the new Law on stay of foreigners). 7. A foreigner can be employed only as the holder of a residence permit and work permit. A written offer by the employer is needed to apply for a work permit. These rules do not apply to Slovak citizens. 8. Under the Treaty on Mutual Employment of Citizens signed by the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic in October 1992, nationals of the two Republics have free access to both labour markets. The estimates of the number of Slovak citizens are made by the local labour offices. Source: Statistical Yearbook of the Czech Republic (Czech Statistical Office); Ministry of the Interior; Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.


160

Table III.7.

Czech Republic

Refugees and asylum seekers During 2000, the trend of increasing asylum applications, which began in October 1998, continued. The total number of asylum applicants reached 8 800 (2000), a 22% increase on 1999. In 2001, applications more than doubled to 18 000. The number of asylum seekers granted refugee status has decreased since 1993 from 254 to 83 in 2001. The distribution of applicants by country of origin changed dramatically during the 1995-2000 period. For the first two years, nationals from Bulgaria and Romania accounted for 58% (1995) and 69% (1996) of all applicants. Since 1997, applicants from Afghanistan and Iraq have gained ground. In 1998, applications quadrupled with an increased number of refugees from Afghanistan (1 280), former Yugoslavia (710), Sri Lanka (370), Iraq (315) and India (200). In 1999, refugees from Afghanistan, India and Sri Lanka accounted for 57% of all refugees. As of 2000, the number of refugees from Eastern European countries has increased. The largest groups by nationality included: the Ukraine (13% of total), Afghanistan (13%), Moldova (9%), Slovakia (8%), India (7%) and Vietnam (7%). Other large increases between 1999 and 2000 were recorded from Romania, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia and Mongolia. In 2000, 133 persons, mainly from Belarus, Afghanistan, Armenia and Yugoslavia were granted asylum in the Czech Republic. At the end of 2000, according to data from the Ministry of the Interior, the total number of refugee living in the Czech Republic was 1 270. Family reunion is granted to spouses of Czech citizens as well as to children and siblings of permanent residents and refugees. Reunited members are given permanent residence permits. Family reunion was a prevailing reason for granting permanent residence in the Czech Republic as indicated by its share of 87% of all permanent residence permits (66 900). 2.


Numerical trends Since 2000, new definitions for temporary and permanent residence exist for foreigners. Short term (90 days) and long term (more than 90 days, valid for a maximum of one year) visas were added to the “temporary stay” category. Long term visas are issued mostly for study, trade or employment and can be extended by another year. While all temporary visas need to be requested abroad, Slovak citizens are subject to special treatment as of March 2000 and can request temporary stay from within the Czech Republic. The category of “permanent residence” (for those without previous residence in the Czech Republic), is granted mostly in humanitarian cases and to foreigners residing continuously for 10 years in the Czech Republic (by application). The number of foreign residents saw its first decrease since 1993, dropping by 12.2% in 2000 from 228 900 (1999) to 200 951. Of all foreign residents, 134 060 (66.7%) had visas for over 90 days and 66 900 (33.3%) had permanent residence (see Table III.7). Despite a 24% annual decline on 1999, Ukrainians remained the largest group of foreign residents in 2000, reaching 50 200 (25% of total). Slovaks composed 22% of all foreigners (44 300), Vietnamese 12% (23 600) and Polish 9% (17 050). Naturalisations In 2000, 1 100 applicants were granted Czech citizenship, most of whom were originally from the Ukraine, Bulgaria, Vietnam or Russia. Among those granted Czech citizenship, 86 were refugees (formerly from Armenia). 3.


Migration for employment and work permits Foreigners are allowed to work in the Czech Republic if they receive a permit to work and a residency visa for the purpose of employment (i.e., temporary visa stating so). During the last 10 years, foreign labour has © OECD 2003

161


gradually become an imperative part of the Czech labour market. By the end of 2000, foreign workers composed 3.2% of the total disposable labour force in the Czech Republic. This figure does not include foreigners who attained the right to permanent residency or asylum in the Czech Republic. During the 1990-1996 period, the number of foreign workers constantly increased but then declined in 1997 until 1999. Of the three primary components of the foreign labour force (labour permits, Slovak nationals and foreign entrepreneurs), the number of work permits given and that of Slovak nationals decreased significantly since their recent peak in 1997 (respectively 71 000 and 72 250). Between 1999 and 2000, though, a resurgence in the foreign labour force occurred with the number of foreign workers increasing by 8.65% from 151 850 to 165 000 (see Table III.7). Slovak nationals and business authorisations account for most of this rise, increasing respectively by 20% and 5%. Employment of foreigners, including their prevailing branches of occupations, is differentiated according to the economic development of the country of origin. Foreigners from economically advanced countries represent a marginal proportion of the Czech labour market: Germany (1.4%), the United States (1.2%) and the United Kingdom (0.9%). The majority (90%) of foreign workers are migrants from post-communist countries. Nationals from the following countries account for half of the foreign workforce: the Slovak Republic (70 250 or 42.6%), Poland (8 850 or 5.4%) and Bulgaria (2 700 or 1.6%). 4.

Policy developments

Admission and residence (including integration measures) The Czech Republic’s imminent accession to the EU has brought about changes among its migration regulations. In January 2000, several changes were implemented to harmonise procedures and regulations within EU member states. Major changes included the Law of Stay of Foreigners, which introduced two new categories of stay (described earlier) and constrained visa applications. Visa duty was introduced for Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine. New regulations also tightened the application procedure for long term visas by adding stricter conditions and introducing the obligation to submit the visa application abroad. The consequence of this regulation was reflected by an increased number of asylum applications by foreigners wanting to legalise their stay in the Czech Republic. The law is intended to avoid unwarranted travel to the Czech Republic and eliminate system abuses. Other major changes include a 1999 amendment to the Employment Law, which precisely defines a range of employers of foreigners and sets more accurate entry criteria of individual categories of foreign workers to the labour market. It states “the situation in the labour market” as a principal pre-condition for the employment of foreigners and sets up a one-year mandatory interruption period after three years of a foreigner’s employment. At present, the government is working on a new Employment Law to better define the legal position of nationals from EU member states, to change the labour permit extensions and to combat illegal employment. In the meantime, the Czech Republic is running a two-year pilot programme (initiated in 2000) to proceed with the active selection of qualified foreign workers through a rating system based on several categories. The programme is currently limited to nationals of selected countries and ensures that successful applicants are allowed to submit an application for permanent residence.

162

With regard to integration measures, a government resolution adopted in July 1999 aimed to produce legislative and practical conditions for the protection of political, economic, social and cultural rights of foreigners legally settled in the Czech Republic. The resulting analysis found that the absence of an effective co-ordination, the low participation of sub-national administrations and non-governmental organisations were the main causes for the lack of an active integration policy. These results led to a proposal by the Ministry of the Interior to modify the approach to the integration of foreigners adopted in late 2000 to support a co-ordinating role by the Ministry and the creation of sub-national advisory bodies on integration issues. © OECD 2003

Czech Republic

Refugees and asylum seekers A new Law on Asylum was introduced in 2000 and lays out the legal status, rights and obligations, entry and residence conditions of asylum applicants. Further amendments are in accordance with EU legislation on asylum by October 2001. The new Law also defines the state integration program. For example, it allows asylum applicants to reside outside of government centres during the proceedings and request financial contribution to their living costs. A total of 3 000 applicants (34%) used this clause in 2000. Measures to combat the employment of undocumented foreigners The Law on the Stay of Foreigners also aims to combat illegal employment by regulating the amount of information foreign workers should provide to the Czech administration. Furthermore, the law means tighter visa obligations for nationalities that dominate Czech immigration, in particular Ukrainians. International agreements In the interest of economic co-operation and development, the Czech Republic has been concluding reciprocal employment agreements with foreign countries. Since 1990, the Czech Republic has concluded such agreements with Germany (valid as of 1991), Poland (1992), Slovakia (1993), Vietnam (1994), the Ukraine (1997), Switzerland (1997), Russia (1998), Hungary (2000), Bulgaria (2000), Lithuania (2000), Luxembourg (2001) and Mongolia (not yet in force).

163

© OECD 2003


DENMARK Introduction Denmark has experienced an economic slowdown, reflecting the weak international climate, although the impact of the downturn has been cushioned by the composition of exports. The growth rate has decreased from 3% in 2000 to 0.9% in 2001 but it is projected to rebound to 1.9% in 2002. For the past 2 years the unemployment rate oscillates between 4 and 4.5% (4.2% in 2001). The good economic conditions favoured foreigners whose unemployment rates have fallen but still remains well above the national average (9.9% compared to a national average of 4.2%). The imbalance between labour market participation and unemployment among immigrants and native Danish citizens has resulted in bringing about the new Act on Immigration (1 January 1999) to facilitate the integration of immigrants into the labour market. The decision of the newly-elected government to review the law on Danish immigration aims to improve the integration of foreigners into Denmark. It is as yet, too soon to evaluate the outcome of this review on the size and composition of immigration inflows. 1.


Net immigration has fallen consistently from 27 939 in the peak year 1995 to 9 385 in 1999. The main causes for this fall were an increase in the number of departure of Danish nationals over that period, a decrease in the volume of foreign immigration and a continuous increase in foreign emigration. Emigration The emigration of Danish nationals accounted for around 72% of the total emigration during the 1984-96 period but has decreased consistently since then to 64% in 1999. In absolute terms the number of Danes leaving the country has increased slightly over the 1993-99 period; the volume of emigrating foreigners grew more strongly. In 1999, most emigrants were nationals from EU and Nordic countries who spent some time in Denmark for work or study purposes. Inward and outward flows of foreigners From 1990 to 1994, foreign immigration increased from 15 051 to 15 552. In the recent years foreign immigration has remained stable at a higher level of around 20 000 immigrants annually (see Table III.8). Net foreign immigration has been positive and fairly stable for the past fifteen years. The peak years 1995 and 1996 when Denmark accommodated many refugees from the war in the former Yugoslavia caused a shock that lifted net migration from 10 967 over the 1985-94 period to 13 129 over the 1997-1999 period. However, net foreign immigration has been decreasing recently to 12 100 in 1999. Refugees and asylum seekers

164

The number of asylum applications from overseas, i.e., excluding applications from within Denmark, has strongly increased for the second year in succession. The total number of applications has increased by 15% from 5 702 in 1998 to 6 530 in 1999 and by 58% to 10 347 in 2000. The main contributors to this growth are applicants from Afghanistan (with a growth of 806 applications between 1999 and 2000), the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (779 growth) and Iraq (696 growth). © OECD 2003

© OECD 2003

Table III.8. Current figures on flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, Denmark Figures in thousands unless otherwise indicated 1997

1998

1999

2000

32.6 12.2 3.2 8.4 4.6 2.8 1.4

33.4 12.1 3.0 8.2 6.1 2.3 1.7

32.1 11.8 3.2 7.5 5.8 2.0 1.2

.. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Acquisition of Danish nationality, by region of origin Nordic countries2 Other European countries Asia Africa America Other

Long-term emigration by group of nationality1 Denmark Other Nordic countries2 Other European countries Asia Africa Other

20.7 14.0 1.9 2.9 0.8 0.4 0.7

22.0 14.3 2.2 3.3 0.8 0.7 0.8

22.7 14.5 2.4 3.5 0.8 0.7 2.0

.. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Grants of residence permits, by category3 Family reunification EU provisions Refugee Employment Others

29.5 7.7 5.9 5.9 3.1 6.9

31.0 9.7 6.1 4.8 3.3 7.2

29.2 9.4 5.7 4.4 3.1 6.6

34.9 12.6 5.9 5.2 3.6 7.6

5.1 1.3 0.4 1.8 0.8 1.5 1.2 0.5

5.7 1.4 0.4 3.0 1.9 0.9 0.6 0.4

6.5 2.5 0.9 3.0 1.8 0.7 0.5 0.2

10.3 4.0 1.6 4.9 2.5 1.1 0.7 0.3

Long-term immigration by group of nationality Denmark Other Nordic countries2 Other European countries Asia Africa Other

Asylum seekers by region of origin Europe of which: Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Asia of which: Iraq Africa of which: Somalia Other regions

1

1997

1998

1999

2000

5.5 0.3 0.3 2.0 0.3 1.7 0.9

10.3 0.4 2.8 4.5 0.7 0.2 1.6

12.4 0.3 4.7 4.8 0.9 0.2 1.5

18.8 0.4 5.5 7.8 2.4 0.3 2.4

Stock of foreigners Nordic countries2 Other European countries Asia Africa America Oceania Other

249.6 29.9 123.9 53.2 22.1 9.6 1.1 9.8

256.3 30.6 127.2 54.8 23.9 9.8 1.1 8.9

259.4 31.3 127.6 56.1 25.4 10.2 1.2 7.6

258.6 31.8 127.7 56.5 25.5 10.3 1.2 5.6

Immigrants by region of origin4 Nordic countries2 Other European countries Asia Africa America Oceania Other

276.8 33.8 129.3 75.3 23.8 12.2 1.1 1.1

287.7 34.2 133.0 80.1 25.5 12.6 1.2 1.2

296.9 34.5 127.6 84.5 26.8 13.0 1.3 9.3

308.7 34.7 138.7 90.9 28.2 13.3 1.3 1.6

70.3 4.6 31.5 25.4 6.9 1.5 0.1 0.2

75.7 4.7 33.5 27.8 7.9 1.5 0.1 0.2

81.2 4.7 35.3 30.2 9.1 1.5 0.1 0.3

87.3 4.7 37.4 32.9 10.3 1.6 0.1 0.3

56 14

56 11

69 7

70 5

Descendants by region of origin4 Nordic countries2 Other European countries Asia Africa America Oceania Other

Labour force and unemployment rates among immigrants and their descendants Immigrants Participation rate (%) .. 55 Unemployment rate (%) .. 17 Descendants Participation rate (%) .. 68 Unemployment rate (%) .. 8

1. A long-term immigrant/emigrant is defined as a person who has lived in/out of the country for over one year. 2. Data include figures from Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. 3. All foreigners (except Nordic countries citizens) who want to reside for more than 3 months in Denmark need a residence permit. The duration of the permit depends on the reasons for granting it but it generally does not exceed two years. 4. An immigrant is defined as a person born abroad by parents who have either foreign citizenship or are also born abroad. A descendant is a person born in Denmark with parents who are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Source: Danmarks Statistik.

Denmark

165


The total of 3 039 war refugees from Kosovo are not included in these numbers. War refugees obtain a temporary residence permit (6 months) but have the possibility to apply for a permanent permit after 2 years of uninterrupted stay. Application for asylum is also possible from abroad. To succeed, applicants must be able to prove a wellfounded risk of persecution (de facto refugees) or fulfil the conditions of the UN convention on refugees. The number of applications from abroad also showed a staggering growth. The total increased from 380 in 1998 to 562 in 1999 and 2 658 in 2000. Note that this number is much lower than the pre-1995 average. Most of the applications from abroad are refused. In 2000 a total of 5 156 persons were granted refugee (or an assimilated) status. This represents an increase of 16% compared with 4 443 in 1999. Approximately 25% were granted Geneva Convention Status; most were Iraqis and Afghanis. Of the total of 5 156 asylum applicants who were granted refugee status nearly 40% of the total of 10 347 applications were from within Denmark and 2 658 from abroad. Family reunion Approximately 36% of all residence permits granted to foreigners in Denmark is in the context of family reunion, compared with 32% in 1999. The number increased by 3 150 from 1999 to 2000. The areas of strongest growth are family reunion of refugees and minors of refugees. The increase in the number of those granted permits under reunification can partly be explained by a change in the provisions for family reunification regarding residence permits to children born in Denmark. As of May 2000, all children of resident foreigners are granted an independent residence permit. Accordingly, all children of foreigners holding a residence permit are included in the statistics of family reunification. Prior to May 2000, the children of resident foreigners did not automatically obtain a residence permit. The Danish Immigration Service estimates that of the 12 571 family reunification permits granted, some 2 550 persons are as a result of this technical change. The largest category (even allowing for the increase caused by the change in the law on minors mentioned above) is that of family reunion of Danish or Nordic nationals. Some of these cases apply to naturalised foreigners. 2.


Denmark defines immigrants as persons born abroad from parents who have either foreign citizenship or are also born abroad. Descendants are defined as persons born in Denmark with parents who are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Foreign citizens are that part of the immigrant population that has not yet acquired Danish citizenship. Thus, the foreign population is a part of the immigrant population (and their descendants). Numerical trends Since 1991 Denmark’s total foreign population has increased from 160 600 to 259 400 persons in 1999, representing an increase of 61%. In 2000, the foreign population amounted to 258 600 persons, 4.8% of the total population. The stock of foreigners has slightly decreased compared to 1999 but in the meantime, the immigrant population increased from 297 000 to 309 000. The difference suggests an increasing number of naturalisations.

166

On the 1st of January 2001, Denmark’s foreign population (259 000) consisted of 62% of European immigrants – of whom 21% were from within the EU. Asian people accounted for the second largest group with a share of 22%. Around 10% of the foreign population are of African origin, 3% North American and a further 1% from South and Central America (see Table III.8). © OECD 2003

Denmark

Naturalisations Foreign residents can acquire Danish citizenship after seven years of legal residence provided they fulfil the necessary conditions of good conduct and fluency in the Danish language. As the number of foreigners fulfilling these conditions has increased over recent years, so has the number of naturalisations. After relative stability between 1991 and 1997, the number of naturalisations almost doubled in 1998 and grew to more than 51% from 12 400 to 18 800 between 1999 and 2000. In 2000, the absolute number of naturalisations was the highest for foreign residents of Asian origin (7 844) and for Europeans (non-EU: 5 179). People of Asian origin are more likely to require Danish citizenship, (relative to their share in the total foreign population), than are others. This holds especially for people from Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and Vietnam. 3.


Migration for employment and work permits Data on the number of permits for employment purposes registered in 2000 show a growth in inflow of around 20% compared with work permits in 1999 (3 620 as compared with 3 070 in 1999). Employment-based residence permits account for approximately 10% of the total number of permits granted in 2000. Family reunion and refugees account 50% of the total. Labour market integration The proportion of immigrants in the total Danish labour force was 5.4% (150 000) on the 1st of January 2000. As immigrants and their descendants account for 7.4% of the total population, they are underrepresented in the total labour force. In general, the labour market participation rates for immigrants and descendants are lower than for the population as a whole. People originating from more developed countries have higher participation rates (66% and 77%, respectively for immigrants and their descendants) than those who come from less developed countries (51% and 67%, respectively for immigrants and their descendants). The participation rate for descendants is higher than that of immigrants but the difference is not significant (there are too few descendants to draw a statistically reliable conclusion). Part of the under-representation in the labour force of immigrants and their descendants can be explained by their age distribution, which is different from that of the Danish native population. Immigrants and their descendants are much younger than the native population. Labour force participation rates also vary significantly for immigrants from one country of origin to another. Determining factors are education in the home country, age at the time of immigration and time spent in Denmark. Immigrants’ unemployment rates are much above those for the native population. This observation holds for immigrants from less developed countries as well as from developed countries. Around 11% of the immigrants from developing countries were registered as unemployed in 2000. The unemployment rate of immigrants from the more developed countries was 6%, which is still higher than that of the total population (4%). 4.

Policy developments

Admission and residence (including integration measures) The new Act on Integration came into force on January 1st, 1999. The Act implies – among other things – a new three-year Introduction Programme for newly-arrived refugees and immigrants with a heavy accent on language training. The Act transfers responsibility for the integration of immigrants from the Danish Refugee Council to the local city councils. Since the introduction of this Act, it has become apparent that there is a rather large problem of absenteeism and that large differences exist in the way that local councils interpret this act. As cities that are © OECD 2003

167


Box III.3.

Main determinants of labour market outcomes for immigrants and their descendants in Denmark

Over the 1990-1999 period, labour force participation rates for immigrants and their descendants decreased. This observation is one of the factors motivating the New Act on Immigration (see Section 4) and has also led to further analyses of its causes. • Years of residence: there is a positive correlation between amount of time spent in Denmark and labour force participation rates. Immigrants who have spent 2 years or less in Denmark have participation rates much lower than that those of immigrants who have spent 10 years in Denmark (25% compared to 54%). • Age at time of immigration: In general, immigrants who were between 0 and 12 years at the time of immigration have higher participation rates (55%) than immigrants who were between 13 and 29 (45%) and immigrants who were between 30 and 59 at the time of immigration (30%). Education in the Danish school system appears to be an important determinant of labour market success. A further explanation may be that immigrants who were less than 30 years old at the time of immigration, find it easier to adjust to the Danish labour force demands, than immigrants who had already participated in the labour force in their country of origin. • The relative value of education in the home country: immigrants and descendants with a Danish education qualification have higher participation rates than immigrants with an equivalent education acquired in their country of origin. This indicates that immigrants cannot always use their education acquired in their country of origin to gain access to the Danish labour market.

the most strict in dealing with absenteeism are also the most successful, the Act on Integration has been changed so that it is now mandatory for city councils to consider sanctioning unwilling participants. Employed immigrants and refugees are exempted from such sanctions. On January 17, 2002, the new immigration minister Mr. Bertel Haarder, presented to the government a number of proposed changes to Danish immigration laws: • Family reunion will be limited to spouses older than 24; the immigrant’s parents cannot, in principle, immigrate and requests from spouses between 18 and 24 years of age will be closely scrutinised. • Permanent residence permits can only be granted after 7 years of uninterrupted legal residence (now 3 years). • Immigrants will be excluded from social assistance during the first seven years of their stay. • Entry of highly qualified immigrants will be made easier.

168

© OECD 2003

Finland

FINLAND Introduction Economic growth has averaged 5% over the past five years; at 5.7% in 2000 it was well above the EUaverage. As a consequence to the slowing world-economy, the outlook for 2001 and 2002 has worsened; economic growth is not expected to exceed 3%. Unemployment fell only slightly from 11.2% in 2000 to 10.4% in 2001 (labour force aged 15 to 64) and employment grew (1.7%) albeit less then in preceding years (on average 3.3% in the 1990s). Finland’s total stock of foreigners in 2000 was 91 100, 1.8% of the 5.18m population – a lower share than anywhere else in the EU. About 74% of the foreign population were of working age; 34% were part of the labour force. Both immigration and emigration have risen markedly over the past two years but emigration at a faster pace; about 10 000 Finns left their country in 1999 and 2000. As most immigrants are refugees whose qualification level is lower than the Finnish average, there is some concern about the economic consequences of migration. 1.


Emigration In 2000, total emigration accounted for 14 200, of which 10 100 were Finnish nationals and 4 100 foreigners. The main countries of origin among foreign emigrants were Sweden (500), the former USSR (500), Estonia (300) and the United States (300). The number of Finnish nationals who leave the country is bigger than that of returning Finns but the negative net migration balance for nationals has been decreasing since 1998 (see Table III.9). The main destination countries for emigrating Finns in 2000 were Sweden (33%) and Norway (13%). The growing attraction of these two countries may be related to Norway and Sweden’s recruitment campaign for health and social service sector jobs. Inward and outward flows of foreigners In 2000, immigration grew for the sixth consecutive year to 16 900; 7 800 of Finnish nationality and 9 100 foreigners. Nearly 43% of all immigrants originated in the former USSR (2 500), Sweden (700) or Estonia (700). An important share (1 100 in 2000) of immigrants from the former USSR and Estonia are people of Finnish descent. In total, an estimated 1.3 million Finns and their descendants live abroad. About 22 000 Ingrians or other of Finnish descent – who may come to Finland without visas or work-permits and benefit from special residence permits for people of Finnish descent – had filed for return-migration; the main obstacle to this being insufficient accommodation. Illegal migration In 2000, most of the estimated 10 000 illegal immigrants in Finland in 2000 were people whose residence permits or visas had expired. Refugees and asylum seekers The total number of asylum seekers has been growing steadily between 1996 (700) and 2000 (3 200, see Table III.9). The bulk of this growth can be explained by an increase in the number of applications from eastern European countries. The largest numbers of applicants came from Poland (1 200), the Slovak Republic © OECD 2003

169


Table III.9.

Current figures on flows and stocks of total population, Finland Figures in thousands unless otherwise indicated 1997

1998

1999

2000

Inflows by main nationality Nationals Foreigners of which: Russian Federation1 Sweden Estonia1

13.6 5.4 8.1

14.2 5.9 8.3

14.7 6.8 7.9

16.9 7.8 9.1

2.4 0.7 0.6

2.5 0.8 0.7

2.2 0.7 0.6

2.5 0.7 0.7

Net migration by main nationality Nationals Foreigners of which: Russian Federation1 Estonia1 Sweden

3.7 –2.9 6.6

3.4 –3.3 6.7

2.8 –3.2 5.9

2.6 –2.4 5.0

2.3 0.5 0.3

2.4 0.5 0.4

2.1 0.4 0.3

2.0 0.3 0.2

1.0

1.3

3.1

3.2

80.6

85.1

87.7

91.1

14.3 9.7 7.5 5.2

16.9 10.3 7.8 5.4

18.6 10.7 7.9 4.4

20.6 10.8 7.9 4.2

1 439 10 254 62 1 113

4 000 476 800 143 2 581

4 730 1 208 935 379 2 208

2 977 346 714 353 1 564

2.4

2.6

2.9

2.8

Asylum seekers Foreign population by main nationality of which: Russian Federation1 Estonia1 Sweden Somalia

2

Acquisition of nationality by former nationality (number of persons) Somalia Former USSR Estonia Other countries Mixed marriages

1. A large proportion of Russians and Estonians have Finnish origin. 2. Data are from population registers and refer to the population on 30 September of the years indicated. Source: Statistics Finland.

(400), the former Yugoslavia (300), Russia (300) and the Czech Republic (200). The number of asylum seekers from Poland has seen a particularly strong increase from 320 in 1999, and the number of applications from the former Yugoslavia has doubled in that period, whereas the number of applications from the Slovak Republic fell from 1 500 in 1999 to 380 in 2000. In 2001, approximately 1 650 persons applied for asylum in Finland. The numbers of asylum seekers considerably fell in 2001 thanks to the accelerated processing of asylum applications and stricter scrutiny of asylum applicants entering from Russia and Estonia. Indeed some legislative changes came into force in July 2000 in order to accelerate the processing of asylum applications. Under the accelerated processing of asylum applications, the Romani refugees from Poland and the Czech Republic received their decisions within 2-3 weeks of their application. The government decided on 3 637 cases in 2000, up from 2 725 in 1999 and 1 270 in 1998. Of these, 2 121 (58%) were rejected. As a comparison, 49% of the cases were rejected in 1999.

170

Every year, the Finnish government also establishes quotas for the attribution of the humanitarian refugee status. Finland’s quota for 2000 was set at 700 refugees. In 2000 altogether 756 persons were granted refugee status within the quota (the majority on the 1999 quota) and a further 178 were granted refugee status under the family reunification scheme. The repartition of humanitarian refugees by nationality was as follow: 100 from the former Yugoslavia, 101 Myanmar refugees from Thailand, 256 Afghanese from Pakistan, India and Iran and others from Iraq, Turkey and Jordan. © OECD 2003

Finland

Family reunion In 2000, 5 525 initial residence permits were granted to family members of foreigners resident in Finland. Of these, 64% were granted to women; 16% were granted to family members of temporary residence permitholders and 74% were granted to family members of people permanently residing in Finland. Nearly half of all residence permits for family members were granted to family members of Russian and Estonian nationals. 2.


Numerical trends The stock of resident foreigners developed at a very moderate pace, from approximately 1 200 in 1980 to about 1 800 in 1990, but has since then expanded rapidly to reach 91 100 in 2000 (see Table III.9) and 98 600 by the end of 2001. The rapid increase was triggered when in 1990 Ingrians and their families were offered returnee status. Another group, which has made an impact on the growth in the foreign-born populations, is Somali refugees. Since the mid-1990s, the annual growth rate has slowed down but may have increased again in 2000. In 2001, the foreign population has seen a growth well above the average for the previous three years. The foreign population in 2000 were made up of 158 nationalities, almost 44% of which came from Russia (22 600), Estonia (10 800) or Sweden (7 900). Naturalisations The number of people who have received Finnish citizenship has dropped from 4 700 in 1999 to 3 000 in 2000. Most applications come from nationals of neighbouring countries, i.e. Russia and Estonia. Other large groups are Somalia, Turkey and Vietnam. 3.


Migration for employment and work permits A work-permit procedure is started by the employer who must demonstrate a need for additional labour and evaluate the skills requirements. There are three main categories of labour immigration in Finland. In 2000, 400 permanent residence and work permits were granted to new arrivals under the category of long-term need for skilled labour. Most permits went to Russians (134), Estonians (56) and Chinese (42). Temporary work and residence permits were granted in 1 190 cases under the “fixed-term” worker scheme and in 8 903 cases under the temporary worker scheme. Most temporary permits in 2000 went to Russians (4 400), Estonians (2 800) and Poles (390). Several groups of foreigners are exempt from work permit procedures. This includes foreigners with permanent residence permits, students in part-time work and holiday jobs, refugees and people receiving residence permits due to the need for protection, asylum seekers who have been in Finland for at least three months, entrepreneurs, and teachers and researchers at universities. Labour market integration The age pyramid of the resident foreign population is clearly different than that of native Finns; 75% of foreigners are of working age, compared with 67% of the native population. However, reflecting the fact that many people immigrated to Finland during the 1990s for purposes other than work, the unemployment rate among foreigners is much higher than among Finns and the workforce participation rate is far lower. Foreign labour has accounted for only about one per cent of the workforce of the Finnish labour market in recent years. In 2001, the unemployment rate among foreign nationals in Finland stood at 23.8 %, which it although was about 5 percentage points below the rate for 2000 is still far higher than the unemployment rate for the population as a whole. The unemployment rate is highest among the groups that have entered Finland on humanitarian grounds, for example from Iraq, Somalia and Iran. © OECD 2003

171


4.

Policy developments

Admission and residence (including integration measures) In March 2000, the Ministry of Labour reformed work permit application procedures at employment offices to serve labour market needs in a more flexible, faster and more predictable way. This reform did not, however, have any impact on the basic structures, which provide the legal framework for the use of foreign labour. In April 2001, the Ministry of Labour amended the labour market test for foreign workers, moving to a faster, more predictable assessment of need. In March 2001, the Government adopted an Action Plan to Combat Ethnic Discrimination and Racism. This programme covers the 2001-2003 period and is designed to help Finland cope with increasing immigration through promoting good ethnic relations and preventing discrimination and racism. Its administration covers the municipal level. Measures to combat the employment of undocumented foreigners In May 2001, statistics on work permit statements issued by employment offices were centralised in an effort to improve the quality of statistical data, which in previous years had been unsatisfactory.

172

© OECD 2003

France

FRANCE Introduction The rate of growth of the French economy slowed appreciably in the second half of 2001 with the result that, after two years’ growth in excess of 3%, in 1999 and 2000, the latter was down to 2% in 2001 and will probably be no more than 1.5% in 2002. France did, however, enjoy a period of expansion which was particularly productive in terms of jobs, the unemployment rate among the 15-64 year-olds falling from 10.3% in 2000 to 8.6% in 2001. Where immigration is concerned, flows of permanent entries slowly but surely increased, so that the levels reached in the wake of the 1997 regularisation were not far from being equalled in 2000. Temporary migration for its part increased briskly, in particular because of the constantly rising number of foreign students. Where migration policy is concerned, the main changes concerned the measures to combat discrimination. 1.


In France, entry statistics encompass permanent new entries, regularisations and temporary entries (from three months to under a year). Permanent immigration concerns all holders of residence permits valid for one year or more (except for students, who are considered to be temporary residents). Entry flows can be calculated on the basis of three sources of administrative statistics. The Office des migrations internationales (OMI) accounts for foreigners coming in for employment purposes or applying for the “private and family life” residence permit, except in the case of nationals of European Economic Area (EEA) countries. The Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides (OFPRA) accounts for major asylum seekers and people who obtain refugee status, but does not include accompanying persons. Lastly, the Ministry of the Interior keeps records of all foreigners obtaining their first residence permits. Inflows and outflows of foreigners Permanent immigration In 2000, total permanent entries stood at over 119 000 (see Table III.10), which was 14% up on the previous year. Even so, that figure was lower than the one recorded in 1998 which, because of regularisations that year, represented a high. Of the new entries in 2000, some 78% were nationals of third countries (i.e. some 93 000 people), which was slightly up on 1999. The new immigrants broke down as follows: 60% were from North Africa, 20% from Asia, 10% from the Americas and 10% from non-EEA European countries. The main reason for permanent immigration remains family reunion, which concerned nearly 77% of new immigrants from third countries and 42% of those from the EEA. Employment-related migration accounted for 7 and 24% respectively. Temporary immigration and seasonal immigration Temporary immigration mainly consists of people who have been granted a temporary work permit, which includes scientists, and also students, trainees, “artists and authors” and asylum seekers. All told, more than 83 000 non-EEA foreigners entered France in 2000 under this overall heading, which was more than 33% up on 1999 and was twice the average number of entries during the first half of the 1990s. While all categories of temporary immigration increased substantially, it was entries of students that was the most rapidly growing category, with 11 000 additional permits of this kind being recorded between 1999 © OECD 2003

173

All figures in thousands unless otherwise indicated 1997

1998

1999

2000

Permanent immigration Registered flows by category Family reunification (broadly defined) Family members of French nationals Family members of foreigners Family members of refugees Workers Wage earners Self-employed Visitors Refugees Regularisation of foreigners in an irregular situation Residence permit holder: “private life and family" Other Total of which: EEA

31.1 14.4 15.5 1.1 11.7 11.0 0.7 15.1 4.1 18.9 .. .. 80.9 6.4

38.3 15.6 21.7 1.0 11.6 10.3 1.3 16.9 4.3 45.8 .. .. 116.9 6.2

38.0 15.3 21.8 0.9 11.8 10.9 1.0 8.5 4.7 3.3 19.6 0.3 86.3 5.6

38.5 16.0 21.4 1.1 11.8 11.3 0.4 8.4 5.2 0.2 30.8 0.4 95.2 5.4

Estimated flows by main category1 Visitors Family members of foreigners Other Total of which: EEA

7.8 8.5 5.2 21.5 17.9

8.2 8.0 5.0 21.2 18.4

.. .. .. 21.8 ..

8.8 8.8 6.5 24.1 20.9

102.4

138.1

108.1

119.3

Total registered and estimated flows Temporary immigration by category Asylum seekers Students Holders of a provisional work permit2 Trainees Total

1. 2. 3. 4.

21.4 19.2 4.7 0.6 45.8

22.4 23.5 4.3 0.5 50.7

30.9 25.1 5.8 0.7 62.5

38.7 36.1 7.5 0.9 83.3

1997

1998

1999

2000

Re-admissions3

3.7

12.5

15.0

10.5

Registered outflows of foreigners4 Expulsions Actual removals to the borders Assisted departures

0.9 9.2 1.0

0.7 7.2 1.7

0.6 7.4 1.0

0.5 9.0 0.7

192

125

133

97

67 (737 85) 47 (33 006)

60.5 35.7 23.2 20.8 32.5 – 116.2

58.1 34.7 23.8 22.1 25.5 14.8 122.3

67.6 39.8 68.9 24.1 – 9.0 145.4

77.5 45.5 64.0 26.1 – 2.0 150.0

24.7 8.7

26.7 9.6

.. ..

.. ..

Stocks of foreigners aged 15 and over according to work status7 Total foreign population 2 817.7 2 825.6 Foreign labour force 1 569.8 1 586.7 of which: employment 1 205.2 1 210.6 Participation rate (%) 55.7 56.2 Unemployment rate (%) 23.3 23.0

2 875.4 1 593.9 1 228.3 55.4 22.9

2 843.1 1 577.6 1 249.4 55.5 23.1

Foreigners involved in an assisted departure procedure (number of persons) 286 (Cumulated figures since 1984) 183 of which: Workers5 (Cumulated figures since 1984) Acquisition of French nationality Legal procedures of which: Naturalisation Declarations of which: Decision following a wedding Declaration of becoming French6 Other Total Mixed marriages % of total marriages

© OECD 2003

Estimates made by the Ministry of the Interior on the basis of residence permits issued. Provisional work permits (APT) are granted for a 9 month period and are renewable. Re-admissions undertaken within the framework of international agreements. In the absence of a population register, the only available data on the departures of foreigners are those which are due to administrative decisions and judicial orders concerning expulsions, removals of illegal immigrants to the border and voluntary departures assisted by the State. 5. The others are accompanying dependents of workers involved in an assisted departure procedure. 6. People born in France to foreign parents who declared their intention to become French in accordance with the legislation of 22 July 1993. 7. In March of the year indicated. Sources: Office des migrations internationales (OMI); Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides (OFPRA); Ministry of the Interior; Labour Force Survey.


174

Table III.10. Current figures on flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, France

France

and 2000, making a total of 36 100 foreign students. Temporary work permits and asylum applications increased by 29.5 and 25.4% respectively. Asylum seekers made up the largest category of temporary immigrants, with some 39 000 entries in 2000 (see below). The bulk of those issued with temporary work permits (who numbered 7 500 in 2000) were skilled or highly skilled workers with jobs in the business services sector and in real estate. That said, permits issued to foreign teachers increased by 50%, up to 1 300. A 1998 circular eased the conditions governing the recruitment of foreign computer scientists with the result that, in 2000, 1 600 of them obtained permanent work permits and 990 were issued with temporary permits. There was also an increase in immigration in the DOMs, in particular by Brazilian gold washers resident in Guyana. Holders of temporary work permits came mainly from the United States and Canada (1 300 and 800, respectively) and from the non-EEA European countries (1 800). After falling throughout the period 1992-96, seasonal immigration from third countries appears since then to have stabilised at between 7 500 and 8 000 workers per year. More than 90% of entries were accounted for by two nationalities: Moroccans (4 000) and Poles (3 300), the bulk of whom were working in agriculture. Refugees and asylum seekers A distinction is made in France between so-called conventional asylum applications (i.e. under the Geneva Convention) and “territorial” asylum applications (Act of 25 July 1952). In 2000, there were almost 39 000 conventional asylum applications, some 40% of them accounted for by African nationals (mainly from Mali and the former Zaire) and 36.5% by Asian nationals. Also apparent was a sharp rise in the number of asylum applications lodged by Haitian nationals, up from 500 in 1999 to 1 900 in 2000. In 2000, some 25 000 of the 30 000 decisions taken were negative, which was a refusal rate in the region of 83% and was two points higher than during the two previous years. The rate varied considerably, however, according to the country of origin, ranging from 21.4% for the countries of South East Asia (Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam) to 92.6% in the case of nationals from the Americas. In addition to asylum seekers, there are the holders of the “private and family life” cards issued to those granted territorial asylum. The latter numbered 385 in 2000, which was 32% up on the previous year. The majority of those granted territorial asylum were Algerian nationals (304). The number of new statutory refugees resident in France increased for the third year running and totalled approximately 5 200. All told, it is calculated that there were 102 500 people with refugee status resident in France at end-2000. Some 72% of them came from Asia (including Turkey) and 15% from Africa. Family reunion Family reunification comprises three types of inflow: family reunion of foreigners, immigration of members of French families and entry of family members of refugees and stateless persons. In all, there were 38 500 entries in 2000 – a figure that had remained stable for three years. These flows consisted mainly of women (some 80%), except in the case of French family members. Family reunion in the strict sense concerned 21 400 people in 2000, of which 14 200 Africans (66.6%), mainly from the Maghreb, 2 700 Turks and 1 900 Asians. The nationality breakdown of French family members was similar, 11 800 of the 16 000 entries recorded in 2000 involving African nationals and nearly 2 000 involving Asians and Turks. To these numbers, however, must be added some 20 000 entries in respect of holders of the “private and family life” card issued under the heading of family reunion. All told, some 30 000 such cards were issued in 2000. Almost 55% of holders of the said card were spouses of French nationals, and over 9% were parents of French minors resident in France. 2.


Trends in the foreign population The 1999 census put the number of foreign residents in France at 3.26 million. This meant that the foreign population had fallen since the previous census, mainly because of naturalisations. This general decline © OECD 2003

175


affected all groups of nationalities, except for non-EU Europeans, and as a result the breakdown of foreigners by continent of origin was much the same as in 1990. In 1999, some 43.5% of foreigners resident in France were from Africa, nearly 41.5% from Europe, 12.5% from Asia and 2.5% from the Americas. The breakdown for African nationals shifted somewhat, the share of sub-Saharan Africans rising (from 10 to 15%), while the share of Maghreb nationals fell, although the latter still constituted the largest African community in France. The largest group was the Portuguese community (17%), followed by the Moroccans (15.5%) and Algerians (14.6%). Then came the Turks, Italians and the nationals of all the sub-Saharan African countries (roughly 6% respectively for each of these three groups). The proportion of women in the foreign population in France continued to grow between the two censuses. In 1982, 42.9% of foreign residents were women, then 44.9% in 1990 and 46.9% in 1999. More women have obtained French nationality by acquisition than have men (54%). However, this over-representation of men among foreigners and of women who have obtained French nationality by acquisition is gradually diminishing because of the changing composition of inflows and the scale of family reunion over the past two decades. Naturalisation Since 1 September 1998, there have been three types of procedure by which to obtain French nationality: • Acquisition by decree or by government decision. This concerned 77 500 people in 2000. • Acquisition by declaration, inter alia by marriage to a French spouse or for minors born in France of fore ign paren ts. In 2000, the re we re 6 4 000 recorded declaration s o f natio nality, o f which 26 000 following a mixed marriage and 36 000 concerning children of foreigners. • Acquisition involving no open formality, which concerns children born in France of foreign parents who, on reaching their majority, obtain French nationality provided they have resided in the country for at least 5 years since the age of 11. It is calculated that 8 600 people acquired French nationality in this way in 2000. In 2000, 150 000 acquisitions of French nationality were approved, which was the highest figure ever recorded and was due, in large part, to acquisitions by decree which rose by approximately 15% on 1999. Acquisitions of nationality by declaration have, however, followed a diverging trend despite the increase in naturalisations of spouses of French nationals. As regards the previous nationalities of French people who acquired that nationality, it is apparent that earlier trends persisted through 1999 and 2000, i.e. applications by European nationals declined while applications by African and Asian nationals increased. In 2002, nearly 84 200 Africans applied for French nationality, 68 200 of them from the Maghreb. Applications were also filed by 28 000 Asians and 23 200 Europeans, of whom 14 800 were EU nationals. More specifically, almost 37% of all naturalisation requests were made by Moroccan nationals. 3.


Labour market entries by foreign nationals result from an external flow of people migrating for employment purposes and an internal flow of foreigners already living in France, but hitherto economically inactive. The second category, although hard to quantify, nevertheless constitutes the bulk of new labour market entries (some three-quarters of total entries of foreigners). Labour migration and work permits

176

In 2000, 11 300 foreign workers entered France, slightly less than half of whom were nationals of the EEA, i.e. 5 400 people. One-third of this intra-European flow consisted of Portuguese nationals, while rather less than 14% were British and Italian nationals. Of the foreigners from third countries, Maghreb nationals (1 700 permits in 2000), and particularly Moroccans, were the most numerous. A substantial number of work permits were also awarded to people from Asia and the Middle and Near East (1 400 permits), mainly Japanese and Lebanese nationals. © OECD 2003

France

The size and geographical breakdown of these flows have remained relatively stable for several years. Also, 400 permits were issued to self-employed workers in 2000, which was more than 50% down on the previous year and three times fewer than in 1998. Almost three-quarters of these workers were employed in the tertiary sector, 13% in industry and 12% in public works. That said, the breakdown by sector differed considerably depending on whether it was EU nationals or workers from third countries who were involved, 3.6% of them for example obtaining a permit to work in the public works sector. Labour market integration Foreign labour force According to the March 2001 Labour Force Survey (INSEE), out of 2.9 million foreigners above the age of 15, 1.62 million were economically active (of whom 37.6% were nationals of EU countries), which corresponded to an overall participation rate of 55.7% for foreigners. Some 1.32 million of these economically active foreigners held a job and 1.2 million were wage-earners, meaning that foreigners accounted for 6.2% of the labour force in France and 5.6% of the employed labour force. Economically active foreigners benefited from the improvement in the labour market situation between March 1999 and March 2000 and that trend persisted at the same pace the following year. In 2001, some 300 000 foreigners were looking for work, giving an unemployment rate of 18.6% which was over 2 points down on the previous year. Even so, the unemployment rate was much higher than for the labour force as a whole. Breakdown of wage-earners by sector and industry Analysis of the share of foreign wage-earners working in the major sectors of the economy shows that they are over-represented in some sectors. This is particularly true of construction, where 15.9% of workers are foreigners, and also of real estate activities and personal services (12.5 and 11.9% of foreigners, respectively). A large proportion of foreign wage-earners also work in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. On the other hand, foreigners are distinctly under-represented in the energy sector, in financial activities and government. 4.

Policy developments

Entry, stay and integration of foreigners Two internal circulars, dating from January 2002 and not published in the Official Journal, have been put out by the government. They explain, for the benefit of the Préfets, the procedures for handling requests for work permits submitted by foreigners staying in France, and ask the relevant government departments to look favourably at requests made by foreign students who have done their studies in France. Despite a whole range of legal instruments for combating discrimination in the world of work, there has in fact been very little litigation, largely because it was always very difficult for the victim to gather together the proof of discrimination. A number of changes to the legal system were therefore put to the social partners in May 1999, and these were added to in 2000 at the time of the Assises de la citoyenneté. These provisions were included in the draft social modernisation bill that was adopted by the National Assembly on 16 November 2001, the main provisions of which are the following: • Extension of the range of the discrimination referred to in Article L 122-45 of the Labour Code to cover in-company training courses and all aspects of working life. • Inclusion in the list of targeted discriminatory attitudes of sexual proclivities, physical appearance, surname and age. • Introduction of the notion of indirect discrimination. © OECD 2003

177


• Changes in the requirements regarding the burden of proof, the victim having simply to establish the facts and the employer having then to prove that his decision was not prompted by discrimination, leaving the judge to arrive at his own conclusion. • The right for unions to go to court on behalf of victims. • Extension of the powers of labour inspectors and of the procedure for alerting employees’ representatives. • Introduction of preventive measures in collective labour agreements. Asylum and refugees’ rights The Charter of Fundamental Rights, approved in Biarritz in October 2000, was signed and proclaimed at the European Council meeting in Nice on 7 December 2000. It guarantees nationals of third countries who are authorised to work in the territory of Member States the right to working conditions equivalent to those enjoyed by European Union citizens. It also guarantees, in its Article 18, the right of asylum and ensures certain forms of protection in cases of removal, expulsion or extradition. Article 45 states that freedom of movement and residence may be granted, in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community, to nationals of third countries legally resident in the territory of a Member State. International agreements With regard to movement, stay and employment, two agreements have been signed with Tunisia and Algeria and are in the process of being ratified by Parliament. The first, which is in the form of an amendment to the Franco-Tunisian Agreement of 17 March 1988, was signed in September 2001. The aim is to bring the status of Tunisians into line with that of other foreigners subject to common law by making them eligible for the new residence permits (“private and family life”, “scientific”, “artistic and cultural professions” or “pensioner” cards), and also to be entitled as of right to a one-year residence permit (instead of 10 years) after ten years’ illegal presence in the country, instead of the previous 15 years. The agreement signed with Algeria in July 2001 is in the form of an amendment to the Franco-Algerian agreement of 27 December 1968. It provides in particular for the issue, as of right, of a one-year, renewable residence permit indicating one of the following categories: “private and family life”, “scientific”, “artistic and cultural professions” or “pensioner”. Concerning agreements relating to exchanges of young professionals, three new bilateral agreements have been signed with Hungary (May 2000), Morocco (May 2001) and Senegal (June 2001).

178

© OECD 2003

Germany

GERMANY Introduction The German economy grew by 3% in 2000, the strongest rate since 1992. On the other hand, output hardly grew in 2001 (+0.6%) as weak world demand caused exports to decelerate. In the process, both investment and private consumption contracted and the unemployment rate in the 15 to 64 age group increased to 8%. The prospects for 2002 are not really better but GDP is projected to grow above potential by 2.5% in 2003. A prosperous economy in the late 90’s and demographic developments have fuelled a debate on the growing need for qualified labour. Starting with an initiative to stimulate the supply of Information Technology (IT) workers, which included a Green Card scheme to facilitate the immigration of foreign IT specialists, the debate led the Minister of the Interior in July 2000 to install an independent committee on immigration (the Süssmuth Committee). In July 2001, the committee concluded that: “Germany needs immigrants.” On the basis of the recommendations made by the committee, the government prepared a new Immigration Act, which should come into force on January 1, 2003. 1.


Emigration and returns of nationals The emigration of German nationals has developed from around 60 000 annually during the 198388 period to well over 100 000 during the years 1989-90. Since 1994 the level of annual emigration of Germans stabilised between 110 000 and 120 000 and has accounted for approximately 16% of total emigration. In 2000, 111 000 Germans emigrated. A special category of returning nationals is that of ethnic Germans (Aussiedler). If they come from a number of designated countries and settle in Germany within 6 months they are considered by law as German citizens. Total arrivals averaged 220 000 yearly between 1991 and 1995; an increase of arrivals from the former Soviet Union compensated for a decrease in arrivals from Poland and Romania. Since then, there has been a steady decline in the number of arriving ethnic Germans and by 2000, the total number of arriving Aussiedler was equal to 95 600. The former Soviet Union was by far the most important source country (99% of all arrivals). Inward and outward flows of foreigners Net migration of foreigners is subject to great fluctuations (see Table III.11). From a slight negative balance in the early 1980s, net foreign immigration steadily increased to 593 000 in 1992, then fell to 277 000 in 1993 and showed a slight negative balance in 1997 and 1998. Net immigration has been positive since then, with 118 200 persons in 1999 and 86 500 in 2000. People from the former Yugoslavia were the biggest group among immigrants and net immigration in 1999 but emigration was the highest for Polish nationals (58 600 persons). Illegal migration There are no overall estimates for illegal entries. Available data concern only the number of foreigners arrested at the border, which has decreased slightly to 28 560 in 2001 (from 31 485 in 2000). Of all foreigners intercepted, more than 30% came from Romania (2 920), the former Yugoslavia (2 520), Iraq (2 220) or Turkey (2 180). © OECD 2003

179


Table III.11.

Current figures on the components of total population change, on migration flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, Germany All figures in thousands unless otherwise indicated 1999

2000

–20.3 –67.3 47.1 218.2 –153.6 80.6 291.3 –238.5 86.3 –33.5 –291.3

126.4 –75.6 202.0 175.4 –156.5 83.7 248.2 –49.1 80.9 118.2 –248.2

95.7 –71.7 167.4 142.5 –107.0 81.0 168.6 –46.8 35.3 86.5 –168.6

615.3

605.5

673.9

648.8

31.2 71.2 56.0 39.0 24.8 –21.8

59.9 66.1 48.0 35.6 21.3 –33.5

87.8 72.2 47.1 34.9 27.8 118.2

.. .. .. .. .. 86.5

–13.3 13.6 1.0 10.0 –2.4

14.8 11.0 5.4 2.8 0.4

39.5 17.7 13.6 6.2 2.2

.. .. .. .. ..

134.4

103.1

104.9

95.6

131.9 1.8 0.7

101.6 1.0 0.5

103.6 0.9 0.4

94.6 0.5 0.5

104.4

98.6

95.1

78.6

17.5 14.1 16.8 4.7

37.2 7.4 11.8 3.8

33.7 8.7 9.1 4.5

13.0 11.6 9.0 5.4

Stock of foreign population by duration of stay (31 December of the year indicated)3 Less than one year (%) 1 year to less than 4 years (%) 4 to less than 8 years (%) 8 to less than 10 years (%) 10 to less than 20 years (%) 20 years and more Total (%)

7 365.8 5.2 15.8 22.9 6.9 19.2 30.0 100.0

7 319.6 5.2 14.8 21.0 8.1 19.9 31.1 100.0

7 343.6 5.6 13.9 19.5 8.8 20.2 31.9 100.0

7 296.8 5.0 13.6 17.0 9.8 21.3 33.4 100.0

Issuance of work permits of which: Issuance of work permits for a first employment4

1 267.5 451.0

1 050.1 402.6

1 034.5 433.7

1 083.3 473.0

1 039 375 214 215 123 1 609 3 575

.. .. .. .. .. .. ..

1 008 386 219 189 118 1 625 3 545

996 395 207 195 110 1 643 3 546

Components of population changes Total population (total change) Natural increase Net migration Germans (total change) 1 Natural increase Net migration Acquisition of German nationality2 Foreigners (total change) Natural increase Net migration Acquisition of German nationality2 Migration of foreigners3 Inflows by nationality (Top 5 in 1999) of which: Federal Rep. of Yugoslavia Poland Turkey Italy Russian Federation Net migration by nationality (Top 5 in 1999) of which: Federal Rep. of Yugoslavia Russian Federation Poland Turkey Romania Inflows of ethnic Germans from: Central and Eastern Europe of which: Former USSR Romania Poland Inflows of asylum seekers of which: Former Yugoslavia Iraq Turkey Afghanistan

Stock of foreign workers (microcensuses) – Top 5 nationalities Turkey Italy Greece Croatia Austria Others Total

1997

1998

45.4 –48.2 93.7 252.4 –141.7 115.4 278.7 –207.0 93.5 –21.8 –278.7

180

© OECD 2003

Germany

Table III.11.

Current figures on the components of total population change, on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, Germany (cont.) All figures in thousands unless otherwise indicated 1997

Contract workers (annual average) of which : Poland Hungary Romania Croatia Czech Republic

5

Seasonal workers by nationality6 of which : Poland Romania Slovak Republic Croatia Hungary Unemployment (national definition) Total number of unemployed workers (Germany as a whole) Total number of unemployed workers (western Germany) Unemployment rate (%) (western Germany) Total number of foreign unemployed workers (western Germany) Foreigners’ unemployment rate (%) (western Germany)

1998

1999

2000

38.5

33.0

39.9

43.6

21.1 5.8 1.0 3.6 1.4

16.9 5.0 2.6 2.8 1.1

18.2 6.4 3.9 3.9 1.4

18.5 6.7 5.2 5.1 1.4

226.0

207.9

230.3

263.8

202.2 5.0 6.4 5.8 3.6

187.7 5.9 5.0 3.8 2.9

205.4 7.5 6.2 5.1 3.5

229.1 11.8 8.4 5.9 4.1

4 384.5 3 020.9 11.0 521.6 20.4

4 279.3 2 904.3 10.5 505.2 19.6

4 099.2 2 755.5 8.8 477.7 18.4

3 888.6 2 529.4 8.7 436.8 16.4

Note: The data cover Germany as a whole, unless otherwise indicated. 1. Figures include ethnic Germans whose German origin has been recognised. 2. Preliminary data in 2000. 3. Data are from population registers. 4. Citizens of EU Member States are not included. 5. Contract workers are recruited under bilateral agreements. Quotas by country of origin are revised annually. 6. Seasonal workers are recruited under bilateral agreements and they are allowed to work 3 months per year. Sources: Bundesanstalt für Arbeit; Statistiches Bundesamt.

In 2001, the border police stopped 2 463 people smugglers (2000: 2 740). The strongest concentrations of people smugglers appear at the Polish and the Czech borders. In 2000, a total of 64 000 employers (1999: 27 000) were fined for the illegal employment of foreigners for more than 60 millions Euros. Refugees and asylum seekers The number of asylum seekers has decreased almost continuously since restrictive measures were implemented in 1993. The total number of asylum seekers in 2000 was 78 600 (1999: 95 100). The share of Europeans, mainly from the former Yugoslavia and Turkey, has decreased considerably. They accounted for 72% of all asylum seekers in 1993 but only for 35% of the total in 2000. Asians accounted for half of all asylum seekers; people from the former Yugoslavia (15%) and Iraq (14%) were the biggest groups of single nationality. By December 2000, a total of 1.1 million people had immigrated to Germany on humanitarian grounds. This group was composed of refugees, asylum seekers and their families (84%), Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union (12%), refugees of war from Bosnia-Herzegovina (3%) and people without home country (1%). 2.


Numerical trends On December 31, 2000, 7.3 million foreigners resided in Germany, 46 800 (0.6%) less than in 1999 (see Table III.11). Slightly more than one-quarter of all resident foreigners were EU-citizens (25.6%, half of © OECD 2003

181


which came from Italy and Greece), an increase of 0.6% compared with their share at the beginning of the year; 62% were citizens from OECD countries. The most important groups of single nationality in the total foreign population are people from Turkey (27.4%), the former Yugoslavia (9.1%), Italy (8.5%) and Greece (5%). The relative population shares of the different nationalities have remained fairly stable in recent years. The share of foreigners in the total population (8.9%) has been stable since 1995. In 2000, above-average concentrations were found in Hamburg (19.5%), Berlin (14.3%), Hessen (13.9%), Baden-Württemberg (12%), Bremen (12%) and Rheinland-Westfalen (11%). One-third of all foreigners has lived in Germany for more than 20 years. Mixed marriages Over the past 20 years, mixed marriages have become more frequent, especially marriages between native men and foreign women. Of all marriages in 1980, 90.4% were between two Germans and 2.5% between a native man and a foreign-born woman. In 1999, 83.7% were between two Germans and 7.5% between a native man and a foreign-born woman and 6.1% between a native woman and a foreign-born man. The total number of mixed marriages reached 59 000 in 1999. Naturalisations In 2000, 186 700 foreigners obtained German citizenship. Turks were over-represented, accounting for 44% of all naturalisations but for only 27% of the foreign population. As of January 1, 2000, adult foreigners may obtain German citizenship after 8 years of legal residence, instead of after 15 years previously. This change in law explains part of the increase: 39% (73 200) of the naturalisations were on the basis of the new law. Also on January 1, 2000, children born of foreign-born parents can obtain German citizenship if one of their parents has legally resided in the country during the last 8 years. During 2000, of the 91 000 children that were born of foreign parents, 40 800 have obtained citizenship as a result of this new law. 3.


Migration for employment and work permits The foreign employment grew by 3% during the first half of 2000 and reached 8.2% of the total employment (3 million persons). The foreign labour force is stable, at 3.5 million. A total of 473 000 work pe rmits fo r a first emplo yme nt were gran ted in 2000, which represente d a 9% increase on 1999 (see Table III.11). A similar increase (9.3%) could be seen in the number of foreigners working on a contractual basis (2000: 43 600). These workers were hired for up to 3 years under bilateral agreements with countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the former Yugoslavia, the Republic of Macedonia, Latvia and Turkey. As a form of support to Eastern Europe, a limited number of qualified foreigners between 18 and 40 years of age can obtain employment for 12 to 18 months with a “guest worker” status. Germany has agreements with Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Albania, Bulgaria, the Baltic States, Romania, the Russian Federation and Slovenia for the admission of 10 520 guest workers. In 2000, 5 891 young workers have benefited from employment under this scheme (1999: 3 700). Since the beginning of 1991, workers from outside the EU can obtain seasonal employment for up to 3 months. This type of employment is subject to a test on the availability of the resident labour supply by the employment office and is restricted to industries with strong seasonal fluctuations in their need for labour. Agreements exist with Poland, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Croatia and Slovenia. In 2000, 263 805 seasonal workers were given permission to enter Germany (1999: 230 345). 182

The Green Card scheme, which started on August 1, 2000 for a period of three years, aims to cover the need for information technology (IT) workers in the short run. The number of work permits that can be granted under © OECD 2003

Germany

this scheme is limited to 20 000 over the entire period. Permits are subject to strict conditions and are valid for no longer than 5 years. At the same time, the government invests in educating native workers to cover the longer-term labour needs of the IT industry. By November 9, 2001, 10 200 IT foreign specialists had been recruited. Labour market integration The foreign employment rate (49.7%) was, in 2000, slightly above the employment rate for the total population (49.0%). The employment rate of foreign women has decreased significantly to 36.5% (1999: 38.4%) whereas for the female population as a whole, it increased to 53.8% (1999: 52.3%). Of the 3.9 million unemployed in 2000, 471 000 were of foreign nationality. As far as western Germany is concerned, the unemployment rate of foreigners is almost double of the one for nationals. Some nationalities were more affected by unemployment than others. Four-fifths of all unemployed foreigners are from non-EU countries. The highest unemployment rate (21%), was among Turks, followed by Italians (16%) and Greeks (15%), the lowest unemployment rates were found in the Yugoslav and Spanish communities (11%). 4.

Policy developments

Admission and residence (including integration measures) Central to the new immigration law that is expected to come into effect on January 1, 2003 is the new definition about the rights of foreigners to remain and work in Germany. EU citizens can work and establish themselves freely anywhere in the country and are exempted from the need to obtain special residence permits. The distinction between residence and work permits has disappeared and one single document will replace the two separate documents that were needed. Whether or not the foreigner is allowed to work will be indicated on this document. The number of permits will be brought down to two: a temporary residence permit and a permanent residence permit. These documents will contain a description of the immigration motives of the foreigner, whether study or work, family reunion or asylum. Conversion from a temporary to a permanent residence permit is possible at the earliest after five years of residence. However, conversion is subject to conditions. For instance, employees must have made 60 monthly contributions to the obligatory pension fund and should speak German. To promote the integration of foreigners, support in the form of language and integration-training courses will be made available to all foreigners who reside legally in the country. Permits for labour immigration are distinguished in four categories 1. Permanent residence permit for highly qualified. Before applying, they should have a job offer. The highly qualified are referred to as “mainly specialists who are needed for a good economic development of Germany”. The law gives guidelines in the guise of examples and includes people with earnings over 75 k€ per year but does not require all highly skilled applicants to meet the earnings norm. 2. Permanent residence permit through a point-based system. If needed, the government will grant a limited number of permits to applicants who successfully pass a points-test. They do not need to have a job offer to be eligible for the permit. This will serve as an additional optional tool for immigration control and is expected to be open to only a very limited number of immigrants during a test phase in the next few years. 3. Temporary permits granting access to the labour market. As in the past, an employer has to request a permit which can only be granted under the condition that appropriate labour supply is not available from within the EEA. It is worth mentioning that if regional labour market circumstances require it, workers for a certain occupation and within a certain region can be recruited without testing for the availability of © OECD 2003

183


labour in the domestic market. Only those employed in jobs that require at least three years of vocational training are eligible. 4. Self-employed can be admitted if this appears to be in the (regional) economic interest. The law gives a flexible interpretation, clarified with examples. In general, economic interests are met if the selfemployed invest at least 1 million Euros and create at least 10 jobs. People who have immigrated for other motives than work can seek employment under specific conditions • Students can obtain a permit for one year upon completion of their course. They are not allowed to work during their studies. • Accompanying family has the same rights as the main applicant, even if they would not be eligible as an individual. • Refugees are allowed to work; their initial temporary permit can be made permanent after at least three years of residence. Asylum seekers are allowed to work once they have been in the country for at least one year.

184

© OECD 2003

Greece

GREECE Introduction Greece has achieved some remarkable economic results since the early 1990s, with substantial growth in productivity and output underpinned by the liberalisation of its goods and financial markets. At the same time, tighter fiscal and monetary discipline has brought about rapid disinflation and a marked improvement in public finance. In 2001, as in 2000, GDP grew by over 4% in spite of an economic slowdown in the final quarter. A steady recovery is expected in the course of 2002 and in 2003 as a result of easier monetary conditions, transfers from the European Union, preparations for the Olympic Games in 2004 and an upturn on export markets. In spite of some improvement, however, unemployment in 2001 remained high at around 10.5% (down from 11.3% in 2000 and 11.6% in 1999). Unemployment among young people, and especially young women, is giving particular cause for concern. Like the other southern EU countries, Greece has become an immigration country and has had to make radical changes in recent years to its admission and residence policy, including regularisation programmes and a new legislative framework for spring 2001. 1.


Emigration and returning nationals The Greek authorities estimate that some 7 million Greek nationals live abroad but perhaps a more realistic figure, based on host-country data and estimated returns, would put the Greek community abroad at about 4 million. In 2000, no more than 970 people born in Greece emigrated to the United States, almost three times fewer than a decade earlier. But it is in the United States that the largest Greek community is to be found, comprising around 2 million people of Greek origin (although only 136 000 people actually born in Greece were resident in the United States in 2000, according to the Current Population Survey). In 1999, Germany had a Greek community of around 365 000. Since the end of the 1980s, descendants of Greeks from the region of Pontos but resident in the Commonwealth of Independent States (Greek Pontians) have “returned” to Greece. Since 1977, there have been more than 153 000 people in this category. These migrants are from Georgia (52%), Kazakhstan (20%), Russia (15%) and Armenia (6%). Most have settled in northern Greece, and more specifically Macedonia (59%) and Thrace (15%). Recently, however, these flows have been dwindling (4 400 arrivals in 1999 compared with 25 500 in 1993). Foreign immigration As there are no updated figures available on residence permits (in 1998, 74 600 new residence permits were issued and there were 310 000 foreign residents), the information derived from recent regularisation operations is very useful, particularly since it describes a considerable number of people who, by their very presence, are completely reshaping the profile of the foreign population in Greece. Two vast regularisation operations took place in Greece in 1998 and 2001 for foreigners who had spent at least one year in the country. The first attracted over 371 000 applications, and the second some 351 000. In 1998, over 90% of applications for regularisation were submitted by nationals from only 10 countries © OECD 2003

185


(Albania 65%, Bulgaria 6.8%, Romania 4.6%, Pakistan 2.9%, Ukraine 2.6%, Poland 2.3%, Georgia 2%, India 1.7%, Egypt 1.7%, Philippines 1.4%) and 72% of them were male (although the percentage varied substantially across nationalities). Geographical proximity appears to have been a very decisive factor in flows prior to 1998. Analysis of regularisation applications in 2001 reveals a decline in the share of Albanian nationals and the emergence of immigrants from other countries, in particular Peru and China. This second regularisation programme has also been marked by an increase in Ukrainian immigrants (accounting for 6.5% of applications in Attica, for instance). By the end of 2001, over 50% of applicants under the second regularisation programme had obtained their first residence permit. Furthermore, of those who obtained permits under the 1998 regularisation programme (white card), 213 000 have had their work and residence permits renewed (green card) but the regularisation process is not quite over (see Table III.12). Illegal immigration Over 300 000 illegal immigrants were detected in 2001. The figure is significantly higher than in previous years. Greece has accordingly implemented a number of special measures (see below) and stepped up border controls, particularly in the north and east of the country. Greece has also requested more assistance and cooperation from Europe for this purpose, in particular at the European Council meeting of Heads of State in Belgium in October 2001. After two large-scale regularisation programmes, illegal immigration remains a major cause for concern to the Greek authorities and some sections of the public. Refugees and asylum seekers Between 1997 and 1999, there was a significant drop in the number of asylum seekers, from 4 376 to 1 528. In 2000 and 2001, the trend was again reversed with 3 083 and 5 500 asylum applications respectively (over 1 500 for the first three months of 2002). In 2001, some 42% of asylum seekers were from Iraq and 27.5% from Afghanistan. The refusal rate is still very high, at over 90%. In 2001, some 147 people were granted political refugee status, and 148 the status of humanitarian refugee. Greece has thus granted political asylum to a total of 6 650 people since 1980.

Table III.12.

Total labour force and immigrants who were granted a green card following the 1998 regularisation programme in Greece, by region of residence Total labour force (1998)

Immigrants who were issued a “green card” in 1998

Total labour force (1998)

Thousands

Total Attica Central Macedonia Peloponnese Crete Thessalia Sterea Hellas West Greece Islands West Macedonia East Macedonia – Thrace Hipirus 186

Source:

4 447.0 1 700.6 737.0 227.1 262.6 318.4 208.6 266.6 253.5 112.0 243.0 117.0

Immigrants who were issued a “green card” in 1998 Percentages

212.9 96.8 23.9 19.1 15.0 12.8 12.4 10.9 9.1 4.9 4.5 3.5

100 38 17 5 6 7 5 6 6 3 5 3

100 45 11 9 7 6 6 5 4 2 2 2

Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance.

© OECD 2003

Greece

2.


Numerical trends According to the census in March 2001, Greece now has a total population of 10 900 000, of whom 10 245 000 are nationals and 655 000 foreign residents. This should be set against, first, the rise in population since the previous census in 1991, i.e. 680 000, and second, the 722 000 applications for regularisation in 1998 and 2001. Officially, foreigners account for 6% of the total population in Greece. Some maintain, however, that the number of foreigners has been underestimated in the census, particularly because of undeclared illegal residents, and that in fact the number of foreigners is somewhere between 800 000 and 1 million, i.e. 7.2 to 8.9% of the overall population. Naturalisations Greek citizenship can be obtained in various ways. Foreigners who are not ethnic Greeks may obtain citizenship either by marrying a Greek national (once the marriage has produced children and provided the couple reside in Greece), or by spending ten of the previous twelve years in Greece. Another option is open to ethnic Greeks who live in the former Soviet Union or have entered Greece on a tourist visa. They must submit proof of their Greek origins to the Greek Consulate if they live abroad, or to the regional General Secretariat if they live in Greece. While their case is being reviewed, they are given “Special Identity Cards” authorising them and their spouse and children to live and work in Greece. After an upsurge in the mid-1990s, the number of naturalisations has steadily declined since 1995 and the trend continued in 1999 and 2000. In 2000, 924 people were granted Greek citizenship, about 50% down on the previous year. 3.


Migration for employment and work permits By the end of 2001, some 585 000 foreigners held work permits, 213 000 of them green cards (delivered in 1998 following the regularisation programme) and 351 000 joined residence and work permit (obtained in 2001 following a new regularisation programme). The green card is valid for one to three years and renewable if the holder has worked for at least 150 days. The joined card is valid for one year. Foreign workers are employed, in descending order, in commerce (around one-third), catering (around one-third), transport, building/civil engineering, industry and agriculture. Of the 213 000 with green cards, around 110 000 specified their occupation: 42 300 are manual workers, 19 600 are farmers or fishermen, 5 300 are white-collar workers and 13 700 are skilled workers. As for seasonal work, new bilateral agreements were signed in 1996 with Albania and in 1997 with Bulgaria, the aim being to give these workers legal status. In fact the agreements are seldom applied, one reason being the large illegal workforce available. By August 2000, some 3 000 seasonal permits had been issued to Albanians and 800 to Bulgarians. 4.

Policy developments

Admission and residence (including reintegration measures) A new Framework Act (No. 2910/L2-5-2001) to replace Act No. 1975/1991 regulates admission and residence, amends the naturalisation requirements, and provides for new measures to facilitate the integration of foreigners, including language and vocational training, social policy and schooling for migrants’ children. More specifically, the Framework Act: • Redefines categories of migrants and admission requirements. • Redefines the requirements for family reunion (residence, work by spouse or children) applicable to each category of migrant. © OECD 2003

187


• Defines the rights and obligations of foreign residents (9 years compulsory schooling for children; compulsory insurance to be taken out by employers; better access to the courts, social services and healthcare provision). • Lays down penalties for breaching the law on immigration, residence and work on Greek soil. • Redefines the procedure for naturalisation. • Decentralises some of the authority regarding foreigners to prefectures and municipal authorities. The new Act also provides for the establishment at sub-regional level of “Migration Committees” to issue residence papers and handle some of the issues relating to immigration. It also provides for the setting up of a “Migration Research Centre” for policy evaluation, migration-flow planning and statistical reporting. Combating the employment of illegal immigrants To combat the employment of illegal immigrants, employers now face heavier penalties, i.e. 3 to 6 months’ imprisonment and a fine ranging from € 2 940 to € 14 700. International agreements A re-entry agreement was signed with Turkey in November 2001, whereby illegal immigrants from Turkey are deported back to that country unless they have submitted asylum applications that are not openly groundless.

188

© OECD 2003

Hungary

HUNGARY Introduction Economic growth in Hungary has averaged 4.5% since 1997 and has remained steady in 2001, at close to 4%. The economy was hit, as were other OECD countries, by an international slowdown, but this was largely offset by a strong fiscal loosening of nearly 2% of GDP and by strong wage growth in real terms. Unemployment has significantly decreased over the last few years, down to 5.7% in 2001 for the 15 to 64 age group. In a regional context, Hungary plays a key role in the field of migration. Its geographical position, strong economic growth and prospective membership of the European Union are increasing its importance as both a transit and destination country. Not only are citizens of neighbouring countries migrating, but there are also growing numbers of migrants originating from more distant countries. Following the sudden increase in immigration in 1989/90, migration has become a more sensitive issue. The EU accession process also put the migration challenge in a new light for Hungarian politics and society. 1.


Emigration and ethnic Hungarians abroad Emigration of Hungarian-born individuals outside of Europe is estimated at around 200 000, with half of those in the United States, 54 000 in Canada and 27 000 in Australia. If only Hungarian nationals are considered from this group, the figure remains more than 100 000. In 1998, 78 000 Hungarian citizens were registered as living in the EU member states. Germany remains the largest host nation for Hungarian nationals, receiving annual figures ranging from 11 200 in 1997 to 28 000 in 1992. Inward and outward flows of foreigners In 1999, approximately 15 000 long-term foreign immigrants have been registered, a 21.9% increase on the previous year (see Table III.13). Taking into consideration administrative changes over the past years, annual comparisons must be carefully evaluated. Romania immigrants, many of Hungarian ethnicity, continue to account for the largest national group, yet their proportion has decreased radically since 1990, when they composed 79.5% of all foreign immigrants. In 1999, Romanians accounted for 39.9% of all immigrants. Other national groups have recently been gaining ground during the 1990s: the Former Yugoslavia (11.3% or 1 700 in 1999 compared to 1% or 360 in 1990); the Ukraine (11.0% or 1 650 in 1999 compared to 3.0% or 1 100 in 1990); and China (6.4% or 950 in 1999 compared to 1.8% or 670 in 1990). The increase in immigration in 1999 is almost exclusively the result of immigration from three bordering countries: Romania, the Ukraine and the Former Yugoslavia. Following a decrease in immigration from these three countries during most of the 1990s, a renewed increase was seen in the number and proportion of immigrants from these countries in 1998 (except for the Former Yugoslavia) and in 1999. One explanation might be the impending changes in border control policies that will restrict ethnic Hungarians from entering Hungary after EU accession. Most immigrants are of working age, the average age in 1999 being 30.9. The gender ratio of new immigrants has balanced out during the 1990s. In 1999, the total for males was 51%, as compared to a peak of 65% in 1987. This change is partly due to a 29.1% increase in the number of female immigrants between 1998 and 1999. Immigrants can receive three types of residence permits: short-term, long-term (one year renewable) and permanent. The balance between permanent and temporary resident permit holders varies according to national origin. While most Eastern and Central European nations have a greater number of permanent permit © OECD 2003

189

Figures in thousands unless otherwise indicated 1997

1998

1999

2000

Registered long-term immigration by country of origin1 Romania Former USSR of which: Ukraine Russian Federation Former Yugoslavia EU countries Other countries Total of which: Women

3.4 1.7 1.2 0.4 1.0 1.7 4.5 12.2 5.4

4.1 2.0 1.3 0.5 0.8 1.5 3.9 12.3 6.3

6.0 2.2 1.6 0.4 1.7 1.5 3.6 15.0 7.3

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Grants of residence permits by type of permit Short-term permits (including renewals) Long-term permits (including renewals) Permanent permits2

20.9 20.4 2.8

23.6 24.3 3.7

22.1 29.5 2.7

25.9 30.9 2.5

2.1

7.1

11.5

7.8

73.7 40.1

71.1 38.9

72.4 39.4

76.9 41.3

Inflows of asylum seekers and refugees Stocks of permanent residents of which: Women

Stocks of foreign residents (long-term and permanent residents), by country of origin Romania 57.4 .. 48.6 Former Yugoslavia 16.0 .. 15.3 Germany 8.4 .. 8.5 China 7.9 .. 7.7 Ukraine 12.2 .. 7.6 Other 41.9 .. 39.4 Total 143.8 .. 127.0 of which: Women 66.7 .. 63.8

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

1997

1998

1999

2000

Acquisition of the Hungarian nationality of which, in per cent of total acquisitions: Romania Former Yugoslavia Former USSR

8.4

6.2

6.1

7.5

60.4 18.6 9.1

59.7 16.8 11.1

57.1 18.7 14.4

56.1 22.0 13.5

Registered foreign workers, by country of origin3 Romania Former USSR Slovak Republic China Former Yugoslavia Vietnam Other Total

9.5 3.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 0.2 5.5 20.4

10.6 2.8 0.5 1.1 1.0 0.3 6.2 22.4

14.1 4.0 1.0 1.4 1.2 0.4 6.3 28.5

17.2 5.2 2.9 2.1 1.4 0.7 5.5 35.0

Number of expulsions by nationality of which: Romania Ukraine Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia China Afghanistan

15.6

22.6

18.4

19.6

9.8 0.7 2.6 0.2 0.1

10.2 0.8 7.1 0.5 0.4

11.3 0.7 2.6 0.5 0.5

13.0 1.2 1.0 0.9 –

Number of deportations by nationality of which: Romania Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia

11.9

16.6

12.9

12.9

7.3 2.3

6.9 6.1

7.4 2.0

8.3 0.8

1. Foreigners who have been residing in the country for at least a year and who currently hold a long-term permit. Data are presented by actual year of entry (whatever the type of permit when entering the country). Data include ethnic Hungarians. 2. Number of applications for a permanent permit which have been approved. 3. Valid work permits at the end of the year. Sources: Ministry of the Interior; Central Statistical Office.


190

Table III.13. Current figures on migration flows and stocks of foreign population, Hungary

© OECD 2003

Hungary

holders, nationals from the EU, other OECD member states, Arabic countries and Asian countries have a larger representation within those who have temporary permits. The number of (new and renewed) short-term residence permits has fallen steadily since 1992 with the exception of 1998 when there was a 12.5% increase. In 2000, up to 25 900 were granted. The number of longterm resident permits issued (including renewals) increased throughout the 1990s, reaching a peak of 30 900 in 2000. Of the 29 500 long-term residence permits issued in 1999, 36.5% were for employment purposes. Illegal migration The actual number of immigrating foreigners would appear to be significantly under-estimated due to those entering the country illegally for work purposes. During periods of high seasonal employment (e.g., in the summer for agriculture and tourism), government officials estimate that the number of illegal workers is twice as high as that of work permit holders. Most illegal foreign workers enter Hungary legally on a tourist visa and retain legal residence by leaving the country monthly to obtain an exit stamp on their passports. Many of them are from neighbouring countries and go back and forth as work opportunities present themselves. The illegal employment of foreign workers, especially those from Romania and the Ukraine, is now becoming increasingly well organised. While families and relatives in Hungary provide employment contacts, recruitment agencies and other intermediaries play a major role in contacting both employers and workers. These agencies operate in Hungary and foreign countries. Illegal migrants also enter Hungary en route to a third country, presumably in Western Europe or North America. Between 1990 and 1998, Hungarian border guards caught 180 000 people attempting to cross Hungarian borders. Romanians account for the majority of illegal migrants entering (26.8%) and exiting (65.9%) between 1990 and 1998. In 1999, the number of illegal immigrants stopped at the Hungarian borders fell to 4 000, compared with 4 700 in 1998. Trafficker-assisted entries reached 4 500 and 2 960 in 1991 and 1992 respectively and averaged some 700 per year since 1993. They rose sharply in 1998 (2 000). Trafficking in women is one of the aspects of illegal migration most frequently discussed in Hungary, since these operations are run by a cross-border criminal network. In 2000, some 19 700 foreigners were expelled from Hungary compared to 18 900 in 1999. Refugees and asylum seekers The number of registered asylum seekers between 1988 and 2000 totalled 162 906. The peak (15 300) was reached in 1990, due to the political instability of east and central European countries. Most recently, in 1999, the number of registered asylum seekers increased significantly to 11 500. The war in Kosovo accounts for this phenomenon only partly, since 52% of asylum seekers in 1999 originated from non-European nations. In 2000 and 2001, 7 800 and 9 600 persons sought asylum in Hungary respectively. In 2000, the main countries of origin for asylum seekers were Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iraq and the Former Yugoslavia. 2.

Structure and changes in the foreign and foreign-born population

Numerical trends Various measures are available in Hungary to estimate the foreign population. The “immigrant background” population, which includes foreign-born and recently naturalised individuals (since 1993), as well as permanent resident permit holders, represented 306 000 in 2000, nearly half being from Romania (47.1%). Other main national groups include the former USSR (17.0%), other Central and Eastern European countries (11.6%) and the Former Yugoslavia (10.3%). In 2000, the immigrant background group consisted of proportionally more women (123 females per 100 males) than in the total Hungarian population (109 ratio). The estimated stock of the foreign-born population in 2000 was approximately 3% (294 400) of the total population. One quarter of the foreign-born were permanent residents and 19% had been naturalised in the past seven years. In 2000, 76 900 foreign citizens had permanent resident status – up 6.2% on 1999 (see Table III.13). This figure was in decline in the second half of the 1990’s but has significantly increased over the past two years. © OECD 2003

191


Preliminary data for 1999 shows that there were 127 000 foreign citizens with long-term or permanent permits, which represent 1.3% of the Hungarian population. The recent decrease is primarily the result of naturalisations; nearly half of all permit holders since 1990 have been naturalised. In 1999, foreign resident were mainly from Romania (38.2%), the Former Yugoslavia (12%), EU (11.2%), and the Ukraine (6%). Mixed marriages Mixed marriages account for around 4% of all marriage contracts in Hungary, with similar rates for marriages with either male or female foreign partners. Naturalisations Applications for Hungarian citizenship peaked in 1992 and 1993 at more than 13 000 each year, but dropped to 3 000 to 4 000 for the rest of the decade. In 2000, 3 963 persons applied for citizenship. More than half (56.1%) of the 7 538 naturalisations in 2000 were attributed to the former Romanian citizens. Other naturalisations included citizens from the Former Yugoslavia (22.0%) and the Ukraine (11.8%). Most of the naturalisations were those of ethnic Hungarians from these three nations. Reasons for accepted naturalisations included Hungarian ascendants (68.5%), recovery of nationality (due to border modification over the past century – 16.5%) and marriage with a Hungarian citizen (9.7%). The time lapse between applications and decisions has recently been reduced to two and a half years. 3.


Migration for employment and work permits As of the end of 1999, 111 400 long-term immigrants were of employment age (15-64), of which 69 300 (63.1%) were employed and 13 200 (12%) were students. New work permits are issued usually for a maximum of one year: in 1999, 95% of all permits were issued for 6 to 12 months. Short-term work permits are less common, being taken up mainly by Slovak citizens or seasonal cross-border workers (mostly in agriculture). In 1999, half of all new work permits (29 600) were issued to Romanian citizens. Citizens from the former USSR were the second largest receiving group, but represented only 13.8% of all new work permits issued. Most work permits were granted to males (66.3% of all permits) and 72.3% were granted to individuals aged between 20 and 40. Work permits are issued mostly for manual labour professions. In 2000, the manual/non-manual labour ratio was 72 to 28. Of the active labour force in 1999, 33.8% of all immigrants were professionals or managers: more temporary migrants (43.2%) are in this category of employment than permanent migrants (27.3%). The converse is true for skilled labour qualifications where temporary migrants (33.6%) are less represented in that category than permanent migrants (41.2%). In terms of national origin, high level qualifications (e.g., managerial and professional) are more likely to be found among temporary than permanent migrants from the Former Yugoslavia, the former USSR, EU Member states and other OECD nations. Labour market integration The decrease in general unemployment rates in Hungary has resulted in increasing work opportunities for foreigners with work permits. According to LFS data, the unemployment rate of foreigners aged 15 to 64 is down to 2.5% in 2001, as compared to 5.7% for the total population in the same age group. Furthermore, the activity rate of foreigners (63.5%) is higher than that of Hungarian nationals. 4.

Policy developments

Admission and residence (including integration measures) 192

In view of EU accession, Hungary has created a new administrative body within the Ministry of the Interior to be responsible for police, border guards and the refugee office. Since 1991, Ministerial decrees regulate the © OECD 2003

Hungary

employment of foreigners and recent modifications in the late 1990s further restricted the ability of foreigners to work in Hungary. Naturalisation and ethnic Hungarians More than three million ethnic Hungarians living in neighbouring countries (e.g., Romania, the Slovak Republic, the Former Yugoslavia, the Ukraine and Croatia) have the potential of being affected by the accession of Hungary to the EU. After much discussion, a Status Law was passed, providing ethnic Hungarians living abroad with financial aid and other special benefits in education, employment, travel and culture. Moreover, ethnic Hungarians in neighbouring countries will benefit from simpler procedures to obtain the right to enter, work or study in Hungary, including temporary work permits, discounts on train travel in Hungary and financial aid to educate their children in Hungarian schools abroad. The Hungarian government wants this law to be effective in 2002 but the neighbouring countries contested it and the EU is currently trying to determine if it is or not discriminatory. Refugees and asylum As of January 2000, asylums seekers who have been granted temporary stay may benefit from less stringent regulations in an effort to obtain employment permits.

193

© OECD 2003


IRELAND Introduction Ireland has now had 10 years of rapid growth, with unemployment rate having been brought down from some 14% to under 4%. The forces of growth are firmly embedded in the economy through favourable demographics, rising human capital formation and a high rate of technology-oriented investment. The growth rate of per capita GDP overpasses 10% in 2000 and should be around 5.7% in 2001. The net migratory inflow of recent years has continued at a relatively high level with this figure being about 26 000 for the 2000/01 fiscal year (ending April 2001). Within this wider context, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of non-EU nationals taking up employment under the work permit system. The number of asylum seekers entering the country has also continued to increase. The number of Irish citizens returning (i.e., former emigrants) has fallen in recent years, while the inflow of other EU nationals has remained more or less constant. The migratory outflow from the country has decreased substantially over the last ten years, even though it is still of significant proportions. 1.


Emigration Emigration flows have declined over recent years. In the year to April 2001, the gross outflow (of Irish and non-Irish nationals) was estimated at nearly 20 000 (see Table III.14) compared with about 60 000 in the early 1990s. The gross immigration figure for Irish nationals in 2001 was approximately 18 000, that is, 39.3% of all inflows. Since 1993, the United Kingdom is no longer, after six decades, the destination of the majority of Irish emigrants; in 2001, the United Kingdom’s share of such emigrants fell to less than 30%, compared with about 65% in the early 1990s. There has been, instead, a trend towards increasing diversity in the destination countries of emigrants. In 2001, the estimated proportion going to the EU (other than the United Kingdom) was 20%; the United States accounted for about 12% and all other countries for over 40%. Emigration from Ireland has predominantly been among young people, though when economic conditions in Ireland are severely depressed it also tends to extend to the immediately older age groups. The most recent estimates available show that over 50% of the gross outward movement in 2000/2001 related to persons aged between 15 and 24 years, with the great majority of the remainder (over 40%) involving persons aged between 25 and 44 years; other sources indicate that most emigrants in this latter age class are between 25 and 34. With regard to gender differences, if Irish emigration flows are viewed over a long period, there is no material difference in the balance between males and females. However, this balance can vary substantially from time to time. The outflows in the 1980s, for example, involved a significant majority of males. However, this differential has decreased greatly in the 1990s: the gross outflow of males between 1990 and 2000 was 154 000, compared with 150 000 for women.

194

Irish emigrants, who were previously largely unskilled, are now broadly representative of the skill structure of Irish society. Indeed, there appears to be a significant level of emigration among those with thirdlevel qualifications (advanced diplomas or degrees). Data relating to recently qualified graduates indicate that whilst unemployment in the immediate post graduate period declined markedly during the 1990s, there has not been as dramatic a decline in the proportion taking up employment abroad (which fell from 20% in 1990 to 12.5% in 1999). These figures reflect the fact that many young qualified Irish still opt to work abroad, not out of necessity but to acquire greater experience, both in an occupational and wider social context. © OECD 2003

Ireland

Table III.14. Current figures on migration flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, Ireland Figures in thousands unless otherwise indicated 1998

1999

2000

2001

Immigration by last country of residence1 United Kingdom Other EU countries United States Other countries % of return Irish citizens

44.0 21.1 8.7 4.9 9.3 52.7

47.5 21.6 10.0 5.7 10.2 54.5

42.3 16.4 9.8 4.6 11.5 43.0

46.2 15.5 8.7 4.4 17.5 39.3

Emigration of both Irish and foreign people by country of destination1 United Kingdom Other EU countries United States Other countries

21.2 8.5 4.3 4.3 4.1

29.0 10.2 4.5 5.4 8.9

22.3 6.3 4.3 3.2 8.5

19.9 5.3 4.1 2.3 8.1

Net migration of both Irish nationals and foreigners1 United Kingdom Other EU countries United States Other countries

22.8 12.6 4.4 0.6 5.2

18.5 11.4 5.5 0.3 1.3

20.0 10.1 5.5 1.4 3.0

26.3 10.2 4.6 2.1 9.4

3 704.8 3 593.8 110.9 66.2 19.0 10.0 15.7 3.0

3 744.7 3 626.7 117.8 68.8 20.8 9.9 18.3 3.2

3 786.9 3 660.4 126.5 66.9 25.3 8.0 26.3 3.3

3 839.1 3 687.7 151.4 74.0 25.2 10.2 42.0 3.9

4.6

7.7

10.9

10.3

5.7

6.3

18.0

29.2

0.3 0.7 1.6 3.1

1.3 0.6 1.1 3.3

8.0 1.1 1.9 7.0

15.7 1.3 1.2 11.0

0.1 0.7 4.9

0.4 0.4 5.4

3.0 1.8 13.3

4.5 2.4 22.3

1 494.5 1 447.0 47.5 28.3 10.3 3.7 5.2

1 591.1 1 537.9 53.2 31.5 12.3 3.3 6.2

1 670.6 1 610.7 59.9 31.9 15.6 2.8 9.6

1 716.5 1 638.2 78.3 35.7 17.4 3.3 21.8

40.3 42.8 42.7 54.2 37.0 33.1

42.4 45.2 45.8 59.1 33.3 33.9

44.0 47.4 47.7 61.7 35.0 36.5

44.4 51.7 48.2 69.0 32.4 51.9

Stock of total population2 Irish nationals Total foreign population United Kingdom Other EU countries United States Other countries % of foreign population in total population Asylum seekers Labour market Work permits issued and renewed3 By nationality Central and Eastern Europe India and Pakistan United States and Canada Other countries By sector of activity Agriculture Industry Services Employment by nationality2 Irish nationals Foreigners in employment United Kingdom Other EU countries United States Other countries Employment to total population ratio Irish nationals (%) Foreigners (%) United Kingdom (%) Other EU countries (%) United States (%) Other countries (%)

1. CSO estimates made on the basis of 1996 Census results. 2. Estimated from the annual Labour Force Survey. Fluctuations from year to year may be due to sampling error. 3. Data for the year 2001 relate to permits issued from January to mid-October. Sources: Central Statistical Office; Labour Force Survey.

195

© OECD 2003


However, the duration of residence abroad, even though sometimes quite long, tend not to be permanent, and thus the oft-voiced fears of a “brain drain” are not in fact well-founded. Inward and outward flows of foreigners Inward migration of non-nationals has become a much more important phenomenon in Ireland over recent years. The gross migration inflow increased from less than 13 300 in 1994 to nearly 30 000 in 2001. The proportion of non-nationals in the inward flows has risen dramatically since the late 1980s, to over 60% in April 2001. Notably, the share of non-EU foreigners (other than United States citizens) has increased substantially in recent years from one third in 1993 to 64.5% in 2001. While the non-national group is comprised largely of persons coming to work, it also includes students coming to attend third-level institutions and, more recently, asylum seekers, as well as dependants of persons in these groups. In terms of age distribution of the gross inflow, those aged 25 years or over constitute some 60% of the total, a proportion which has increased slightly in recent years. There is a significant concentration in the 25 to 44 year age band. Somewhat less than 30% of the gross inflow relates to the youth category covering those aged 15 to 24 years. About 12% of inward migrants were children aged less than 15 years, suggesting that a significant number of the incoming migrants enter as family groups. This proportion has, however, shown a tendency to fall in recent years, probably because the migrant inflow contains an increasing share of nonnationals who are more likely to enter the country unattached, rather than with families. Illegal migration Legislation covering asylum seekers and refugees is described below. The 1999 Immigration Act sets out the circumstances and the manner in which non-nationals can be legally deported, or excluded from Ireland. When compared with the previous arrangements the new legislation imposes a number of constraints. In determining whether or not to make a deportation order the Minister of Justice must have regard to relevant circumstances pertaining to the person, including age, duration of residence in Ireland, family, employment and general humanitarian issues. A prospective deportee must be issued with a deportation order which allows fifteen working days within which to make representations to the Minister. In the case of non-nationals who have been resident in Ireland for at least five years, deportation, even if decided on and officially notified, cannot be implemented for at least three months. Under these provisions, deportations have started to take place as the number of asylum applications processed has significantly increased. By late 2001, over 250 deportations had occurred on the basis of statutory Deportation Orders. Refugees and asylum seekers In 1996, in response to the rapid increase in the numbers of asylum seekers, the 1996 Refugee Act was passed by the Irish Parliament with the primary objective of codifying asylum procedures and rendering them more transparent. This Act was amended in 1999 through the inclusion of relevant provisions in the 1999 Immigration Act and by the 2000 Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act. Until the early 1990s the numbers of refugees and asylum seekers were very small; since then they have risen sharply from less than 40 in 1992 (excluding the Bosnian programme refugees from the former Yugoslavia) to almost 7 700 in 1999 and to 10 900 in 2000, with a slight decrease to 10 300 in 2001. Possible reasons for the recent increase include the growing numbers of asylum seekers entering European Union countries generally, and the fact that other countries are adopting more restrictive stances with regard to applications. A knowledge of the new application procedures in Ireland, of the support systems, and the fact that the favourable economic situation (up until now) may also be contributing factors. Recent figures published by the Irish Government indicate that during the period from 1992 to 1999, over 40% of asylum seekers were of Romanian origin, 34% were from Nigeria and nearly 12% were from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The remainder came from a wide variety of countries. 196

The number of persons who have been granted official refugee status is relatively small. Over the period from the beginning of 1992 until the end of 2000, 1 550 applicants were granted refugee status (including © OECD 2003

Ireland

790 on appeal). This was a success rate of 8.1% as a proportion of all applicants excluding those for whom the determination process was not completed. This rate rises to 15.4% if the number of applications withdrawn or abandoned is excluded from the calculation. At the end of 2000, there were just over 12 000 outstanding applications awaiting determination, either at the first or appeal stage. 2.


Numerical trends The population of Ireland was estimated to be 3 839 100 in April 2001. Data from the Quarterly National Household Survey show that the total number of foreign nationals in Ireland has increased substantially over recent years. Whereas in 1983 there were estimated to be only 83 000, in April 2000 the figure was put at 126 500 and at 151 400 the following April. They now account for 3.9% of the total population (see Table III.14). The great majority of foreign nationals, just under 100 000, are EU passport holders with an estimated 74 000 from the United Kingdom. This is a significant increase over the figures for recent years. However, the number of other EU citizens, having increased substantially up till 2000 (to just over 25 000) remained broadly the same in 2001. In contrast, the number of foreign nationals from outside the EU (other than those from the United States) has increased dramatically over the 2000 figure. Their numbers went up from 26 300 to 42 000. 3.


Migration for employment and work permits Analysis of the data on the issue and renewal of work permits provides some indication of the trends in the numbers of non-EU nationals entering the country in order to take up employment. The number of issues and renewals was just over 4 300 in 1995, increasing to 18 000 in 2000 and just over 29 000 for the period January to mid October 2001 (see Table III.14). Most of the recruitment involved is on a short-term basis, usually for one year or less, whilst the number of renewals is generally about one-third of the work permits issued in any one year. The recent inflows of non-EU workers has involved an increasingly diverse range of nationalities. However, the increase between 1998 and September 2001 from the Baltic States (from 17 to 7 000) and other Eastern European countries (from 515 to almost 9 000) has been particularly marked. Over recent years, the most rapid relative increases have occurred in the agricultural sector and in services, particularly those associated with the catering and hotel industries. The figures for agriculture showed an increase from about 100 to nearly 4 500 between 1997 and September 2001. Over the same period the figure for services increased from 3 800 to 22 300 (catering showing an increase from 400 to 7 500). Labour market integration In early 2001, according to the Quarterly National Household Survey, 82 100 (4.6%) of the total workforce were non-nationals, a big increase on the previous year’s figure of 63 900. The rise in the number of non-EU nationals was the most dramatic, as it went up from 13 300 in 2000 to 26 100 in 2001. Just under 50 000 nonnationals were classified as not economically active. The unemployment rate among foreigners fell from 6.3% in 2000 to 4.9% in 2001; this compares with an unemployment rate for the indigenous population of 3.6% in 2001. These figures should be interpreted with caution as the number of non-Irish unemployed in the Irish labour force is small and, therefore, the related survey estimates would be subject to a significant degree of sampling error. 4.

Policy developments

Admission and residence (including integration measures) As a result of growing labour shortages in recent years, there has been strong pressure from employer interests for a less restrictive system, and the allocation of more resources to the programme in order to © OECD 2003

197


expedite the issuing of permits. Thus far the Government has accommodated these approaches. However, in view of the clear signals that the labour market situation is deteriorating, there are now indications that the approach to the work permit system is likely to be reviewed. Refugees and asylum In December 1999, the Report of the Inter-departmental Working Group on the Integration of Refugees in Ireland was presented to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (described in detail in SOPEMI 2001). Following on from its recommendations, the Government has set in train the institution of a Reception and Integration Agency. This body is to deal not only specifically with refugees, but also those awaiting the determination of applications for refugee status, particularly in circumstances where the waiting period is prolonged. Pending the enactment of legislation, the Agency is operating on a non-statutory basis under the direction of an interim Board. Asylum seekers are not allowed to work in Ireland. However, the Government agreed that, as an exceptional measure, those asylum seekers who were in the country for more than twelve months on 27 July 1999, and were still awaiting a determination of their application for refugee status, were to be given the right to seek work. However, this was a one-off measure and it has been stated that there are no plans to repeat this as the Government considers that this would result in the undermining of immigration controls. Even though the numbers of public service staff engaged in dealing with applications for asylum within the various bodies which now exist, have been greatly increased (to a current level of about 600), the number of applications still outstanding and the continuing inflow indicate that further resources are needed. Steps are being taken to further augment staff numbers to a total of over 650. In administrative terms, the aim is to attain as soon as possible a position whereby all applications for asylum are brought to a completion (including the appeal process) within a period of six months. International agreements In order to facilitate the process of enforcing statutory Deportation Orders, the Irish Government has signed Re-admission Agreements with Romania, Nigeria, Poland and Bulgaria. These are designed to provide a structured repatriation procedure for the return of the nationals of these countries who are residing in Ireland without authorisation.

198

© OECD 2003

Italy

ITALY Introduction Following a short period of economic growth at 3%, the economic climate started to deteriorate in late 2000. GDP growth is projected to slow down to 1.8% in 2001 and 1.5% in 2002 but should pick up during 2003. The unemployment rate among the 15-64 age group was still quite high at 9.7% in 2001. According to all available indicators (for example new permits issued or enrolment in municipal registries) the year 2000 saw an ongoing rise in the foreign population in Italy. Furthermore, there is a growing awareness of the permanent nature of the immigration phenomenon in Italy. Immigration was once again a major issue in the 2001 election, which produced a clear centre-right majority in Parliament. The current government is following through on a longstanding electoral promise to revise the 1998 Immigration Law.

1.


Emigration The best indicator of emigration from Italy is the number of individuals removed from municipal registers when moving abroad. Officially a total of 66 821 residents left Italy in 2000, of whom 12 390 were foreign citizens and 54 431 Italian citizens. Another 14 086 foreigners were removed from registers because they were no longer living at their stated address and were assumed to have left the country. Inward and outward flows of foreigners In 2000, 271 517 residence permits were granted, a small increase (1.3%) on 1999. New residence permits include initial short-term permits (e.g., for study purposes, asylum requests, tourism) as well as amnesty decisions. This corresponds to a sharp increase compared to 111 000 in 1998. In 2000, 155 300 new permits were granted and 116 200 persons still benefited from the regularisation program. The broad migration trends of the 1990s continued into the new millennium, with some minor changes. As in the past, most legal immigrants (all new permits issued) in 2000 came from emerging and developing economies, at a ratio of 6-to-1. Of those coming from emerging and developing economies, 38.8% came from Eastern Europe, 15.3% from North Africa, 11.4% from Latin America, 10.1% from East Asia, and 9% from South Asia. The permits for 2000 were allocated to Albanians (31 185, down 16.1% on 1999), Moroccans (24 700, down 0.7%), Romanians (20 684, down 1.0%), Chinese (15 422, up 40.6%) and Filipinos (12 240, up 115.8%). Other nationalities gaining in importance in 2000 as compared to 1999, include Bangladesh (6 602, up 108.5%), Pakistan (6 027, up 83.8%), the Ukraine (4 084, up 55.8%) and Sri Lanka (6 017, up 54.5%). Permits for work-related reasons were issued to foreign citizens newly emerging as top migrant workers in Italy (Ukraine, Moldova, Bangladesh). New work-related permits eclipsed family-related permits in 1999-2000, although the latter increased enormously over 1998. Likewise, apart from a consolidated rise in the number of foreigners, there was a reversal in the trend towards family permits and balanced male/female ratios. The 1998 amnesty, as observed during the 1999-2000 period, raised the number of work permits and reinforced the existing imbalance in sex ratios due to the specialised labour market. Over the long term, family reunification should rise again sharply in 2001 as those who benefited from the amnesty become eligible to apply. © OECD 2003

199


Illegal migration While the 1998 regularisation allowed for more than 200 000 foreigners to obtain documents for the first time, illegal immigration is still supported by an informal economy which attracts the migration of foreign workers. In 2000, over 130 000 have been expelled or ordered to leave the country (+15.9% over 1999). Among the expelled undocumented migrants, 31 000 have been turned back at the border, 26 000 expelled and 8 400 repatriated. Recently clandestine immigration has increased along the Italian coastline. Illegal migrants arriving by sea usually request asylum. The Italian authorities process their applications and they then move northwards into the richer parts of Italy. Refugees and asylum seekers Until the late 1990s, Italy was not a primary destination for asylum seekers. In 2000 4 118 foreigners have been granted asylum and 6 318 a special permit while awaiting a decision on their case. In 2000, 24 500 persons sought asylum in Italy, down from 33 400 in 1999. Most asylum applications are rejected and most receive a permit given for humanitarian reasons. Applicants include Turkish and Iraqi Kurds (who form the majority group) and those from Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria and Sri Lanka. Foreigners allowed entry receive a temporary residence permit, valid until a definitive decision is made regarding refugee status. The applicant receives €17/day for 45 days and is not allowed to work. The increased number of applicants has resulted in a delay in the process of at least one-year for an entire case review. Once the application decision is made successful, applicants receive a certificate enabling them to work and an unlimited residence permit. Rejected candidates must leave the country immediately (unless they appeal the decision). Family reunion Family permits accounted for 354 850 of the foreigners in Italy at the end of 2000: 91.2% of these were nonEU citizens. An increasing part of the inflow of foreigners is through family reunification, with 56 214 new permits in 2000 (20.7% of total new permits). The principal nationality represented in family reunification permits in 1998 was Albanians, whose number surpassed that of Moroccans. Other major groups included those from China, Sri Lanka, Romania, the Philippines and Macedonia. Most applications come from foreigners who reside in northern Italy. 2.


Numerical trends Traditionally, the stock of foreign citizens in Italy has been monitored using residence permit data (issued by the local police) since these figures were supposed to be more complete than the number of immigrants enrolled in municipal registries. For the first time, municipal registries of foreigners in 2000 (1 464 589), exceeded that of foreigners with permits (1 388 153) (see Table III.15). Enrolment in municipal registers enables access to schooling and all social benefits with the result that national differences can be observed between registry and permit data. Generally, the populations that have been in Italy longer have more enrolments than permits (Somalia, Mauritius, Ethiopia).

200

Historically predominant groups – North Africans and Filipinos – are giving way to those from South-east Europe, South Asia, South America and China. In 2000, according to permit data, the top five foreign countries represented in Italy were Morocco (11.5% of all permits), Albania (10.2%), Romania (5.0%), the Philippines (4.7%) and China (4.3%). According to registries, the top five spots were held by Morocco (13.3%), Albania (11.2%), Philippines (4.9%), Romania (4.3%) and Tunisia and Yugoslavia (both at 4.1%). These top five nationalities make up only 35.7% (permits) and 41.9% (registries) of the foreign population. © OECD 2003

© OECD 2003

Table III.15.

Current figures on foreign population, Italy

Figures in thousands unless otherwise indicated

Foreigners who hold a residence permit1

1997

1998

1999

2000

1 240.7

1 250.2 (1 033.2)

1 252.0

1 388.2

486.4 351.0 225.5 172.8 5.0

401.4 297.6 195.6 135.6 3.1

499.1 356.8 239.8 153.0 3.3

556.6 385.6 277.6 165.0 3.3

By region of origin Europe Africa Asia America Others By reason for presence Employment2 Family reunification Study Religion Tourism (long-term) Retirees Asylum seekers/refugees3 Others and not specified By region of residence North Central South Islands

782.3 243.4 57.3 59.2 44.5 45.9 5.6 2.5

588.7 251.9 29.9 54.5 9.5 41.1 6.2 51.6

747.6 308.2 30.7 54.3 10.3 – 5.4 95.5

850.7 354.9 35.7 55.1 8.5 45.3 6.3 31.7

636.7 378.4 225.6 –

674.0 367.7 208.5 –

670.8 368.6 143.9 68.7

761.3 422.5 143.1 61.3

Acquisition of Italian nationality

11.6

10.8

13.6

11.6

1997

Characteristics of non-EU foreigners who newly obtained a work permit 166.5 Level of education (%) No diploma 82.2 Primary level 14.9 Secondary level 2.4 University 0.4 Sector of activity (%) Agriculture 22.6 Manufacturing 43.5 Domestic work 5.3 Others 28.6 Stocks of foreign employment4

539.6

Characteristics of registered foreign unemployed (excluding EU citizens) 177.9 Length of registration (%) Less than 3 months .. 3 months to 1 year .. More than 1 year .. Age groups (%) Less than 18 .. 19-24 .. 25-29 .. 30 and over ..

1998

1999

2000

182.0

219.0

145.3

.. .. .. ..

85.2 11.1 2.7 1.0

.. .. .. ..

23.5 41.0 5.3 30.2

5.8 15.5 6.4 72.3

.. .. .. ..

614.6

747.6

759.7

206.0

204.6

..

26.3 36.2 37.3

24.3 35.8 39.9

.. .. ..

1.7 13.5 22.4 62.3

.. .. .. ..

.. .. .. ..

1. Data are from residence permits and refer to 31 December of the years indicated. From 1998 onwards, data have been corrected to exclude expired permits and to estimate the number of minors who are registered on their parents’ residence permit. Figures by region of origin and by reason of presence in 1998 are not adjusted to include estimates of minors (total is indicated in brackets). 2. Including self-employed and unemployed. 3. It includes applications and not issued permits. 4. Number of non-EU foreigners who hold a work permit. Excluding unemployed with a residence permit who are registered in the local employment Offices. Sources: Ministry of the Interior; ISTAT.

Italy

201


According to the Ministry of the Interior, 1 388 153 foreigners were in possession of a valid residence permit at the end of 2000, among which 151 800 were from the European Union. This figure is sometimes considered to be too low. Caritas, for instance, adds 21% (291 500) to this number. Given the fact that most permits cover relatively short periods, that the renewal process tends to be slow, and given the shortfall compared to the number of foreigners enrolled in registries, a conservative estimate of adult foreigners legally present in Italy reaches about 1.5 million. Most valid permits in 2000 (61.3% or 850 715) were granted for work-related reasons. This represents a bounce back to historic levels from the anomalous 46.5% in 1999, conditioned by the enormous number of permits issued under the amnesty. Family permits rose by 50 000 over the previous year to reach 354 850. The foreign population in Italy is disproportionately young compared to the native population. In 2000, 931 000 (67.1%) permit holders were aged between 19 and 40. Mixed marriages An increasing proportion of marriages involve at least one foreigner. This phenomenon has risen from 2.7% of all marriages in 1992 to 3.5% in 1996. The estimated figure for 2000 is likely to exceed 7%. In most cases, the marriage is between a foreign female and an Italian male. Naturalisations Naturalisation in Italy is practically negligible: eligibility requirements are stringent (e.g., 10 years of residence, adequate income) and rejection rates reach 66%. Of the new citizens in 2000 (11 570), 84.1% were naturalised following marriage with an Italian citizen. The number of recorded births to foreigners recorded in Italy are more significant and reached 25 916 in 2000, a 22.3% increase over the previous years and 4.8% of all Italian births. 3.


Migration for employment and work permits The 1998 immigration law created a quota system for the admission of foreign workers (permits for family reunification, study, religion etc. were exempted from the quota). The quotas for each year are supposed to be published by decree by the end of the previous year, but they have always been published much later, well into the following year. The 1998 quota (38 000) was raised to 63 000 in 1999, and similar numbers were published in 2000 and 2001. The quotas are divided by nationality (privileging countries which have signed bilateral agreements on readmission of expelled nationals), by category (independent or contract work), by length (seasonal, short-term and long-term contracts), and occasionally by sector (e.g., nurses). The quotas are published for each of the 20 regions, and the Regional labour office then subdivides the quota for the 104 single provinces. Bureaucratic delays and a complicated authorisation procedure have brought about criticism of the quota policy. Approximately 145 300 new work permits (excluding seasonal and renewed permits) were granted in 2000 (see Table III.15). Most permits were issued under the 1998 Amnesty with only 65 304 work visas being issued to new immigrants in 2000. In total, there are 839 982 work permit holders to which can be added 296 016 family permits with work rights. Recent data from the pension system which provides quarterly data on registered workers, showed 1 011 751 foreign workers in Italy. Moroccans represent the highest proportion of foreign workers in both of these data sources, composing 14.9% of all foreigners in the pension system and 11.9% of all permit holders. Other large groups of workers include Albanians, Romanians, Filipinos, Tunisians, Chinese and Yugoslavs. Generally, the workforce participation rate is high among foreigners, with many family members from foreign countries participating as well.

202

The labour-intensive focus of the economy has supported mostly contract work for foreign workers. This parallels the situation faced by many Italian university graduates. According to pension data, there is little demand in Italy for high-skilled foreign labour: employers requested 52.2% of low-skilled and 46.8% of © OECD 2003

Italy

medium-skilled foreign workers. However, the labour market appears dynamic for all foreigners, with large numbers being hired in the industry sector in northern Italy and in all sectors in the rest of the country. Excluding agriculture and domestic work, most foreign workers are concentrated in commerce (28.8%) or the steel industry (23.7%) in 2000. The agricultural sector has seen an increase in the proportion of foreign workers, from 5.8% (55 080) in 1998 to 7.6% (73 259) in 2000. Field evidence suggests that the number of foreigners in agricultural work is actually much higher. Registered foreign workers providing care for children and the elderly constituted 50.2% (114 182) of this labour force in Italy in 1999. Seasonal work permits are managed by quota, which have risen over the past few years to 33 000 in 2001 and 2002. The number of workers entering is lower than the quota due to bureaucratic delays: there were 30 901 such workers in 2000 and 17 104 in 2001 (first nine months). In 2001, seasonal work permits were issued mostly for the agricultural and service (especially tourism) sectors, with 69.7% (11 921) and 29.7% (5 081) respectively. A study on seasonal workers conducted in 2001 found that only 10% of workers were registered with seasonal permits, with the balance composed of undocumented workers and legal foreign residents supplementing their regular income. Labour market integration The majority of incoming immigrants (53.8%) reside in north-west and north-east Italy, where the labour market is stronger and unemployment is low. The centre of Italy (Rome and Tuscany) attracted 33.6% of new immigrants. Based on municipal registry data, a clear pattern exists of resident foreigners moving from the South to the Centre and North. Rome (222 588) and Milan (174 460) remain important centres for immigration. These movements may be supported by migration policies: for example, the quota system for seasonal workers (i.e., agricultural work) limited their presence exclusively to northern Italy in 2001. The unemployment rate of the foreign population has remained more than 50% higher than the average Italian rate: they have moved in tandem. In 2001, according to LFS data, the total unemployment rate for the 15 to 64 age group reached 9.7% whereas it was 13% for foreigners. Nearly 45% were unemployed for more than a year, and the vast majority had no qualification. More than 10% (83 269) of all foreign workers are self-employed in Italy: they are mostly men (78.9%) and from non-EU nations (88.4%). During the 1998 Amnesty, 14.5% of applications were for self-employment. Chinese is the leading nationality in this group of workers. 4.

Policy developments

Admission and residence The Italian Parliament approved tougher immigration legislation in June 2002. The new Italian law increases patrols of Italy’s coastlines and requires non-EU citizens to be fingerprinted in order to remain in Italy. Residence permits are to be linked to work permits, so that non-EU foreigners without jobs would have to leave within six months, down from 12 months. Italian employers sponsoring foreign workers have to provide them with housing and post a bond to cover the cost of removing the foreign worker. The new law increases the power of the Ministry of the Interior to manage non-EU foreign workers. Work permits for non-EU foreigners are to be reduced from four to two years, and requests for renewals must be made 90 days in advance, up from 30 days. In order to become a permanent resident, a non-EU foreigner must live six years in Italy, up from five years, so that two renewals are necessary for immigrant status. When leaving Italy, non-EU foreigners will no longer be able to claim refunds of the social security taxes they paid to the pension agency. In 2000 and 2001, Italy established quotas for foreigners from particular countries to reward their government for cooperation in reducing smuggling, and to provide legal channels for migrant arrivals. In 2001, these quotas were: 6 000 Albanians; 2 000 Tunisians; and 1 500 Moroccans. Under the new law, bars to legal re-entry are increased. After being detected in Italy, unauthorized nonEU foreigners are barred from legal entry for 10 years, up from the current five years. Penalties for re-entering Italy illegally are increased, with 6 to 12 months of detention for a first illegal re-entry, and one to four years in © OECD 2003

203


prison for subsequent re-entries. Illegal migrants can be detained 60 days before removal, up from the current 30 days, and foreigners who apply for asylum after being detained are to remain in detention. The law also envisages a new regularization process, which should focus in a first stage on illegal immigrants working as maids and caretakers for elderly people, and in a second stage on foreign workers employed off the books. After this limited amnesty only immigrants with a work contract can get residency permit. Other integration measures The Ministry of Welfare is primarily responsible for encouraging the integration of legal foreigners in accordance with the 1998 Immigration Law. Existing labour market initiatives are divided into orientations, training and placement. Local government decides on the specific action plans. The government has a budget of €800 000 for technical support in improving the capacity of the local job offices to deal with immigrant jobseekers. Affordable housing remains extremely problematic for migrants, especially those in the north-east – the most attractive area to new workers. Foreigners have access to public housing, but the new immigration law imposed a 5% limit to the amount of public housing inhabited by foreigners (despite an anti-discrimination clause in the previous legislation).

204

© OECD 2003

Japan

JAPAN Introduction After a “decade of lost opportunities” in the 1990s, the Japanese economy experienced a brief recovery from 1999 and peaked in the third quarter of 2000. However, a sharp downturn started from the end of 2000 and GDP growth declined by 1.9% in 2001. The sharp downturn started to affect the labour market and the unemployment rate was at its highest level ever recorded at 5.0% in 2001. In spite of the unfavourable conditions in the labour market under the continued recession, the inflow of the foreign population with resident status in Japan has increased. The estimated number of visa overstayers had displayed a downward trend until January 2001; however, the figure shows an increase of 1.8% to 235 600 during the first half of 2001 1.


Inward and outward flows of foreigners Only those who stay for more than 90 days (the registration of whom is obligatory under the Alien Registration Law) are considered immigrants. These entrants are assigned a residence status and authorised period of stay as prescribed categories in the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act according to their occupation in Japan or their personal status as a foreigner eligible to enter and reside there. They can apply for an extension of the period if their circumstances remain the same, except in the case of entertainers. Although the government is promoting the acceptance of foreign workers with technological expertise, skills or knowledge, the cautious policy on the acceptance of unskilled workers remains unchanged. The highest unemployment rate was recorded in 2000. However, foreign workers with permission of employment totalled 154 750, showing an increase of 29 000 (23.1%) in 2000. A constant rise had been observed throughout the late 1990s. This increase was recorded in all principal national groups, and especially those from Asian countries, i.e. China, the Philippines and Korea, whose share has slowly risen to just under 60%. In 2000 entries of those who have the status of “long-term residents” (the overwhelming majority of whom are the grandchildren and later descendants of Japanese emigrants to South America), and who have unrestricted permission to work, increased remarkably by 46% to less 75 000 (see Table III.16). Following a double-digit rate rise during 1995-1997, entries of trainees increased by only 1% in 1998, dropped by 4% in 1999, and then increased again by 12.6% to 54 050 in 2000. About 90% of the total are from Asian countries, among which the people from Mainland China account for just over 50%. In 2001 the number of foreign students also showed a sharp increase by 23% to 78 800. More than 90% of those students were from Asia. Illegal immigration In response to the constant rise in illegal entries in the late 1990s, the authorities enacted an amendment in February 2000 to tighten the penalties that could be imposed on illegal entrants and extended the no-entry period from one to five years. Almost 9 200 illegal entrants were detected and deported in 2000, recording a slight decline by 1.6% compared to that of 1999. However, the total number remains nearly twice of the 1996 figure. Three-quarters of total illegal entries arrived by air, the highest ever. © OECD 2003

205


Table III.16. Inflows of foreigners by status of residence, 1997-2000, Japan Thousands 1997

1998

1999

2000

% change 1999-2000

274.8 18.4

265.5 16.5

281.9 18.1

345.8 21.2

22.7 16.8

Residents with restricted permission to work of which : Entertainer Specialist in humanities or international services Engineer Intra-company transferee Instructor Skilled labour Professor Religious activities Investor and business manager Researcher Journalist Artist

93.9

101.9

108.0

129.9

20.2

67.5 6.7 5.1 3.4 3.1 2.8 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.3 0.2 0.1

73.8 7.2 5.7 3.5 3.3 3.0 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.1

82.3 6.5 3.7 3.8 3.2 3.4 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.2 0.2

103.3 7.0 3.4 3.9 3.3 3.5 1.9 1.2 0.9 1.0 0.2 0.2

25.5 8.1 –8.2 2.0 3.8 3.8 26.5 –2.4 –11.4 –5.8 28.3 5.0

Cultural activities Student Trainee Dependant "Designated activities"

4.1 24.2 49.6 16.1 3.3

3.7 28.0 49.8 16.1 3.0

3.7 33.9 48.0 16.7 2.9

3.2 41.9 54.0 17.6 4.4

–13.1 23.7 12.6 5.5 48.7

Long-term residents of which: Spouse and child of Japanese national Spouse and child of permanent resident Other

65.3

46.4

50.5

73.6

45.6

31.6 0.3 33.4

24.6 0.4 21.5

26.7 0.3 23.5

33.2 0.4 40.0

24.0 29.7 70.6

Total1 Diplomat and official

1. Excluding temporary visitors and re-entries. Including renewals of permits. Source: Ministry of Justice.

In 2000, 51 500 persons were deported. The number declined by 6.7% after a 13.8% significant increase on 1999. This blip in 1999 was due to illegal immigrants rushing to declare themselves in order to avoid the tighter sanctions that were due to be imposed on illegal immigrants from the start of 2000. Tightening of sanctions was provided in the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act supposed to be enacted in February 2000. Of those who had been deported 85% had been working illegally and almost 80% out of the total were those who had overstayed their visa. This proportion has remained the same since the mid-1990s. Asylum seekers and refugees The number of applications for asylum displayed an upward trend throughout the 1990s, as well as the number of approvals (respectively 220 and 350 applications in 2000 and 2001). Between 1982 and 2000, the government accepted a total of 2 179 applications for refugee status and approved 260 applications (12% acceptance rate). In 2000, 22 persons were granted refugee status. Even if the application was not approved, under certain conditions the authorities may allow the right to stay in Japan for a certain period of time. This consideration was given to 31 persons in 2000. 2.

206


At the end of 2000, the recorded stock of foreign nationals (excluding illegal residents), which has increased steadily, reached 1.7 million, an 8.4% rise from 1999 (see Table III.17). Foreigners account for 1.3% of the total population. Although Korea accounted for the largest group (almost 40% of total), this number and © OECD 2003

Japan

Table III.17.

Current figures on migration flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, Japan Thousands

Inflows of foreign nationals1 Stock of foreign nationals % of total population3

2

By country of origin Korea China (including Chinese Taipei) Brazil Philippines Peru Other country By status of residence Permanent residents4 Long-term residents of which: Spouse or child of Japanese national Spouse or child of permanent resident Other Foreign workers with permission of employment Other (accompanying family, student, trainee, etc.) Naturalisations of which: Korea China Foreign labour force (estimates)5 Foreign residents with permission of employment by status of residence Specialist in humanities or international services Entertainer Engineer Skilled labour Instructor Intra-company transferee Professor Investor and business manager Religious activities Researcher Journalist Artist Medical services Legal and accounting services Total Trainees and Working Holiday Makers Estimates of students engaged in part time jobs

1997

1998

1999

2000

274.8

265.5

281.9

345.8

1 482.7 1.2

1 512.1 1.2

1 556.1 1.2

1 686.4 1.3

645.4 252.2 233.3 93.3 40.4 218.1

638.8 272.2 222.2 105.3 41.3 232.3

636.5 294.2 224.3 115.7 42.8 242.6

635.3 335.6 254.4 144.9 46.2 270.2

625.5 483.7

626.8 482.3

635.7 492.5

657.6 523.9

274.5 6.3 202.9 107.3 266.2

264.8 6.2 211.3 119.0 284.0

270.8 6.4 215.3 125.7 302.1

279.6 6.7 237.6 154.7 350.2

15.1

14.8

16.1

15.8

9.7 4.7

9.6 4.6

10.1 5.3

9.8 5.2

660

670

670

710

29.9 22.2 12.9 9.6 7.8 6.4 5.1 5.1 5.1 2.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 107.3

31.3 28.9 15.2 10.0 7.9 6.6 5.4 5.1 4.9 2.8 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 119.0

31.8 32.3 15.7 10.5 8.1 7.4 5.9 5.4 5.0 2.9 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 125.7

34.7 53.8 16.5 11.3 8.4 8.7 6.7 5.7 5.0 2.9 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 154.7

12.1

19.6

23.3

29.7

6

32.5

38.0

47.0

59.4

Estimates of Japanese descents engaged in gainful activities7

234.1

220.8

220.5

233.2

Illegal workers8

276.8

271.0

251.7

232.1

49.6

48.5

55.2

..

Number of foreign nationals deported

1. Excluding temporary visitors and re-entries. 2. Data are based on registered foreign nationals as of 31 December of the years indicated. The figures include foreigners staying in Japan for more than 90 days. 3. As a per cent of registered population as of 1st October of the years indicated. 4. Essentially Korean nationals. A “special permanent residents” category was introduced in 1992. It includes Koreans and Taiwanese nationals who lost their Japanese nationality as a consequence of the Peace Treaty of 1952 but who had continued to reside permanently in Japan. 5. Estimates including illegal workers. Excluding permanent residents. 6. Permanent residents, spouses or children of Japanese nationals, spouses or children of permanent residents and long-term residents have no restriction imposed to the kind of activities they can engage in Japan and are excluded from these data. 7. Estimates made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 8. Estimates made by the Ministry of Justice on the basis of the number of overstayers. Sources: Ministry of Justice; Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Ministry of Labour.

207

© OECD 2003


the proportion in total are continuously declining. On the other hand, a steady increase in the number of Chinese and Filipinos explains the major part of the overall increase. Those with permanent resident status, and therefore unrestricted permission to work, numbered 657 600 in 2000, displaying an increase of 3.4% compared to the previous year. This accounts for nearly 40% of the foreign population in total. Almost 80% of these cases were people with special permanent residence, i.e. Koreans who had lost Japanese nationality as a result of the Treaty of Peace with Japan, and their descendants who, born of foreign parents, are not automatically entitled to Japanese nationality. The number with this special status decreased by 4.3% in 2000, while the number with ordinary status showed a consistent increase. The stock of long-term residents increased by 6.4% to 523 900, which accounts for 31% of the total foreign population and shows an upward trend. Although the number of the spouses and children of permanent residents increased by 2% in 2000, it is still almost negligible. Visa overstayers Due to the deterioration in the condition of the labour market under the continuous recession in Japan, the number of those who overstayed their visa decreased from 1993 to January 2001. Another contributing factor might be the efforts made by the authorities, such as tightened visa control, improved co-operation between the agencies charged with tackling the problem and the implementation of a publicity campaign to dissuade employers from hiring illegal workers. The group showing the largest decrease in the number of visa overstayers were Thais, whose figure was 50% less than in 1997. The number of those who overstayed their visas showed a slight increase of 3 400 (+1.5%) during the first half of 2001 to 235 500, halting a downward trend. The major factor for this increase was attributed to the Chinese. They increased by 1 140, accounting for one-third of the overall increase, followed by Indonesians (+640), Koreans (+530), and Malaysians (+330). Other numbers for national groups remain almost the same or show a decline. Koreans, who numbered 56 600, are still the largest group of those who overstay their visas. The majority of visa overstayers are assumed to work illegally. In spite of their downward trend in number, they still account for one third of the total foreign workforce (232 000 out of 710 000 persons). Citizenship and naturalisations Having shown a steady upward trend throughout the 1990s (except for a slight decline in 1998), the number of naturalisations declined slightly by 2% to 15 800 in 2000. Although the number of naturalised Koreans decreased slightly to just under 10 000 compared to the previous year, they are the biggest group acquiring Japanese citizenship, accounting for almost two-thirds of the total (15 000). Mixed marriages In 2000, the number of mixed marriages showed a slow upward trend, increasing by 13.7% to more than 36 000 and the share of mixed marriages of the total number of marriages rose to 4.5%. Nearly 80% are between Japanese men and foreign women, 90% of whom are from Asia (Korea, China, the Philippines and Thailand). This trend remained fairly stable throughout the 1990s. On the other hand, Japanese women are less likely to marry to Asian men. This combination accounts for less than 50% of mixed marriages in total. The proportion has steadily declined whilst the number of males from the USA who married Japanese women has increased from 888 in 1988 to just below 1 500 in 2000 (the second largest national group). Those who marry Japanese nationals and stay in Japan have unrestricted permission to work 3.

208


In 2000, even given the highest unemployment rate ever recorded, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare estimated that the number of foreigners working in Japan increased by approximately 40 000 to 710 000 (see Table III.17). In the three preceding years this number stayed almost at the same level, at around 670 000. Of this total, the number of legal foreign workers is estimated to be about 410 000. The number of © OECD 2003

Japan

foreign nationals who had resident status, enabling them to work in the specific area, increased by 23% to 155 000. %. Of the inflows, entries of entertainers continued to grow significantly by 25.5%, accounting for more than twice of that in 1998; their stock increased by 66.7% to 53 800 in 2000. Although the entries of engineers declined again by 7.5% in 2000, the stock of engineers increased to more than 16 500. The number of long-term residents, who have unrestricted permission to work, is estimated to be about 230 000, displaying a sustained upward trend since 1991. The number of foreign nationals who are engaged in “Designated Activities”, including holiday workers and technical internship trainees, is just under 30 000, also displaying a continuous upward trend throughout the 1990s. The number of foreign students who engaged in part-time job with restricted permission in 2002 was 59 400, showing a sustained increase of 26.5%. The number of foreign students who changed their status of residence in order to work after graduation declined by 10% to 2 690 compared to 1999, while the total number of foreign students shows an upward trend since 1998. 4.

Policy developments

In 1999, the government confirmed the basic direction of their policy by drawing up “Ideal Society and Policies for Economic Rebirth” and the “9th Basic Plan for Employment Measures”. In these agreements, the government decided to promote more actively the acceptance of foreign workers with professional and technical skills, while retaining their cautious policy towards the acceptance of so-called unskilled workers. The sharp rise in illegal entries in the late 1990s forced the authorities to amend the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act in February 2000 to make illegal stay punishable. This amendment includes tightened penalties that can be imposed on illegal entrants and extends the period of refusal of landing from one to five years. In addition, the number of immigration officials has been increased and the relationship between the related authorities strengthened. In March 2001, the government set up the “e-Japan strategy” the objective of which is to accept 30 000 Information-technology (IT) professionals by 2005. The Ministry of Justice has simplified the administrative procedure for entries of IT professionals from India. Indians with certified IT skills above a certain level from now on will match the criteria of “Engineer” under the Ministerial Ordinance to provide for criteria pursuant to the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act.

209

© OECD 2003


KOREA

Introduction After the V-shaped recovery from the financial crisis in 1999, the Korean economy faced an economic downturn that began in the latter part of 2000, due to the world recession. Even though the GDP in 2001 was the lowest since 1985, the economy still grew at 3%. Forecasts for 2002 and 2003 put the growth rate above 6%. The standardised unemployment rate peaked at 6.8% in 1998, decreased to 4.1% in 2000 and was at 3.7% in 2001. Since the late 1980s, Korea has been facing a labour shortage, especially among low-skilled workers in the manufacturing industry. The Korean economy was able to maintain a low unemployment rate of between 2% and 3% and this drove the demand for the foreign workers through the 1990s until the financial crisis. The rapid recovery from the financial crisis exacerbated the problem of labour shortages in small and mediumsized companies. This recovery brought about an even bigger demand for unskilled foreign workers and resulted in an increase in illegal migrants in search of work. 1.


Emigration and outflow of foreigners The number of emigrants increased by 8% in 1998 and by 14% in 1999 after the financial crisis, although the trend is now downward. In 2000, 12 300 Koreans emigrated, representing a decline of 7% compared to the previous year. Soon after the financial crisis in 1998, 230 000 foreign migrants (excluding short-term migrants) left Korea (an increase by 21% compared to the previous year). More than half of this increase is attributable to the Chinese (37% of total decrease) and Filipinos (22% of total decrease) while the number of departures by other major national groups (United States and Japan) decreased. Even taking into account the rapid recovery from the crisis, the upward trend in outflows has continued. 2.


Numerical trends Foreign nationals who stay more than 90 days are required to register under the Emigration and Immigration Law. The number started to increase rapidly after the normalisation of diplomatic relations with China in 1992. The stock of foreign population (excluding illegal immigrants) has grown by more than 20% each year, increasing from 55 800 in 1992 to 176 900 in 1997. It decreased by 17% after the financial crisis, and then increased to 169 000 in 1999 and to 210 200 in 2000. Foreigners account for 0.4% of the total population in Korea.

210

The proportion of people fron Chine Taipei, the former largest national group, has rapidly decreased from over 50% of the total in 1989 to only 10% in 2000, although in absolute terms, the number has not changed much. After the diplomatic normalisation with Mainland China, the number of Chinese has grown steadily, even during the year of the financial crisis. Over the past two years, the proportion of Chinese immigrants of Korean descent has increased to account for over 50% of Chinese staying in Korea. A fast diversification of countries of origin was observed. Three major national groups (Chinese Taipei, the United States and Japan) © OECD 2003

Korea

Table III.18. Foreign workers in Korea by category, 1997-2000 Thousands 1997

1998

1999

2000

Skilled workers Language teacher Other teacher Entertainer Researcher Technician Other professional Others

14.7 7.6 0.9 1.4 0.7 1.0 0.3 2.8

11.1 4.9 0.8 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.3 2.9

12.6 5.0 0.8 2.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 3.3

17.7 6.4 0.7 3.9 0.8 0.3 0.4 5.2

Trainees by recruting agencies Korean Federation of small businesses Companies investing abroad Others

90.4 61.9 26.9 1.6

64.2 43.3 19.8 1.1

98.4 67.0 30.0 1.4

104.8 77.2 26.1 1.6

Estimates of the number of overstayers1 China Bangladesh Mongolia Philippines Vietnam Pakistan Sri Lanka Others

148.1 57.8 9.0 7.6 13.9 6.4 5.9 2.2 45.2

99.5 55.6 7.5 5.6 6.4 3.7 3.1 1.1 16.6

135.3 68.8 10.9 10.6 9.2 5.1 4.3 1.3 25.1

189.0 95.6 14.5 13.1 12.9 7.8 6.1 1.7 37.3

Total (skilled workers, trainees and overstayers)

253.1

174.9

246.3

311.5

1. Most of the overstayers are believed to working illegally. Source: Ministry of Justice.

accounted for approximately 90% of the total until 1999, before their proportion dropped quickly in 2000, when the three main foreign groups (Chinese, including of Korean descent, citizens of Chinese Taipei and of the United States) accounted for 50% of the total. Visa overstayers The estimated number of those who overstayed their visa (most of whom are supposed to engage in illegal work), was 129 100 in 1996 and then increased to 148 100 in 1997. After the financial crisis, the number dropped suddenly by 33% to 99 500 in 1998. This figure increased again by 36% to 135 300 in 1999 and then by 40% to 189 000 in 2000. The Chinese account for the largest group who overstayed their visa (50 % in 2000), followed by people from Bangladesh, Mongolia and the Philippines. Most of the recent increase is attributable to Chinese nationals. In 2001, it seems that the increasing trend persists, as an estimated 251 000 people (most of whom work illegally) are visa overstayers 3.


Stock of foreign workers There are three types of foreign workers in Korea: legal workers, de facto employees accepted under the Industrial and Technical Training Programme (ITTP), and illegal workers. The total number of foreign workers in total increased rapidly from 74 000 in 1992 to 311 000 in 2000 (see Table III.18). This represents 1.4% of the total workforce. Among those workers, 17 700 have a permit and 104 800 of these are trainees. © OECD 2003

211


Skilled legal workers As of December 2000, there were 17 700 foreigner workers with a work permit, all of whom are supposed to possess professional and technical skills. The preliminary figure for 2001 reached 27 000. This is almost a tenfold increase since 1992. Legally employed workers account for just over 8% of the total foreign workforce, though the proportion has been increasing. With the rapid development in knowledge-based industry (KBI) in recent years, the demand for high skilled workers has been increasing dramatically. Employment in KBI increased from 3.6 millions in 1993 to 4.4 millions in 1999. The Korean Institute of Labour reported severe labour shortage for IT and of highly skilled workers in 2000. This established fact should persist and be reinforced in the future. The Korean government has thus revised the Immigration and Emigration law in 2000 to ease for foreign professional and technicians to come to work in Korea (see infra). Trainees Since the late 1980s, Korea has been facing the labour shortage especially in low-skilled workers in the manufacturing industry. This shortage is attributable to the decrease in supply of young labour force due to the lower birth rate and to the mismatch problem caused by the rapid improvement of educational level of youth. The female participation rate was 47% in 1999, an increase of nearly 7% on 1984. However, as female workers mainly engage in white-collar jobs it has had little impact on low-skilled labour shortages in the manufacturing sector. While keeping the basic policy not to accept unskilled migrant workers, the government introduced the industrial training program in November 1993, which enabled 20 000 low skilled foreign workers to come to Korea for a limited period of time to work as trainees in the manufacturing sector. The quota, as well as the period of training and the kind of industries which can accept the trainees, has since been gradually expanded. The number of trainees peaked at 90 000 by the end of 1997. After the financial crisis, many foreign trainees lost their jobs and their number reduced by 30 % in the next year. However, the number started to increase again in 1999 in response to the quick recovery from the crisis. In 2000, out of the 104 800 foreign trainees, 77 100 had been recruited through the Korean Federation of Small Businesses (see Table III.18). The worker-trainees are required to receive at least ten days of socio-cultural orientation to understand the Korean language and society before their entry. They are also provided with a three-day orientation programme right after their entry so as to adjust quickly in the Korean economy. The job orientation and industrial safety orientation on entry are provided by the Korean Federation of Small Businesses. 4.

Policy developments

In response to the increasing demand for highly skilled IT workers, the Korean government revised the Immigration and Emigration Law in 2000 to attract foreign professionals and technicians. This amendment abolished the maximum period of stay and simplified the administrative procedures for obtaining a visa. This open door policy to the professionals is supposed to be strengthened in the near future. One-stop service will be provided and the acquisition of Korean nationality will be eased. From April 2000, in response to the increasing demand for unskilled workers, the government introduced a work permit to allow industrial trainees to work for a certain period of time after their two-year training. As of November 2001, 7 480 foreigners had obtained permission to work. On December 20, 2001, the Korean government announced the revision of the industrial training system for unskilled foreign workers. The major changes are as follows: • From February 2002, the period of training was shortened from two years to one year and that of employment after the training was extended from one to two years. • Trainees have to pass a language test. 212

• In order to develop a more transparent process of selecting trainees, the authorities have introduced random computer selection of candidates who recommended by Agents in sending countries. © OECD 2003

Korea

• In order to protect the human rights of trainees and migrant workers, those employers who do not abide by these rights will be restricted in the number of trainees and migrant workers that they will be allowed to take on. • After training, the written test, which used to be necessary in order to obtain an employment permit, has been replaced by an oral examination. The authorities have abolished the requirement of the recommendation of a former employer and from 2002, trainees who want to continue to work as a documented worker after their training period must take the oral test to obtain the right to work.

213

© OECD 2003


LUXEMBOURG Introduction Luxembourg is taking advantage of its remarkable economic performance, maintaining high growth and low unemployment. Growth stood at 7.5% in 2000 and remained above 5% in 2001 despite the global economic slowdown. Forecasts for 2002 show growth remaining steady (2.75%), followed by a return to high growth again in 2003 (6.8%). Unemployment is extremely low at around 2%. The service sector is the mainstay of this growth, and foreign cross-border workers are the main beneficiaries. Immigration is primarily of European origin and enables the country to maintain population growth at a high level of around 1%. 1.


Inflows and outflows In 2000 Luxembourg’s net migration gain was 3 600, down 23% on the previous year (see Table III.19). There were 11 800 entries and 8 100 exits, giving net immigration rate of 8.4o/oo. Europe was the main source of the inflows, with over 50% of new arrivals being of French, Portuguese, Belgian or German origin. Over half of the immigrants were aged between 20 and 34. Refugees and asylum seekers The number of asylum seekers peaked in 1998 and 1999 (1 600 and 2 900 respectively) but fell markedly in 2000 and 2001, when only 620 and 700 asylum applications were recorded. The peaks were due to the massive influx of asylum seekers from Albania and Kosovo but also Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia. Asylum seekers in 2000 were mainly nationals of the former Yugoslavia, Russia, Kazakhstan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Somalia. The rejection rate for asylum applications stood at around 92% in 2000 and 77% in 2001. 2.


Numerical trends The relatively high population growth of recent years (almost 1% in 2000) is mainly due to a net immigration gain. At 31 December 2000, 164 700 foreigners were resident in Luxembourg, i.e. 37.3% of the total population (see Table III.19). The natural growth rate was 3.4‰ in the year 2000, but was largely attributable to foreign births. The total fertility rate for foreign women is 1.9 and the foreign female population is on average younger, with 58% of foreign women aged 15-49 compared with 44% for Luxembourg nationals. A detailed breakdown by nationality shows that the Portuguese community is still the largest group, accounting for more than one-third of the foreign population or 58 400 persons. The Italian population has been stable for the past ten years at approximately 20 000. Some 45 800 foreigners come from bordering countries (France, Belgium and Germany). Almost 78% of the foreigners residing in Luxembourg are EU nationals. Mixed marriages

214

After rising sharply until 1995, the number of mixed marriages has levelled off at around 500. However, there was a slight increase in 2000 with 581 mixed marriages, accounting for 27% of all marriages celebrated that year. © OECD 2003

© OECD 2003

Table III.19. Current figures on the components of total population change, on flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, Luxembourg Figures in thousands unless otherwise indicated

Components of total population change Natural increase of which: foreigners Net migration of which: foreigners Population (31 December) of which: foreigners Migration flows by nationality Inflows France Portugal Belgium Germany Other countries Net migration France Portugal Belgium Germany Other countries Foreign population by main nationality1 Portugal Italy France Belgium Germany Other countries

1997

1998

1999

2000

1.6 1.9 3.8 3.6 423.7 147.7

1.5 2.0 4.1 3.9 429.2 152.9

1.8 2.2 4.7 4.9 435.7 159.4

2.0 .. 3.6 3.7 441.3 164.7

9.4 1.7 1.9 1.2 0.7 3.8 3.6 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.2 1.4

10.6 2.0 2.0 1.2 0.8 4.6 3.9 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.2 1.7

11.8 2.2 2.1 1.3 0.7 5.5 4.9 1.1 0.3 0.6 0.2 2.7

10.8 2.3 2.2 1.3 0.6 4.4 3.7 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.1 1.4

147.7 54.5 19.9 16.5 13.2 10.0 33.6

152.9 55.9 20.0 17.5 13.8 10.3 35.4

159.4 57.0 20.1 18.8 14.5 10.5 38.5

164.7 58.4 20.3 20.1 15.1 10.6 40.2

Acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality (units)2 Italy Belgium France Germany Other countries

749 192 64 79 60 354

631 149 48 53 44 337

549 94 53 43 41 318

648 157 72 52 50 303

Mixed marriages (units) % of total marriages

554 27.6

500 25.0

539 25.8

581 27.0

1997

1998

1999

2000

18.6 6.4

22.0 6.8

24.2 8.2

27.3 9.6

17.7

21.0

23.1

26.0

8.6 3.0 2.6 1.8 0.6 0.9

10.2 3.4 3.2 2.2 0.8 1.0

11.1 4.0 3.5 2.4 0.7 1.1

11.9 4.3 4.0 2.6 0.8 1.3

0.1 1.6 1.6 10.1 1.4 1.7 0.2 2.5

0.1 2.0 1.8 12.6 1.9 1.8 0.2 1.6

0.1 2.0 2.0 13.7 2.3 2.0 0.2 1.8

0.1 2.1 2.2 15.2 3.1 2.0 0.2 2.3

124.8 59

134.6 60

145.7 60

152.7 60

Stock of cross-border workers by nationality5 France (% of total cross-borders) Belgium (% of total cross-borders) Germany (% of total cross-borders)

64.4 52.3 29.5 18.2

70.8 52.7 28.9 18.4

78.4 52.9 28.2 18.9

88.7 54.0 26.7 19.3

Job-seekers (national definition) of which: Foreigners (% of total job seekers)

6.4 57.9

5.5 59.4

5.4 57.0

5.0 58.1

Inflows of foreign workers3 of which: Women Inflows by region or country of origin EU of which: France Belgium Germany Portugal Italy Other countries Inflows by major industry division Agriculture, forestry Extractive and manufacturing industries Building Trade, banks, insurances Transport, communications Hotels Personal services Other services Total foreign employment4 % of total employment

1. Data are from population registers and refer to the population on 31 December of the years indicated. 2. Children acquiring nationality as a consequence of the naturalisation of their parents are excluded. 3. Data cover arrivals of foreign workers to Luxembourg and foreign residents entering the labour market for the first time. 4. Includes cross-border workers. 5. Annual average. Sources: STATEC; Inspection générale de la Sécurité sociale (IGSS); Administration de l’Emploi.

Luxembourg

215


Naturalisations To acquire Luxembourg nationality, applicants must be over 18 years of age and have resided in Luxembourg for at least ten years. The latter requirement may be reduced to five years for applicants born in Luxembourg, or if they have lost their citizenship, are widowed or divorced from a native-born Luxembourg national with whom they have had more than one child and at least one of whom lives in Luxembourg, or if they are stateless or regarded by the authorities as refugees under the Geneva Convention. Foreigners may also opt for Luxembourg nationality if they marry a Luxembourg national or if they are adopted (see below). Some 50 000 people meet these criteria, yet the number of naturalisations is low. In 2000 there were some 650 naturalisations, including 157 Italians and 72 Belgians but very few Portuguese. 3.


Migration for employment and work permits The economic situation in Luxembourg is one of the factors that attracts workers from the border regions of Belgium, France and Germany. The number of foreign cross-border workers accordingly rose substantially in the 1990s, and by 2000 they accounted for over 36% of all foreign employment in Luxembourg. In 2000, there were 47 900 French cross-border workers (approximately 54%), 23 700 Belgians (26.7%) and 17 100 Germans (19.3%) (see Table III.19). In all, over 153 000 foreigners work in Luxembourg and account for over 60% of dependent employment. In 2000, 27 300 foreign workers entered the labour market, 26 000 of whom were EU nationals (95%), twothirds of them male. The vast majority of foreign workers are employed in commerce, banking and insurance (55.5%), transport and communications (11.5%), and industry (7.7%). The unemployment rate in Luxembourg is low, and stood at 2% in 2000. Unemployment among foreigners, while slightly higher, does not exceed 3%. The figures for 2000 were 2.4% and 3.4%, respectively. 4.

Policy developments

Admission and residence (including integration measures) Luxembourg always gives special attention to the integration of children of foreign origin into the country’s schools. Since 1991, the Ministry of National Education has been developing a general approach aimed at promoting the integration of these children on the basis of their special needs, in particular language constraints. This approach is based on the principles of common education, trilingualism and equal opportunity. In primary education some 35% of children are of foreign origin. Their attainment is slightly lower than that of their Luxembourg counterparts. In general secondary education, for instance, foreign students accounted for only 13.3% of the student population in 1999-2000. Of those, 34.1% were of Portuguese origin and 13.3% of Italian origin. In vocational secondary education, the share of foreign students was 37.2% (61% Portuguese and 11% Italian). Refugees and asylum seekers

216

The Act of 18 March 2001 amended the review procedure for asylum applications and introduced a temporary protection regime. At the same time, the Luxembourg government decided to set up a voluntaryreturn scheme for unsuccessful asylum applicants. This provides financial support (initially € 1 200) which decreases over time following the decision to reject the application. It falls to € 800 after three and a half months and to € 400 after six months. It would seem, however, that potential recipients are less interested in this type of support than in the possibility of lodging an appeal, which shows the limits of such incentives. © OECD 2003

Luxembourg

In the year 2000, there were a total of 463 voluntary returns, for the most part involving nationals from Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia and Albania. In 2001, there were 148 voluntary returns and 39 forced removals. Naturalisations The Act of 24 July 2001, which came into force on 1 January 2002, relaxed the criteria for acquiring Luxembourg citizenship. The minimum residence requirement may accordingly be shortened to three years for foreign spouses of Luxembourg nationals who have lived under the same roof for three consecutive years prior to the application.

217

© OECD 2003


MEXICO Introduction After five years of vigorous economic growth (6.9% in 2000), GDP fell slightly in 2001 and exports fell as a result of the slowdown in the US economy. OECD projections foresee a recovery in the Mexican economy in 2002. Despite increasing inflows of foreign immigrants Mexico is still primarily a country of emigration. The most popular country of destination is the United States, which hosts more than 20.6 million Mexicans, working mainly in low skilled jobs in agriculture or the service sector. The foreign population accounts for 0.5% of the total population and is heavily concentrated in the northern part of the country near the American border. 1.


Emigration and returns of nationals The border zone with the United States is probably one of the busiest in the world (see Table III.20). In 2000, 174 000 Mexicans get permanent residence in the United States, which is the highest number recorded since 1992 and corresponds to a 17.8% increase on 1999. However, most of the movement across the border is due to undocumented emigrants. In 2000, the United States government apprehended 1.7 million of Mexicans. Furthermore 150 000 have been formally removed (with penalty) and another 1.6 million, including recidivists (a vast majority of them with Mexican origin) accepted offer of voluntary departure after being apprehended by the US Border Patrol.

Table III.20. Mexican emigration to the United States, 1911-20001 Thousands Period

1911-20 1921-30 1931-40 1941-50 1951-60 1961-70 1971-80 1981-90 1991-2000 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

218

Mexican emigrants to the United States

Of which: Persons who had benefited from the US 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)

219.0 459.3 22.3 60.6 299.8 453.9 640.3 1 655.8 2 253.7

962.7 1 048.6

405.7 680.2 947.9 214.1 126.6 111.4 90.0 163.7 146.9 131.6 147.6 173.9

339.2 623.5 894.9 122.5 17.5 4.4 3.0 3.6 2.0 0.7 – 0.3

1. Data refers to grants of permanent residence in the United States. Data refers to fiscal year (October to September of the given year). Source: US Department of Justice, 2000 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

© OECD 2003

Mexico

The study conducted for the Zapata Canyon project reveals that a substantial percentage of those escorted back across the border attempt to cross it again within 24 hours of their return to Mexico, and 75% within the next few months. Half of them are caught within three days of entry. A typical Mexican wishing to leave the country for the United States is male (in 96% of cases) over 25 years of age, resident in an urban area and educated to no more than secondary-school level. Over 51% of Mexicans interviewed had already worked in the United States. Inward and outward flows of foreigners In the period from January to June 2001, 6.5 million foreigners entered Mexico with various types of entry documents. This represented a decrease of 0.6% on the same period in the year before. The total number of permanent residence permits given out by the National Institute for Migration of Mexico (INAM) was 1 035 in 2000. This is significantly less than in 1999, where 1 670 visas were granted. This declining trend seems to be confirmed for the first six months of 2001. Most permits were granted to people from the United States (18%), Spain (11%), Argentina (9%), France (6%), Germany (4%), Peru (4%) and Bolivia (3%). Illegal migration Illegal migration is growing, which is reflected in the number of foreigners apprehended and expelled. In 1999, 125 400 illegal immigrants were returned to their country of origin; in 2000, their number had increased to 153 000 out of 166 500 undocumented migrants apprehended. Most of the illegal foreigners apprehended in the first 6 months of 2001 were from Guatemala (43%), Honduras (26%) and El Salvador (26%). In an attempt to regularise the situation, the INAM launched an Amnesty Programme in March 2001 for undocumented immigrants who had been resident in Mexico for more than 2 years. Of the 2 236 applications made between February and June 2001, 1 457 were granted a permanent residence permit. In more than 88% of the cases the applicants were a family member of a Mexican citizen. Those figures, however, are quite below the estimated number of undocumented Guatemalans, which is around 150 000. Refugees and asylum seekers The number of refugee visas that were granted to nationals of Guatemala is subject to strong growth. In 1998, 2 400 such visas were granted, compared with 5 700 in 1999 and 7 900 in 2000. 2.


Numerical trends Census data in 2000 are the most recent data about the foreign-born population that are available. In 2000, Mexico’s total foreign-born population amounted to 406 000, or 0.5% of the total population (see Table III.21). The census data, when compared with that of previous years, reveals a number of trends. The proportion of immigrants from Latin American countries has decreased from 27% in 1990 to 21% in 2000, mainly as a consequence of the voluntary return of refugees from Guatemala. The proportion of foreign-born from Europe, Asia and Australasia has also been declining. They accounted for 33% of the total stock of foreigners in 1970, 25% in 1980, 16% in 1990 and, finally, 15.1% in 2000. The proportion of immigrants from the United States, traditionally the number one source country of immigration, increased slightly in 2000 to 63.2% of the stock of foreigners. Almost half of Mexico’s foreign-born population (45.5%) falls within the 5 to 19 age group. There is some variation according to country of origin, however. Immigrants from Central and South America are significantly younger than immigrants from other countries. The immigrant population that originates from the United States is the youngest. © OECD 2003

219


Table III.21.

Foreign-born population living in Mexico in 2000, by region of origin Foreign-born population in 2000

Total (thousands) By region of origin (%) North America Caribbean Central America South America Africa Asia Oceania Europe Other

Of which: Entered after 1995

Entered before 1995

405.9

104.8

301.2

63.2 2.4 11.2 7.3 0.2 2.9 0.1 11.9 0.7

65.5 3.4 7.3 9.3 0.3 4.1 0.1 9.3 0.7

62.4 2.1 12.6 6.6 0.2 2.5 0.1 12.8 0.7

Note: Foreign-born population aged 5 and over. Source: 2000 Census, CONAPO (National Council of Population of Mexico).

Three-quarters of the immigrant population are concentrated in only ten states (out of 20) near the northern border (Mexico has 32 states in total). The Federal District Mexico City, which is in the south of the country, has 13.5% of all migrants. Because of the relative importance of immigrants form the United States, the foreign-born population in Mexico tends to be highly educated (37.1% have a college degree) and engaged in white-collar occupations. Naturalisations The number of Mexican naturalisation documents issued by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs has grown from 510 in 1995 and 1 061 in 1997 to 3 227 in 2000. The number of naturalisations by marriage to a Mexican citizen, included in these totals, has shown a much less steep increase moving from 383 in 1995 and 474 in 1997 to 668 in 2000. In the first 6 months of 2001, 646 naturalisation documents were issued, which might indicate a decline. However, of these, there were 305 naturalisations by marriage, which suggests that this category remains stable. 3.


Migration for employment and work permits Immigrants who arrive from Central America, especially Guatemala, have received special government attention in the past decade. The border-states of Southern Mexico have for years witnessed quite stable immigration flows from Central American countries. Between 5 000 and 10 000 workers cross the Mexican border every year to work in the banana, coffee and other tropical fruit plantations. Immigrants from neighbouring Guatemala, who often cross the border for work purposes and mostly do so without the necessary documents, receive particular attention. INAM has introduced a quota of 27 968 for guest workers from Guatemala who wish to work in agriculture in the zone immediately bordering the Mexican frontier and a further 7 596 for visitors from Guatemala who wish to go beyond the border zone. Furthermore, in 2000, 170 100 business persons and professionals from the United States and Canada entered Mexico with a temporary visa under the North American Free Trade Agreement. 4.

Policy developments


On March 13, 2000, the Mexican government created the Paisano Programme, which aim at facilitating the reintegration of returning nationals and to reinforce the relationship with the Mexican community in the © OECD 2003

Mexico

United States. One of the aspects of this Programme is the co-ordination of services made available to returning nationals by government agencies, together with the prevention of corruption. The administration of this programme is in the hands of the INAM. Another objective is to provide documentation to returning nationals regarding their legal position, rights and obligations. In March 2001, Mexico also signed an agreement with the United States to facilitate the orderly repatriation of Mexicans from the United States. Between January and June 2001, 560 000 Mexican nationals were returned to their homes by the US government (a 28% decline compared to the year before). Measures to combat the employment of undocumented foreigners A programme to combat the illegal trafficking of migrants was started up in 2000. This programme involves the use of 10 brigades, so-called “Grupos BETA”; seven at the border with the United States and three at the southern border with Guatemala. Between January and August 2001, these brigades arrested nearly 2 000 persons, of whom 504 where expelled and 269 were convicted. Bilateral agreements During the current administration of President Vicente Fox, the Mexican government has made unprecedented efforts to reach an agreement on migrant labour with the United States. The terrorist attacks of September 11 resulted in a freeze on discussions. However, taking into account the importance of the stock of illegal Mexicans in the United States and the need for a Mexican labour force within the US labour market, this issue may be brought back to the negotiation table in the foreseeable future.

221

© OECD 2003


NETHERLANDS Introduction The open Dutch economy has suffered greatly from the turndown of the world economy. After two years of real GDP growth at around 3.6%, the real GDP growth plummeted to just over 1% in 2001 but is forecast for 2002 to increase to 1.5%. Unemployment among the 15-64 age group fell from above 3% in 1999 to 2.7% in 2000 and to 2.1% in 2001. The Dutch statistical office the Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS) no longer collects migration data on the basis of nationality. Instead, the main migration statistics are based on the criteria of country of birth. However some references have been made to the old definition. 1.


The total level of immigration was expected to be higher in 2000 than at any time in the last 20 years because of the arrival of Dutch nationals from the Antilles and Aruba who have fled the poor economic conditions of the Caribbean. As expected, immigration grew to record levels while emigration remained stable at around 80 000 (including administrative corrections). Total immigration in 2001 equalled 133 400 (quite stable compared to 2000 figures, see Table III.22). Emigration Statistics Netherlands (CBS) produces yearly estimates of the level of unreported emigration of foreigners. To the extent that these emigrants entered the Netherlands legally, their numbers decrease the official migration surplus. Unreported emigration accounted for an estimated 7 500 persons in the 2000 emigration estimates for Dutch nationals and 10 400 for foreign emigration. The following figures include these corrections. After four consecutive years of declining total emigration, emigration from the Netherlands stabilised around 79 000 emigrants. Total emigration in 2001 was 82 600, representing an increase of 4.5% compared to the total for 2000. Dutch-born accounted for 37 400 (47%) of total emigration in 2000. An analysis by country of birth reveals that net immigration of Dutch-born, which has been negative since at least 1996, has further decreased from –10 800 in 1999 to –13 600 in 2000. Inward and outward flows of foreigners and foreign-born After a one-off decline in net foreign immigration in 1999, the surplus has increased by 22.5% to 70 700 in 2000 (including administrative corrections). The figures indicate (with the exception of 1999) an almost continuous increase in net foreign immigration. Foreign immigration has shown an upward trend since 1995. Between 1999 and 2000 it increased by almost 17%. Foreign emigration remained stable around 20 000. African-born people accounted for the biggest part of the growth in net migration. Emigration has remained fairly stable at nearly 6 000 since 1997 but immigration of African-born has grown from 14 900 in 1999 to 17 800 in 2000.The strongest growth comes from Angola-born people (350 in 1997 to 1 250 in 2000). However, the biggest group in quantitative terms is that of European-born immigrants. 222

Net immigration from people born in the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba accounted for 7 700 in 2000, a 25% increase on 1999. © OECD 2003

© OECD 2003

Table III.22.

Current figures on flows and stocks of foreign, foreign-born or allochtonous population and labour force in the Netherlands Figures in thousands unless otherwise indicated 1997

1998

1999

2000

1

Migration flows Total population Inflows Outflows (incl. adm. corrections) Net migration Adjusted total net migration2 Persons born in the Netherlands Inflows Outflows Adjusted total net migration Foreign born Inflows Outflows Adjusted total net migration

109.9 82.0 47.6 27.9

122.4 79.3 62.0 43.1

119.2 78.8 60.1 40.4

132.9 79.0 71.6 53.9

22.7 37.8 –15.1

26.0 35.8 –9.8

25.0 35.8 –10.8

23.8 37.4 –13.6

87.1 44.1 43.0

96.4 43.5 52.9

94.2 43.0 51.2

109.0 41.6 67.5

15 654.2 678.1

15 760.2 662.4

15 863.9 651.5

15 987.1 667.8

135.7 114.7 53.9 39.2 24.4 1 469.0

128.6 102.0 54.1 38.8 24.8 1 513.9

119.7 100.7 54.3 39.5 25.4 1 556.3

111.4 100.8 54.8 41.4 25.9 1 615.4

182.2 172.7 172.1 145.8 126.8

184.2 175.5 170.3 149.6 125.5

185.0 178.0 168.0 152.7 124.2

186.5 181.9 165.8 155.8 123.1

59.8

59.2

62.1

50.0

10.5 21.2 .. .. 3.0 8.8

11.3 13.5 .. .. 3.0 8.7

14.2 5.2 .. .. 3.2 9.4

13.5 4.7 2.6 2.4 2.0 7.7

3

Stock of population Total population Total foreign population of which: Morocco Turkey Germany United Kingdom Belgium Total foreign-born population of which: Suriname Turkey Indonesia Morocco Germany Naturalisations of which: Morocco Turkey Bosnia Herzegovina Iraq Suriname Naturalisation rate (%)

1997

1998

1999

2000

Refugees and asylum seekers New requests for asylum Total requests for asylum heard Total grants of asylum

34.5 .. 17.0

45.2 38.9 15.1

42.7 .. 13.5

43.9 .. 9.7

Expulsions of which: asylum seekers

62.0 18.9

55.7 14.3

69.2 18.3

.. ..

Employment Total foreign employment4 Employment of Dutch nationals born abroad and foreigners Total “allochtonous” employment5 (new definition)

208 543 910

235 579 972

.. .. 1 032

.. .. ..

6 838 65 6

6 957 66 5

7 097 67 4

.. 67 4

5 767 66 5

5 852 67 4

5 943 68 3

.. 69 3

1 055 59 14

1 086 59 11

1 130 59 9

.. .. ..

122 61 14

135 66 12

135 65 10

.. .. ..

83 45 22

84 44 17

90 45 13

.. 49 9

65 44 21

71 45 20

74 45 18

.. 40 13

35 57 21

37 57 ..

43 61 ..

.. .. ..

Labour force indicators according to the new definition of “Autochtonous” and “Allochtonous” populations Total Total labour force (thousands) Activity rate Unemployment rate Autochtonous6 Total labour force (thousands) Activity rate Unemployment rate Allochtonous5 Total labour force (thousands) Activity rate Unemployment rate Suriname7 Total labour force (thousands) Activity rate Unemployment rate Turkey7 Total labour force (thousands) Activity rate Unemployment rate Morocco7 Total labour force (thousands) Activity rate Unemployment rate Antilles/Aruba7 Total labour force (thousands) Activity rate Unemployment rate

223

Netherlands

1. Data are taken from population registers, which include some asylum seekers. 2. The administrative corrections account for unreported entries and departures on the population register. 3. Data are from population registers and refer to the population on 31 December of the years indicated. Figures include administrative corrections. 4. Estimates are for 31 March and include cross-border workers, but exclude the self-employed and family workers. 5. "Allochtonous” refers to persons who have at least one parent who is born abroad. 6. Autochtonous refers to persons who have both parents who are born in the Netherlands. 7. Persons who have at least one parent who is born in the mentioned country. Sources: Central Bureau of Statistics; Ministry of Justice; Labour Force Survey.


Refugees and asylum seekers The total number of asylum requests increased slightly from 42 700 in 1999 to 43 900 in 2000. The data for asylum requests in 2001 (32 600) indicates a decline. The most important asylum categories were (by country of origin): Afghanistan (5 000), Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (3 850), Iraq (2 800), Iran (2 500) and Turkey (2 300). A total of 9 700 requests were granted in 2000, a decline of 3 500 compared with 1999: 1 800 persons received the A-status (Geneva-Convention refugee status), 4 800 persons a status on humanitarian grounds and the remainder a temporary conditional refugee status. 2.


Numerical trends At th e end of 2000, the Ne the rlands total popu lation stood at nearly 16 million inhabitants (see Table III.22). The Dutch population is still growing; a large part of this growth can be accounted for by net migration of foreigners. The total allochtonous population amounted to 2.8 million (including first and second generations), of whom 1 387 000 were born in Western countries (Europe (except Turkey), North-America, Australasia, Japan and Indonesia) and 1 483 000 in non-Western countries (Turkey, Africa, Latin America and Asia). The total allochtonous population (see infra for a definition) has been growing continuously from 2 554 000 in 1996 to 2 965 000 in 2001.

Box III.4. New definition for allochtonous in the Netherlands In the summer of 1999, the Dutch Bureau of Statistics (CBS) introduced a new terminology in immigration statistics. Whereas in the past it used different concepts on immigration categories that were related to the country of birth of the person involved or of his/her parents, the new definitions are consistent. An allochthonous is a person of whom at least one parent was born abroad. There are two groups of allochthonous people. The first-generation allochthonous are born abroad with at least one foreign-born parent. The second-generation allochthonous are born in the Netherlands but have one or both parents born abroad. People who are born in the Netherlands whose parents are both born in the Netherlands are referred to as autochthonous. Future immigration statistics will be given using the 1999 definitions of allochthonous and autochthonous (see Trends in International Migration 2001 for a comparison between old and new definitions).

Naturalisations In 2000, 49 980 persons acquired Dutch nationality. This figure represents a decline when compared to 1999 (62 100) and to the peak year in the 1990s (e.g., 1996: 82 700). The largest group of naturalised foreigners are Africans (18 100), Europeans (12 600), stateless or persons with unknown nationality (7 400), Asians (8 300) and Americans (3 600). The biggest group continues to be that of Moroccans (13 500). Most of the other former nationalities of naturalisations indicate a refugee status. 3.


Migration for employment and work permits 224

Work-permits have to be obtained by employers wishing to recruit staff from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) and a number of treaty-countries. The number of work permits granted has been © OECD 2003

Netherlands

increasing since 1997, which runs parallel to an increasing tightness in Dutch labour markets. The total number of work permits requested was 30 800 in 2000, 91% of which were granted (compared with 85% in 1999). Most permits were granted to workers in IT occupations but a considerable number were also rewarded for less skilled work, mostly on a temporary basis. Labour market integration The labour market participation rates of the allochthonous labour force have increased slightly whereas unemployment rates have declined (see Table III.22). However, some groups fare better than others. The activity rate for Turks in 2000 was 49%, the employment rate 44% and unemployment was at 9%. Moroccans do much worse with an activity rate of just 40%, employment rate of 34% and unemployment at 13%. Other immigrants from the Mediterranean Basin, Suriname, Aruba and Antilles show activity rates above 60%, employment rates above 55, and unemployment lies between 7 and 9%. 4.

Policy developments

Refugees and asylum A new law on the rejection and deportation of asylum seekers came into effect on February 1, 2000. It is as yet too soon to see any effects in the number of granted refugee status, as a large number is awaiting a decision from the judiciary system. There also remain a large number of cases that under the old system were “difficult to be extradited” from the Netherlands on the basis of policy regulations or technical problems (no safe routing, no co-operation from authorities back home, etc.). Admission and residence (including integration measures) In June 2000, the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment and the Minister of Employment and Ethnic Minorities conclude a Frame Agreement with a group of 90 large companies (each employing over 500 people). The agreements aim to improve the labour market integration of ethnic minorities. The contents of the agreements vary for the different companies. For example, companies have agreed to adjust their recruitment campaigns to specific ethnic groups, offer specialised training to personnel officers, appoint company-internal buddies to accompany new recruits and study the motives for job-movements of staff from ethnic minorities. Both Ministers intended an extension of the Frame Agreement to 100 large companies by the beginning of 2002.

225

© OECD 2003


NEW ZEALAND Introduction The economy in New Zealand has been remarkably resilient over the past year, particularly given the background of a world economy in the mild recession. Economic activity grew at 3.6% in 2000 after a flourishing 4.2% the previous year. Growth however significantly slowed down in 2001 to 1.8%, mainly as a result of export decline. Its impact was nonetheless cushioned by an upturn in domestic spending, driven by migration inflows, supportive monetary policy, low unemployment and the flow-on effect of the earlier strong farm incomes. The number of permanent and long-term (PLT) departures from New Zealand has been steadily increasing throughout the 1990s. While high levels of immigration meant that net migration remained positive until recent years, a decline in immigration, coupled with steadily increasing emigration has meant that since 1998/99 the contribution of net migration to population growth has been negative. 1.


Net migration was negative for the third year in a row, reaching –9 270 in 2000/01. However, the decreasing trend observed since 1995 has reversed, and net migration increased by 5.1% between 1999/2000 and 2000/01. The available date on the year 2001 confirm this trend. The net flow in 2001 was +9 730, against –11 300 the previous year. The net flow of New-Zealand citizens has gone down from –37 900 to –32 570, while that of foreigners amounts to 42 300 (compared to 26 600 the previous year). When comparing these results with the following figures over the fiscal period, one notices an increase in the number of the net flow of foreigners in the second semester of 2001. Permanent and long term departures from New Zealand, referring to all trips of at least 12 months, have increased since 1993/94 and continued to do so in 2000/2001. The number of permanent and long-term departures was 78 755, up 11% on 1999. Permanent and long term arrivals increased during the early 1990s, peaking in 1995/96 to approximately 81 000 arrivals. Arrivals then decreased during a three year period to 56 000 (1998/99). In the past two years, it has increased again by 8.9% (1999/2000) and 13.9% (2000/01), but at a rate lower than permanent and long term departures. Emigration and returns of nationals New Zealand citizens departures increased over the 10-year period. Combined with the smaller and relatively stable inflows of New Zealanders, these changes resulted in an increase in the net outflow. In 2000/ 2001, the figure (–32 925) increased at a slower pace. Inward and outward flows of foreign-born The net flow of the foreign-born population increased during the early 1990s until 1997/98, which saw a precipitous drop of 25.6% on the previous year. The peak of the net flow of the foreign-born population was in 1995/96 when it reached 46 000, due to a peak influx of 58 600 migrants that year. Since then, the inflow of the foreign-born population has dropped to 38 800 in 1999/2000. The annual immigration target which was set to 38 000 residence approvals for 2000/01 has been exceeded by more than 17%. The overall target has been re-evaluated to 45 000 for the next fiscal period. About 54% of all residences were allocated to General Skills (24 031) and 28% to Family (12 685) categories. The remaining residence permits were distributed among Business (6%), Humanitarian (4.4%), Samoans (2.7%), Refugees (1.7%) and Other (2.9%) categories (see Table III.23).

226

The distribution of citizens receiving residence approvals changed in the past year with the number of Indians increasing from less than 10% (1999/2000) of all approvals to 12.6% in 2000/01. Citizens from the United Kingdom and China continued to be two of the largest source countries, respectively accounting for 12.7% and © OECD 2003

New Zealand

Table III.23. Persons accepted for residence, by main category of admission and by country of birth, 2000-2001, New Zealand Thousands Family

China United Kingdom India Fiji Samoa

General skills

2.0 1.8 1.3 1.2 0.8

India United Kingdom South Africa China Fiji

4.3 3.6 3.6 1.9 1.4

Total (Top 5, in %)

56.0

Total (Top 5, in %)

62.0

Total (thousands)

12.7

Total (thousands)

24.0

Business

Total

China Chinese Taipei Korea United Kingdom

1.2 0.7 0.2 0.1

United Kingdom India China South Africa Fiji

5.8 5.8 5.4 4.0 3.1

Total (Top 4, in %)

83.2

Total (Top 5, in %)

54.0

Total (thousands)

2.7

Total (thousands)

44.6

Note: Migrants may also be accepted under humanitarian and refugee programmes. Data refer to fiscal year (1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001). Source: New Zealand Statistics.

12.4% in 2000/2001. Citizens from Asia doubled from 10 821 in 1998/99 to 21 727 in 2000/2001. Inflows from Eastern Europe and South America almost doubled during that same period. Illegal migration Illegal migration in New Zealand is mostly composed of overstayers (entering without a permit or remaining in New Zealand beyond the period specified in the permit) and attempted illegal entries. As of June 2001, the number of overstayers was estimated between 17 097 and 20 387, with the majority originating from Samoa (21%), Tonga (21%) and Thailand (10%). In 2000/01, 635 overstayers were removed from New Zealand and 409 left voluntarily. People turned away at New Zealand borders consisted of 1 149 persons, 65% of which were from Thai citizens. Refugees and asylum seekers Mandated refugees (according to the Geneva Convention and its Protocol) must be accepted under the Refugee Quota and attend a six-week orientation programme at the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre before settling into a community with a sponsor. In 2000/01, New Zealand accepted 747 mandated refugees (out of a 750 person quota). The largest group of refugees, 664 or 88.9%, were individuals requiring protection from refoulement, expulsion or a physical threat to their security. The remaining groups consisted of women at risk (5.6% or 42) and refugees (5.5% or 41) with a medical condition (or disabled) for which they cannot be treated in their home country. Of all refugees, the main countries represented were Myanmar (25.9%), Somalia (19.4%), Ethiopia (17.6%), Iraq (10.8%), Iran (10.1%) and Afghanistan (6.8%). In terms of asylum seekers, in 2000/2001, 312 people were found to have successful claims for “refugee status”, setting the approval rate around 18%. The main nationalities concerned are Iran (138 applications in 2000/01), the Czech Republic (123), Sri Lanka (121) and Zimbabwe (87). Family reunion Residence granted under the Family Category enables spouses/partners, dependent children, siblings/ adult children and parents of New Zealanders to apply for residence. In 2000/01, 12 685 foreigners obtained © OECD 2003

227


residence through that category: 6 150 were for marriage and 4 390 for parents. It represents 28% of total residencies granted. China continued to be the largest source country for family-sponsored migration since 1996/97, accounting for 28% of all Family migrants in 2000/01. Other nations with a large representation in this category in 2000/01 included the UK (26%), India (18%), Fiji (17%) and Samoa (11%). 2.


Numerical trends In the most recent census it was found that 698 625 New Zealand residents were foreign-born out of 3.59 million inhabitants in 2001. The percentage of foreign born in the total population amounts to 19.5%. The proportion of the foreign population within gender categories (i.e., foreign-born men to New Zealand born men) is similar for both categories, indicating that a gender imbalance in all foreign-born citizens does not exist. In 2001, the census recorded that foreign births of New Zealand residents were primarily from only a few regions of the world. More than half of all foreign births was from Oceania/Antarctica (24.9%) and the UK/Ireland (32.2%). Northeast Asia [China, Hong Kong (China), Japan, Korea, and Chinese Taipei] accounted for 12.8% of all foreign births. 3.


Migration for employment and work permits Of the 44 598 residence permits granted in 2000/01, 26 701 (60%) were within the two economic-based categories (General Skills and Business). The General Skills category, which accounts for 90% of economicbased residence permits, accepted 24 031 highly skilled migrants in 2000/01. Most General Skills residencies originated from India (17.7%), the United Kingdom (15.1%) and South Africa (14.5%). The Business category seeks migrants who will contribute to the development of an entrepreneurial and innovative culture of enterprise and of New Zealand’s human capacity base. Only 6% (2 670) of all approvals for residency were in the Business category. Most were citizens from China (43.9%), Chinese Taipei (25.6%), South Korea (8.3%) and the United Kingdom (5.1%). New Zealand also approves residence permits “in principle” for foreign citizens issued with an open work permit to conduct a job search in New Zealand. In 2000/01, 340 of the 826 approved in principle became New Zealand residents. More than half of those with fully accepted residence permits were from South Africa (29% or 99) and the United Kingdom (25% or 88). Temporary visas are granted for employment of foreign citizens in New Zealand. In 2000/01, 46 479 work permits were granted, enabling employers to fill short-term skills shortages. This figure represents a 27% increase on 1999. Temporary work permits may also be granted for non-labour market related reasons such as to asylum seekers and foreign relatives of New Zealanders. The Working Holiday Scheme allows 18 to 30 years old to work while on holiday in New Zealand. Recently, the cap for this group of workers was increased from 10 000 to 20 000 and 13 000 foreign young adults entered the country under this scheme in 2000/01. The majority was from the UK (54%) and Japan (26%). Other nations under the Working Holiday Scheme include Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Hong Kong (China), Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, The Netherlands, Singapore, South Korea and Sweden. 4.

Policy developments

Admission and residence (including integration measures)

228

In the autumn of 2001, a new immigration Programme was established with three streams operating independently of each other. Previously existing categories were grouped into Skilled/Business (27 000), Family-sponsored (14 500) and International/Humanitarian (3 500). These streams are managed through a quota system allowing a 10% margin of error for each: a total of 45 000 residence permits are planned for 2001/02 (a 7 000 increase on 2000/01). © OECD 2003

New Zealand

A new sub-category, “Domestic Violence”, was added to the International/Humanitarian stream for expartners of New Zealanders to be able to apply for residence when their relationship has ended due to domestic violence and they cannot return home for cultural and social reasons. The Refugee Family Sponsored policy will also be added to this stream in July 2002 for resident family members (former refugees) who are unable to gain entry through any other category. In 2001/2002, 300 places will be allocated for this group. As of July 2002, the Family Quota category will be added to the Family Sponsored stream to provide a specific avenue for family members of New Zealanders who do not qualify for residence under any other category. In 2001/02, about 250 places will be available under this rubric. The two primary categories (Skills/Business and Family-sponsored) of the revamped New Zealand Immigration Programme are subject to new requirements as described below. All Skills/Business migrants must meet an average level of English proficiency as determined by a standardised test. Special provisions for the entry of high skilled knowledge workers have been introduced. Family sponsors of this category must be resident in New Zealand for at least three years before declaring themselves responsible for supporting applicants for the first two years of residence. Spouses and partners of migrants with long term business visas (introduced in 1999 to enable migrants to establish a business in New Zealand) are now eligible for multiple-entry open-work visas. Family-sponsored immigration is based on the principle of encouraging strong families and communities in New Zealand. A 2001 government review of this policy concluded with a priority system for granting such applications for residence who must have been also a New Zealand resident for a minimum of three years, are required to sign a statutory declaration attesting to the accommodation and financial support for their relative during the first two years of residence in New Zealand. In decreasing order, priority is given to the following three family groups: spouses/partners and children up to age 25; parents, grandparents, legal guardians, and adult siblings/children (with job offers); and residual family members. Recent measures to improve the integration of new immigrants include a new Business Migrant Liaison Unit, which provides business migrants with information on New Zealand’s business environment, opportunities and contacts. A Migrant Help Line was created to provide information and referral services to new migrants. Measures to combat the employment of undocumented foreigners Changes made to the Immigration Act in 1999 strengthened and streamlined removal provisions, in order to lower the number of existing overstayers and, in the long term, discourage potential overstayers. Moreover, In September 2000, transitional provisions were introduced for well-settled overstayers, allowing them to apply within a certain period of time for a residency permit. Criteria for applying included: having been in New Zealand for five years; being either married to, or a long-term partner of, a New Zealander; and being the parent of a New Zealand-born child. Of the 6 452 overstayers whose applications were accepted under the Transitional Policy, 4 841 have been approved to date. In its fight against illegal immigration, New Zealand is also considering how to reduce incentives for people trafficking and smuggling. As a signatory of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime and its two supplementary protocols (on the Trafficking of Persons and on the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea, and Air), New Zealand plans to incorporate those elements into national legislation, policy and procedures. International agreements During 2000/2001, New Zealand developed a Working Holiday scheme with Germany, Italy, Hong Kong (China), Chile and Sweden allowing their youth to work while on holiday in their respective nations. Negotiations are underway to add several other countries to this category.

229

© OECD 2003


NORWAY Introduction The Norwegian economy grew moderately in 2000 at 2.3% and weakly in 2001 at 1.4%. Output growth is however expected to rebound to close to 2.5% in 2003 due to a strong rise in oil investment, the international recovery and an expansionary fiscal stance. The decline in unemployment, observed since 1993, came to a halt in 1999. However it remains quite low (3.7% in 2001) and the labour market is expected to become even tighter. Net migration to Norway significantly dropped in 2000. The reduction is mainly due to reduced labour immigration from neighbouring Sweden and reduced arrivals of asylum seekers from Iraq and Kosovo. It was generally held that the actual immigration did not fully match the need for foreign labour, and that rules and procedures should be relaxed to accommodate the needs of various services and businesses. 1.


Net migration was 9 700 in 2000, a 49% decline from the previous year (see Table III.24). This lowest figure since 1996 was the result of a 13% decrease in inflows and a 17.5% increase in outflows compared to 1999. The total number of new immigrants in 2000 was 36 550 (27 800 foreigners and 8 750 Norwegians); the number of emigrants was 26 850 (14 950 foreigners and 11 900 Norwegians). Emigration Emigration from Norway increased by nearly 17.5% in 2000, at a similar rate for both nationals and foreigners. This was the highest emigration rate during the 1996-2000 period, which averaged 3.5%. The largest single destination for emigrants was Sweden (25% or 6 600 emigrants), composed mostly of returning Swedish nationals and Norwegian workers. There was a net outflow of persons from Norway to Sweden of 1 530, reversing the trend of the latter half of the 1990s. Other major destinations included Denmark (3 300 persons), the United States (2 000), the United Kingdom (1 900) and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1 250). The EU-15 received 62% of all emigrants from Norway. Inward and outward flows of foreigners During 2000, there was a net migration gain of foreigners of 12 850 persons. Total inflow of foreign nationals fell from 32 230 to 27 785. Immigration from developing countries rose significantly to 12 590 from 9 840 in 1999. Iraqi and Somali nationals account for a significant proportion of this number (4 490 and 1 540 respectively), arriving as asylum seekers or resettled refugees. Inflows from the EU, which declined in 1999, continued to do so, but still account for approximately one third of the total inflow of foreigners in 2000. Illegal migration More severe penalties for people smuggling and related offences were introduced in 1997. In 2000, the Central Illegal Immigration Unit investigated 15 cases of trafficking and smuggling of human beings. Several investigations resulted in arrests, for example, of persons involved in the trafficking of Iraqis from or through Germany to Norway. This resulted in a reduced inflow of Iraqis to Norway. 230

In 2000, a random check of 790 visa holders found that 341 (43%) had illegally overstayed their visa. © OECD 2003

© OECD 2003

Table III.24.

Current figures on flows and stocks of foreign population, Norway Figures in thousands unless otherwise indicated

1997

1998

1999

2000

4 417.6 3.6

4 445.4 3.7

4 478.5 4.0

4 503.4 4.1

Inflows Nationals Foreigners of which: Nordic countries EU (15 members)

32.0 9.9 22.0

36.7 10.0 26.7

41.8 9.6 32.2

36.5 8.8 27.8

8.6 10.8

10.4 13.3

8.1 11.0

7.3 9.8

Outflows Nationals Foreigners of which: Nordic countries EU (15 members)

21.3 11.2 10.0

22.9 10.9 12.0

22.8 10.2 12.7

26.9 11.9 14.9

3.9 5.5

5.4 6.9

6.8 8.1

7.0 9.1

Net migration Nationals Foreigners of which: Nordic countries EU (15 members)

10.7 –1.3 12.0

13.8 –0.9 14.7

19.0 –0.5 19.5

9.7 –3.2 12.9

4.7 5.4

5.0 6.4

1.4 2.9

0.3 0.7

Total population1 % of foreigners Migration flows by group of nationality

1997

1998

1999

2000

Asylum seekers by nationality Former Yugoslavia Iraq Somalia Other

2.3 0.5 0.3 0.6 1.0

8.5 3.9 1.3 0.9 2.4

10.2 1.4 4.1 1.3 3.4

10.8 4.5 0.8 0.9 4.7

Foreign population by region Europe Asia Africa North America South America Other

158.0 97.5 34.9 9.7 10.4 4.2 1.2

165.1 104.9 34.3 10.1 10.5 4.1 1.2

178.7 114.8 36.8 11.6 10.3 4.0 1.2

184.3 114.8 40.5 13.6 10.2 4.1 1.2

12 037

9 244

7 988

9 517

7 433 1 851 1 529 819 405

5 210 1 737 1 540 622 135

3 801 2 434 1 077 589 87

4 697 3 586 704 469 61

2 959 12.4

4 100 17.5

3 975 16.0

5 405 20.2

Acquisition of nationality by previous nationality (units) of which: Asia Europe Africa America Other Mixed marriages (units) % of total marriages

1. Data on 31 December of the years indicated, taken from population registers. Sources: Statistics Norway; Directorate of Immigration.

Norway

231


Refugees and asylum seekers Asylum seekers and refugees constitute a major immigrant category. Over the years, variations in the number of asylum seekers have probably accounted for more of the fluctuations in net migration than changes in labour market conditions. The proportion of asylum seekers compared to all foreign immigration rose from 31% in 1999 to 39% in 2000. Subject to certain exceptions, asylum seekers can be granted temporary work permits until their applications have been finally decided. The number of asylum seekers in 2000 was 10 800, a 6.7% increase as compared to 1999. This is the second highest number ever, but the figure is misleading as it includes around 3 000 Kosovars who, after the lifting of collective protection, lodged individual asylum applications. Thus, in 2000, only 7 800 asylum seekers were new arrivals. Asylum seekers from Southeastern and Eastern Europe dominate, accounting for 60% of applicants. Kosovars clearly constitute the largest group. Other large groups include Romanians (712 persons), Slovakians (507), Russians (471) and Bosnians (272). Of non-European nationalities Somalis (910 persons), Iraqis (766) and Iranians (327) were the largest groups. The year 2001 saw the highest number of asylum seekers ever recorded as 14 800 applications were received. The large growth is attributable to Bulgarian and Croatian asylum seekers (950 and 1 220 from less than 20 in 2000) and seems to result from organised “asylum tours” for job seekers. Those applications were processed and rejected very quickly. Although only 101 people were given refugee status in 2000, 3 200 asylum seekers were granted humanitarian status. About 42% of asylum applicants were granted a form of protection, slightly less than during the previous two years. Under a refugee resettlement programme, an additional quota of 1 500 people may be accepted each year. The collective protection system was described in Trends in International Migration 2001. Recently, the system benefited 8 000 Kosovars, some 5 300 who have now returned to Kosovo benefiting from repatriation cash benefit made available by the Swedish Government (since 1992). Family reunion In general, family reunion is accorded to Norwegians, legal immigrants and persons with refugee or humanitarian status. In 2000, 1 780 family members were reunited with refugees in Norway, an increase on the 1 550 persons granted family reunion in 1999. 2.


Numerical trends During 2000, Norway’s population grew by 0.6% to 4 503 000. Nearly 23% of this growth was due to the increase in foreign nationals. The number of foreign nationals rose by 3.2% from 1999, totalling 184 350 in 2000. Foreigners accounted in 2000 for 4.1% of the total population (see Table III.24). The largest groups of foreign nationals in Norway originate from Sweden, Denmark, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the United Kingdom, Iraq, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the United States, Germany and Pakistan (in descending order). The number of European nationals is virtually unchanged since 1999 and they still constitute the majority of foreigners, numbering 118 100. The number of Nordic nationals also remained constant. Asian and African nationals increased their share of the foreign population in 2000 respectively to 20.2% and 7.4%.

232

Immigrants, defined as persons born in a foreign country of parents without Norwegian descent or Norwegian-born persons of parents not born in Norway, increased to 297 731 in 2000, comprising 6.6% of the population. As in recent immigration nations, the former group is the largest of the two, with 250 000 persons or 5.5% of the total population. © OECD 2003

Norway

Mixed marriages Of the approximately 26 800 marriages contracted in Norway in 2000, 5 400 (20.2%) were mixed marriages. This is the highest figure for the 1996-2000 period and is a significant increase over 1999 (+36%). Most mixed marriages to Norwegian citizens involved citizens from the rest of Europe (46%); Asians marrying Norwegian citizens accounted for 24% of mixed marriages. A greater number of Norwegian men (3 345) tend to marry other nationalities than Norwegian women (2 060). Naturalisations In 2000, 9 517 foreigners acquired Norwegian nationality. Naturalisation figures fluctuated in the 1990s but have remained above 7 900 since 1994. In 2000, the number of naturalisations of Pakistan and Turkey nationals rose sharply to 1 077 and 523 respectively, indicating that the declined grants the previous year was temporary. Naturalisations of Asian nationals increased by 24% and account for 49.4% of all naturalisations. 3.


Migration for employment and work permits Despite the moderate growth rate of 2.3%, labour shortages existed in certain areas of the economy, including health, construction and industry. Predictions made by Statistics Norway show that an annual net immigration of 8 000 persons, a “normal” level for most of the 1990s, is insufficient to withstand labour shortages in the long term. A work permit can only be issued with a formal employment offer. Also, the applicant must be a highly skilled worker or have special qualifications and employers must prove the post cannot be filled with resident labour. Nordic and EEA nationals do not need a work permit (under 3 months of employment), so they are not counted initially by permit registration data. Moreover, work permits are also issued to persons not necessarily seeking employment, such as asylum and family reunion applicants. In 2000, the number of EEA labour immigrants decreased from 3 275 (1999) to 2 619 and the number of non-EEA labour immigrants decreased from 19 290 (1999) to 18 075. The majority of these were granted seasonal permits (994 such grants, of which 95% came from Central and Eastern Europe), considered specialists or recruited by the health sector. Labour market integration After declining until 1998 to 2.1%, general unemployment rose to 3.7% in 2001. The unemployment rate among immigrants had been falling steadily since 1995 when it reached 11.5%, but unemployment amongst immigrants remains significantly higher than within the general population. In 2000, it reached 6.8%. Unemployment rates among immigrants vary according to their origin. Whereas immigrants from Western European countries have approximately the same unemployment rate as Norwegian nationals, unemployment for Asian and African immigrants is considerably higher at 9.2% and 12.6% respectively. Amongst Latin American immigrants, the figure is 7.5% and for East European countries, 8.2%. These are figures for May 2001 and all show a reduction on the unemployment rate for 2000. In 2000, employment rate among first-generation immigrants (50.9%) is lower than for the general population (61.1%). However, the discrepancies are more important for some nationalities: for immigrants from Western Europe other than Nordic countries the rate was 57%; for African immigrants, 41.8%; for Asians, 45.3%; for Eastern Europeans, 48.8%; and for Latin Americans, 54.6%. To reduce overall unemployment, the government has initiated numerous job training and qualifying courses. Immigrants are over-represented in these courses compared to their proportion in the population: they constitute 33% of all participants. © OECD 2003

233


4.

Policy developments

Admission and residence (including integration measures) Several regulation changes have eased the requirement for obtaining a work permit. As of May 2000, applicants with the possession of “skills” (rather than “higher level skills”) can receive a work permit for a specific post. Visas can be issued to skilled workers or those with special qualifications in order to look for a job opportunity in Norway. In October 2001, the government removed the requirement that non-EEA students in Norway leave for five years upon graduation before they can obtain a permit to reside and work in Norway. Entry of specialist workers was also facilitated. Administratively, police may also now issue temporary work permits to allow foreign nationals to work whilst their application for a permanent work permit is being processed. A number of indicators show that many immigrants, especially asylum seekers, face difficulties in integrating the labour market and the society. Numerous policies have thus been initiated to combat discrimination in schools, in the housing market and in employment. Several ministries are co-operating on a new action plan to combat racism and discrimination (2002-2006) which focuses on the labour market and the state recruitment policy. Moreover, pilot projects have been evaluated to improve the introduction programme for newly arrived immigrants (e.g., combining language instruction, vocational training and individual action plans). Other considerations include: a new form of non-means tested payments for participants in introduction programmes; changing the approval of foreign education and work experience; and new testing for foreign vocational experience or schooling. Naturalisation Relevant legislation is being considered for revision to include the ability of holding multiple citizenship and a language requirement for obtaining citizenship. Refugees and asylum Major administrative changes to the asylum process occurred in 2000, which have caused significant backlogs in the asylum system. Appeals are now referred to an Immigration Appeals Board, rather than the Ministry of Justice, and the Directorate of Immigration has the responsibility of interviewing asylum seekers, in place of the police. Social welfare housing is insufficient to meet the needs of asylum seekers who have been granted refugee or humanitarian status or accepted for resettlement. As of January 2002, a new procedure established a quotabased distribution of refugees to each Norwegian county. Municipalities within each county are responsible for the distribution of the refugees amongst themselves. International agreements A revision of the EFTA Convention has meant that Swiss nationals are granted the same rights to labour and residence in Norway as EEA citizens. An agreement on working holiday visas between Norway and Australia has been concluded giving Australian young people (from August 2001) the right to reside and work in Norway for up to one year.

234

© OECD 2003

Poland

POLAND Introduction In 2001, the Polish economy grew by only 1% and unemployment represented approximately 18.2% of the labour force. Projections for 2002 are also quite weak as GDP growth is not expected to exceed 1.3% and unemployment is expected to rise to over 19.5%. This contrasts strongly with the previous period when the polish economy was flourishing, growing at 4% in 1998 and 1999 and over 6% between 1994 and 1997. The tight monetary policy of 2000 and 2001 contributed to the substantial fall in investment activity and the welcome reduction in inflation. The National Bank of Poland recently revised this policy and reduced interest rates to stimulate economic activity. Poland remains a country of emigration, although outflows decreased during the 90’s. It is also a transit country for those wishing to emigrate to European Union countries. As Poland is seeking to join the EU, changes in migration legislation reflect a willingness to revise the legislative framework in line with the norms within the Member States. 1.


Emigration In 2000, outflows from Poland sharply increased to 26 999, which is equivalent to a 25% increase on 1999 (see Table III.25). This was the highest level of emigration recorded since 1988 (around 36 300) – in previous years, the number of emigrants had stabilised at around 20 000. Data collected in the first half of 2001 suggests that this trend may be temporary and that emigration may fall again. In 2000, 80.7% of emigrants left Poland for Europe, the majority going to neighbouring Germany. During the same period, other emigration destinations included the United States (around 10%) and Canada (around 5%). The year 2000 saw no change in the primary destinations: Germany (75.8%), United States (9.5%) and Canada (4.5%). Germany attracted 33.4% more migrants than it had in 1999, whilst the United States and Canada only experienced 9% and 8.4% increases respectively. Stock of Polish citizens living abroad The figure for Polish emigrants estimated to be living abroad, as given by the Labour Force Survey (which is known to under-estimate the results), is 125 000. This figure is significantly lower than for 1999, when the number of persons living abroad was recorded at 200 000. Preliminary figures for 2001 tend to indicate a reversal of this downward trend. A peculiarity of this change is that more emigrants are staying abroad for less than one year: 61.5% of all Polish emigrants in 2001, compared with 50.7% in 2000 and 42% in 1993. Another distinct trend is a systematic, albeit slow, growth in the share of migrant workers among all Polish permanent residents staying temporarily (2 months or more) abroad where the figure reached 79.3% in 2001. Since the main reason for emigration is work related, the basic demographic characteristics of emigrants are rather typical: males and young adults are in the clear majority. Polish emigrants usually go to the countries of the European Union and the United-States. In 2001, the main destination countries for all Polish emigrants included Germany (more than one-third), United States, Italy, the United Kingdom and France. However, the country of destination with the largest group of long-term emigrants (more than one year) is the United-States. © OECD 2003

235

Current figures on migration flows and stocks of foreigners in Poland Thousands 1997

1998

1999

2000

8.4 –20.2 –11.8

8.9 –22.2 –13.3

7.5 –21.5 –14.0

7.3 –27.0 –19.7

1.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 1.8

1.2 0.9 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 2.2

2.6 1.5 1.1 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 1.2 8.2

3.4 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.1 6.8

Total of which: Permission for settlement3 Permission for fixed-time residence

4.1

6.3

17.4

15.9

.. ..

1.4 5.0

0.5 16.9

0.9 15.1

Asylum seekers

3.5

3.4

3.0

4.6

Migration flows1 Inflows Outflows Net migration Permanent residence permits issued by nationality2 Ukraine Vietnam Russian Federation France Belarus Armenia Germany Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Other countries

Total

Stock of foreign citizens4 (31 Dec. 1999) Europe Ukraine Russian Federation Belarus Other Eastern European countries Germany Other European countries Vietnam United States Canada Others Total

Work permits granted by occupation Manager Owner Expert, consultant Other non-manual workers5 Skilled worker Unskilled worker Other Total

Permanent Fixed-time residence residence

24.7 7.0 4.4 2.3 5.3 1.9 3.8 3.3 1.4 0.3 13.2 42.8

14.9 4.1 3.2 1.5 3.2 1.1 2.0 1.5 0.5 0.1 6.1 23.1

9.8 2.9 1.2 0.9 2.1 0.9 1.8 1.8 0.8 0.1 7.1 19.7

1998

1999

2000

3.5 4.6 2.4 1.6 1.8 0.5 2.6 16.9

4.2 4.2 2.5 1.9 1.5 0.4 2.5 17.1

3.6 4.3 4.3 2.1 2.4 0.7 0.5 17.8

1. Persons who entered Poland (including returning Polish emigrants) and registered in the Central Population Register (PESEL) after obtaining a permanent residence permit. Figures in the table may be underestimated since not all children accompanying immigrants are registered. 2. Data on permanent residence permits issued are not linked with data from the Central Population Register and therefore are not comparable. There is a break in series in 1998: since 1 January 1998, two types of permits can be delivered: “permission for settlement” and “fixed-time residence permit”. 3. In 1998, data include 1 087 permits granted to those who applied for “permanent residence” (in accordance with the “old” Alien Law). 4. Estimates made by the Ministry of the Interior on the basis of the number of permanent residents who renewed their permit as it is stipulated by the 1997 Alien Law. 5. In 1998 and 1999 data relate only to teachers. Sources: Central Statistical Office; Office for Repatriation and Foreigners, Ministry of the Interior; National Labour Office.


236

Table III.25.

© OECD 2003

Poland

Inward and outward flows of foreigners After a period of more than 10 years of steady increase beginning in the mid-1980s, immigration has fallen since the peak of 8 900 in 1998. Immigration continued to fall in 2000 by 2.6% on 1999 to 7 330. Although these figures include all immigrants, the central population register (PESEL) indicates that an increasing amount of immigrants have Polish citizenship. In fact, data from residence permits gives more accurate information on the origin of immigrants. In total, 15 900 permits were granted, of which 94.7% (15 050) were for fixed-term residence and the remainder (850) were for permanent residence. New residence permits were granted to citizens from the Ukraine (3 224 fixed-term, 158 settlement), Vietnam (1 148, 83) and Russia (1 038, 104). The number of fixed-term permit applications rose significantly between 1999 and 2000 for citizens from Austria (up 65.1% to 180), Romania (49.3%, 103), Czech Republic (46.7%, 132), France (42.8%, 894), the Ukraine (34.7%, 3 740) and Armenia (34%, 919). Illegal immigration Illegal immigration was a significant problem for Poland throughout the 1990s due to its geographical position as a transit country for migrants heading to Western Europe. However, recently the illegal movement of foreigners to or through Poland has radically subsided. Border control management has been made more efficient and the Polish border authorities have made a priority of co-operating with their counterparts in neighbouring countries. The number of decisions taken to expel undocumented foreigners has been rising steadily. In 2000, it reached 9 226, more than five times the level in 1994. The following seven nationalities accounted for 80.7% of all decisions on expulsions: the Ukraine (3 095), Bulgaria (1 080), Romania (900), Moldova (670), Belarus (600), Armenia (570) and Russia (520). Refugees and asylum seekers The inflow of asylum seekers, albeit relatively small in number, nonetheless plays an increasing role in the inflow of foreigners to Poland. In 2000, Poland hosted more than 4 629 new asylum seekers (a 56.7% increase on 1999) and the results for 2001 remained stable. Only a small fraction of asylum seekers obtain refugee status and in 2000, only 83 applications were accepted (including dependants). The majority of applicants remained unaccounted for during the initial phase of the application and verification procedure. One quarter (25.2%) of applicants are from Russia, followed by 19.6% from Romania and 18% from Armenia. This refugee flow is radically different from that which emerged in the mid-90’s and which was characterised by a large proportion of citizens from various Asian countries, especially from the Indian subcontinent. 2.


Numerical trends According to the new population register, which establishes a distinction between fixed-term (temporary) and permanent residence, 42 792 foreign citizens were reported to live in Poland in December 1999, of which 54.1% were male (see Table III.25). A quarter of foreign citizens were from the Ukraine (16.3%) and Russia (10.4%). Other countries of origin with large representations included Vietnam, Belarus, Germany, the former Yugoslavia and the United States. Approximately 54% of the foreign population in 1999 had settlement permits (i.e., permanent residence) and the rest had fixed-term residence. A few countries were not evenly distributed among categories of residence. The former Yugoslavia, for example, was over-represented with approximately 3 times more fixed-term permits than permanent residencies. Mixed marriages Mixed marriages among the foreign resident population are more common among foreign men than among foreign women, although the proportion is quite low compared to the overall number of marriages. The number of foreign men marrying Polish nationals as registered in 2000, was 2 178, and the number for foreign women was 1 359. The proportion of mixed marriages was 1.7% in 2000, which represents a slight fall from 1999. © OECD 2003

237


In 2000, the primary nationalities represented in mixed marriages did not change in 2000, relative to 1999. German citizens marrying Polish citizens represent the highest proportion, with 20% of all mixed marriages. Citizens from the Ukraine, the United Kingdom, Italy and the United States account for 34% of all mixed marriages. Finally, it seems worthwhile noting a peculiarity in the pattern of mixed marriages in Poland. Relatively few mixed marriages are first marriages. The share of bachelors among foreign grooms was 71.4% whereas among foreign brides it was only 57.9%. Of the statistics for mixed marriages in Poland, Ukrainian females (53.3%) accounted for the majority group to have been married before. 3.


Migration for employment and work permits As pointed out in the previous SOPEMI report, data on regular employment of foreign citizens in Poland are scarce and incomplete. What is relatively well-documented is the situation with regard to work permits. Work permits are granted to foreigners before coming to Poland and are required when applying for a Polish visa, which entitles them to gainful employment in Poland. Obtaining a permit, however, does not necessarily mean that a foreigner will actually come to Poland or that he/she will work there. When a foreign worker who is allowed to enter Poland actually arrives in the country, he/she will be automatically granted a document of employment consent. In 2000, 24 300 applications for work permits were recorded of which only 17 800 employment consents were effectively granted (see Table III.25). Between 1999 and 2000, the inflow of European migrants increased (by 12%) while the inflow from Asia and the Americas decreased by 10.6% and 16.4% respectively. In all, European migrants received 69.7% of all employment consents granted in 2000 and Asian migrants 23.5%. The majority of consents are granted to the Ukraine (19.2%), Belarus (8.2%), Germany (7.9%), the United Kingdom (7.6%), Vietnam (6.9%) and France (6.9%). Almost all migration from Poland for work purposes comes under the category of “seasonal labour”, with nearly 90% going to Germany. Seasonal workers from Poland, mostly registered within the German-Polish inter-governmental accord, rose from 230 300 in 1999 to 263 800 in 2000. Provisional data recorded in the first 10 months of 2001 indicates that the number of seasonal workers is still on the increase, continuing a trend observed since the early 1990s. 4.

Policy developments

In view of accession to the European Union (EU), Poland has been thoroughly involved in revising and adapting its migration legislation to match EU standards. In July 2001, Poland created the Office for Repatriation and Foreigners. The responsibilities of this new office (albeit the office is currently underfunded and understaffed) will include the coordination of migration activities among public entities; granting of visas, repatriation status, family reunion, residence and penalties to foreigners and immigrant nationals, managing the register of foreign residents, managing centres for refugees and asylum seekers and analysing migration and refugee movements.

238

© OECD 2003

Portugal

PORTUGAL Introduction During most of the 90’s, the Portuguese economy was booming, with growth rates averaging 3.4% in 1999 and 2000. But in 2001, GDP-growth fell to 1.9% due to unfavourable external environment. The unemployment rate for the15-64 age group has continued to decrease steadily since several years to 4.1% in 2001. Although considerable differences between the various nationalities remained, the unemployment rate of foreigners has also declined and is close to the overall figure. As of December 2000, foreigners accounted for 2.1% of Portugal’s population; this share has been increasing steadily since 1995. 1.


Net migration has been positive in Portugal since 1993. Estimates from the 2001 Census indicate an annual surplus of 35 000 persons in the 1990s. There has been a gradual change in the composition of immigration as foreign-born immigrants became more numerous relative to returning nationals. Whereas the immigration of foreigners has increased rapidly over the 1998 to 2000 period, the number of returning nationals over that period has been falling. Emigration and returns of nationals Emigration has been subject to an overall decline, from 34 000 persons on average per year over the 1992-94 period to 29 500 persons over the 1995-97 period and 24 000 persons over the 1998-2000 period (see Table III.26). In 2000, emigration totalled 21 000 (a fall of 24% compared with 1999). The vast majority (78%) were temporary migrants. The main receiving countries are Switzerland (27%), France (14%) and Germany (12%). Despite the slight decrease in the absolute numbers of Portuguese emigrants moving to the United Kingdom in 2000 (as was the case globally), the United Kingdom remains an important country of destination. The population of Portuguese and their descendants who were living abroad in 2000 was estimated at 4.3 million people. They were concentrated in the United States, Brazil and France (these countries have taken together a total 60% of all Portuguese abroad). Returns of nationals have been decreasing since 1998, with estimates in 2000 indicating approximately 12 600 returns, mostly coming from European countries. The regional structure of returns, involving the main destinations of temporary migration highlights the relevance of circular migration between Portugal and some EU countries, as well as between Portugal and Switzerland. Inward and outward flows of foreigners In 2000, 18 000 foreigners applied for a residence permit of which 12% were children of foreign parents living in Portugal. (Portugal does not have the principle of jus solis). The applications came mainly from people from the Portuguese speaking African countries (48.8%), from Brazil (9.6%) and from European countries (25.6%: mainly Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany and France). The government launched an amnesty programme for undocumented foreigners with employment contracts. Between January 10, 2001 and January 28, 2002, 133 900 annual residence permits were issued. Most immigrants were Eastern Europeans (mostly from Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Romania and Russia), Brazilians, and people from the Portuguese speaking African countries. 57% of regularised persons are men. The share of various source countries in the total immigration flow when the results of the amnesty programme are included, has changed in 2001 compared with that of earlier years – for the first time, a majority of immigrants does not speak Portuguese. © OECD 2003

239


Table III.26. Current figures on flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Portugal Figures in thousands unless otherwise indicated 1997

1998

1999

2000

Emigration1 of which: women

37.8 8.8

22.2 7.0

28.1 8.0

21.3 4.3

Returns of nationals (estimates) 2

15.3

17.4

15.2

12.6

3.3 1.9

6.5 2.9

14.5 4.6

18.0 4.6

0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.7

0.6 0.5 1.5 0.7 1.4

0.8 0.8 6.5 1.4 2.0

0.8 0.8 8.8 1.7 2.9

First requests for a permit of permanent residence by region or country of origin EU of which: Germany United Kingdom Portuguese-Speaking African Countries (PALOP) Brazil Other Asylum seekers

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

175.3

177.8

190.9

208.2

96.8 16.2 22.4 39.9

98.1 16.4 23.1 40.2

105.4 18.0 24.9 42.6

114.2 20.3 27.1 46.6

81.7 49.7 25.3 10.6 8.0

82.5 51.9 24.9 10.3 8.2

89.5 56.7 25.8 10.2 8.7

99.1 61.7 27.6 10.3 9.5

Acquisition of Portuguese nationality

0.1

0.5

0.9

0.7

Mixed marriages % of total marriages

1.3 2.2

1.4 2.1

1.6 2.3

1.7 2.7

87.9 17.0 70.6

88.6 17.1 71.2

91.6 17.9 73.7

99.8 .. ..

Foreign population3 By region of residence Region of Lisboa Region of Setubal Region of Algarve (Faro) Other regions By region of origin Africa Europe South America North America Other regions

Foreign labour force by professional status4 Self-employed Wage earners 1. 2. 3. 4.

Results of a special survey (INE). This estimate under-represents the returns of non-working population. Figures include all foreigners who hold a valid residence permit (including those who benefited from the 1996 regularisation programme). Workers who hold a valid residence permit (including the unemployed). Data include workers who benefited from the 1996 regularisation programme. The figure for 2000 corresponds to an estimate based on the stock of 1999 and the inflows and outflows in 2000. Sources: Survey on outflows (INE); Labour Force Survey (INE); Ministry of the Interior.

Refugees and asylum seekers Portugal receives few asylum applications, far less than other European countries. For the 19962000 period, the annual average number of asylum applications was 256; the total for 2000 was below average with 202 – down from 271 in 1999 and 338 in 1998. Applicants from Eastern-European countries accounted for 20% of the applications in 2000, but the majority of applications came from African countries: Sierra Leone (26%), Nigeria (8%), Angola (6%), and Congo (6%). Over the 1993-2000 period, refugee status was granted to 105 people and in 2000 alone, to 16 asylum seekers. Family reunion 240

Of the 15 900 applications for residence permits made by foreign adults, 20% were made within the context of family reunion. © OECD 2003

Portugal

2.


The shift in the structure of immigration in 2001 compared to earlier years towards source countries in Eastern Europe has had a number of consequences. For the first time, the majority of immigrants did not speak Portuguese. In addition, the geographical distribution of new migrants did not conform to the existing patterns of clustering in the Lisbon area but is more scattered over the country instead. Some anecdotal evidence suggests that the skill levels of immigrants from Eastern European countries is high relative to other groups of immigrants. Numerical trends In 2000, compared with the stock of foreigners in possession of residence permits in 1999, there has been an increase by 17 300 people to 208 000 (i.e. +9.1%) (see Table III.26). The foreign population, which accounted for about 2% of the total population, was concentrated in and around Lisbon and Setúbal (67%). The geographical spread of the immigrant population has gradually changed since the 1990s. In 2000, 13% of all foreigners lived in the region of the Algarve. The 2001 amnesty programme will considerably increase the proportion of foreigners among the total population and will also change the composition by nationality. Mixed marriages The number of mixed marriages has stabilised to 1 700 in 2000; mixed marriages then accounted for 2.7% of all marriages. Mixed marriages between Brazilian women and Portuguese men are most frequent (23% of all mixed marriages). Naturalisations Foreigners may obtain Portuguese nationality after 10 years of legal residence. An exception is made only for citizens of the Portuguese-speaking African countries, where only 6 years of legal residence in Portugal is required. The total number of naturalisations has gone down from 946 in 1999 to 721 in 2000 but the overall trend has been positive since 1995. The majority of naturalisations in 2000 involved nationalities from outside the EU, mainly Venezuelans (26%), Brazilians (24%), people from Portuguese-speaking African countries (22%) the United States (9%) and Canada (8%). 3.


Migration for employment and work permits The total foreign labour force in Portugal was estimated at 99 800 persons in 2000, an increase of 8 200 on the year before (see Table III.26). People who obtained a residence permit in 2001 are likely to considerably modify the composition by nationality of the foreign labour force in 2001. People from the Portuguese-speaking African countries (46%), the EU (30%) and Brazil (11%) dominate labour immigration. The share of immigrants from African countries has seen a rapid increase from 1 456 in 1999 to 4 314 in 2000, whilst EU immigration has remained stable. However, the official numbers seem to under-estimate the true situation. Figures for 2001 (including regularised workers) will show the important presence of Eastern Europeans (Ukrainians, Moldavians and Romanians). Notwithstanding the increases in labour immigration, there appears to be an additional need for foreign labour. In a recent report, the Ministry of Labour estimated a need for 40 000 foreign workers in 2001. Labour shortages were signalled, particularly in the areas of construction and public works (50%), hotels and restaurants (23%), agriculture (12%), retail trade (8%) and industrial cleaning (5%). Labour market integration Foreigners have benefited from the growth in employment – their unemployment rate fell from 4.9% in 1999 to 4.6% in 2000 – but not every nationality benefited equally. The unemployment rate remained high for workers from São Tomé and Principe (12.5%), Angola (9.8%) and Guinea Bissau (8.2%). © OECD 2003

241


4.

Policy developments

In the beginning of 2001, Portuguese emigrants were given the possibility to vote for presidential elections. The growing pressures of the employers associated to the changing features of the immigrants and to a noticeable presence of undocumented workers have led the Portuguese government to act on the matter of immigration. In January 2001, a new law was adopted on immigrant workers in Portugal. The legislation includes measures which will make it easier for immigrants in employment to gain residence rights and allow illegal immigrants to regularise their situation. The government answers have followed three basic guidelines: 1. An effort to regulate the flows and to regularise the situation of the undocumented already present in the country. A special Permanence Permit was created on the 10th of January that allowed foreigners present in Portugal with a valid work contract for more than one year to regularise their situation. The new law will make it easier for immigrants whose status has been legalised to obtain the necessary residential authorisation from the Foreigners and Borders Department. 2. Implementing an immigration policy that is more responsive to Portugal’s labour market needs. To this end, the government will produce a yearly report to estimate the number of migrants needed for the coming year for a number of occupations. Although the new regulation does not mention the term quotas, the idea is present. In addition, bilateral labour agreements were signed with Romania and Bulgaria to facilitate recruitment and to fight against trafficking. 3. Improve integration of foreigners. The Cabinet Task Force for the Follow up of the Integration of Immigrants in the Portuguese Society aims to develop integration possibilities for the foreign population.

242

© OECD 2003

Romania

ROMANIA Introduction After three years of declining economic activity, the GDP growth in Romania was positive in 2000 at 1.6% and accelerated in the first half of 2001 to 4.9%. However, inflation remained very high, above 45% (it has reached 155% in 1997). Romania has been losing ground in the catching-up process with the EU. GDP per capita (in PPS) as a percentage of the EU average has fallen over the last five years from 32% in 1995 to just under 27% in 2000. The standardised employment rate increased slightly over the last 4 years from 6% in 1997 to 7.1% in 2000. Previous reports have highlighted Romania’s increasing importance as a transit destination in the EastWest emigration flow, a feature linked, inter alia, to its relaxed visa regime. As part of their efforts to secure membership of the European Union, the authorities have introduced several legislative changes and reinforced border controls. In 2001, a new law on aliens was adopted; it is more in line with the acquis communautaire. 1.


Emigration Romanian citizens emigrating with the intention to settle abroad recorded a higher level in 2000 as compared to previous years, thus interrupting the continuous downward trend manifested since 1995. The number of Romanian emigrants was 14 750, 17% higher on 1999. Significant increases were observed within the following groups: female (up 18.1%); ages 26 to 40 (34.7%); higher educational levels, including high school and post-graduate (40.9%); persons of undeclared ethnic origin (19.1%); teachers (24.6%); and economists (38.4%). In 2000, nearly all emigrants settled in OECD member states (13 820 or 93.7%) and many within the European Union (7 162 or 48.6%). The proportion of emigration to EU countries continues to decline, though, mostly as the result of a sharp decrease in emigration to Germany (from 9 010 in 1995 to 2 216 in 2000). The most popular destination countries were the United States (2 720 or 18.5%), Canada (2 520, 17.1%), Germany (15%) and Italy (14.5%). The greatest increases on 1999 were registered emigrations to Canada and Italy, respectively by 54.9% and 51.4%. More than 90 000 Romanians lived in Germany in 2000. Temporary emigration is defined primarily for short term (less than 18 months) economic activity in a foreign country and is significant in the case of Germany. In 2000, 1 270 skilled construction workers and 8 850 agricultural and forestry workers (up to 3 months only) worked in Germany. In 2000, according to the Survey on Workforce, 4 260 Romanian worked abroad on contracts between Romanian economic units and foreign companies. While no data exists on Romanians working abroad through private employment agencies, a large number of Romanians are known to work in Israel and related bank transfers from Israel to Romania increased by 34% to $56.5 million in 2000. Ethnic Romanians and ex-Romanian citizens are allowed to resettle in Romania and the number of repatriations have increased steadily in recent years. In the 1995-2000 period, repatriation increased from 5 500 to 12 440. Total repatriation in 2000 represented an 18.9% increase on 1999, which had seen a 7.3% drop on 1998. Of all repatriations, 97.6% were persons of undeclared ethnic origin, nearly half were aged between 18 and 40, and 83.3% were coming from Moldova. © OECD 2003

243


Illegal migration Illegal migration in both emigration and immigration flows is a persistent problem for the Romanian authorities. In 2000, 7 940 foreign citizens were found to be illegally staying in Romania, a 9% increase on the previous year. Of these, 91.8% were allowed to remain in Romania by prolonging or granting new temporary visas. Border controls identified 8 720 foreign citizens entering or leaving Romania with forged or fake documents. Concerning these attempts on entering or leaving Romania, the largest groups are citizens from Ukraine (1 930), Turkey (1 800) and Moldova (1 470). In addition, 1 420 foreigners (mainly from Moldova and Afghanistan) and 9 360 Romanians were caught trying to illegally cross the natural “green” border. This corresponds to a 75% increase on the previous year. In 2000, 21 930 Romanian citizens found in illegal situations abroad were sent back to Romania, of which 19 900 from countries with which Romania concluded readmission agreements. Approximately 94% of these persons went to OECD member states and 49% to EU member states. The countries from where most Romanians were returned are: Hungary (9 540), Germany (3 860), France (1 475), Greece (1 050), Italy (1 000) and Austria (1 000). Refugees and asylum seekers Since 1991, when Romania signed the Geneva Convention and its 1967 Protocol, asylum applications have increased steadily from 315. During 2000, the Romanian authorities received 1 400 applications for asylum from citizens of 40 countries. Nearly three-quarters of asylum seekers (72%) are from four nations: Afghanistan (280), Iraq (250), Bangladesh (230) and Pakistan (225). Applications have decreased by more than 18% since 1999. The Romanian authorities reviewed 1 503 applications in 2000, granted 171 refugee status (of which 62 to Afghans, 51 to Iraqi and 19 to Somali) and denied 1 332. Mention should also be given to Romanian citizens seeking refugee status or asylum. According to the 1999 UNCHR publication on asylum applications during the 1990s, the number of asylum seekers from Romania accounted for 9.3% (397 400) of the overall total of asylum seekers during this period (of countries reporting data to UNCHR). 2.


Numerical trends By the end of 2000, Romania registered 69 370 foreign citizens with temporary residence (more than 120 days), which represented an increase of 7 490 on 1999 (up 12.1%) (see Table III.27). Most foreigners with temporary residence came from Moldova (8 152), China (7 054), Turkey (6 963) Italy (5 258) and Greece (4 977). Significant increases on 2000 were registered from Turkey (up 34.2%), the United States (36.4%), Moldova (18.2%) and Italy (14.7%). The main purposes for settling temporarily in Romania were business (29 735 or 42.9%) and training (19 760 or 28.5%). This represented a 3.5% and 11.2% increase respectively on 1999. The most represented countries for business immigration were China (6 760, which accounts for 94.5% of all Chinese temporary residents in Romania) and Turkey (4 220). Most immigrants receiving training were students (14 255 or 72.1%) and pupils (3 720 or 18.8%). As in previous years the majority are from Moldova, Greece and Ukraine. Other temporary residences were granted to 19 870 foreign citizens (28.6% of total) who came for technical assistance, humanitarian reason or other purposes. Mixed marriages 244

During 2000, 3 200 foreign citizens married Romanian citizens, up 35.6% on 1999. Nearly 80% were foreign men marrying Romanian women. More than 70% of foreign citizens were from European countries (72.6% for © OECD 2003

Romania

Table III.27.

Current migration figures in Romania Thousands 1997

1998

1999

2000

1.4 55.0 6.9 5.4 5.5 .. 5.7 3.8 27.7 20.4 .. 4.9 .. 1.0

1.4 55.3 6.0 5.2 4.2 3.6 5.3 3.3 27.7 17.6 5.9 4.7 0.8 0.6

1.3 61.9 6.9 6.7 5.2 4.6 5.1 3.4 30.0 17.8 6.7 4.2 1.1 0.5

1.2 69.4 8.2 7.1 7.0 5.3 5.0 3.3 33.6 19.8 8.0 4.1 1.4 0.7

Return migration

8.4

11.3

10.5

12.4

Asylum seekers and refugees Refugee claims submitted Refugee status granted

1.4 0.1

1.2 0.3

1.7 0.6

1.4 0.2

Illegal immigration Number detected at border (including Romanian citizens) Number detected within borders Estimated stock of illegal migrants2

1.2 5.5 18.0

1.7 4.0 18.0

2.0 7.3 18.0

15.3 7.9 20.0

Expulsions Romanian citizens expelled from other countries Foreigners expelled from Romania

16.9 1.4

21.6 1.6

21.9 1.2

21.9 0.7

1.8 14.2 13.6 5.0

1.0 17.0 13.5 5.9

0.9 18.8 14.7 7.5

0.5 .. .. 11.8

95.2 8.7

89.8 6.3

87.5 0.5

90.1 2.0

Stocks of foreigners Stock of persons with permanent residence status Stock of persons with temporary residence visas1 Republic of Moldova China Turkey Italy Greece Syria Other of which: Foreign citizens in education and training Republic of Moldova Greece Ukraine Israel

Romanian citizens in Germany: A. Migration flows between Romania and Germany Ethnic Germans from Romania Inflows of Romanian nationals Outflows of Romanian nationals Seasonal workers from Romania B. Stock of people from Romania in Germany Stock of Romanian nationals Acquisitions of German nationality by former Romanians3

1. Residence permits valid for a period longer than 120 days. 2. Estimates based on the number of expulsions, the number of persons detected within Romania and at the border. 3. Excluding ethnic Germans from 1999 on. Sources: Romanian Ministry of the Interior; Statistiches Bundesamt (Germany).

males and 73.8% for females). Of all marriages, Italians (18.7%) and Germans (12.7%) are most frequently involved in mixed marriages. Most men come from Italy (577), Germany (314) and Greece (244), whilst most women come from Moldova (164) and Germany (92). Naturalisations Romanian citizenship can be granted to foreign citizens through residence, if they have lived legally and continuously in Romania for seven years, or by marriage to a Romanian citizen for at least five years. The year 2000 saw the highest number of naturalisations in Romania during the 1991-2000 period. Naturalisations have been increasing steadily and in 2000 increased by 54.7% on 1999 with 382 naturalisations (364 through foreign citizenship and 18 homeless persons). Romanian citizenship was granted mostly to citizens from Syria (74), Jordan (46), Lebanon (37), Iran (30), Turkmenistan (24) and Iraq (20). © OECD 2003

245


3.


Migration for employment and work permits To obtain a work permit, foreign citizens must enter Romania legally on an employment visa and should be employed by a Romanian or a Romanian representative of a foreign employer. Work permits are issued for 6 months and are renewable for 6 months. By the end of 2000, 1 580 foreigners from 57 countries had a work permit, a 5% increase on 1999. This slight increase stunts the significant growth in work permits, averaging at 23% annually since 1996. Foreign workers are concentrated in the trading sector (about 50%), chemistry, construction and the wood industry. About one third of foreigners workers are from EU member states and 68.4% from OECD member states (Turkey 450; France 121; Italy 107).

4.

Policy developments

Refugees and asylum In August 2000, the Romanian government adopted an Ordinance Policy on refugee status in accordance with international law. Protection can be granted to refugees (conditioned humanitarian protection or temporary humanitarian protection). In late November 2000, Romania approved a draft law to ratify the European Agreement which avoids the need for refugees to have visas. According to the provisions of this Agreement, refugees legally residing in a contracting nation are exempt from the formality of needing a visa in order to cross border points, provided they have a valid travel document issued where they have legal residence and plan to travel for less than three months. Measures to combat illegal migration In view of accession to the EU, Romania has implemented numerous policies to combat illegal migration. Firstly, Romania has drafted two laws on the legal status of the national border and on the organisation and functions of the Romanian Border Police. Secondly, Romania has drafted border-related agreements (based on the Schengen agreement) with its neighbouring countries and initiated steps to align its visa policies with EU member states. Thirdly, the new Law on Foreigners’ Regime outlines new visa policies as well as the right of stay for foreigners in Romania. Finally, new security levels, in line with EU standards, have been put in place in relation to issuing new passports. The Romanian government has also adopted a series of Priority Ordinances to align current migration law with EU standards. One set of ordinances aimed at take criminal action Romanian citizens (and homeless persons residing in Romania) who enter or leave a foreign country illegally or assist others in doing the same. The prison sentence ranges from three months to three years. Romanian or homeless citizens found to have been involved in creating a trafficking organisation can be imprisoned from 3 to 10 years. Other policies to combat illegal migration include a programme from 2001 to 2004 for the training of border patrol personnel. Military staff, hired by contract, has been gradually replacing conscripts. Readmission agreements (for both Romanian and foreign citizens) have been signed with numerous nations, including Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Sri Lanka and the Ukraine and initiated with Albania, Afghanistan, Israel, Lebanon and Pakistan.

246

To reduce the number of Romanians and foreign citizens travelling abroad illegally, the Romanian government in 2000 decided to check travel agencies involved in the illegal trafficking of people and to introduce a system of certification for employment agencies sending Romanians abroad. © OECD 2003

Romania

Box III.5.

Illegal trafficking of women to Western Europe

A subset of illegal migration in Romania is composed of the trafficking of women to Western Europe. In an effort to seek gainful employment in those countries, women fall victim to human traffickers who enlist them mostly for prostitution. Despite the risks associated with illegal migration, an increasing number of women from Romania, Moldova and the Ukraine are attracted by or coerced into this way of life. Traffickers assist them by providing forged or fake passports to cross the western Romanian border or the natural “green” border with the help of guides. The most popular destination countries seem to be Germany, Greece, Italy, Turkey and Yugoslavia. In light of this situation, the Romanian government established a National Coordinator post in April 2001 to fight human exploitation and to set up an inter-ministerial commission to draft new laws in this field. Specialised state structures intensified their actions against trafficking rings and closed down 80 related networks operating in Romania during the first half of 2001. Two UN documents were also signed, reinforcing the Convention against Transnational Organised Crime: The Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children.

International agreements In July 2001, Romania approved an agreement to develop economic activities in Portugal without quota limits. This agreement is the first of its kind with an EU member state. Israeli authorities will consider a Romanian proposal in July 2001 to conclude an inter-governmental agreement on the status of Romanian workers in Israel to ensure their social protection. In May 2001, Romania and the Republic of Moldova signed an agreement stipulating that as of 1 July 2001 citizens travelling between these 2 countries would now require a passport, as opposed to the current identity card needed to enter Romania.

247

© OECD 2003


SLOVAK REPUBLIC Introduction The accession of the Slovak Republic to the OECD as the thirtieth member country in December 2000 followed the introduction of a number of reforms to advance its transition to a market economy. After several years of strong economic performance with a 6% GDP growth rate between 1995 and 1997, growth slowed down to 4.4% in 1998, and then to 1.9% in 1999. In 2000, the growth rate reached 2.2% and inflation 12%. Recent structural reforms laid the foundation for an economic recovery in 2001, with 3.3% growth, which is expected to strengthen in 2002. Unemployment has been traditionally high since the first year of transition to a market-based economy but has declined to less than 12% in 1997-98. In the late “90s when growth slowed, the unemployment rate went up to 19.2%. In 2000, and 2001 it was still over 19%. In the meantime, average real wages fell by 25% between 1989 and 1994, then rose by 22% over the following four years, and declined again by 3% and 4.6%, respectively in 1999 and 2000.

1.


Immigration has decreased since 1996 whilst emigration has been increasing since 1994; net migration is negative and with some fluctuation has been growing in absolute terms from –1.1 in 1996 to –1.6 in 1999. Between 1999 and 2000, net migration increased by 33.1% to –1.1 (see Table III.28). Emigration Emigration of permanent residents (there is no differentiation made between Slovak nationals and foreigners in the data) has been fluctuating since 1997 between 3 100 and 3 600. The data provided by the Czech Institute of Statistics show that nearly 85% of the outflows are to the Czech Republic. The number of Slovak workers is 63 600 in 2000, a 20% increase from 1999 (53 200). The number of Slovak citizens in Hungary has increased over recent years to 2 900 (2000). Slovak workers in Austria have remained relatively stable around 4 000 (4 300 in 2000) and those emigrating to Germany have fluctuated between 9 000 and 14 000 since 1997. Inflows and outflows of foreigners Annual inflows of permanent residents declined gradually from the 1996 figure of 2 477 to 2 072 in 1999, but increased to 2 274 in 2000. The vast majority of immigrants were from the Czech Republic, whose citizens do not require work permits in Slovakia. Immigration from the Czech Republic gradually declined between 1996 and 1998 but increased by 50% between 1999 and 2000 (from 860 to 1 270), other foreign countries only accounted for 44% (1 006 persons) in 2001.

248

Another source of data on inflows is the register of residence permits which have been granted by the Slovak Government. The number of newly granted permanent residence permits has declined since 1998 from 1 700 to 1 400 in 1999, with a more dramatic decline in 2000 to 850. The preliminary figure for 2001 is 652. Longterm residence permits fell in 1999 to 4 400 from 4 750 in 1998, also with a greater decline in 2000 to 2 900 grants and to 2 800 in 2001. © OECD 2003

Slovak Republic

Table III.28.

Current migration figures, Slovak Republic

Figures in thousands unless otherwise indicated 1997

1998

1999

2000

Inflows of permanent residents Arrivals (excluding those from Czech Republic) Arrivals from Czech Republic

2.3 1.4 0.9

2.1 1.3 0.8

2.1 1.2 0.9

2.3 1.0 1.3

Outflows of permanent residents Departures (excluding those to Czech Republic)1 Departures to the Czech Republic2

3.1 – 3.1

3.4 0.5 2.9

3.6 0.4 3.2

3.3 0.5 2.8

–0.8

–1.3

–1.6

–1.1

Residence permits newly granted by category Long-term residence permits Permanent residence permits Family reunification Other

4.1 2.0 1.6 0.4

4.7 1.7 1.3 0.4

4.4 1.4 1.1 0.3

2.9 0.9 0.6 0.2

Inflows of asylum seekers

0.6

0.5

1.3

1.6

Illegal migrants caught at the border of which: Inflows Outflows

2.8

8.2

8.0

6.1

0.7 2.1

1.9 6.3

2.9 5.1

2.2 3.8

24.8

27.4

29.5

28.3

0.7 .. 0.3 0.6 2.2 3.8

0.7 .. 0.3 0.7 2.0 3.7

0.4 .. 0.2 0.2 1.3 2.6

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.4 2.5

1.7

2.2

2.4

2.3

69.7 53.3 9.2 0.1 4.0 1.6 0.4 2.1

61.3 55.1 9.8 0.1 4.0 1.6 0.5 2.1

53.2 56.9 12.1 0.2 4.0 1.7 1.0 3.4

63.6 61.3 14.7 0.2 4.3 1.8 2.9 9.6

Net migration

Holders of permanent or long-term residence permit3 Work permit holders, by country of origin Ukraine Germany United States Poland Other Total

4

Estimates of Czech workers5 Slovak citizens abroad Slovak workers in the Czech Republic % of total foreign workers in the Czech Republic Slovak citizens in Germany % of total foreign citizens in Germany Slovak workers in Austria % of total foreign workers in Austria Slovak workers in Hungary % of total foreign workers in Hungary 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The outflow is under-reported because people leaving the country are requested but not required to report their departure. Changes of permanent residence in the Czech Republic. The data are issued by the Czech Statistical Office. Stocks as of 31 December of the years indicated. The data refer to the stock of work permit holders as of 31 December of the years indicated. Under a bilateral agreement signed by the Czech and Slovak Republics in 1992, nationals of each Republic have free access to both labour markets. Data on Czech workers are monitored by the National Labour Office of the Slovak Republic. Sources: Ministry of Labour and the National Labour office of the Slovak Republic; Czech Statistical Office.

Illegal migration The numbers of illegal migrants caught at the border moving into and out of the Slovak Republic rival those of legal ones (see Table III.28). In 2000, 5 600 permanent residents were recorded entering and leaving whereas 6 061 illegal migrants were detected in 2000 (9 000 in the first 10 months of 2001). The number of illegal migrants leaving the Slovak Republic is greater than the number of illegal immigrants. Inflows of illegal migrants largely occur at the Hungarian and Ukrainian borders, while outflows dominate at the Czech, Austrian © OECD 2003

249


and, to a much lesser degree, Polish borders. Illegal migrants primarily come from the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Romania. Traditionally, the border with the Czech Republic has seen the highest level of illegal crossings. In 2001, though, the Slovak-Austrian border had the largest amount of illegal migration with illegal outflows to Austria increasing by more than 250% (from 1 200 persons in 2000 to 3 280 persons in the first ten months of 2001). A similar increase was recorded in 2001 for illegal entries from Hungary. The increase in the number of illegal entries at the border with Ukraine since 1999 has also been remarkable. This is probably due to the introduction of visa obligations for Ukrainian nationals. Refugees and asylum seekers The number of asylum seekers has increased dramatically in recent years, while the granting of refugee status, in comparison, has greatly decreased. Asylum application almost doubled between 1998 and 1999 to 900 and continued to increase to 1 560 in 2000. In 2001, 8 200 applications have been lodged, among which 4 300 by people from Afghanistan. The rate of refugee status approval declined significantly over the past few years, from 9.7% (1998) to 2% (1999) and to 0.7% (2000). Early processing results from in 2001 show evidence that this trend will continue. Many applications are “administratively terminated” (more than 1 000 in 1999, 1 370 in 2000 and 2 750 in 2001) rather than refused. Family reunion The majority of permanent residence permits granted are for family reunion purposes. In 2000, 610 (72%) permanent residence permits were for family reunification (72%). The year In 2001 saw a decrease in the number of permanent residence permits to 652, but an increase in the proportion of those for family reunifications (89.5% or 580). 2.


Numerical trends The population of the Slovak Republic at the beginning of 2000 was approximately 5 401 000. At the end of 2000 there were 28 340 foreign residents in the Slovak Republic, a 3.9% decline on the 29 500 residents in 1999 (see Table III.28). In 2001, the stock of foreign residents is almost stable at 29 000. Of these, 11 681 were long-term residents, and 17 290 were permanent residents. In 2000, foreigners from former socialist countries hold the largest share of residence permits: they include the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia and Vietnam. Among Western countries, the United States, Austria, the UK, Italy and Greece also have a relatively strong foreign presence in Slovakia. According to declared ethnic origin, the main ethnic minority originates from Hungary (10.5% of the population in 2000). They are heavily concentrated in the South and East of the country, near the Hungarian and Ukrainian borders. The Romanian population (1.7%) and the Czech population (1.1%) are the next largest minority groups. Self-reporting in the population census may result in some nationalities being underrepresented in the national population statistics. The Romanian population is believed to be seriously underrepresented as a result, and may constitute up to 6.5% of the total population. Moreover, the Romanian population has a much higher growth rate than the Slovakian population. Naturalisations

250

About 1 080 foreign nationals were granted Slovak nationality in 1999, more than 4 200 in 2000, and about 1 760 in the first ten months of 2001. The three leading nationalities receiving grants of citizenship are the Czech Republic, the Ukraine and the USA. As described in previous Trends in International Migration publications, new legislation has made possible the granting of residence permits, eventually leading to nationality acquisition, to foreign Slovaks (i.e., foreign nationals of Slovak descent). Almost 3 000 residents gained their residence permits under this category during the first ten months of 2001. © OECD 2003

Slovak Republic

Box III.6.

On the situation of Roma minority in the Slovak Republic (from Joint Assessment of Employment Priorities in the Slovak Republic)

The complex nature of the problems facing the Roma national minority has led the government to apply a wide-ranging approach to the issue. The office of a Governmental Plenipotentiary was established in 1999 to address the issues of the Roma minority, and a “Strategy for Addressing the Roma Minority Problems and a Set of Implementation Measures” has been approved by the Government (in November 1999 and March 2000). Effective implementation of anti-discrimination will also be enhanced by the creation of the position of Ombudsman referred to earlier, and by the introduction of monitoring of labour-participation of ethnic groups and their participation in active labour market programmes. In 2000, the Government approved 56 projects costing over SK 10 million operating in education, culture, employment, the social field and the health conditions of the Roma population. To fund other systematic actions addressing Roma problems the Government has developed a PHARE-supported Minority Development Project for the years 2001 and 2002 costing 4 million Euro. To support an anti-discriminatory approach, PHARE has allocated between 1998 and 2000 around € 8 million for Roma projects to promote mutual tolerance, to improve the situation in schools and to enhance access to the labour market. In terms of implementing the overall Strategy for Roma Minority Problems, the government has identified three basic priorities for action for the year 2001 – education, living conditions, and unemployment. Although precise data on the educational attainment of the Roma population are not available, educational disadvantage for Roma is seen as particularly important. The Slovak Ministry of Education is preparing a Concept of Upbringing and Education of Roma children, which will, inter alia, provide the basis for a PHARE “Roma Education” Project. Experiments have been made with preparatory classes for Roma children at elementary schools, and the number of such classes is increasing gradually. Specific measures aimed at improving the living conditions of Roma include a World Bank-supported project to construct over a thousand apartments for Roma families. In relation to employment, recruitment to active labour market programmes is, in general, concentrated on long-term unemployed people with low qualifications; given the prevalence of Roma within these groups this represents a significant degree of de facto targeting. In addition, a number of initiatives are being taken that focus specifically on enhancing Roma participation in programmes. More generally, given the geographic concentration of the Roma population, regional programmes in selected Slovak regions can play a crucial role in supporting development in Roma communities. Finally, acknowledgement of the Roma language in line with the European Charter of Regional or Minority Languages, signed by Slovakia in February 2001, may contribute significantly to the development of educational levels while supporting the maintenance of Roma identity.

3.


Migration for employment and work permits Foreigners (subject to certain exemptions) need work permits to be employed in the Slovak Republic. The initial permit is linked to an employer and grants only restricted access to the Slovak labour market. Before granting such a permit, the Labour Office must verify that there are no suitable candidates amongst the registered unemployed. Stocks of work permits have fluctuated between approximately 2 200 and 3 800 during the years between 1996 and 2000. The peak was in 1997 and a substantial decrease occurred in 1999 to the low point of 2 200, possibly reflecting employment contraction and the corresponding rise in unemployment between 1998 and 1999. The number of work permit holders remained stable in 2000 at nearly 2 500. Ukrainians hold most work permits, followed by Germans, Americans and Polish workers (see Table III.28). © OECD 2003

251


Compared to the labour force of approximately two million, the numbers of legally employed foreign workers is very small. Nearly 72% of valid work permits in 2001 are with Slovak while the remaining 28 % are with foreign employers. The presence of workers from the Czech Republic showed an increasing trend from 1996 (1 500) to 1999 (2 400). In 2000, numbers declined slightly to 2 300. Czech immigrants are allowed to enter the Slovak job market freely, providing they hold a residence permit. 4.

Policy developments

Refugees and asylum Data on asylum seekers are collected by the Office for Migration of the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic. Asylum seekers are first registered by the police authorities (usually the departments at the border). They are directed to the reception centre in Adamov, where they have to report within 24 hours after applying for asylum. Recognised refugees live in the residential refugee camp in Brezova pod Bradlom, or in private facilities. Refugees under temporary protection are accommodated in separate facilities. Rejected asylum seekers are subject to the alien regime, and are transferred from the Migration Office to the Border and Aliens Police. International agreements In 1998, the Slovak Republic concluded a bilateral agreement with Switzerland authorising free movement, and is about to sign a similar agreement with Austria. Other agreements concerning free movement to and from Indonesia, the Philippines and France are in course of preparation. In 1999, Hungary was added to the list countries that have bilateral agreement with the Slovak Republic on mutual employment of citizens.

252

© OECD 2003

Spain

SPAIN Introduction Generally speaking, the year 2000 was another good year for the Spanish economy. Despite slowing, growth of economic activity remained buoyant for the fourth consecutive year (with GDP up 2.8% in real terms) and there continued to be a positive growth differential vis-à-vis the other European countries. Employment rose in a spectacular fashion, with almost 700 000 jobs created between 1999 and 2000, which brought the unemployment rate down by some 2 percentage points to 14.1%. That fall continued in 2001, the rate coming down to 13%. Strains did, however, begin to appear in the course of 2000, and these could jeopardise any lasting continuation of the present growth cycle: net lending by the private sector has declined; inflationary pressures have increased while the output gap has closed; and productivity gains have remained very small. Spain has also been affected by a rapid and far-reaching shift in migration movements. Successive regularisations in 2000 and 2001, plus the gradual increase in legal immigration for employment purposes, have brought the resident foreign population up to a little under 1 million, or 2.2% of the total population. The estimates available for 2001 point to a legally resident foreign population of 1.1 million. Also, two organic laws passed in 2000 amended the legislation on the reception and stay of foreigners, which dated from 1985. 1.


Inward and outward flows of foreigners Immigration in Spain being recent, it follows that the bulk of migration flows are employment-related. Allocation of work permits has, since 1993, been governed in part by a quota system, with the upper limit having been set at 30 000 in 1999, whereas 137 500 applications were filed. In fact, large numbers of work permits are issued outside the quota system, nearly 118 5000 having been allocated in 1999. Incomplete data for 2000 show that 113 5000 applications were approved by the Spanish authorities (see Table III.29). The 2000 regularisation programme resulted in the regularisation of 188 000 people who had hitherto been undocumented. Although those concerned were not really recent arrivals, the regularisations did mean the same number of new residence and work permits being issued. Refugees and asylum seekers In 2000, some 720 people obtained refugee status. In the same year, 7 900 asylum applications were filed, which was 5.7% down on the previous year and represented a break in the upward trend observed over the previous 3 years. This could be partly due to the implementation of special regularisation programmes. The provisional figures for 2001 indicate some 9 200 asylum applications. The breakdown of asylum applications by nationality is concentrated on just a few countries of origin. Two Latin American countries, Colombia (17.2%) and Cuba (10%), and two African countries: Nigeria (10.6%) and Sierra Leone (10.4%) alone account for nearly half of the applications filed. Then come three Eastern European countries (Armenia, Romania and Russia). 2.


Trends in the foreign population stock In December 2000, there were 895 720 foreign re sidents with a valid permit living in Spain (see Table III.29), of which 420 000 came under the Community scheme. In 2001 there were thought to be © OECD 2003

253

Current figures on flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Spain Thousands 1997

1998

1999

2000

Stock of foreign residents1

609.8

719.7

801.3

895.7

By region of origin Europe Africa America Asia Oceania Stateless

289.1 142.8 127.0 49.1 0.9 1.0

330.5 179.5 147.2 60.7 1.0 0.7

361.9 211.6 159.8 66.5 1.0 0.5

361.4 261.4 200.0 71.0 0.9 1.0

By region of residence Madrid Barcelona Malaga Alicante Other Acquisition of Spanish nationality2

116.0 90.7 41.9 42.6 318.7

148.1 104.3 47.1 44.6 375.6

158.9 129.2 53.1 51.9 408.3

163.0 150.5 54.6 52.2 475.5

10.3

13.2

16.4

12.0

Total work permits granted3 of which: Women By industry division Agriculture Industry Building Services Not specified By region of origin Africa Central and South America Asia Europe (except EU)4 North America Oceania and other By type of permit Long-term work permits Employees Self employed One-year work permit Employees Self employed Other5 Stock of foreign workers6

1997

1998

1999

86.8 31.9

85.5 35.3

118.5 42.1

18.4 5.8 7.2 53.5 2.0

18.6 4.6 5.1 55.5 1.6

28.1 8.6 11.0 67.2 3.6

44.2 23.3 12.5 5.7 1.1 0.2

36.6 29.1 12.3 6.4 1.0 0.2

59.6 33.4 15.3 8.9 1.1 0.2

27.3 3.7

17.3 2.9

37.1 4.8

51.1 3.1 1.7

61.7 2.0 1.6

72.2 2.2 2.2

178.7

197.1

172.8

1. Stock of foreigners who hold a residence permit on 31 December of the given year. Permits of short duration (less than 6 months) as well as students are excluded. Data include permits delivered following the 1996 regularisation programme but only 25 500 out of 164 000 persons regularised under the 2000 programme. 2. Excluding persons recovering their Spanish nationality. 3. Data are not available for 2000. Total permits issued, including seasonal and cross-border workers and renewals of permits. 4. Since 1 January 1992, the nationals of the European Union do not need a work permit. 5. Seasonal and cross-border workers. 6. Data are not available for 2000. Data are for 31 December of each year and are numbers of valid work permits. Workers from the EU are not included. Data include work permits delivered following the 1996 regularisation programme. Sources: General Directorate on Migration; Ministry of Labour and Social Security; Ministry of Justice.


254

Table III.29.

© OECD 2003

Spain

Box III.7.

The 2000 and 2001 regularisations in Spain

The “exceptional” 2000 regularisation concerned all foreigners resident in Spain on a continuous basis since 1 January 1999, on condition that they were not subject to an expulsion order, legal proceedings or a ban on entry, that they indicated on their application the sector and profession in which they wished to work and met at least one of the following requirements: have been the holder of a valid work and residence permit during the period from 1 February 1997 to 1 February 2000, have applied for a work and residence permit before 31 March 2000, or have filed an application for asylum before 1 February 2000. The procedure was subsequently extended until July 2000. Of the nearly 244 300 applications filed, by 31 December 2001, 188 200 people had been regularised, 36 000 of them after examination of their dossiers. The majority of the regularisations concerned newly arrived immigrants. Over 90% of applications were for work and residence permits, just 6% for residence permits alone and 2% for European Community residence cards. Following the Lorca tragedy in January 2001, when a dozen Ecuadorians who were illegal residents were killed in a road accident, the Spanish authorities introduced a process of regularisation for humanitarian reasons, and this enabled over 24 000 Ecuadorians to regularise their situation. In 2001, a new regularisation procedure was launched for “settlement” reasons (Arraigo). It concerned immigrants who could prove that they were in Spain before 23 January 2001, that they were integrated in the labour market or had family ties in Spain, and that they had not been the subject of an expulsion order. Applications had to be submitted between 8 June and 31 July 2001. All told, some 350 000 applications are thought to have been filed and by 15 April 2002 almost 217 000 people had been regularised (there are still 26 400 files to be processed).

1.1 million foreigners, i.e. 2.7% of the total population. The most recent available figures suggest that legal foreign residents will exceed 3% of the total Spanish population in 2002. For the past four years, the resident foreign population has in fact been growing at a rate in excess of 10%. At the same time, there has been a radical change in the composition of the foreign population, the share of non-Community immigrants having risen from 41% in 1996 to 60% at end-2000 (taking account of regularisations in 2000). The new, 2001 regularisation programmes will further accentuate this trend. In absolute terms, the biggest foreign community legally resident in Spain is of Moroccan origin (200 000 people), followed by British (74 000), German and French nationals. There are also some 31 000 Ecuadorian nationals and 29 000 Chinese. Although limited, Asian migration – mainly Chinese, and above all Pakistani – is tending to increase. As a whole, the foreign population contains a majority of males (54%) and people of working age (81% between 16 and 65). The breakdown by sex depends on the country of origin. South American women are substantially overrepresented (in 2000, for example, over 70% of immigrants from Colombia and the Dominican Republic were women), while the opposite is true in the case of African and Asian immigrants. The age breakdown also varies a lot according to the origin of the immigrants: the number of retired people is proportionately greater amongst the resident communities (71% of foreigners aged over 65 are from a European Union country), whereas 59% of Latin American nationals and 62% of sub-Saharan immigrants are aged between 25 and 44. The North African community contains a large proportion of children under 15 (some 20%), which calls for careful monitoring as regards their integration in school. Lastly, foreign residents are highly concentrated in the main areas of economic and holiday activity. Onethird of foreign residents live in Madrid and Barcelona. The Mediterranean coast and the Balearic and Canary Islands also account for large numbers of foreign residents, the bulk from the European Union. There would seem, however, to be a tendency for immigration to spread to more inland areas and to northern Spain. © OECD 2003

255


Naturalisation Some 12 000 people obtained Spanish nationality in 2000, which was 26.7% down on the previous year. At 1.5%, the naturalisation rate therefore remains very low. Three-fifths of those who were naturalised were from South America, mainly from the Dominican Republic and Peru, while 21% were of African origin. 3.


In 1999, a little over 118 500 work permits were issued, which was 33 000 more than in the previous year (see Table III.29). In 2000 and 2001, the number of permits issued was higher still at 130 000 and 200 000 respectively, which was a record high (well above the 1996 figure which was also affected by a regularisation process). Despite persisting unemployment, this trend has coincided with signs of strains on the labour market. Over 94% of the work permits issued in 1999 were for salaried employment, and over 56% were for the service sector (some 28% of all work permits are for household employment). Almost 24% of new permits or renewals concerned agriculture, while 9.3% were for public buildings and works. The number of work permits issued to foreign workers in the construction sector has been rising steeply, from 5 000 in 1998 to 11 000 in 1999. The figures for Social Security registration give a full and up-to-date picture of the situation of foreign workers on the Spanish labour market. In December 2000, 454 600 foreign workers were registered with the Social Security, which was 35% up on the previous year. The trend was the same between 2000 and 2001, with almost 605 000 foreigners registered with the Social Security at end-2001. Although the number of EC workers is increasing (120 500 in 1999 and 140 500 in 2000), the latter still account for a smaller proportion of total registrations. The above trends are directly related to regularisation procedures, which have been on a very large scale and have, by definition, mainly concerned nationals of third countries. The breakdown by sector changed very little between 1999 and 2000, with a small increase in the share of foreign employment in the public buildings and works sector (from 9.9 to 12.5%) and an almost equal fall in household services (from 13.6 to 11%). Regional disparities also remain considerable: in Andalusia, for example, one-third of workers are employed in agriculture, whereas barely 5% of foreign jobs are in household services.

Box III.8.

The new quota system in Spain

A process for consulting the social partners, with large-scale employer involvement, was introduced with effect from 2002 with the object of establishing quotas by sector, province and type of job, on the basis of the “real” needs of the labour market and taking account of both the local and the national situations. Quotas are established as follows: i) the employers’ organisations submit, at provincial level, their affiliated members’ labour demand which the latter believe cannot be met in their own labour market area during the coming year; ii) joint provincial committees reasses the requests made in light of employment conditions at local level; iii) an executive committee of the Ministry for Employment and Solidarity rules on labour requirements at national level and has the Council of Ministers approve the quotas; iv) the said quotas are then distributed to the employers’ organisations which are responsible for sharing them between their members; v) candidates are then selected in countries of origin via the relevant embassies. In 2002, companies are thought to have requested 80 000 job authorisations. The provincial committees reappraised the requests and put them at 30 000, but the Spanish Government finally set the overall quota at 10 884 “stable” jobs to which, however, have to be added 21 195 temporary work permit authorisations. 256

© OECD 2003

Spain

4.

Policy developments

2001 was also a year notable for buoyant immigration policy activity. The Higher Council for Policy on the Regularisation and Co-ordination of Foreigners and Immigration (GRECO) adopted a regulation implementing Act 8/2000 which amends Act 4/2000, while three agreements were signed with, respectively, Ecuador, Colombia and Morocco. Entry and stay (including integration measures) The draft bill on immigration adopted by Parliament in late 2000 came into force in July 2001. The new legislation is appreciably more restrictive than the old, providing in particular for the possibility of foreigners resident in Spain illegally to be expelled on the spot. Permanent residence permits can now only be obtained after five years’ residence and work in Spain. There are now three criteria for entry into Spain: possession of valid identity papers, proof of sufficient means of support for the duration of the stay and proof of the purpose and conditions of stay. In addition, the text restricts to foreigners legally resident in Spain the exercise of certain constitutional rights that had been granted to all foreigners under the January 2000 Act, including the right to strike and join unions, and also the right of association and demonstration. The procedure for establishing quotas also changed with effect from 2002. Lastly, measures to combat the illegal employment of foreigners have been stepped up, the fine for guilty employers having been raised to 6 000 euros. The GRECO is responsible for co-ordinating the three levels of government (central government, autonomous communities and municipal councils) with the aim of developing an overall immigration policy embracing social integration and employment. The Standing Immigration Observatory (OPI) collects, analyses and communicates data. The Forum for Integration is a government consultative and advisory body which makes recommendations on questions relating to the integration of immigrants. International agreements Three bilateral agreements were signed in 2001 with Ecuador, Colombia and Morocco, while three similar agreements are either being drawn up or have more recently been signed with Romania (January 2002), Poland and the Dominican Republic. These agreements are designed to “prevent illegal immigration and the economic exploitation of undocumented foreigners”. They serve mainly to establish a procedure for the selection of foreign workers, the salient points of which are: • Communicating labour supply via the embassy, specifying the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the labour requirements outlined in the framework of the quota system. • Selecting candidates with the participation of employers and assessing living and residence conditions. • Guaranteeing that foreign workers enjoy the same rights and working conditions as nationals. • Drawing up special provisions for temporary workers. • Helping temporary workers by means of voluntary return programmes.

257

© OECD 2003


SWEDEN Introduction Sweden is now profiting from macroeconomic and structural reforms undertaken in the wake of the severe recession of the early 1990’s. Output has been growing at 4.5% in 1999 and 3.6% in 2000. 2001 has been somewhat less dynamic due to a global economic trend and the collapse of the new technology bubble but strong economic growth should return in 2002. The recovery has actually had a positive impact on the labour market, with the unemployment rate falling to 5.5% in 2000 (labour force aged 15 to 64) and stabilising at this level in 2001 (after a peak of 9.9% in 1997). Over the last ten years or so migration flows have fluctuated considerably. These changes are due both to economic trends and to the new thrust of Sweden’s migration policy. 1.


Inward and outward flows of foreigners Emigration flows of foreigners have decreased, though in a fluctuating trend, over the past ten years. They have, however, shown a consistent downward trend since 1997. In 2000, 12 100 foreigners left Sweden. Scandinavian nationals used to be in the majority but their number is decreasing (5 300 in 2000, as against 11 700 in 1990). Foreign immigration peaked in 1994 with 75 000 permanent entries (people stating that they wish to remain in Sweden for more than a year, not including asylum seekers with applications pending nor temporary workers). By 1998, the figure had fallen by over a half to 33 440. In 2000, the figure was 33 800 and the net migration gain totalled 21 700, compared with 21 000 in 1999 (see Table III.30). The main groups of immigrants were of Scandinavian (26%), Iraqi (19.5%), German, British, Bosnian and Iranian origin. Immigration from the fifteen European Union countries totalled 10 800, or 32% of total immigration, an increase on the proportion in 1999 which was 22%. The number of residence permits granted in 2000 (45 200) showed a significant increase of 20% over the number granted the previous year. Over half the permits were issued on family reunion grounds, about 23% to refugees and nearly 16.5% under European agreements. Foreign students were also a substantial group and 900 permits were also granted to adopted children. Few residence permits are granted for employment purposes, and only slightly over 400 were granted in 2000 (largely to Chinese, Russian and US citizens). Refugees and asylum seekers In 2000, 16 300 people sought asylum in Sweden, a dramatic increase of just over 46% on the previous year (which had seen a decline on the 1998 figure). This upsurge was largely due to a significant increase in the number of asylum seekers from Bosnia to nearly 4 250. Iraqis accounted for 21.5% of asylum applications, those from the former Yugoslavia nearly 40% and Iranians 4.5%. Smaller numbers sought asylum from the Russian Federation, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Turkey and Pakistan. The growth in the number of asylum seekers has continued in 2001 and approximately 23 500 have applied this year (26.3% with Iraqi origin, 13% from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and 11.7 from Bosnia Herzegovina). 258

Of the concluded asylum cases for 2000, applicants from Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia were by far the most likely to be successful with approximately 80% of their applications being granted. © OECD 2003

© OECD 2003

Table III.30. Current figures on flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Sweden Figures in thousands unless otherwise indicated

Inflows of foreigners by nationality or region of origin1 Nordic countries Finland Norway Denmark Other countries of which: Iraq Former Yugoslavia Net migration of foreigners by nationality1 Nordic countries Finland Norway Denmark Other countries of which: Former Yugoslavia Issuance of residence permits by category of admission2 Family reunification Refugees EEA-agreement Foreign students Adopted children Employment Asylum seekers of which: Former Yugoslavia Iraq

1997

1998

1999

2000

33.4 5.3 2.8 1.5 1.0 28.1

35.7 5.8 3.0 1.6 1.1 29.6

34.6 7.0 3.4 2.0 1.3 27.6

33.8 8.8 3.6 2.9 2.0 24.9

3.7 5.7

5.3 1.9

5.5 1.2

6.6 2.9

18.1 –1.1 –0.2 –0.6 –0.4 19.3

21.8 –0.3 0.1 –0.1 –0.1 22.1

21.0 1.4 0.7 0.5 0.3 19.6

21.7 3.1 0.9 1.3 0.9 18.6

4.4

1.7

0.9

2.7

36.6 18.9 9.6 4.6 2.4 0.7 0.4

39.4 21.7 8.2 5.7 2.7 0.8 0.4

37.4 21.7 5.6 6.1 2.8 0.9 0.3

45.2 22.8 10.5 7.4 3.1 0.9 0.4

9.6

12.5

11.2

16.3

3.0 3.1

4.9 3.8

2.4 3.6

6.4 3.5

1997

1998

1999

2000

8 847.6 5.9

8 854.3 5.6

8 861.4 5.5

8 882.8 5.4

522.0 162.2 101.3 31.0 25.4 359.8

499.9 159.7 99.9 30.6 25.0 340.2

487.2 159.0 99.0 30.9 25.0 332.0

477.3 160.2 98.6 32.0 25.6 317.1

24.8 33.6 26.2

26.6 26.0 19.8

30.2 22.7 16.1

33.1 20.2 14.3

Persons with foreign background4 Foreign-born Swedish citizens Foreigners Born in Sweden5 Swedish citizens Foreigners

1 683.7 954.2 579.2 375.0 729.0 646.0 83.0

1 746.9 968.7 558.2 410.5 778.6 695.5 83.0

1 777.8 981.6 581.5 400.1 796.2 716.9 79.3

1 821.1 1 003.8 609.2 394.6 817.3 741.0 76.5

Acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality Bosnia Herzegovina Iraq Somalia Other countries

28.9 2.6 2.3 0.5 19.5

46.5 10.9 3.7 0.7 31.2

37.8 11.3 2.3 0.7 23.4

43.5 12.6 4.2 2.8 23.9

Mixed marriages % of total marriages

6.3 18.0

6.3 18.2

7.0 18.1

7.8 18.0

..

..

15.0

19.4

220 87 133

219 85 134

222 86 136

222 90 132

Total population3 % of foreign population Stock of foreign population3 Nordic countries Finland Norway Denmark Other countries of which: Iraq Bosnia Herzegovina Poland

Grants of temporary permits (including seasonal workers) Stock of foreign labour Nordic nationals Other citizenship

6

1. Data are from population registers and refer to persons who declare their intention to stay in Sweden for longer than one year. Figures do not include asylum seekers who are waiting for decisions and temporary workers. 2. Residence permits are not required for Nordic citizens. 3. Data are from population registers and refer to the population on 31 December of the years indicated. 4. Foreign background, first or second generation immigrant only. 5. Persons with at least one parent born abroad. The increase between 1997 and 1998 depends mostly on quality improvements in the population register. 6. Annual average from the Labour Force Survey. Sources: Swedish Immigration Board ; Statistics Sweden.

Sweden

259


Family reunion Between 1985 and 1990, the number of migrants entering Sweden by way of a right to family reunion increased more than threefold from 6 970 to 22 221. The numbers entering since then have fluctuated from slightly below 19 000 to nearly 26 000 (the latter figure in 1994). In 2000, 22 800 family reunion migrants entered Sweden. Gender disaggregated statistics are available from 1995 and show that women are consistently in the minority as such migrants, with their proportion fluctuating between about 41% and 44%. They accounted for 42.5% in 2000. 2.

Structure and changes in the foreign and foreign-born population

Numerical trends In 2000, Sweden’s total population stood at 8.88 million, of whom 5.4% (477 300) were foreign citizens (see Table III.30). At this time, over 1 003 800 people had been born abroad (11.3% of the total population). Of these, 609 200 held Swedish nationality. A further 817 300 people were born in Sweden but had links, via their parents, with at least one other country. In 2000, there were in total 1 821 100 people of foreign origin, accounting for just over 20% of the total population. By far the largest number of foreign-born persons by country of birth were Finns, who numbered over 195 500. Mixed marriages Of the approximately 43 200 marriages contracted in Sweden in 2000, there were 7 785 (18%) where one partner was of Swedish nationality and the other not. This proportion has remained broadly stable since 1991. Prior to that the proportion was rather lower. Most mixed marriages were between Swedish and other Scandinavian nationals, with Polish women and male UK nationals also participating in substantial numbers of mixed marriages. Naturalisations There were 43 500 naturalisations in 2000, an increase over the 1999 figure of 37 800, but below the 1990s peak of 46 500 achieved in 1998. The 2000 figure included 12 600 nationals of Bosnia Herzegovina, 4 200 Iraqis and 2 800 Somalians. The next largest group was Iranis. 3.


Migration for employment and work permits During the 1950s and 1960s, Sweden made intensive use of immigrant labour to meet the needs of its rapidly expanding labour market, but with economic and legal changes from the late 1960s and early 1970s, the previous high level of labour immigration ceased. In 2000, there were 222 000 foreign workers in Sweden (see Table III.30). This figure, relatively stable over the past five years, represents around 5% of the total labour force. Those from the other Nordic countries (90 000) and the former Yugoslavia predominate in the labour market. In 2000, the largest group of foreigners were the Finns at around 53 000, followed by Yugoslavs (23 000) and Norwegians (16 000). Iranians, of whom there are approximately 8 000, form the largest nonEuropean group.

260

The number of residence permits issued for employment purposes in 2000, chiefly to highly skilled workers and business persons, was very small (just over 400) as in previous years. However, EU and Norwegian nationals are not included in these statistics. About 19 400 temporary work permits were granted in 2000. This represented a significant increase from the 15 000 granted the previous year. These permits are mainly granted with reference to temporary shortages of labour (e.g. seasonal work such as fruit picking, the need for various specialist skills) and international exchange. © OECD 2003

Sweden

Labour market integration Immigrants experience greater difficulties in the labour market even when highly qualified and despite shortages of certain skills in the labour market. Variations amongst different groups of immigrants also occurred, and occur, depending upon age, sex, education, duration of stay in Sweden and country of origin. From the mid 1970s, the employment rate of immigrants to Sweden began to decline and their unemployment rate, previously comparable to that of the indigenous Swedish population, started to increase. In 1997, the unemployment rate for immigrants from outside Europe reached about 28%. In contrast the Swedish unemployment rate was approximately 7% and that for the EU/EES-born, just slightly greater. Although economic upswing in the last four years and initiatives by the Swedish Government have had a positive impact on the employment of immigrants, a significant gap still exists between the employment and unemployment rates of immigrants and the Swedish-born population. The annual unemployment rate for the first half of 2001 was 9.1% (10.2% for men and 7.8% for women) amongst immigrants overall compared to 3.3% amongst the Swedish-born. Furthermore, the employment rate amongst immigrants was 61.8%, far below the 77% for the Swedish-born population. For migrants from outside Europe, the employment rate was approximately 54% (57.4% for men and 44.4% for women) and for those from outside the EU/EES, approximately 60% (63.9% for men and 56.5% for women). 4.

Policy developments

Admission and residence (including integration measures) The Swedish Government aims to promote employment opportunities for immigrants and combat racial discrimination in the labour market. This is being undertaken in the context of an active labour market policy, based on training or practical work experience, where work is not available. General labour market strategies, which particularly assist migrants, include an activity guarantee for those who are facing or at risk of, long-term unemployment, generous employer recruitment subsidies as incentives for hiring the long-term unemployed or the unemployed with particular problems, and general labour market programmes. Special measures include extra staff at employment offices partly to provide additional assistance to those unemployed with a foreign background, funds to finance supplementary education for foreign, university educated migrants in health care and other professions where there are labour shortages, funds also to improve Swedish language tuition and other measures to assist those newly arrived in Sweden and to promote ethnic diversity within public administration and private enterprises. Government agencies have been asked to work out action plans to promote ethnic and cultural diversity awareness amongst their employees as well as develop non-discriminatory recruitment practices. Citizenship requirements for certain jobs are being examined with a view to revising these. In February 2001, a national action plan against racism, xenophobia, homophobia and discrimination has been discussed to the Riksdag (the Swedish Parliament). Comprehensive legislation against discrimination is also to be considered in addition to the existing 1999 legislation against racial discrimination at work. The Ombudsman against Ethnic Discrimination has published and disseminated guides providing relevant advice for employers. Other initiative include the use of anti-discrimination clauses in public procurement arrangements, making certain subsidies conditional upon anti-discrimination measures and training the National Labour Market Board staff in discrimination issues. Naturalisation An applicant for citizenship must have a permanent residence permit. However, this requirement does not apply if the applicant is a citizen of a Nordic country. And where the applicant is an EEA citizen, a temporary residence permit for at least five years is the equivalent to a permanent residence permit. The other requirements for naturalisation are that the applicant must be able to prove his/her identity, must have been living in Sweden for five years (four years if the applicant is stateless or a refugee) and have © OECD 2003

261


conducted him/her self properly in Sweden. Special procedures apply where the applicant has committed a crime. International agreements Within the EU, Sweden has actively promoted the directive for temporary protection requiring EU countries to take a common responsibility in crisis situations by providing speedy temporary protection to dispossessed people and providing a guarantee of the right to seek asylum to those who are in need of longterm protection. Similarly, it promoted the directive on the penalties to be imposed on transport providers who do not ensure that their passengers, who are non-EU citizens, have the appropriate travel documents.

262

© OECD 2003

Switzerland

SWITZERLAND Introduction While Switzerland is still one of the richest countries in the world, its lead over most OECD countries has dwindled during the past 20 years. Productivity growth has been low and price levels very high in international comparison suggesting weaknesses in the product market. GDP growth was quite strong in 2000, reaching 3%. In 2001 Switzerland did not escape the international slowdown, with activity growing by only 1.25%. The unemployment rate for the 15-64 age group was nonetheless still very low at 2.5% in 2001. In 2000 foreign residents composed 19.3% (1 384 382) of the Swiss population, an increase of 15 710 on the previous year. The sound economic situation has had the effect of reducing labour reserves and thus of increasing the demand for foreign labour, especially foreign skilled labour. Immigration quota in 2000 was completely used in 2000 and as a result was increased in 2001. 1.


After 3 years of negative or nil net migration, the balance became positive again in 1999. This trend was confirmed in 2000, with migration contributing positively to population growth. Emigration As of 30 June 2000, 580 396 Swiss nationals were registered as living abroad, up 1.3% on 1999. Only 30% of these were single nationality holders, thereby explaining the relatively high rate. The destination nations are primarily developed economies: 61.8% in Europe and 26.7% in America. Inward and outward flows of foreigners In 2000, net migration of foreigners totalled 31 700, which represents a 14% increase on the previous year and the double and more than the triple of the 1998 and 1997 figures respectively (see Table III.31). Immigration of foreigners has increased in the past three years. In 2000, 87 448 foreigners legally entered Switzerland. This included seasonal workers who transferred their temporary work permits into some type of residence permit. All foreign residents must have either yearly residence or settlement permits: 79 650 of the former and 7 800 of the latter were granted in 2000. The majority of new immigrants (12 500 or 14.3% in 2000 of all entries) came from Germany, rising in number over the past four years. Other countries faced sizeable increases, such as the United Kingdom (3 700, +9%) and France (6 600, up 6.1%). Former Yugoslavia remained the second largest nation of origin despite a 50% decrease in 2000 to 6 700 entries. Foreign emigrants (55 770) were mostly from EU member states with 14.3% Italian, 12.2% Portuguese, 10.6% German, 8.5% Spanish and 6.8% French. The largest non-EU country represented was form former Yugoslavia with 2 785 (5%) emigrants. By nationality, net migration was positive for citizens of Germany (6 580), the former Yugoslavia (3 910) and France (2 790), but negative for Spain (–3 050), Italy (–2 520) and Portugal (–1 870). Illegal migration En 2000, 10 050 foreigners were refused entry on the territory, the highest level recorded since 1995. These bans have affected mostly citizens of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1100), France (670), and Italy (325). Of this figure, 2 170 were illegal workers, employed mostly in the bank, insurance and other services (44.8%), hotel (15.2%), agriculture (8.5%) and construction (8.3%) sectors. © OECD 2003

263

Current figures on the components of total population change, on migration flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, Switzerland Figures in thousands unless otherwise indicated 1997

1998

1999

2000

7 096.5 19.0

7 123.5 19.0

7 164.4 19.2

7 204.1 19.3

Components of foreign population change1 Net migration1 Natural increase Acquisitions of Swiss nationality Other

3.2 9.3 13.4 –19.2 –0.3

7.1 16.0 12.7 –21.3 –0.3

20.8 27.7 13.4 –20.4 –

15.7 31.7 12.7 –28.7 –

Migration flows of foreigners2 Inflows by main nationality2 Germany Former Yugoslavia France Italy Portugal Other countries Outflows by main nationality Italy Portugal Germany Spain France Other countries Net migration by main nationality Germany Former Yugoslavia France Portugal Italy Spain Other countries

72.8 8.5 12.8 4.8 5.0 4.0 37.7 63.4 9.9 8.7 5.9 5.8 3.5 29.6 9.3 2.6 5.6 1.3 –4.7 –4.9 –4.0 13.4

74.9 9.3 11.5 5.4 5.3 5.1 38.3 59.0 8.6 7.8 5.5 5.3 3.3 28.5 16.0 3.8 5.3 2.1 –2.7 –3.2 –3.6 14.3

85.8 11.0 12.6 6.2 6.0 5.0 45.0 58.1 8.7 8.0 5.9 5.4 3.7 26.5 27.7 5.1 10.4 2.6 –3.0 –2.6 –3.8 19.1

87.4 12.5 6.7 6.6 5.4 4.9 51.3 55.8 8.0 6.8 5.9 4.7 3.8 26.5 31.7 6.6 3.9 2.8 –1.9 –2.5 –3.1 25.8

Asylum seekers

24.0

41.3

46.1

17.6

Acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality Italy Former Yugoslavia Turkey France Other countries

19.2 5.0 3.0 1.8 1.0 8.4

21.3 5.6 3.3 2.1 1.2 9.1

20.4 5.5 2.4 2.3 0.8 9.4

28.7 6.7 3.3 3.1 1.4 14.3

Population on 31 December of the years indicated % of foreigners

1997

1998

1999

2000

1 340.8 342.3 313.5 136.3 94.7 94.0 55.0 305.0

1 347.9 335.4 321.1 135.8 97.9 90.4 56.1 311.2

1 368.7 327.7 189.4 135.0 102.7 86.8 58.0 469.1

1 384.4 319.6 190.7 134.7 108.8 83.4 59.8 487.3

847.4 309.4

842.3 309.6

856.0 316.4

885.8 329.7

81.7 16.8 1.5

82.1 16.8 1.0

81.9 16.9 1.2

81.0 17.6 1.4

Foreign resident workers by main nationality1 Italy Former Yugoslavia Portugal Germany Spain Others

692.8 191.7 138.2 77.4 57.3 56.4 171.7

691.1 184.4 142.8 76.6 58.7 53.7 174.9

701.2 179.3 80.4 76.5 61.3 51.7 252.0

717.3 175.4 82.8 80.0 65.4 50.1 263.6

By major industry division Agriculture Extractive and manufacturing industries Building Trade Hotel, restaurants Other services

15.5 292.2 80.5 89.5 80.0 135.0

13.6 283.2 76.2 90.0 81.2 147.0

13.5 278.9 72.5 90.7 82.2 163.4

12.9 281.8 71.9 94.6 81.9 174.3

142.0

142.5

144.8

156.0

50.2 23.0 21.0 5.8

50.3 22.7 20.9 6.1

51.0 22.0 21.0 6.0

50.7 22.6 20.8 5.9

Foreign population by main nationality1 Italy Former Yugoslavia3 Portugal Germany Spain France Other countries Foreign workers of which: Women Workers by status of residence (as a % of total) Resident workers Cross-border workers Seasonal workers

Cross-border workers by nationality (% of the total) France Italy Germany Others

1. Data cover only foreigners with annual or settlement permits and include conversions of seasonal work permits into annual or settlement permits. 2. Data include only foreigners who obtained an annual or settlement permit during the indicated year. Conversions of seasonal work permits into annual or settlement permits are included. 3. Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 1999 on. Source: Federal Foreign Office.


264

Table III.31.

© OECD 2003

Switzerland

Refugees and asylum seekers In 2000, 17 600 persons requested asylum in Switzerland, the lowest number since 1995. This figure was showing a significant decline on the previous 3 years, where the number of applicants had gone from 23 982 in 1997 to 46 068 in 1999, and represented a 61.8% decline on 1999. In 2001, the number of applications increased as 20 800 asylum seekers. Most asylum seekers were from the Republic of Yugoslavia (16.7%), Turkey (9.4%), Bosnia-Herzegovina (5.9%) and Iraq (5.9%). Nearly 90% entered the country illegally. In 2000, 38 300 requests for asylum were examined and given final decisions: 2 060 (5.4%) received a positive response of which 67% were for family reunion; 30 050 were rejected; and 6 200 withdrew their application. The rate of approval for asylum applications increased since 1999 from 5.7% to 6.4%, but remained at the second lowest rate during the 1993-2000 period. The stock of recognised refugees in 2000 was 25 500, consisting of citizens from Bosnia-Herzegovina (22.9%), Turkey (20.1%), the Republic of Yugoslavia (12.4%), Vietnam (11.3%) and Iraq (6.2%). By region, Europe dominated the stock with 14 680 refugees, followed by Africa (1 890), Asia (8 590) and the Americas (290). The number of Kosovan refugees returning home, mostly voluntary due to reintegration programmes, accounted for the 26% decrease in residents in Switzerland related to the refugee/asylum system. Family reunion In 2000, the total number of family reunification permits granted was 26 800 or 30.6% of all foreign resident entries, a slight increase on 1999. Of these, 2 574 exercised a lucrative activity, accounting for only 7.6% of all labour force entries. 2.


Numerical trends The Swiss administration defines foreign residents by excluding seasonal workers, asylum seekers, diplomats, officials of foreign organisations and their dependants and short-term foreigners. The proportion of foreign residents in the Swiss population remained quite high in 2000, reaching 19.3% (1 384 400 persons) (see Table III.31). The proportion of foreigners is slightly higher in Italian-speaking Switzerland (25.7%) and in French-speaking Switzerland (23.6%), but lower in German-speaking Switzerland (17.5%). The annual growth rate of foreign residents has been declining since 1991 (where it was at 5.7% or 62 970) to 1.1% (15 712) in 2000. In 2000, the variation of foreign population stock is the following: i) new entries (85 582 or 81.7%), births to foreign parents (17 332 or 16.5%) et change from a seasonal work permit to another kind of permit (1 866 or 1.8%); ii) foreign emigration (55 770 or 62.6%), naturalisations (27 893 or 31.3%) and deaths of foreign residents (4 602 or 5.2%). The ratio of settlement permits to temporary (one year) residence was approximately 3 to 1 in 2000, with 1 041 480 settlement permits (up 1.7% on 1999) and 342 900 temporary residencies granted (down 0.5% on 1999). Approximately 46.7% of residents were female. The foreign population is much younger than the Swiss population, with 94% of foreigners under age 65 compared to 82% for the Swiss. The composition of foreign nationals has shifted significantly over the past two decades. While EU and EFTA member states composed 79.9% of all foreign nationals in 1983, they dropped to 57.8% of the 2000 stock of foreign nationals. Italians continued to be the largest national group in 2000, reaching 319 640 (23.1% of the total foreign population), despite a significant drop since 1974 (of nearly 235 300 persons). The second largest national group in 2000 was from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with 190 730 (13.8%): adding all former Yugoslavians to that group would increase their proportion of the foreign population to 24.4%. Between 1983 and 2000, Portuguese nationals increased their proportion from 2.7% (19 700) to 9.7% (134 700). During the same period, Spanish and German nationals have decreased their importance in the foreign population, dropping from 11.3% and 9%, respectively to 6% and 7.9%. © OECD 2003

265


Mixed marriages Mixed marriages among the foreign resident population were more common among foreign men than among foreign women. The number of foreign men marrying Swiss nationals was 73 900 and, similarly for foreign women, 45 200 as registered by the end of 2000. Naturalisations The Swiss naturalisation rate is quite low as compared to European standards because of high costs and administrative procedures, requiring applicants to prove their socio-economic integration. The number of people acquiring Swiss nationality in 2000 increased by 40.9% on 1999, reaching 28 700, the largest annual increase recorded (in both percentage terms and real terms) during the 1990-2000 period. Federal legislation makes a distinction between the different strains of naturalisation including i) ordinary naturalisation; ii) facilitated naturalisation; iii) reintegration; recognition of Swiss citizenship under the new right of line; iv) marriage to a Swiss citizen; and v) adoption. The ordinary procedure is by far the most commonly used (71.2%), followed by facilitated naturalisation (26%). Most naturalisations were nationals from EU and EFTA member states (39.5%) and other Europeans (37%). The annual increase in naturalisations in 2000 was accounted for by a significant rise across most countries of origin. Countries with large naturalisation counts and a rise above the annual increase included: Austria (up 71.4% to 240), Spain (up 67.9% to 851), France (up 60.4% to 1 360), Greece (up 60.4% to 239) and Portugal (up 59% to 765). Italians remain the largest group of naturalised citizens between 1990-2000, totalling 44 100 and accounting for nearly a quarter of all naturalisation during that period. 3.


Migration for employment and work permits Net migration for employment purposes was positive for 2000. Of all foreign entries in Switzerland, 38.9% (34 025) planned to enter the labour market (employed or unemployed), an 8% increase on 1999. The business and hotel/restaurant management sectors were mostly targeted (9 750 and 5 560 respectively). Other economic sectors represented were that of Health and Beauty (3 310), Metalwork and Machinery (3 200), Science Education (2 530) and Construction (2 000). Nearly half of all exits from Switzerland were composed of foreign workers (27 400). According to the Federal Office of Statistics, the stock of foreign workers in 2000 (employed or unemployed) was 885 800 or 22.6% of the Swiss labour force (3 915 000), up 3.5% on 1999 (see Table III.31). Removing seasonal workers (12 560) and cross-border workers (156 000) from the stock figure yields 717 275 active foreign residents (either employed or unemployed). The number of seasonal, cross-border and foreign resident workers increased respectively by 31.6%, 7.7% and 2.3%. Seasonal workers are best counted at their peak in the summer months, when they are most required in the sectors where they are dominant (e.g., hotel/restaurant, construction). In August 2000, the number of seasonal workers stood at 31 000 (or 3.5% of the total foreign workforce). The majority of foreigners in the labour force are men (62.8% or 556 120) and the main countries represented are Italy (24%), France (12.8%), Germany (11.3%) and Portugal (9.3%). In 2000, the 15 to 64 foreign resident participation rate was almost similar to the one for Swiss nationals and close to 81%, but it varies considerably by nationality. Unemployment rates among all foreign workers aged 15 to 64 (5.6%) remains significantly over that of Swiss nationals, despite a low overall rate (2.7%). 4.

Policy developments


Due to economic prosperity and growth during 2000, the service sector (especially entrepreneurial and hi-tech companies) and low-skilled employment areas (e.g., agriculture and construction) faced a critical © OECD 2003

Switzerland

shortage of labour. The Swiss government responded by temporarily increasing quotas for short stay and temporary permits, a first since 1991. The law on temporary residency and settlement of foreigners, dating from 1931, is being revised to establish regulations for non-EU and non-EFTA nationals. While EU and EFTA nationals will maintain a priority in terms of employment, the new law also proposes to grant work-related permits with priority given to migrants with a high propensity for socio-economic integration or with professional competencies. The law is also designed to improve foreigners’ legal status: the legal obstacles to changing profession, job or canton will be reduced and the right to family reunion will be extended to all residence permit holders. Having been approved by the cantons, this law should be submitted to the Swiss parliament and voted upon during 2002. A comprehensive revision of the framework law on the residence and settlement of foreigners, dating from 1931, is also currently being discussed. In addition, the Swiss authorities implemented a programme designed to regularise the situation of certain categories of foreigner. In March 2000, they decided to temporarily admit different groups of people who could be given asylum as well as foreigners who entered Switzerland before 31 December 1992, on condition that they were suffering serious personal distress. Approximately 13 000 persons, mostly from Sri Lanka, were affected by this programme in 2000. In September 2000, the Federal Council passed an ordinance, effective 1 October 2001, which primarily deals with providing federal subsidies to assist the integration of foreigners. Eligible projects must meet a list of six priorities and the allocated budget for projects in 2001 was 10 million SFr. The established project priorities in order of priority are: • Promotion of linguistic competencies, especially those which additionally promote other innovative integration activities. • Work development and training to key persons (e.g., translators, mediators, youth workers, sports trainers) to promote an inter-cultural work environment. • Increase in participation of foreigners in civil society (including social and public activities). • Implementation of projects at national level by co-financing activities relating to, for example, education, research and publishing. • Subsidies to regional institutions promoting and developing integration. • Development of national standards and evaluation tools with the assistance of regional partners and the Federal Commission on Foreigners. The government is finally pushing ahead with a programme to improve the health of immigrants in Switzerland as part of efforts to promote integration. The four-year programme, which will cost SFr 26 million ($17.2 million), includes education of medical staff treating immigrant patients, as well as prevention projects and information campaigns. Naturalisation The law on naturalisation was revised in order to facilitate the acquisition of Swiss nationality. Specifically, the considerations are to facilitate the naturalisation of second-generation immigrants raised in Switzerland and of third-generation immigrants born in Switzerland. In addition, the minimum residency requirement could be decreased from 12 to 8 years for ordinary naturalisation. Having received approval by the cantons, the proposed law should be submitted to parliament and voted upon sometime in 2002. Switzerland will also significantly lift the ceiling on the number of annual naturalizations that the country accords, which in recent years have been limited to 30,000. In a first phase, the annual number should rise to between 35,000 to 40,000 during the first year alone. Refugees and asylum A partial revision of the Asylum Law is planned to adapt to changes in the asylum context, to become compatible with European standards and to expedite administrative procedures. In August 1999, the situation © OECD 2003

267


of Kosovan refugees was such that a temporary ban was imposed on the ability of refugees to work if they arrived after September 1, 1999; the ban was lifted in August 2000. International agreements Bilateral agreement between Switzerland and EU member states for the free movement of persons (for residency and work purposes) came into force in June 2002. The treaty will gradually lead to complete freedom of movement between Switzerland and the EU, and is expected to pave the way for Switzerland’s accession to the Schengen/Dublin agreements. Swiss nationals will be granted full right to work and settle in EU countries from June 2004 but EU nationals will have to wait until sometime between 2004 and 2014. The Swiss parliament needs to vote on ratifying two UN documents supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime: the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. The Swiss government signed these documents in late 2000.

268

© OECD 2003

Turkey

TURKEY Introduction The Turkish economy recovered in 2000 as GDP grew by 7.4% but this outcome has been totally eclipsed by a severe contraction in 2001. Growth rate of GDP is estimated to reach 1.8% in 2002. The government managed to satisfy the performance criteria of the previous agreements with the Bretton Woods Institutions and was able to negotiate a new agreement, with the result that Turkey is now the largest debtor of the IMF. The official unemployment rate has gone up for the third consecutive year from 6.7% in 1998 to 8.4% in 2001. The economical and political turmoil in neighbouring countries is believed to have contributed to Turkey becoming a country of immigration, although 6% of the total population resides abroad. It should be noted that the availability of data only allows for rough estimates. 1.


Emigration Most emigrants leave Turkey for Western European countries in the context of family reunion with Turks already established abroad, mainly in France, Germany and the Netherlands. The total number of emigrants is estimated to have declined from over 100 000 by the mid-1990s to 60 000 early in 2000. Other dominant forms of emigration are asylum seeking and undocumented labour emigration. Annual flows of asylum seekers from Turkey to Europe are estimated at 23 500 for 2000, a 22% increase on the previous year (11.9% on 1998). In 1999, most of the Turkish nationals seeking asylum went to countries where a considerable number of Turks had already settled, namely Germany (55%), France (8%), Switzerland (8%) and the Netherlands (3%). Project-tied, regular emigration occurs through labour contracts abroad, which Turks may obtain through the Turkish Employment Office (TEO). There has been a considerable decline in the number of workers sent abroad by the TEO. In 2000, 13 645 nationals were involved in project-tied or contract-tied labour emigration, which implies a decrease of 59% compared to 1997. By June 2001, nearly 5 500 Turks were sent abroad by the TEO, which appears to confirm the downward trend. In 2000, more than half (52%) were sent to the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and nearly one-fifth (18%) went to Arab countries. The rest were sent to the EU (17%, of which 90% to Germany), and Israel (10%). Overall, the Russian Federation, Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan were the main receiving countries. A new phenomenon for the region is independent emigration of highly qualified professional workers, predominantly in the field of computer science, finance and management. An estimated 1 000 persons were involved in 2000. Inward and outward flows of foreigners Immigration into Turkey, which has been gaining importance in recent decades, consists largely of refugees and asylum seekers, transit migrants and clandestine workers. Thousands of migrants have passed through Turkey in the past two decades as temporary residents, coming from countries such as Iraq, Egypt, Morocco, Ghana and Afghanistan in order to find their way into the developed countries in North and Western Europe. Restrictive immigration policies of the EU may cause an increase in the share of migrants who wish to settle in Turkey. In 2000, approximately 270 000 people entered Turkey, one-third of them illegally (see Table III.32). Among this total, 168 000 foreigners were granted a residence permit for a duration of at © OECD 2003

269


Table III.32.

Immigration to Turkey, 1998-2001 Thousands

Residence permit (including ethnic Turks) By reason of immigration Work Study Other (mainly ethnic Turks) Asylum application of which: Iran Iraq Afghanistan Undocumented migration Illegal entries Overstayers

1998

1999

2000

2001

..

..

168.1

173.11

.. .. ..

.. .. ..

24.2 24.6 119.3

21.4 22.1 129.6

6.8

6.6

5.7

4.22

2.0 4.7 ..

3.8 2.5 ..

3.9 1.6 0.1

2.9 0.8 0.3

29.4 .. ..

31.6 .. ..

94.6 51.4 43.2

58.53 32.8 25.7

1. Permits issued from 1 January to 31 August 2001. 2. Asylum applications received from 1 January to 31 October 2001. 3. Undocumented migrants apprehended from 1 January to 31 August 2001. Sources: UNHCR and Ministry of the Interior.

least one month, among whom the vast majority (72%) are ethnic Turks. A total of 61 000 permits were given to people from Bulgaria, 11 000 to Azerbaijanis, 7 000 to Greeks, 7 000 to immigrants from the Russian Federation and over 6 000 to US residents. By August 31, 2001 already 173 000 residence permits had been granted, indicating a vast increase compared to the year before. More recently, migration of professional and skilled migrants is increasing and data, as yet, are not available. Illegal migration Irregular migration flows take three main forms. The first and largest group is of undocumented migrants from various countries in the Middle East (Iran and Iraq), from Asia (mainly Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka) and Africa (Nigeria, Somalia and Congo). These migrants often see Turkey as a transit zone in an attempt to travel to the wealthier regions of Europe. Secondly, are the immigrants in search of employment who come from mainly the Eastern European countries (Romania and the Republic of Moldova). Many of these people enter the country legally but fail to renew their visa or overstay the maximum authorised duration. The final group is that of rejected asylum seekers who are reluctant to return to their home countries and become lost in the system. The number of undocumented migrants who have been intercepted, has been steadily increasing since 1995 (11 400 compared to 94 600 in 2000). The top ten source countries in 2000 were Iraq (19%), Afghanistan (10%), the Republic of Moldova (9%), Iran (9%), Pakistan (5%) Romania (5%), the Russian Federation (5%), the Ukraine (5%), Georgia (3%) and Bangladesh (3%). The estimated number of illegal entries up until 1 September 2001 (58 500) appears to confirm this upward trend (see Table III.32). Refugees and asylum-seekers

270

Turkey is de facto a country of asylum, even if the Turkish authorities do not welcome those seeking asylum. In the last six years, Turkey has received 5 000 to 6 000 asylum applications every year. For the period 1997-2000, applications for asylum came mainly from Iraq, Iran and – more recently – Afghanistan. Applications from Iran increased from 1 700 in 1997 to 3 900 in 2000; by October 31, 2001, 2 900 applications had been filed. The number of applications from Iraq has been decreasing steadily from 3 300 in 1997 to 1 600 in 2000; the 800 applications made during the first ten months of 2001 appears to confirm this trend. Inversely, asylum applications from Afghanistan rose substantially in 2001 (see Table III.32). © OECD 2003

Turkey

2.


Numerical trends No recent data exists on the stocks of foreigners. According to the 1990 Census on population, 1.1 million of those foreign-born were living in Turkey, representing 2% of the total population. Of this total, 50.5% were women. The main countries of origin were Bulgaria (40.7%), the former Yugoslavia (16.1%), Germany (15.5%), Greece (8.9%) and Iraq (2.4%). Naturalisations In 2000, the number of foreign nationals applying for Turkish citizenship totalled 7 159. In addition to this figure, 17 000 applications made in previous years were processed. 3.


Labour migration traditionally takes the form of emigration, with, in 2000, an estimated 3.6 million nationals residing abroad. Of this total, 3.2 million were living in Europe – of which 2.1 million in Germany, 124 000 in Arab countries, 52 000 in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and 215 000 in Australia, Canada and the United States. Of all nationals living abroad in 2000, one-third had emigrated for reasons of employment. This was equal to 5.15% of the Turkish labour force. Migration for employment and work permits Of the 168 000 residence permits granted in 2000, 14% were given for reasons of study and another 14% for reasons of employment. The vast majority of those permits remaining were granted to ethnic Turks, most of whom are thought to be working in Turkey. 4.

Policy developments

Measures to combat the employment of undocumented foreigners As a measure against the rapid increase in the incidence of employment of undocumented foreigners, the Government Annual Plan for 2001 sets out changes in the legislation for work permits. The plan in draft form aims to centralise the processing of work permit applications through the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. In an attempt to combat the employment of illegal workers, fines will be imposed; 2.5 billion Turkish Lire for employers and 500 million Turkish Lire for employees.

271

© OECD 2003


UNITED KINGDOM Introduction In the past year, the UK economy has continued to grow, albeit at a slower rate. GDP growth was 2.1% between the second quarter of 2000 and that of 2001. During the same period, retail sales grew at 6% while manufacturing output fell by 2.4%. The total number of people in employment rose between 2000 and 2001 from 27.6 to 28.0 million. In 2001, the unemployment rate among the 15-64 age group levelled off at 4.7%. Despite overall economic growth, evidence suggests that the UK economy is becoming less homogeneous with main dichotomies existing between the manufacturing and service sectors and between the North and South. The government has recognised that most regions report some skill shortages and has adapted a more positive approach to labour immigration. In 2000, the growth of migration inflows (adjusted figures) was weaker than in 1999. Net migration for 2000 was 184 000, up only 1.4% from 1999. The number of asylum applications continued to rise, albeit at a lower rate than in 1999, to 80 300 (98 900, including dependants) and declined in 2001 to 70 100 (88 300 with dependants). The recorded number of illegal entrants against whom enforcement action was taken more than doubled from 21 100 (1998) to 50 600 (2000) partly due to greater enforcement policies. 1.


The International Passenger Survey, a sample of passengers’ long term intentions, provides the UK migration data. The 2000 inflow (482 000) was 7% higher than in 1999 and the outflow (299 000) was higher by 11%. Net gain in 2000 (184 000) also included substantial numbers of asylum and visitor switchers (see Table III.33). The IPS data for 2000 show that the United Kingdom continues to attract immigrants at a historically high level. Evidence points to a continuation of economic migration into the United Kingdom, as mostly young migrants are attracted to the strong economic growth and the flexibility of the UK labour market. Emigration of British workers, especially professionals and managers, has increased. Overall, the pattern of flows in 2000 is very similar to 1999. Movements of nationals Generally, net migration of British citizens since 1996 has been negative, except for 1998 when it reached 110. According to adjusted data, in 2000 net migration of British citizens was 4.6 times higher than in 1999, reaching –46 800: 152 000 left the United Kingdom while 105 150 returned. Between 1996 and 2000, adjusted inflows of British citizens have fluctuated between 96 500 (1997) and 118 100 (1999), but consistently remain below inflows of non-nationals. British citizen outflows, which varied more sporadically, were higher than those of non-British citizens except in 1998 and 1999. In 2000, total outflow rose to 299 000, the highest figure recorded, mainly owing to a sharp rise in the outflow of British citizens to 152 000. Outflow by non-British also rose by 5 000 to 147 000. Inward and outward flows of foreigners

272

Net migration of all non-British citizens has been increasingly positive throughout the 1996-2000 period. The net flow of non-British citizens rose by 41% (to 177 600) in 1998, 6.9% in 1999 and 21.2% in 2000 to 230 200. Net flows of EU citizens have fluctuated markedly during the same period. Inflows and outflows increased for the first two years but net migration decreased significantly to 7 400 in 1999 and to 7 722 in 2000. © OECD 2003

© OECD 2003

Table III.33.

Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, United Kingdom All figures in thousands unless otherwise indicated 1997

Migration flows (adjusted figures)1 Total inflows Inflows of non-British citizens of which: EU non-EU Inflows of British citizens Total outflows Outflows of non-British citizens of which: EU non-EU Outflows of British citizens Net migration Non-British citizens of which: EU Non-EU British citizens Acceptances for settlement By region of origin Europe (excluding EU)2 America Africa Indian Sub-Continent Middle East Remainder of Asia Oceania Other By category of acceptance Accepted in own right Spouses and dependents Other Stock of total population by nationality (Labour Force survey) Total population3 British citizens Foreign nationals

1998

1999

2000

340.7 244.2

401.5 290.2

450.0 331.9

482.0 376.8

71.5 172.7 96.5 248.7 117.9

77.6 212.6 111.3 223.7 112.5

65.7 266.2 118.1 268.5 141.9

62.8 314.0 105.2 298.5 146.6

52.3 65.6 130.8 92.0 126.3

47.2 65.4 111.2 177.8 177.7

58.4 83.5 126.5 181.5 190.0

55.1 91.5 152.0 183.5 230.2

19.2 107.2 –34.3

30.5 147.3 –

7.3 182.7 –8.4

7.7 222.5 –46.8

58.7

69.8

97.1

125.1

7.6 7.8 13.2 13.1 4.2 8.4 3.1 1.4

7.3 10.8 16.1 16.4 4.2 9.5 3.7 1.8

16.0 8.5 27.0 21.4 5.6 13.1 4.1 1.4

15.1 11.5 44.5 22.7 7.1 17.7 4.9 1.6

7.6 46.2 4.9

10.3 53.0 6.4

31.7 65.2 0.2

39.9 84.9 0.3

57 870 55 796 2066

58 106 55 895 2 207

58 298 56 079 2 208

58 425 56 065 2 342

1997

Total grants of citizenship in the United Kingdom by previous country or region of nationality Indian sub-continent Africa Asia Middle East Remainder of Asia Europe European Economic Area Remainder of Europe America Oceania Other

1998

1999

2000

37.0 8.5 8.0 6.9 2.8 4.1 4.3 1.5 2.8 3.5 1.4 4.3

53.5 14.6 12.9 10.7 4.3 6.4 5.9 1.3 4.6 5.2 1.6 2.5

54.9 14.8 12.9 10.9 4.7 6.2 7.3 1.7 5.6 5.4 1.5 2.2

82.2 22.1 21.9 15.8 6.6 9.1 11.4 2.1 9.4 7.0 1.7 2.3

Asylum seekers (Total applications received) 32.5 By region of origin Europe 9.1 Africa 9.5 America 2.8 Asia 8.6 Middle East 2.3 Other 0.1 According to the place where the application was received (%) At port 51.1 In country 48.9

46.0

71.2

80.3

17.8 12.4 1.0 11.9 2.8 0.1

28.3 18.4 2.0 17.5 4.2 0.8

22.9 17.9 1.4 23.2 14.4 0.4

50.9 49.1

59.0 41.0

32.3 67.7

20.0 14.4 31.2

21.1 16.5 34.9

23.0 21.2 37.8

50.6 47.3 46.7

42.4

48.6

52.4

85.6

20.7 21.7 31.7 9.6 4.0 0.1 2.6 15.4

23.8 24.8 37.5 10.2 5.7 0.3 3.4 18.0

21.9 30.5 42.0 9.7 5.7 2.3 3.8 20.5

30.4 55.2 64.6 12.7 12.3 6.8 5.7 27.2

26 446 25 497 949

26 736 25 696 10 39

27 025 26 018 1 005

27 568 26 460 1 107

Illegal immigration statistics Persons against whom enforcement action taken of which: Illegal entry action4 Total persons removed from the UK5 Total work permit applications approved Total (including trainees)6 of which: Short-term Long-term Total work permits and first permissions United States India Philippines Australia and New Zealand Other countries Total stock of employment7 Total British citizens Foreign nationals

273

United Kingdom

1. Data are from the International Passenger Survey. Movements between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom are not recorded. Data for 2000 are provisional. Data include adjustments for asylum seekers and for persons admitted as short-term visitors who are subsequently granted an extension of stay for other reasons. 2. An acceptance of settlement is not required for EU citizens. 3. Including not stated nationality. 4. Illegal entrants detected and persons issued with a notice of intention to deport or recommended for deportation by a court. 5. Including “volontary” departures after enforcement action was initiated. 6. Including extensions and changes of employment. 7. Data are from the national Labour Force Survey. Sources: International Passenger Survey; Home Office Statistical Bulletin; Control of Immigration Statistics; National Labour Force Survey.


Net migration of other non-British citizens has considerably increased throughout this period. Inflows have increased since 1996 at an average rate of 19%, while outflows trends have been more sporadic, ranging from a slight decrease in 1998 to a 28% increase the following year. Illegal migration Detection procedures of illegal immigration have become increasingly effective. In 2000, the total number of persons against whom enforcement action was initiated more than doubled to 50 580. Among this total 47 300 illegal entrants (entering by deception or clandestinely) were detected and issued with a notice of intention to deport. This was more than twice the figure of 21 100 detected in 1999. This compares with the 14 000 annual average for the 1995-98 period. In 2000, the total number of persons who were refused entry at ports, subsequently removed or who were removed after enforcement action, was 46 600, compared to 37 800 in 1999 and 23 500 in 1990. The total number of people removed from the United Kingdom under enforcement powers (including those who left voluntarily after action had been initiated) increased to 8 400 in 2000 compared with 6 500 in 1999 and 4 300 in 1990. The general trend in removals reflects the increasing proportion of persons subject to enforcement action who subsequently applied for asylum. Many of these persons are awaiting a decision on this application or are proceeding through the appeals process and therefore, are not currently removable. Refugees and asylum-seekers Applicants who do not fully meet the 1951 Geneva Convention and its 1967 Protocol criteria, but for whom it would be unreasonable to enforce return to their home country, may be granted “exceptional leave to remain” (ELR), a yearly renewable status. ELR status holders can apply for settlement (equivalent to permanent resident status) after seven years, while those with refugee status have leave to remain for four years before applying for settlement. Statistics of asylum applications and decisions do not normally include special refugee programmes, including designated refugees with special situations or non-applicants remaining on an exceptional basis (e.g., Yugoslavian citizens). Three Asylum Acts (1993, 1996 and 1999) were passed to reduce the level of applications which had reached 44 840 (excluding dependants) in 1991. Yet, between 1992 and 2000, the mean (and median) yearly increase in asylum applications was nearly 13%, fluctuating from –45% (1992) to +55% (1999). In 2000, the number of asylum applications was 80 315 (99 000 with dependants), 12.9% more than in 1999. Applicants were distributed geographically: 29% from Asia, 28% from Europe, 22% from Africa and 18% from the Middle East. Compared with 1999, large increases occurred in the number of applicants from Iran, Iraq and China, compensating for large falls in those from the former Yugoslavia and Somalia. Applications in 2001 totalled 70 100 (88 300 with dependants). Main countries of origin are Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia. Family reunification Between 1986 and 2000, acceptances for settlement under the auspices of spouses and dependants (i.e., at time of arrival and later reunited) fluctuated significantly: they increased in 1990 (23%) and 1991 (11%), decreased in 1992 (–4%) and 1994 (–2%), and have increased yearly since 1995 (except for a 5% drop in 1997). Most recently, accepted settlements increased in 1999 by 23% and in 2000 by 30%. The importance of the Indian sub-continent (ISC) in family reunification and accompanying family remains clear. Nearly 30% of all wives and 40% of all husbands were from the ISC. While refugees have the right to family reunion once their status is confirmed, those with ELR do not have this right until four years after arrival. 2.


Numerical trends 274

The number of people accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom in 2000 reached a historic high (125 000), increasing by 29% on 1999 (see Table III.33). The increase was mainly caused by a significant rise in © OECD 2003

United Kingdom

the number of recognised refugees and persons granted ELR. More than 70% of all settlement grants were attributed to persons below age 35. 2000 saw significant increases in acceptances from Africa (up 17 400 to 44 500), Asia excluding the ISC (up 6 150 to 24 800), and the ISC (up 1 290 to 22 700), Oceania and the Americas. In contrast, figures for Europe outside the EEA fell by 880 to 15 100. The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is the only source of data on the stock of the foreign population and workforce in the United Kingdom. Due to its small sample size, however, disaggregating data by nationality and migrant characteristics remains cursory. During the 1992-97 period, the stock of foreign nationals in the United Kingdom fluctuated around 2 million DM. This level has been exceeded since 1997 and was at 2.6 million in 2001 (10.5% rise). The sharpest rise has been seen among citizens from the United States (+30%), Ireland (+8%) and Italy (+7.5%). The Irish remained the largest national group in 2001, where they accounted for 17% of the foreign population. US citizens now represent the second largest group. Other large foreign groups include citizens from India, Italy, France, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Naturalisations The number of applications for British citizenship overall has been rising since 1989, the annual growth averaging around 7% over the last five years, to reach 68,000 in 1998 declining slightly to 67 000 in 1999 and 63 700 in 2000. In 2000, 82 210 were granted citizenship (50% more than in 1999) and 6 850 applications were refused. The most frequent basis for grant of citizenship continues to be residency duration in the United Kingdom as it accounted for 43% of all grants in 2000. Grants based on marriage, numbering 18 900 in 1999, rose to 27 400, or 35% of all grants. ISC citizens comprised 27% of all accepted grants in 2000 and the rest of Asia and the Middle East, 19%. Citizens from Africa received 21 923 citizenship grants (or 27% of all grants), a 70% increase on 1999. 3.


Migration for employment and work permits The observed trend of an opening UK labour market continues in 2000 and 2001. The number of foreign nationals working in the United Kingdom fluctuated between 850 000 and 900 000 between 1993 and 1996. Having since risen strongly to exceed one million for the first time in 1998 (3.9% of total employment), the number of foreign workers reached 1.1 and 1.2 million respectively in 2000 and 2001. Nearly 41% of foreign workers were from other EU countries. The non-EU portion of the workforce, though, increased between 1999 and 2000 by nearly 100 000, supplementing a static foreign workforce from the EU. 2001 saw an increase in both portions, EU foreign employment by 6.7% and non-EU by 13.9%. Comparing the number of work permit holders accepted for settlement with the number of long-term work permits issued four years previously suggests that, in the 1986-2000 period, only one quarter of longterm work permit holders have applied for and been accepted for settlement. Thus, for the most part, the work permit system is characterised by a turnover of labour. Professional and managerial (PM) workers continue to account for the majority of employed migrants. The net gain of PM workers in 1999 was 33 500 and 35 000 in 2000. In contrast, the net gain of manual and clerical workers fell sharply to 7 900 in 1999 and to 5 000 in 2000. Analysis of occupation by citizenship shows that more incoming PM workers were non-British. Work permits Applications for work permits are made by the employer on behalf of non-EEA employees for a specific post. Work permit applications between 1995 and 2000 have increased dramatically from 38 600 to 93 600. Approvals have increased in numbers and as a proportion of applications (excluding withdrawals and transferrals): approval rates rose from 87.2% in 1995 to 94.4% in 2000. An analysis of the industries to which the 64 600 work permits (including first permissions) were granted in 2000 reveals that two industries dominated: Health and medical services (22.5%) and Computer services © OECD 2003

275


(19.7%) were responsible for 27 250 work permits. Administrative, business and management services (14%) and Financial services (10.8%) were the other major industries. Health care professionals accounted for 40% of all permits to South Africans and nearly all of those to persons from the Philippines. Nearly half of all permits to Indians were for computer analysts and programmers. Some noticeable shifts have occurred in the countries of origin of work permit recipients. The proportion granted to US citizens in 2000 fell to 19.6%, though it still tops the list of recipients. The second and third groups are respectively India and the Philippines (see Table III.33). The proportion of permits issued to Japanese citizens continued its decline (4.1%) whilst the Philippines increased their share from 5.4% in 1999 to 10.5% in 2000, tripling the number of grants received in 1999. Work permit issues are heavily concentrated in a small number of occupational groups. The demand for foreign (non-EEA) labour is focused on a relatively narrow range of skills. Some skills are required in certain sectors of the economy only, for example, in health, education, finance and entertainment. Others, like computing employees, engineers and technologists, are needed across the economy as well as in specialised (e.g. IT) firms. Seasonal workers The United Kingdom allows seasonal workers (governed by a quota currently set at 15 400) for agricultural labourers for a maximum period of three months. The scheme has grown in importance, with the number of workers admitted rising from less than 3 600 in 1992 to 10 100 in 2000. After a period in which the geographical pattern by origin changed little after the scheme started, there now seems to be a marked shift eastward in Europe. Nearly all seasonal workers (97%) are from Central and Eastern Europe. Most seasonal workers used to be male, but their proportion has fallen from 67% in 1992 to 45.3% in the first half of 2000. Working Holiday makers Commonwealth citizens aged between 17 and 27 wishing to work in the United Kingdom for limited periods are exempt of a work permit and fall under the working holidaymakers scheme. The annual number employed in this category rose from 23 200 in 1990 to 45 800 in 1999; it is currently at 38 400 in 2000. In the 1990s, most working holidaymakers (97%) originate from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa. Australians form the largest group (44% in 2000) and South Africans, increasing in importance, are the second largest group (25% in 2000). 4.

Policy developments

The UK government has planned a major reform of the asylum and immigration system with the introduction of a national network of induction, accommodation and removal centres for asylum seekers. The system is expected to ensure swifter processing and tracking of claims with the introduction of robust monitoring, reporting and removal procedures. Wider action is planned to offer legal work routes for economic migrants and improved integration for refugees. Admission and residence (including integration measures) A new scheme announced late 2001 plans to target highly skilled migrants, allowing those with exceptional skills to apply for entry into the United Kingdom to conduct a job search. Immigration rules will be changed to allow graduates completing a degree from British Universities to stay on in the United Kingdom if they obtain a work permit (as already occurs in a substantial number of cases). The Home Secretary will explore with employers and trade unions the expansion of the work permit system to meet skill shortages (for both full-time and temporary workers). Proposals on this issue will be developed in 2002.

276

As of 5 November 2001, “Work Permits (UK)” launched a pilot initiative to issue work permits to employers in the teaching sector. The initiative expects to review how to issue work permits to agencies across a number of sectors with labour shortages. © OECD 2003

United Kingdom

As of November 2001, the Multiple Entry Work Permit category will enable employers to apply for a permit to allow their current or future employees from abroad to enter Britain regularly, for short periods, without having to apply for a separate permit each time. The scheme will increase the flexibility of work permit arrangements whilst shortening and simplifying the process for these employers. Refugees and asylum In the context of the reforms to the asylum system outlined above, Induction Centres will be created to accommodate new asylum applicants for two to ten days, enabling screening and health checks. Accommodation centres, subject to successful trialling, will then house the asylum seekers, offering full board, education and health facilities, thereby removing the need for vouchers. These will be superseded by autumn 2002 by new systems of financial support, with accommodation centres (subject to trial) making them unnecessary. Those refusing places in accommodation centres will not be eligible for any further support. The centres will have open access but applicants will be required to reside there while their application is being considered. All asylum seekers will be issued with new identity smart cards by the end of 2002. Removal Centres would house those who are about to be removed from the country (4 000 places are planned). The National Asylum Support Service began supporting asylum seekers in April 2000 (27 600 sought support between April and December 2000). It assists with accommodation and voucher provision and disperses those receiving support throughout the United Kingdom. Its responsibility for such dispersal will continue subject to reforms to improve its functioning. The capacity of the adjudication system will be increased by 50% in order to handle the backlog of pending applications. Measures to combat the employment of undocumented foreigners The UK Government plans to bring forward proposals to take stronger action against illegal employment, including increasing the removal of illegal immigrant workers. Forthcoming legislation is also proposed against people trafficking. International agreements The United Kingdom has a commitment to explore taking United Nations-nominated refugees directly into the country as part of a Europe-wide agreed scheme.

277

© OECD 2003


UNITED STATES Introduction The economy of the United States experienced significant shocks during the year 2001. The standardised unemployment rate, which stood at just 4.0% at the end of 2000, rose steadily throughout the first eight months of 2001, reaching 4.9% in August. Widespread repercussions of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon pushed national unemployment to 5.8% by year’s end and the unemployment rate has remained around this level during the first half of 2002. The role of foreign nationals in the September 11 attacks compounded public concerns about labour and immigration policies. Although this terrorism has already had and will continue to have significant impacts on the operations of the US immigrant admissions system, the debate has largely been focused on security and not on whether the United States should continue to admit immigrants. 1.


The number of permanent immigrants admitted to the United States rose by nearly one-third between 1999 and 2000. This increase, however, did not result from any major changes in admissions criteria or numerical limitations. Rather, the increase was due to efforts to reduce the backlog of permanent immigrant applications from persons already in the United States on either temporary visas or in illegal status. A processing backlog had developed in 1994 and had grown throughout the remainder of the decade, keeping permanent immigration levels to the United States artificially low. The backlog-reduction effort now underway is likely to result in higher levels of permanent immigration in the future, perhaps resulting in more than one million immigrants in 2001. Inward and outward flows of foreign born Migrants into the United States can be divided into three main streams: i) “immigrants” who are persons granted permanent residence and who are eligible for eventual US citizenship, ii) “nonimmigrants” who are persons admitted temporarily for a specific purpose, and iii) illegal migrants. In 2000, 849 807 persons were granted immigrant status, an increase of more than 31% over the 646 568 immigrants in 1999. Immigration levels have fluctuated significantly during the past decade. These fluctuations have occurred despite the fact that the US immigrant admissions system has remained virtually unchanged since 1992. Nonetheless, the legalisation program created in 1986 legislation contributed to a record 1 827 000 persons receiving immigrant status in 1991. The echo effects of this program, i.e., these immigrants sponsoring additional family members, continue to be felt, particularly in 1996 when nearly 916 000 immigrants were admitted. However, immigration declined during the period 1996-99, largely as a result of increasing backlogs in the processing of applications. Permanent immigrant status is granted primarily on the grounds of family reunion (68.6% of the total in 2000). In 2000, immigrants entering based on employment (including accompanying family members) accounted for a further 12.6% of the total, and those accepted on humanitarian grounds (i.e., refugees and asylees) accounted for 7.8%. Immigrants admitted under the diversity program accounted for an additional 6.0%, and the remaining 5.0% were admitted under a large number of other immigration provisions. It must be stressed that the figures available on the number of new immigrants do not reflect the total number of new entries into the United States. The possibilities for students, temporary workers, or other temporary immigrants to transform their temporary status into permanent immigrant status are numerous. For example, in 2000 more than half (52%) of new immigrants had already been living in the United States. 278

Mexico continues by far to be the principal country of origin, accounting for over 20% of all legal permanent immigration in 2000. In contrast, the next largest sending countries were the People’s China, The © OECD 2003

United States

Philippines, and India, each accounting for 5% of US immigration flows. In 2000, six States (California, New York State, Florida, Texas, New Jersey and Illinois) received nearly two-thirds (66%) of these new immigrants. Collection of data on emigration from the United States was discontinued in 1957 due to serious weaknesses in the data. On the basis of secondary evidence, it now appears that emigration is a large and growing component of US population change. As a result, the US Census Bureau has recently begun to project annual emigration based on the age and sex of the foreign-born population. For 2001 and 2002, the Census Bureau has projected emigration from the United States at 293 000 and 298 000, respectively. Illegal migration All those who have illegally crossed the border into the United States or who have failed to respect the terms of their temporary visa are classified as illegal immigrants. The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that visa overstayers accounted for nearly 41% of all illegal immigrants in 1996. There has been considerable reassessment of the size of the illegal population in the United States. It is now believed that this population more than doubled between 1990 and 2000. US Census Bureau officials were surprised to find that the enumerated US population in 2000 was 6 million larger than experts had anticipated. Initial research quickly identified the principal cause of this disparity as unauthorised migration. The US Census Bureau now estimates that in April 2000 there were about 8.5 million unauthorised residents of the United States. With regard to nationalities represented, it had been previously estimated in 1996 that Mexicans accounted for over half (54%) of all illegal immigrants, followed a long way behind, by nationals of El Salvador (7%) and Guatemala (3%). But the release of the 2000 Census by country of nativity should shed further light on the number and composition of the illegal population in the United States. Refugees and asylum-seekers In each year from 1998 to 2000, migrants entering as refugees and asylum seekers have been the third largest group of immigrants into the United States, after those admitted on the basis of family reunion and employment. The law defines and treats persons fleeing persecution differently depending on whether they have applied for asylum in the United States (asylum seekers) or from outside (refugees). Both groups can eventually adjust to immigrant status: refugees are eligible after being in the country for one year, but successful asylum seekers must often wait longer as the number of adjustments to immigrant status is limited to 10 000 per year. Every year, the US Congress sets a ceiling on the number of refugees to be allowed into the United States. The ceiling is not strictly a quota since it can be revised during the year (for example, the ceiling was adjusted upwards in August 1999 because of the Kosovo crisis), but nonetheless this figure and the actual number of refugees admitted are closely correlated. The ceiling for 2002 was set at 70 000 entries, the lowest level in 15 years. The ceiling also contains a regional breakdown, although it is possible for transfers to be made from one region to another during the year if this is considered to be necessary. In 2002, Africa received the highest regional ceiling (22 000), followed by the former Soviet Union (17 000). Family reunion Family reunion, the principal component of permanent immigration into the United States, accounted for over two-thirds (69%) of all immigrants in 2000. It is composed of two categories: i) Immediate family members comprising spouses and unmarried minor children (including adoptions) of US citizens and parents of adult US citizens. This category does not have a numerical limit and accounted for nearly 41% of permanent immigration in 2000; and ii) Family-based preference immigrants comprising other family members, i.e., the adult children and the brothers and sisters of US citizens and the spouses and unmarried children of earlier arrived immigrants. There are four family “preference” categories, each subject to a numerical limit. In 2000, family-based preference immigrants accounted for nearly 28% of immigration. © OECD 2003

279


2.


Numerical trends Data collection on the foreign-born population in the United States from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS) was launched in January 1994. This survey provides a second source of information on the foreign born, supplementing the ten-year census. Census data on the foreign born from the 2000 Census are not yet available for the entire country. Between 1970 and 2000, the foreign-born population in the United States increased much more rapidly than the native population. It rose from 9.6 million to 28.4 million, and its proportion of the total population doubled – it now accounts for over 10% of the total US population. The geographical origin of the foreign-born population in the United States has changed considerably since the 1970s. While European-born immigrants accounted for nearly 60% of the total foreign-born population in 1970, they accounted for only 15% in 2000. Many of the earlier-arriving European cohorts have entered old age and have begun to experience high mortality rates, whereas recent migration flows from other regions have accelerated. Today, Latin America and Asia account for the largest share of the foreign born, 51% and 26%, respectively. Naturalisations To acquire US nationality, it is necessary to meet a number of conditions with regard to age, lawful entry, length of residence in the country, command of the English language, and knowledge of US history. The number of naturalisations quadrupled between 1992 and 1996 (from 240 000 to 1 045 000). Naturalisations increased for several reasons: the large number of persons receiving immigrant status under the 1986 legalisation programme became eligible, social benefits were being curtailed for non-citizens, immigrants were required to apply for new identification cards, and the Citizenship USA initiative streamlined the process. Additional quality control measures were imposed in the late 1990s and the processing of applications slowed, falling to a low of 463 000 in 1998. However, additional resources have recently been reallocated and preliminary statistics for 2000 and 2001 show naturalisations numbering 898 000 and 613 000, respectively. 3.


Migration for employment and work permits As of 1992, there is a minimum numerical annual ceiling of 140 000 for employment-based immigration which increases in years when the family-based preference ceiling has not been reached the previous year. The employment-based preference system favours the entry of highly skilled workers, with only 10 000 visas being reserved for unskilled workers and their families. Employment-based immigration in 2000 totalled 107 000 because processing backlogs prevented that year’s numerical limit of 142 000 from being reached. In 2000, employment-based permanent immigration accounted for less than 13% of all US immigration. In fact, persons admitted as workers were less than 6% of all immigration in 2000 because their spouses and unmarried minor children accounted for more than half of the visas which were utilised in the employmentbased preferences (see Table III.34). Immigration of highly skilled personnel

280

The United States also admits a large number of temporary workers categorised as “nonimmigrants”, a large proportion of whom are highly skilled workers. Analysing non-immigrant data can be very difficult and even misleading, because the statistics include multiple entries by the same person at different times. Additionally, many of these temporary workers stay in the country for more than one year. The duration of stay for H-1B non-immigrant (i.e., workers having at least a baccalaureate degree) who have applied for permanent residency was increased in 2000, from 6 years to a virtually indefinite stay until the worker’s application for © OECD 2003

United States

Table III.34.

Employment-based immigration, by preference, fiscal years 1997-2000, United States Thousands 1997

1998

1999

2000

Total, employment 1st preference Aliens with extraordinary ability Outstanding professors or researchers Multinational executives or managers Spouses and children of 1st preference

21.8 1.7 2.1 5.3 12.7

21.4 1.7 1.8 5.2 12.7

14.9 1.3 1.0 3.6 9.1

27.7 2.0 2.7 6.8 16.3

Total, employment 2nd preference Members of the professions holding advanced degrees or persons of exceptional ability Spouses and children of 2nd preference

17.1

14.4

8.6

20.3

8.4 8.7

6.9 7.5

3.9 4.6

9.8 10.5

Total, employment 3rd preference Skilled workers Baccalaureate holders Spouses and children of the above Chinese Student Protection Act Other workers (unskilled workers) Spouses and children of unskilled workers

42.6 10.6 4.0 19.2 0.1 4.0 4.7

34.3 8.5 3.9 15.6 – 2.7 3.6

28.0 7.3 2.5 13.2 – 2.1 2.9

49.7 13.7 8.8 22.7 – 2.0 2.6

Total, employment 4th preference Special immigrants Spouses and children of 4th preference

7.8 3.7 4.1

6.6 2.7 3.9

5.1 2.3 2.8

9.1 4.4 4.6

Total, employment 5th preference Employment creation, not targeted area Spouses and children of the above Employment creation, targeted area Spouses and children of the above

1.4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7

0.8 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4

0.3 – 0.1 0.1 0.1

0.2 – 0.1 – 0.1

Total, employment preferences, principals Total, employment preferences, dependents

40.3 50.3

33.8 43.7

24.1 32.7

50.1 56.9

Total, employment preferences % of total permanent settlers

90.6 11.3

77.5 11.7

56.8 8.8

107.0 12.6

Sources: US Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service.

permanent residency is processed. The main categories of temporary workers are traders and investors entering on the basis of international agreements, H-1B professionals, and intra-company transferees. The flows in other categories such as professionals entering under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), agricultural workers, and unskilled temporary workers have increased substantially in recent years. NAFTA facilitates the temporary entry of 4 groups of business persons: business visitors, investors, intra-company transferees, and professionals. The number of Canadian professionals entering the United States under NAFTA to work has grown from 25 000 in 1994 to a preliminary estimate of nearly 93 000 in 2001 (there were also an additional 19 000 family members in 2001). By contrast, the number of Mexican professionals entering under NAFTA remains low (about 2 600 per year). Whereas there is no numerical ceiling on entries from Canada, entries from Mexico are capped at 5 500 per year until 1 January 2004 when NAFTA removes all numerical limits and the requirement for US employers to pay the US prevailing wage. 4.

Policy developments

New legislation The terrorist attacks of September 11 have had and will continue to have a significant impact on the operations of US immigrant admissions system although the focus is largely on security issues. All 19 of the © OECD 2003

281


September 11 terrorists had legally entered the United States on temporary visas (mostly tourist visas, although some had business and student visas). Three had overstayed their visas. There have been many anti-terrorism immigration proposals since September 11. Some have become law, some can be implemented without the passage of legislation, and others are still in the proposal stage. On the legislative front, on October 26, 2001, President Bush signed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001. The legislation authorised the tripling of the number of INS Border Patrol agents, INS inspectors, and Customs inspectors along the Canadian border. It also authorised $50 million each to INS and Customs to make technological improvements. The law also provides for the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) to share its databases on criminals with the State Department and the INS. Definitions relating to terrorism were also broadened which enabled the Attorney General to designate 46 groups as terrorist organisations whose members and supporters would be denied entry into the United States, and if already present in the United States, to be detained and removed. The legislation also requires the implementation of a foreign student visa monitoring programme and encourages the establishment of an integrated entry and exit system. The law additionally programme contains extensive provisions to retain immigration benefits for the victims of terrorism, e.g., surviving spouses and children. New aviation security legislation signed into law by President Bush on November 19, 2001 mandates that within two months all airlines begin electronic transmission of passenger lists for flights to the United States. This Advance Passenger Information System enables the INS and the Customs Service to check the names against several databases while the flight is en route to the United States. Also, in November 2001, the State Department announced that there would be increased security checks on all male non-immigrant visa applicants between ages 16-45 from Arab or Muslim countries. This has resulted in an additional 20-day waiting period, which enables name checks against FBI databases. The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, signed into law on May 14, 2002, also instituted a number of important changes in response to September 11. Appropriations were authorised to hire additional inspectors and investigators and make important improvements in technology and infrastructure including: a law enforcement and intelligence data system accessible to all relevant agencies; an integrated entry and exit data system; and development of machine-readable tamper-proof biometric passports and visas. Other important changes included: a requirement that by October, 2004, countries in the Visa Waiver Program themselves issue tamper-proof biometric passports; implementation of a foreign student monitoring programme; and study of the feasibility of a North American National Security Program. The immigration discussions between the United States and Mexico on such subjects as legal permanent migration, expansion of temporary worker programs, safety at the border, and regularisation of the illegal population in the United States continue, although progress on this initiative has been slowed as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11. During the early months of 2002, several other new pieces of immigration legislation were signed into law. Multinational companies gained the ability to transfer employees to sites in the United States after just six months of continuous employment, reducing the former requirement of one year. For the first time, work authorisation was extended to the spouses of intracompany transferees (L visa holders) as well as spouses of traders and investors admitted through binational treaties (E visa holders). Termination of food stamp eligibility for non-citizens, mandated by 1996 legislation but partially rescinded in 1998, was further reversed by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. This law, signed by President Bush on May 13, 2002, reinstated food stamp benefits for otherwise eligible adult legal immigrants who have resided in the United States at least five years and to their children and disabled immigrants irrespective of their duration of US residence.

282

© OECD 2003

STATISTICAL ANNEX INTRODUCTION Data on the flows and stocks of migrants and related issues, such as their performance in the labour market, are derived from a wide variety of sources and the nature of these sources varies across countries. This makes the application of standardised definitions difficult and hence particular attention needs to be paid to the characteristics of the data, especially in the context of international comparisons. Section A of this annex describes the sources and methods used to generate migration statistics and is followed by presentation of data in Section B. These data are a selection from the OECDs’ database of migration statistics. Some preliminary remarks are required concerning the nature of the OECDs’ migration data. Most of the data are taken from the individual contributions of correspondents appointed by the OECD Secretariat with the approval of national governments. In this regard it should be noted that: • As discussed in the Foreword to this report, the Con ti nuous Rep orti ng System on Mi grati on (SOPEMI) covers almost all of the member countries of the OECD. • The coverage of countries in the data and the ability to construct time-series is to a certain extent affected by the dates at which countries became members of the SOPEMI network. Recent participants to SOPEMI do not necessarily provide historical data in their reports and, in addition, further clarification is sometimes required before data can be published. • SOPEMI has no authority to impose changes in data collection procedures. It has an observatory role which, by its very nature, has to use existing statistics. However, it does play an active role in suggesting what it considers to be essential improvements in data collection and makes every effort to present consistent and well documented statistics. A.

SOURCES AND COMPARABILITY OF MIGRATION STATISTICS

Compared to some other areas of statistics, such as labour force data, there exists little international standardisation of migration statistics. Consequently there are varying degrees of comparability between countries. One reason for this is that relatively few sources have as their raison d’être the recording of migration. Population registers,

© OECD 2003

a common source of migration statistics, are used for a number of other administrative and statistical purposes. As a result, tailoring registers such that migration data conform to an international standard is made more difficult. Comparability is also problematic if data are based on residence or work permits. The data reflect migration systems and the policies of national governments and so, once again, it can be difficult to generate harmonised data. Hence, although there has been some development and agreement in the definition and classification of migration for statistical purposes (see Box 1), these standards have proved difficult to implement. Aside from problems relating to international comparability, there are other difficulties with migration statistics, most notably the problem of measuring illegal immigration. Estimation is difficult and the figures that exist should be viewed, therefore, with some scepticism (see OECD, 1989). For this reason, explicit estimates of illegal immigrants have not been included in this annex. However, some stock and flow data partially incorporate illegal migration, therefore the phenomenon does not necessarily go completely unmeasured. For example, individuals may remain on population registers after their permits have expired, residing as illegal (or “undocumented”) immigrants. Finally, it should be noted that those achieving legal status under “regularisation programmes” are sometimes included in inflow data and must be taken into account when analysing trends. In addition, regularisation programs may be followed by an additional wave of immigration depending on the extent to which the acquisition of legal status allows family reunification. The following provides a brief review of the sources of migration statistics (1); this is followed by a discussion of the techniques used for measuring migration flows (2), and of data issues relating to stocks of migrants and the immigrant population (3). 1.

Sources of migration statistics

The principle sources of migration statistics are population registers, residence or work permits, censuses and surveys. However, a wide variety of other data sources (e.g. special surveys, counts at border crossings, analysis of landing cards) may sometimes be used. Table 1 provides an overview of data sources and shows that population

283


Box 1.

Definitions of migration flows and immigrant populations developed by the United Nations

Recommendations on statistics relating to international migration The United Nations, in co-operation with other international organisations, has recently revised its 1976 recommendations on statistics relating to international migration in order to 1) propose a simplified and more pragmatic definition of “international migrant” which would take into account the emerging importance of temporary migration and 2) provide guidelines for the compilation of statistical information which would fit with the new definitions (United Nations, 1998). According to the new United Nations recommandations, an international migrant is defined as “any person who changes his or her country of usual residence”. The “country of usual residence” refers to the country in which a person lives, that is to say, the country in which he or she has a place to live where he or she normally spends the daily period of rest. As a consequence, all movements which are not accompanied by a change of usual residence are not considered as migrations. For example, movements for the purpose of recreation, holiday, visits to friends and relatives, business, medical treatment or religious pilgrimage should not be considered as migrations. In order to take into account the increase in short term international movements (except tourism), long term and short term migrations have been taking into account separately: • A long-term migrant is a person who moves to a country other than that of his or her usual residence for a period of at least a year (12 months), so that the country of destination effectively becomes his or her new country of usual residence. • A short-term migrant is a person who moves to a country other than that of his or her usual residence for a period of at least 3 months but less than a year (12 months) except in cases where the movement to that country is for purposes of recreation, holiday, visits to friends and relatives, business, medical treatment or religious pilgrimage. Immigrant population The immigrant population is usually measured either as the part of the resident population who are foreign nationals, or as the part of the foreign-born in the resident population. In the latter case there are situations where individuals are difficult to classify due to changes in national boundaries. The United Nations recommends that the “foreign-born’ be defined as those born outside the country or area where the “country or area of birth’ is based on current national boundaries (or, more precisely, those that existed at the time the data were collected).

registers are commonly used as a source of flow and stock data on migration, especially in northern Europe. In other countries, data on residence permits and census data are the most common means of measuring flows and stocks of international migrants.

departures and therefore data on outflows can be less reliable. Also, there are differences in the type of migrants counted which must be taken into account in international comparisons. Permit data

Population registers

284

Population registers are accounts of residents within a country. They are typically maintained via the legal requirement that both nationals and foreigners residing in the country must register with the local authorities. Aggregation of these local accounts results in a record of population and population movement at the national level. As a result, the registers can provide data on all migrant flows (inflows and outflows of both nationals and foreigners) as well as data on stocks of foreigners and nationals. For this reason they tend to be widely used. However there are some drawbacks: individuals often fail to record their

Residence and work permit data commonly form the basis of flow statistics for countries which do not have population registers. The data are necessarily more limited in scope as they do not capture all flows and it can be difficult to use them to generate stock and outflow data as these require careful accounting of the number of permits both issued and expired. Census and household survey data Census data enable comprehensive, albeit infrequent analysis of the stock of immigrants (censuses are generally conducted every 5 to 10 years). In addition,

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table 1. Summary table on the sources of migration statistics Foreign and foreign-born population Inflows Outflows of foreigners of foreigners

Australia Austria Belgium Bulgaria Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States F R P C S E O

O F F P F F F R F R F O R F

F

F

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

F

F

O

F O F

O

Asylum seekers

F

F F

F

F O F

R

F F O P

F F O

O A O O O O O O O O O O

Stocks of Stocks foreign-born of foreign Naturalisation population population

O F

F F C

F

C F C F

F

C, S

Inflows of foreign workers

Stocks of Seasonal foreign-born workers workers

O O O

R R R

O

O

R

O

O O O O

R R R R

F S R F F F

O

R R R R

F

O

F F

C F F F C F

O O O O

Stocks of foreign workers

S R R C R F R S S

O R

R S R R R R

R

R

O R

F E R F R F F S

O

R

O

R

O O O O O

R R R R

F R

R O R

R R S R S C, S

Population register or register of foreigners. Residence or work permits (renewable). Acceptances for permanent settlement. Census. Labour Force Survey. Estimates. Other sources.

many labour force surveys now include questions about nationality and place of birth, thus providing a source of annual stock data. However, some care has to be taken with detailed breakdowns of the immigrant population from survey data as sample sizes can be very small. Inevitably, both census and survey data may under-represent migrants, especially where they tend not to be registered for census purposes, or where they do not live in private households (labour force surveys do not usually cover those living in institutions, such as reception centres and hostels for immigrants). 2.

Foreign and foreign-born labour force

Measurement of migration flows

The inflows and outflows included in this annex are all based either on population registers or on permit data. The types of f low measured di ffer qui te markedly

© OECD 2003

between these two sources and there are also differences to account for between different registers and the different types of permit used to generate the statistics. Flows derived from population registers Population registers can usually produce inflow and outflow data for both nationals and foreigners, however there are differences in the type of flows measured due to differences in the way migrants are defined in the registers. In this regard, a key condition used to define immigrants is intention to reside for more than a specified length of time. In addition, foreigners who register may have to indicate possession of an appropriate residence and/or work permit. Emigrants are usually identified by a stated intention to leave the country, however a period of (intended) absence is not typically specified.

285


Key features of migration data derived from population registers are as follows: • Departures tend to be less well recorded than arrivals, often because registration results in certain rights and benefits to the individual, whereas there is less incentive to inform authorities of departure. In order to provide more accurate figures, some countries use additional information such as host-country estimates to generate emigration data. • The rules governing entry into the register and who is defined as a migrant vary across countries. Notably, the minimum duration of stay for individuals to be defined as immigrants varies between three months and one year, implying that for some countries the data include short as well as longer term migration flows. • Asylum seekers are included in some register data but excluded from others. Inclusion typically occurs when the asylum seekers live in private households (as opposed to reception centres and hotels). In the data presented in this annex, some asylum seekers are included in the data for Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Norway. Despite these qualifications, population registers are generally regarded as a good source of migration data and are used in preference to other sources, especially in the generation of annual estimates. Flows derived from residence and work permits Countries which do not have population registers use a variety of sources to generate flow data. Inflows for Australia, the United States, Canada, and France are based on residence and/or work permits. Data for the United Kingdom are based on information from landing cards. Note that permit data usually represent the number of permits issued in a given period and have the following general characteristics: • The nature of the flows measured obviously depends on the type of permit(s) used to generate the statistic. Inflows for the so-called “settlement countries” (Australia, Canada and the United States) are calculated as the number of permanent residence permits (also known as “acceptances for settlement”) issued. In the case of France, a sum of various types of permit issued (all of limited duration) is used. • Flows of nationals are not recorded in the data and some flows of foreigners may also not be recorded, depending on the type of permit used as a basis for the statistic and also on the nature of free-circulation agreements. In France, some inflows from other EU countries are included in the data as permanent work permits are still required for EU nationals (this is a formality rather than a means of restricting entry). 286

• Permit data do not necessarily reflect physical flows or actual lengths of stay since: i) permits may be

issued overseas but individuals may decide not to use them, or delay their arrival; ii) permits may be issued to persons who have in fact been resident in the country for some time, the permit indicating a change of status, or a renewal of the same permit. The data for Australia do not include those who have been accepted for permanent settlement whilst resident in Australia, whereas data for Canada and the United States include all issues of permanent settlement permits. • Permit data may be influenced by the processing capacity of government agencies. In some instances a large backlog of applications may build up and therefore the true demand for permits may only emerge once backlogs are cleared. Estimation of net migration From the preceding discussion on flow data it is evident that some countries have readily available means to calculate net migration (e.g. through population registers) whilst others face greater difficulties and estimates must be made on the basis of a variety of sources. This annex does not contain data for the net migration of foreigners. Those data can be calculated on the basis of immigration and emigration figures. Note that for some countries, figures for total net migration (i.e. including the movement of both foreigners and nationals) are presented in the Country Notes. The OECD also publishes a series of total net migration figures in Labour Force Statistics. These are calculated as a residual from data on annual population change and natural increase. Refugees and asylum seekers Asylum seekers are usually allowed to remain in the country whilst their applications are processed. The time taken to process applications varies and it is therefore difficult to determine whether they should be counted as migrants or not. In practice, asylum seekers are not generally counted in migrant inflows unless they are subsequentl y granted asylum. However there are some countries where they are partially, or wholly included in the data. For example, asylum seekers often enter population registers because they have been resident for some time and live outside reception centres. Statistics on asylum seekers and the numbers granted asylum are usually readily available from administrative sources, however there are some differences in the type of data made available. In a number of countries, asylum seekers are only counted when their application has been approved, in which case they appear in the statistics, not according to the date of arrival but according to the date of approval (note that approval of application simply means that the application will be considered by the authorities and allows the individual certain rights as an asylum seeker whilst their application is being processed). For some countries (e.g. Switzerland), the data

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

include the dependants of the principal applicant; for certain others (e.g. France), they do not, since dependants are admitted under other provisions In addition to asylum seekers entering under the usual administrative channels there are some cases where individuals are allowed entry under exceptional circumstances and who are given other forms of status. For example, in the early 1990s, a number of European countries (e.g. Austria, and the Nordic countries) granted temporary res i den ce to th ose fleei n g co nflict in the form er Yugoslavia. Some of these individuals have been allowed to remain in these countries through renewal of permits and therefore effectively represent a group of de facto refugees. 3.

Stocks of migrants and characteristics of the immigrant population

Time series of stocks are used in conjunction with flow data to examine trends in migration. In addition, data which include socio-economic variables can be used to examine differences between immigrants and native populations. In both cases, there are differences in how “immigrants’ are defined. Definition of the immigrant population In data, the immigrant population is usually defined in one of two ways. Some countries have traditionally focused on producing data that represents foreign nationals (European countries, Japan and Korea) whilst others refer to the foreign-born (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States). This difference in focus relates in part to the nature and the history of immigration systems and legislation on citizenship and naturalisation (see Box 2). The foreign-born population can be viewed as representing first-generation migrants, and may consist of both foreign and national citizens. The size and composition of the foreign-born population is influenced by the history of migration flows and mortality amongst the foreign-born. For example, where inflows have been declining over time, the stock of the foreign-born will tend to age and represent an increasingly established community. The population of foreign nationals may represent second and higher generations as well as first-generations of migrants. The characteristics of the population of foreign nationals depend on a number of factors: the history of migration flows, natural increase in the foreign population and naturalisations. Higher generations of immigrants arise in situations where they retain their foreign citizenship even when native-born. The nature of legislation on citizenship and the incentives foreigners have to naturalise both play a role in determining the extent to which this occurs in practice. A more comprehensive view of the immigrant population is possible when both nationality and birthplace are known. This type of data is becoming increasingly available for some OECD countries and allows four sub-

© OECD 2003

populations to be examined: the foreign-born who are foreign citizens; the foreign-born who are nationals; the native born who are foreign nationals and the native born who are nationals. The first three of these groups represent the “immigrant population”, as defined either by nationality or by place of birth. Note that in some countries, such as the United States, those who are native-born but who are foreign nationals are a non-existent or negligible group as legislation is such that birth within the country usually entitles individuals to citizenship. Time series of stocks of the immigrant population Time series of stocks are generally derived either from population registers or from labour force survey or census data. In this annex, the figures for Australia, Canada France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States are based on survey, census or permit data, data for all other countries are from population registers (see Table 1). Impact of naturalisation on the development of the immigrant population Naturalisations must be taken into account in the analysis of the populations of foreigners and nationals. Also, differing approaches to naturalisation between countries must be considered when making international comparisons. In France and Belgium, for example, where foreigners can fairly readily acquire the nationality of the country, increases in the foreign population through immigration and births can eventually contribute to a significant rise in the native population. In Germany and Switzerland (see OECD, 1995), on the other hand, where naturalisation is more difficult, increases in immigration and births amongst foreigners manifest themselves almost exclusively as rises in the foreign population. In addition, changes in rules regarding naturalisation can have significant numerical effects, for example during the 1980s, a number of countries made naturalisation easier and this resulted in noticeable falls in the foreign population (and rises in the population of nationals). However, host-country legislation is not the only factor affecting naturalisation. For example, where naturalisation involves forfeiting citizenship of the country of origin, there may be incentives to remain as a foreign citizen. Where the difference between remaining a foreign citizen or becoming a national is marginal, naturalisation may largely be influenced by the time and effort required to make the application for naturalisation and the symbolic and political value individuals attach to being citizens of one country or another. Data on naturalisations are usually readily available from administrative sources. As with other administrative data, resource constraints in processing applications may result in a backlog of unprocessed applications which are not reflected in the figures.

287


Box 2. Migration systems Historically, migration systems developed alongside the evolution of nation-states and the concomitant desire to enumerate and sometimes influence the size and composition of the resident population. The need to implement immigration control is also linked to the increased numbers of individuals who are aware of attractive economic and social conditions elsewhere and able to afford the expense and risk associated with a long-term, or permanent move overseas. In some areas of the world, immigration control has also developed at an international as well as national level, creating zones of free movement, the most notable example being the European Union. Whether operating at a national or an international level, most migration systems have the following features: • The opportunity to enter the country and remain there for a limited length of time (often three months). Depending on the nationality of the entrant, a visa may or may not be required. Generally, the regulations are designed to encourage movements of individuals which provide economic benefits. Such movements include, inter alia, tourism and business travel. However, there are situations where entry may be strictly monitored. This type of movement is not regarded as migration as such and is commonly referred to as “short-term movement”. • A mechanism for spouses and close relatives of citizens or permanent residents to enter the country on a permanent basis. They may arrive as “accompanying family” at the same time as the migrant, or at a later date under what is often called “family reunion”. • A means for individuals who claim social and political persecution in their country of origin to apply for asylum. Such “asylum seekers” are usually treated on a case-by-case basis and may also have the right to remain in the country whilst their application is being processed. • Mechanisms for individuals to enter largely for the purpose of employment and business. Policies governing this type of migration may reflect purely economic considerations such as perceived labour shortages or a desire to encourage international business links. However, policy may also be influenced by diplomatic considerations as well as policies and agreements in international trade. • Means by which foreign citizens can acquire national citizenship (“naturalisation”). The ease with which this may be achieved and the incentives to do so vary across countries and may also depend on the implications of a change in legal status in the country of origin (see OECD, 1995, pp. 157-181). Beyond these general features of immigration systems, it is common to distinguish between “temporary permit” systems and “permanent residence” systems (for a more detailed classification, see OECD,1994). In temporary residence systems, characteristic of most OECD countries, initial entry to the country is typically made on the basis of a temporary residence permit and permanent status can only be granted after several years stay in the country. Only certain special groups (e.g. close relatives, refugees) are able to acquire permanent residence status on entry into the country. In permanent residence systems, typified by settlement countries (e.g. Australia, Canada and the United States), there are more channels available for individuals to enter with permanent resident status, beyond those catering for special groups. This reflects the historical, if not always current, use of migration policy as a means for populating the country. The additional channels available to immigrants take a variety of forms but are generally based on attracting individuals with certain characteristics, such as high levels of skill or experience in certain occupations. There are differences between these systems in the type of migration statistics commonly used. “Permanent residence” type countries tend to focus on acceptances for permanent settlement as an indication of inflows and on the population of foreign-born as an indication of the stock of immigrants. “Temporary permit” type countries, coincidentally, tend to have population registers and use these to focus on inflows and stocks of foreign citizens (as distinct from the foreign-born). Two notable exceptions are France and the United Kingdom who do not have population registers and rely on other sources of data.

B.

STATISTICAL SERIES

Introduction to the statistical Annex tables

288

The Tables are divided into two series. The A serie tables provide aggregate data on stock and flow statistics as well as administrative data on asylum seekers and naturali-

sations. The B serie tables present data disaggregated by country of origin (as defined either by country of birth or by nationality). As is evident from the preceding discussion on the sources and methods used to generate migration statistics, the presentation of the tables in a relatively standard format should not lead users to think that the data have been fully standardised and are comparable at an interna-

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

tional level. In order to facilitate understanding of the data, detailed notes on the sources and definitions are presented at the end of the Statistical Annex.

other tables, the nationalities or countries are ranked by decreasing order of the stocks for the last year available.

A number of general comments apply to the tables: a) The tables provide annual series for the ten most recent years (in general 1991-2000). However data relating to the stock of foreign-born population by country of birth (Tables B.1.4 and B.2.1) and of foreigners by nationality (Tables B.1.5 and B.2.2) are only given for certain years (in general 1985, 1990, 1995 and the most recent available year).

d) In the tables by country of origin (series B) only the main 15 countries are shown and only when this information is available. “Other countries” is a residual calculated as the difference between the total foreign population and the sum of the nationalities indicated in the table. For some nationalities, data are not available for all years and this is reflected in the residual entry of “Other countries”. This must be borne in mind when interpreting changes in this category.

b) Up to 1994 (inclusive), European Union (unless st at ed ot he r wi se ) re fe rs t o t he fo llo w i n g 1 2 c o u nt r i e s : B e l g i u m , D e n m a rk , F r a nc e , Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom, members of the European Union at 31 December 1994. From 1995 onwards, European Union also includes the following three countries: Austria, Finland and Sweden. c) The A series tables are presented in alphabetical order by the name of the country in English. In the

e) Tables on inflows of asylum seekers by nationality (Tables B.1.3) are presented for the top ten host countries in 2001. f)

The rounding of entries may cause totals to differ slightly from the sum of the component entries.

g) The symbols used in the tables are the following: .. Data not available. – Nil, or negligible.

289

© OECD 2003


BIBLIOGRAPHY OECD (1989), Trends in International Migration, Annual Report 1989, Paris. OECD (1994), Migration and Development; New Partnerships for Co-operation, Paris. OECD (1995), Trends in International Migration, Paris. OECD (1997), Trends in International Migration, Paris. OECD (1998), Trends in International Migration, Paris. OECD (1999), Trends in International Migration, Paris. OECD (2000), Trends in International Migration, Paris. OECD (2001), Trends in International Migration, Paris. UN (1991), 1989 Demographic Yearbook, New York. UN (1998), Recommendations on Statistics of International Migration, Revision 1, New York.

290

© OECD 2003

TABLES OF THE STATISTICAL ANNEX


Table A.1.1.

Inflows of foreign population into selected OECD countries Thousands

Inflow data based on population registers: Austria Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Finland Germany Hungary Japan Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Sweden Switzerland

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

.. 54.1 .. 17.5 12.4 920.5 23.0 258.4 10.0 84.3 16.1 43.9 109.8

.. 55.1 .. 16.9 10.4 1 207.6 15.1 267.0 9.8 83.0 17.2 39.5 112.1

.. 53.0 .. 15.4 10.9 986.9 16.4 234.5 9.2 87.6 22.3 54.8 104.0

.. 56.0 .. 15.6 7.6 774.0 12.8 237.5 9.2 68.4 17.9 74.7 91.7

.. 53.1 5.9 33.0 7.3 788.3 13.2 209.9 9.6 67.0 16.5 36.1 87.9

.. 51.9 7.4 24.7 7.5 708.0 12.8 225.4 9.2 77.2 17.2 29.3 74.3

.. 49.2 9.9 20.4 8.1 615.3 12.2 274.8 9.4 76.7 22.0 33.4 72.8

59.2 50.7 7.9 21.3 8.3 605.5 12.3 265.5 10.6 81.7 26.7 35.7 74.9

72.4 68.5 6.8 20.3 7.9 673.9 15.0 281.9 11.8 78.4 32.2 34.6 85.8

66.0 68.6 4.2 .. 9.1 648.8 .. 345.8 10.8 91.4 27.8 33.8 87.4

76.3 93.2

69.8 115.2

87.4 124.4

99.1 130.2

85.8 147.1

77.3 173.2

84.1 194.1

92.3 224.0

Inflow data based on residence permits or on other sources: Australia Permanent inflows 121.7 107.4 Temporary inflows .. .. Canada Permanent inflows 230.8 252.8 Temporary inflows 67.3 60.5 France 109.9 116.6 Greece .. .. Ireland .. .. Italy .. .. New Zealand 27.2 25.5 Portugal .. 13.7 United Kingdom .. 203.9 United States Permanent inflows 1 827.2 974.0 Temporary inflows 1 269.6 1 334.5

255.8 57.0 99.2 .. .. .. 28.9 9.9 190.3

223.9 58.9 91.5 .. 13.3 .. 36.5 5.7 193.6

212.9 60.4 77.0 .. 13.6 .. 46.7 5.0 206.3

226.1 60.9 75.5 .. 21.5 .. 58.6 3.6 216.4

216.0 63.7 102.4 .. 23.5 .. 52.0 3.3 236.9

174.1 68.1 139.5 38.2 20.8 111.0 38.7 6.5 258.0

189.8 75.5 108.1 .. 21.6 268.0 36.2 10.5 276.9

227.2 86.2 119.3 .. 24.1 271.5 38.8 15.9 288.8

904.3 1 355.4

804.4 1 468.0

720.5 1 432.6

915.9 1 636.5

798.4 ..

654.5 2 141.4

646.6 2 363.3

849.8 2 740.6

EU1

..

1 756.5

1 517.1

1 309.5

1 296.4

1 224.9

1 178.7

1 238.7

1 312.5

1 310.6

EEA1

..

1 885.7

1 643.3

1 419.1

1 400.7

1 316.4

1 273.5

1 340.4

1 430.5

1 425.8

2 057.9

1 226.8

1 160.1

1 028.3

933.3

1 142.0

1 014.4

828.6

836.4

1 077.0

North America (permanent) Note:

1.

Data from population registers are not fully comparable because the criteria governing who gets registered differ from country to country. Counts for the Netherlands, Norway and especially Germany include substantial numbers of asylum seekers. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. Above countries only (excluding Austria, Greece and Italy).

292

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table A.1.2. Outflows of foreign population from selected OECD countries Thousands 1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Outflow data based on population registers: Austria .. Belgium 35.3 Denmark 5.2 Finland 1.1 Germany 497.5 Hungary 5.9 Japan 181.3 Luxembourg 5.9 Netherlands 21.3 Norway 8.4 Sweden 15.0 Switzerland 66.4

.. 28.1 4.8 1.5 614.7 5.7 204.8 5.6 22.7 8.1 13.2 80.4

.. 31.2 4.9 1.5 710.2 5.0 200.5 5.0 22.2 10.5 14.8 71.2

.. 34.1 5.0 1.5 621.5 5.1 204.2 5.3 22.7 9.6 15.8 64.2

.. 33.1 5.3 1.5 561.1 4.5 194.4 4.9 21.7 9.0 15.4 67.5

.. 32.4 6.0 3.0 559.1 5.7 160.1 5.6 22.4 10.0 14.5 67.7

.. 34.6 6.7 1.6 637.1 6.1 176.6 5.8 21.9 10.0 15.3 63.4

44.9 36.3 7.7 1.7 639.0 6.1 187.8 6.7 21.3 12.0 14.1 59.0

47.3 36.4 8.2 2.0 555.6 6.1 198.3 6.9 20.7 12.7 13.6 58.1

44.4 35.6 .. 4.1 562.4 .. 210.9 7.1 20.7 14.9 12.1 55.8

Outflow data based on other sources: Australia .. New Zealand .. United Kingdom 102.0

48.7 .. 94.0

44.7 .. 89.0

43.4 .. 82.0

44.3 .. 74.0

45.4 .. 77.0

46.7 .. 94.0

49.5 .. 88.0

47.4 .. 130.0

50.8 15.6 137.0

Note:

For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table A.1.3.

Inflows of asylum seekers into selected OECD countries 1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

Australia Austria Belgium Bulgaria Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Japan Luxembourg Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States

13.4 16.2 17.5 0.2 37.7 0.9 13.9 3.6 28.9 438.2 2.0 0.9 – 2.6 0.1 0.1 20.3 0.8 5.2 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.1 11.7 84.0 18.0 32.3 145.5

4.9 4.7 26.4 – 21.1 2.2 14.3 2.0 27.6 322.6 0.8 0.7 0.1 1.3 0.1 0.2 35.4 0.4 12.9 0.8 1.7 – 0.1 12.6 37.6 24.7 28.0 200.4

8.1 5.1 14.6 – 20.7 1.2 6.7 0.8 26.0 127.2 1.3 0.4 0.4 1.8 0.1 0.2 52.6 0.4 3.4 0.6 0.6 – 0.1 12.0 18.6 16.1 42.2 202.4

7.8 5.9 11.6 0.5 25.0 1.4 5.1 0.8 20.4 127.9 1.4 0.6 0.4 1.7 0.1 0.2 29.3 0.7 1.5 0.8 0.3 – 0.4 5.7 9.0 17.0 55.0 208.2

8.1 7.0 12.4 0.3 25.0 2.2 5.9 0.7 17.4 116.4 1.6 0.7 1.2 0.7 0.2 0.3 22.9 1.3 1.8 3.2 0.2 0.6 0.4 4.7 5.8 18.0 37.0 150.0

EU

672.0

515.4

310.0

274.9

EEA1

695.2

553.0

329.5

293.3

3.4

3.8

2.4

North America

183.3

221.4

OECD1

896.1

783.6

Central and Eastern Europe1

1998

1999

2000

2001

11.1 6.7 11.8 0.4 23.9 2.1 5.1 1.0 21.4 104.4 4.4 1.1 3.9 1.9 0.2 0.4 34.4 1.5 2.3 3.5 0.3 1.4 0.7 5.0 9.6 24.0 41.5 73.1

8.1 13.8 22.1 0.8 24.6 4.1 5.7 1.3 22.4 98.6 2.6 7.4 4.6 11.1 0.1 1.6 45.2 2.0 8.5 3.4 0.3 1.2 0.5 6.8 12.5 41.3 58.0 50.3

8.4 20.1 35.8 1.3 29.9 7.2 6.5 3.1 30.9 95.1 1.5 11.5 7.7 33.4 0.2 2.9 42.7 1.5 10.2 3.0 0.3 1.7 0.9 8.4 11.2 46.1 91.2 45.8

11.9 18.3 42.7 1.8 35.7 8.8 10.3 3.2 38.7 78.6 3.1 7.8 10.9 24.5 0.2 0.6 43.9 1.4 10.8 4.4 0.2 1.4 1.5 7.9 16.3 17.6 98.9 57.0

12.4 30.1 24.5 2.4 42.7 18.0 12.4 1.7 47.3 88.4 5.5 9.6 10.3 9.8 0.4 0.7 32.6 1.7 14.8 4.5 0.2 2.4 8.2 9.2 23.5 20.8 92.0 86.4

234.1

251.8

306.7

390.9

398.1

388.1

253.9

278.0

356.5

447.1

426.6

423.7

3.7

7.4

9.3

17.5

25.6

25.6

45.1

223.1

233.2

175.0

97.0

74.8

75.7

92.7

129.1

563.6

538.8

445.8

397.2

459.1

558.5

558.4

612.3

Note: For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex 1. Above countries only.

© OECD 2003

293


Table A.1.4.

Stocks of foreign-born population in selected OECD countries Thousands and percentages

Australia % of total population Austria % of total population Canada % of total population Denmark % of total population Finland % of total population France % of total population Hungary % of total population Mexico % of total population Netherlands % of total population New Zealand % of total population Norway % of total population Sweden % of total population United States % of total population Note:

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

3 965.3 22.9 .. .. 4 342.9 16.1 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 195.7 4.6 .. .. .. ..

4 028.4 23.0 .. .. .. .. 207.4 4.0 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 834.5 9.6 .. ..

4 053.9 22.9 .. .. .. .. 215.0 4.1 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 375.4 9.0 .. .. 216.2 5.0 869.1 9.9 .. ..

4 093.6 22.9 .. .. .. .. 222.1 4.3 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 387.4 9.0 .. .. 233.4 5.4 922.1 10.5 22 600 8.7

4 164.1 23.0 .. .. .. .. 244.5 4.7 106.3 2.0 .. .. 283.7 2.8 .. .. 1 407.1 9.1 .. .. 240.3 5.5 936.0 10.5 23 000 8.8

4 258.7 23.3 .. .. 4 971.1 17.4 259.2 4.9 111.1 2.1 .. .. 283.9 2.8 .. .. 1 433.6 9.2 .. .. 246.9 5.6 943.8 11.0 24 600 9.3

4 311.7 23.3 .. .. .. .. 276.8 5.2 118.1 2.3 .. .. 284.2 2.8 .. .. 1 469.0 9.4 .. .. 257.7 5.8 954.2 11.0 25 800 9.7

4 366.3 23.3 895.7 11.1 .. .. 287.7 5.4 125.1 2.4 .. .. 286.2 2.8 .. .. 1 513.9 9.6 .. .. 273.3 6.1 968.7 10.8 26 300 9.8

4 419.0 23.3 872.0 10.8 .. .. 296.9 5.6 131.0 2.5 5 868.2 10.0 289.3 2.9 .. .. 1 556.3 9.8 .. .. 292.4 6.5 981.6 11.8 28 180 10.3

4 517.3 23.6 843.0 10.4 .. .. 308.7 5.8 136.2 2.6 .. .. 294.6 2.9 406.0 0.5 1 615.4 10.1 698.6 19.5 305.0 6.8 1 003.8 11.3 28 400 10.4

Data are from censuses for Australia, Canada, France, Mexico, New Zealand and the United States and from population registers for the other countries. For more details on sources, see the notes at the end of the Annex.

294

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table A.1.5.

Stocks of foreign population in selected OECD countries Thousands and percentages

Austria % of total population Belgium % of total population Czech Republic % of total population Denmark % of total population Finland % of total population France % of total population Germany % of total population Hungary % of total population Ireland % of total population Italy % of total population Japan % of total population Korea % of total population Luxembourg % of total population Netherlands % of total population Norway % of total population Poland % of total population Portugal % of total population Slovak Republic % of total population Spain % of total population Sweden % of total population Switzerland % of total population United Kingdom % of total population Note:

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

532.7 6.8 922.5 9.2 .. .. 169.5 3.3 37.6 0.8 .. .. 5 882.3 7.3 .. .. 87.7 2.5 863.0 1.5 1 218.9 1.0 51.0 0.1 117.8 30.2 732.9 4.8 147.8 3.5 .. .. 114.0 1.2 .. .. 360.7 0.9 493.8 5.7 1 163.2 17.1 1 750 3.1

623.0 7.9 909.3 9.0 41.2 0.4 180.1 3.5 46.3 0.9 .. .. 6 495.8 8.0 .. .. 94.9 2.7 925.2 1.6 1 281.6 1.0 55.8 0.1 122.7 31.0 757.4 5.0 154.0 3.6 .. .. 123.6 1.3 .. .. 393.1 1.0 499.1 5.7 1 213.5 17.6 1 985 3.5

689.6 8.6 920.6 9.1 77.7 0.8 189.0 3.6 55.6 1.1 .. .. 6 878.1 8.5 .. .. 89.9 2.7 987.4 1.7 1 320.7 1.1 66.7 0.2 127.6 31.8 779.8 5.1 162.3 3.8 .. .. 131.6 1.3 11.0 0.2 430.4 1.1 507.5 5.8 1 260.3 18.1 2 001 3.5

713.5 8.9 922.3 9.1 103.7 1.0 196.7 3.8 62.0 1.2 .. .. 6 990.5 8.6 137.9 1.3 91.1 2.7 922.7 1.6 1 354.0 1.1 84.9 0.2 132.5 32.6 757.1 5.0 164.0 3.8 .. .. 157.1 1.6 16.9 0.3 461.4 1.2 537.4 6.1 1 300.1 18.6 2 032 3.6

723.5 9.0 909.8 9.0 158.6 1.5 222.7 4.2 68.6 1.3 .. .. 7 173.9 8.8 139.9 1.4 96.1 2.7 991.4 1.7 1 362.4 1.1 110.0 0.2 138.1 33.4 725.4 4.7 160.8 3.7 .. .. 168.3 1.7 21.9 0.4 499.8 1.3 531.8 5.2 1 330.6 18.9 1 948 3.4

728.2 9.0 911.9 9.0 198.6 1.9 237.7 4.7 73.8 1.4 .. .. 7 314.0 8.9 142.2 1.4 118.0 3.2 1 095.6 2.0 1 415.1 1.1 148.7 0.3 142.8 34.1 679.9 4.4 157.5 3.6 .. .. 172.9 1.7 24.1 0.5 539.0 1.4 526.6 6.0 1 337.6 18.9 1 934 3.4

1997

732.7 9.1 903.2 8.9 209.8 2.0 249.6 4.7 80.6 1.6 .. .. 7 365.8 9.0 143.8 1.4 114.4 3.1 1 240.7 2.1 1 482.7 1.2 176.9 0.3 147.7 34.9 678.1 4.3 158.0 3.6 .. .. 175.3 1.8 24.8 0.5 609.8 1.6 522.0 6.0 1 340.8 19.0 2 066 3.6

1998

737.3 9.1 892.0 8.7 219.8 2.1 256.3 4.8 85.1 1.6 .. .. 7 319.5 8.9 .. .. 111.0 3.0 1 250.2 2.1 1 512.1 1.2 147.9 0.3 152.9 35.6 662.4 4.2 165.0 3.7 .. .. 177.8 1.8 27.4 0.5 719.6 1.8 499.9 5.6 1 347.9 19.0 2 207 3.8

1999

748.2 9.2 897.1 8.8 228.9 2.2 259.4 4.9 87.7 1.7 3 263.2 5.6 7 343.6 8.9 127.0 1.3 117.8 3.2 1 252.0 2.2 1 556.1 1.2 169.0 0.4 159.4 36.0 651.5 4.1 178.7 4.0 42.8 0.1 190.9 1.9 29.5 0.5 801.3 2.0 487.2 5.5 1 368.7 19.2 2 208 3.8

2000

757.9 9.3 861.7 8.4 201.0 2.0 258.6 4.8 91.1 1.8 .. .. 7 296.8 8.9 .. .. 126.5 3.3 1 388.2 2.4 1 686.4 1.3 210.2 0.4 164.7 37.3 667.8 4.2 184.3 4.1 .. .. 208.2 2.1 28.3 0.5 895.7 2.2 477.3 5.4 1 384.4 19.3 2 342 4.0

Data are from population registers or from registers of foreigners except for France (Census), Portugal and Spain (residence permits), Ireland and the United Kingdom (Labour Force Survey) and refer to the population on the 31 December of the years indicated unless otherwise stated. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

295

© OECD 2003


Table A.1.6.

Acquisition of nationality in selected OECD countries Thousands and percentages

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Countries where national/foreigner distinction is prevalent Austria 11.4 11.9 14.4 % of foreign population 2.5 2.2 2.3 Belgium 8.5 46.4 16.4 % of foreign population 0.9 5.0 1.8 Denmark 5.5 5.1 5.0 % of foreign population 3.4 3.0 2.8 Finland 1.2 0.9 0.8 % of foreign population 4.7 2.3 1.8 France 95.5 95.3 95.5 % of foreign population 2.7 .. .. Germany 141.6 179.9 199.4 % of foreign population 2.7 3.1 3.1 Hungary 5.9 21.9 11.8 % of foreign population .. .. .. Italy 4.5 4.4 6.5 % of foreign population 0.6 0.5 0.7 Japan 7.8 9.4 10.5 % of foreign population 0.7 0.8 0.8 Korea 0.5 0.6 0.7 % of foreign population 1.1 1.1 1.2 Luxembourg 0.6 0.6 0.7 % of foreign population 0.5 0.5 0.6 Netherlands 29.1 36.2 43.1 % of foreign population 4.2 4.9 5.7 Norway 5.1 5.1 5.5 % of foreign population 3.5 3.5 3.6 Portugal .. .. .. % of foreign population .. .. .. Spain 3.8 5.3 8.4 % of foreign population 1.3 1.5 2.1 Sweden 27.7 29.3 42.7 % of foreign population 5.7 5.9 8.5 Switzerland 8.8 11.2 12.9 % of foreign population 0.8 1.0 1.1 United Kingdom 58.6 42.2 45.8 % of foreign population 3.4 2.4 2.3

16.3 2.4 25.8 2.8 5.7 3.0 0.7 1.2 126.3 .. 259.2 3.8 9.9 .. 6.6 0.7 11.1 0.8 1.0 1.5 0.7 0.6 49.5 6.3 8.8 5.4 .. .. 7.8 1.8 35.1 6.9 13.8 1.1 44.0 2.2

15.3 2.1 26.1 2.8 5.3 2.7 0.7 1.1 92.4 .. 313.6 4.5 10.0 7.3 7.4 0.8 14.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.8 0.6 71.4 9.4 11.8 7.2 1.4 0.9 6.8 1.5 32.0 6.0 16.8 1.3 40.5 2.0

16.2 2.2 24.6 2.7 7.3 3.3 1.0 1.4 109.8 .. 302.8 4.2 12.3 8.8 8.9 0.9 14.5 1.1 1.4 1.3 0.8 0.6 82.7 11.4 12.2 7.6 1.2 0.7 8.4 1.7 25.6 4.8 19.4 1.5 43.1 2.2

16.3 2.2 31.7 3.5 5.5 2.3 1.4 2.0 116.2 .. 271.8 3.7 8.7 6.1 11.6 1.1 15.1 1.1 .. .. 0.7 0.5 59.8 8.8 12.0 7.6 1.4 0.8 10.3 1.9 28.9 5.5 19.2 1.4 37.0 1.9

18.3 2.5 34.0 3.8 10.3 4.1 4.0 5.0 122.3 .. 236.1 3.2 6.4 4.5 10.8 0.9 14.8 1.0 .. .. 0.6 0.4 59.2 8.7 9.2 5.8 0.5 0.3 13.2 2.2 46.5 8.9 21.3 1.6 53.9 2.4

25.0 3.4 24.3 2.7 12.4 4.8 4.7 5.6 145.4 4.5 64.3 0.9 6.1 4.5 13.6 1.1 16.1 1.1 .. .. 0.5 0.4 62.1 9.4 8.0 4.8 0.9 0.5 16.4 2.3 37.8 7.6 20.4 1.5 54.9 2.5

24.6 3.3 62.1 6.9 18.8 7.3 3.0 3.4 150.0 .. 186.7 2.5 7.5 .. 11.6 0.9 15.8 1.0 .. .. 0.6 0.4 50.0 7.7 9.5 5.3 0.7 0.4 12.0 1.5 43.5 8.9 28.7 2.1 82.2 3.7

Countries where native-born/foreign-born distinction is prevalent Australia 118.5 125.2 122.1 Canada 118.6 116.2 150.6 United States 308.1 240.3 314.7

112.2 217.3 434.1

114.8 227.7 488.1

111.6 155.6 1 044.7

108.3 154.6 598.2

112.3 134.5 463.1

76.5 158.8 839.9

70.8 214.6 898.0

EU1

388.0

457.5

478.7

577.6

612.3

631.2

591.2

609.2

461.5

645.1

EEA1

401.8

473.9

497.2

600.2

640.9

662.8

622.5

639.7

489.9

683.3

North America

426.7

356.5

465.3

651.4

715.8

1 200.3

752.8

597.5

998.7

1 112.6

Note:

Statistics cover all means of acquiring the nationality of a country, except where otherwise indicated. These include standard naturalisation procedures subject to age, residency, etc. criteria, as well as situations where nationality is acquired through a declaration or by option (following marriage, adoption, or other situations related to residency or descent), recovery of former nationality and other special means of acquiring the nationality of a country. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. The naturalisation rate ("% of foreign population") indicates the number of persons acquiring the nationality of the country as a percentage of the stock of the foreign population at the beginning of the year. 1. Above countries only.

296

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table A.2.1.

Inflows of foreign workers into selected OECD countries Thousands

1991

Australia Permanent settlers Temporary workers Austria Belgium Canada Denmark Finland France Long-term workers Temporary workers Germany Hungary Ireland Italy Japan Luxembourg New Zealand Portugal Spain Switzerland United Kingdom Long term Short term Trainees Total United States Permanent settlers Temporary workers

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

48.4 .. 62.6 5.1 77.7 2.4 ..

40.3 14.6 57.9 4.4 70.4 2.4 ..

22.1 14.9 37.7 4.3 65.4 2.1 ..

12.8 14.2 27.1 4.1 67.5 2.1 ..

20.2 14.3 15.4 2.8 69.5 2.2 ..

20.0 15.4 16.3 2.2 71.2 2.8 ..

19.7 31.7 15.2 2.5 74.9 3.1 ..

26.0 37.3 15.4 7.3 78.9 3.2 ..

27.9 37.0 18.3 8.7 84.3 3.1 ..

32.4 39.2 25.4 7.5 91.3 3.6 10.4

25.6 4.1 241.9 41.7 3.8 .. 113.6 16.9 .. .. 81.6 46.3

42.3 3.9 408.9 24.6 3.6 .. 108.1 15.9 .. .. 48.2 39.7

24.4 4.0 325.6 19.5 4.3 .. 97.1 15.5 .. .. 7.5 31.5

18.3 4.1 221.2 18.6 4.3 .. 111.7 16.2 .. .. 15.6 28.6

13.1 4.5 270.8 18.4 4.3 .. 81.5 16.5 .. 2.2 29.6 27.1

11.5 4.8 262.5 14.5 3.8 .. 78.5 18.3 .. 1.5 31.0 24.5

11.0 4.7 285.4 19.7 4.5 .. 93.9 18.6 .. 1.3 30.1 25.4

10.3 4.3 275.5 22.6 5.7 21.6 101.9 22.0 .. 2.6 53.7 26.4

10.9 5.8 304.9 29.6 6.3 21.4 108.0 25.0 .. 4.2 56.1 31.5

11.3 7.5 338.3 40.2 10.7 58.0 129.6 27.3 23.4 7.8 .. 34.0

12.9 12.6 3.5 29.0

12.7 14.0 3.4 30.1

12.5 13.3 3.5 29.3

13.4 12.9 3.8 30.1

16.7 16.0 .. 32.7

18.9 17.2 .. 36.1

21.7 20.698 .. 42.4

24.8 23.8 .. 48.6

30.5 21.9 .. 52.4

55.2 30.4 .. 85.6

59.5 169.6

116.2 175.8

147.0 182.3

123.3 210.8

85.3 220.7

117.5 254.4

90.6 ..

77.5 430.7

56.8 525.7

107.0 635.2

EU 1

472.9

617.6

454.7

343.1

391.9

389.1

417.4

446.2

491.4

517.3

EEA1

519.2

657.2

486.2

371.6

419.0

413.6

442.8

472.6

522.9

551.3

North America (permanent)

137.2

186.6

212.4

190.8

154.9

188.7

165.5

156.4

141.1

198.3

Note: For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Above countries only (excluding Finland, Italy and Portugal).

Table A.2.2.

Inflows of seasonal workers in selected OECD countries Thousands

Australia Canada France Germany Italy Norway Switzerland United Kingdom United States Note:

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

36.7 .. 54.2 – .. 4.3 147.5 .. ..

25.2 11.1 13.6 212.4 1.7 4.7 126.1 3.6 16.4

25.6 11.2 11.3 181.0 2.8 4.6 93.5 4.2 16.3

29.6 10.4 10.3 155.2 5.8 4.5 83.9 4.4 13.2

35.4 10.9 9.4 192.8 7.6 5.0 72.3 4.7 11.4

40.3 .. 8.8 220.9 8.9 5.4 62.7 5.5 9.6

50.0 .. 8.2 226.0 8.4 6.1 46.7 9.3 ..

55.6 .. 7.5 207.9 16.5 7.5 39.6 9.4 27.3

62.6 .. 7.6 230.3 20.4 8.6 45.3 9.8 32.4

71.5 .. 7.9 263.8 30.9 9.9 49.3 10.1 33.3

For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

297

© OECD 2003


Table A.2.3. Stocks of foreign and foreign-born labour force in selected OECD countries Thousands and percentages 1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

277.2 8.7 303.0 7.4 .. .. 71.2 2.4 .. .. 1 506.0 6.0 .. .. 33.4 .. 39.3 2.9 285.3 1.3 .. .. .. .. 92.6 47.5 214 3.3 46.3 2.3 54.9 1.1 1.2 .. 171.0 1.1 241 5.3 702.5 17.8 828 3.0

295.9 9.1 325.6 7.8 .. .. 74.0 2.6 .. .. 1 517.8 6.0 .. .. 15.7 0.4 40.4 3.0 296.8 1.4 85.5 0.1 .. .. 98.2 49.2 229 3.5 46.6 2.3 59.2 1.3 5.0 .. 139.4 0.9 233 5.3 716.7 18.3 902 3.6

304.6 9.3 342.1 8.1 51.6 1.0 77.7 2.7 .. .. 1 541.5 6.1 .. .. 17.6 0.4 37.3 2.7 304.8 1.5 95.4 0.1 .. .. 101.0 49.7 219 3.3 47.9 2.4 63.1 1.4 5.5 .. 117.4 0.8 221 5.1 725.8 18.5 862 3.4

316.5 9.7 354.9 8.4 72.1 1.4 80.3 2.9 24.4 1.0 1 593.9 6.3 .. .. 20.1 0.5 34.5 2.5 307.1 1.5 105.6 0.2 30.5 0.1 106.3 51.0 216 3.3 50.3 2.5 77.6 1.6 3.9 0.2 121.8 0.8 213 5.0 740.3 18.9 864 3.4

325.2 9.9 362.1 8.5 111.9 2.2 83.8 3.0 26.9 1.1 1 573.3 6.2 .. .. 21.0 0.5 42.1 2.9 332.2 1.7 88.0 0.1 52.2 0.3 111.8 52.4 221 3.2 52.6 2.5 84.3 1.8 3.9 0.2 139.0 0.9 220 5.1 728.7 18.6 862 3.4

328.0 10.0 368.0 8.6 143.2 2.8 88.0 3.1 29.7 1.2 1 604.7 6.3 .. .. 18.8 0.5 52.4 3.5 580.6 2.6 98.3 0.1 82.9 0.4 117.8 53.8 218 3.1 54.8 2.6 86.8 1.8 4.8 0.2 166.5 1.0 218 5.1 709.1 17.9 865 3.3

326.3 9.9 377.4 8.8 130.8 2.5 93.9 3.3 33.0 1.3 1 569.8 6.1 3 575 8.9 20.4 0.5 51.7 3.4 539.6 2.4 107.3 0.2 106.8 0.5 124.8 55.1 208 2.9 59.9 2.8 87.9 1.8 5.5 0.2 178.7 1.1 220 5.2 692.8 17.5 949 3.6

327.1 9.9 390.7 8.8 111.2 2.1 98.3 3.4 36.0 1.4 1 586.7 6.1 .. .. 22.4 0.6 53.3 3.3 614.6 2.7 119.0 0.2 76.8 0.4 134.6 57.7 235 3.4 66.9 3.0 88.6 1.8 5.9 0.2 197.1 1.2 219 5.1 691.1 17.3 1 039 3.9

333.6 10.0 386.2 8.9 93.5 1.8 96.3 3.4 37.2 1.5 1 593.8 5.8 3 545 8.8 28.5 0.7 57.7 3.4 747.6 3.6 125.7 0.2 93.0 0.4 145.7 57.3 .. .. 104.6 4.7 91.6 1.8 4.5 0.2 199.8 1.2 222 5.1 701.2 18.1 1 005 3.7

345.6 10.5 .. .. 103.6 2.0 96.8 3.4 .. .. 1 577.6 6.0 3 546 8.8 35.0 0.9 63.9 3.7 850.7 3.6 154.7 0.2 122.5 0.6 152.7 57.3 .. .. 111.2 4.9 99.8 2.0 .. .. .. .. 222 5.0 717.3 18.3 1 229 4.4

Stocks of foreign-born labour force Australia 2 169.0 % of total labour force 25.7 Canada 2 681.0 % of total labour force 18.5 United States .. % of total labour force ..

.. .. .. .. .. ..

.. .. .. .. .. ..

.. .. .. .. 12 900 9.8

2 138.8 23.9 .. .. 12 900 9.7

2 249.3 24.8 2 839.1 19.2 14 400 10.7

2 263.9 25.0 .. .. 15 400 11.3

2 308.7 24.9 .. .. 16 100 11.7

2 309.6 24.6 .. .. 16 114 11.7

2 364.5 24.5 .. .. 17 400 12.4

Stocks of foreign labour force Austria % of total labour force Belgium % of total labour force Czech Republic % of total labour force Denmark % of total labour force Finland % of total labour force France % of total labour force Germany % of total labour force Hungary % of total labour force Ireland % of total labour force Italy % of total employment Japan % of total labour force Korea % of total labour force Luxembourg % of total employment Netherlands % of total employment Norway % of total employment Portugal % of total labour force Slovak Republic % of total labour force Spain % of total labour force Sweden % of total labour force Switzerland % of total labour force United Kingdom % of total employment

Note: For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Data include the unemployed, except in Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom. Cross-border workers and seasonal workers are excluded unless otherwise stated.

298

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.1.1.

AUSTRALIA, inflows of permanent settlers and temporary residents by country or region of birth Thousands 1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

7.5 20.7 3.3 2.1 5.1 6.4 .. 2.4 3.5 13.2 13.5 3.3 2.9 1.9 .. 35.9

7.2 14.5 3.4 1.3 5.6 5.9 .. 2.1 3.2 9.6 12.9 2.8 1.6 1.7 .. 35.6

6.7 9.5 3.0 1.0 3.6 3.7 .. 1.6 1.4 5.7 6.5 1.6 1.0 1.3 .. 29.7

7.8 9.0 2.7 1.7 2.6 4.2 .. 1.3 0.8 5.4 3.3 1.4 1.1 1.4 .. 27.1

10.5 10.7 3.7 2.8 3.9 4.1 .. 1.5 0.8 5.1 4.1 2.0 1.2 1.8 .. 35.3

12.3 11.3 11.2 3.2 3.7 3.2 .. 1.7 1.6 3.6 4.4 2.0 1.3 1.6 0.7 37.3

13.1 9.7 7.8 3.2 2.7 2.8 .. 1.7 2.2 3.0 3.9 1.4 1.0 1.5 0.7 31.2

14.7 9.2 4.3 4.3 2.8 2.8 .. 1.1 1.5 2.3 3.2 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.0 26.5

18.7 8.8 6.1 5.0 2.6 3.3 2.9 1.6 1.6 2.1 1.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 25.6

21.9 9.2 6.8 5.7 4.6 3.2 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 27.5

121.7

107.4

76.3

69.8

87.4

99.1

85.8

77.3

84.1

92.3

66.4 47.0 15.5 3.9 38.9 38.0 0.9 30.5 29.5 1.0 1.0 1.7 0.4

52.0 34.9 14.4 2.7 35.8 34.9 1.0 27.2 26.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.6

42.1 26.5 12.7 2.9 27.0 26.1 0.9 21.9 20.8 1.1 0.9 1.2 0.1

54.9 35.7 15.9 3.3 31.7 30.6 1.1 25.5 24.1 1.4 1.9 1.1 0.1

62.0 42.1 16.9 3.0 31.5 30.4 1.1 27.1 26.1 1.0 2.2 1.4 0.2

63.3 42.8 17.7 2.8 34.4 33.1 1.3 28.7 27.9 0.8 1.8 1.8 0.2

70.8 49.1 18.9 2.7 43.1 41.6 1.5 26.7 25.3 1.4 4.1 1.8 0.6

86.0 60.7 22.1 3.2 48.1 46.8 1.3 31.0 29.7 1.3 5.8 1.6 0.8

97.1 70.0 24.1 3.1 53.6 52.1 1.5 33.2 31.2 2.1 7.1 2.3 0.8

118.6 85.7 28.8 4.1 58.1 56.1 2.0 34.6 32.0 2.6 8.9 2.9 0.9

139.0

117.8

93.2

115.2

124.4

130.2

147.12

173.22

194.12

224.02

1

A. Permanent settlers New Zealand United Kingdom China South Africa India Philippines Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Fiji Chinese Taipei Vietnam Hong Kong (China) Sri Lanka Lebanon United States Croatia Other countries Total B. Temporary residents Europe United Kingdom and Ireland Northern Europe Southern Europe Asia and Middle East Asia (excluding Middle East) Middle East America United States and Canada South and other America Africa Oceania Other and not stated Total

Note: Data refer to fiscal years (July to June of the given year). For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Counts include both principal applicants and their accompanying dependents, if any. 2. Includes 17 049, 51 998, 79 232 and 93 942 holders of a Temporary Business Entry (TBE) visa (Long stay) in 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 respectively. This visa was introduced on 1 November 1995.

299

© OECD 2003


Table B.1.1.

AUSTRIA, inflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands

Europe Of which: Former Yugoslavia Of which: Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Croatia Bosnia Herzegovina Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia Slovenia Germany Turkey Poland Hungary Slovak Republic Romania Czech Republic Italy Africa America Asia Other countries Total Of which: EU Note:

1998

1999

2000

49.1

59.4

51.7

16.7

22.8

16.3

9.4 3.3 2.6 0.8 0.6 6.6 5.9 5.0 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.2 2.5 2.3 5.0 0.4

13.5 3.8 3.9 1.0 0.6 7.5 7.2 5.1 2.3 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.4 2.8 2.3 7.5 0.4

6.4 4.4 4.1 0.9 0.5 7.7 7.0 3.5 2.5 1.9 1.9 1.4 1.4 2.8 2.3 8.6 0.5

59.2 12.1

72.4 13.5

66.0 13.6

For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.1. BELGIUM, inflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands 1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

France Netherlands Morocco United Kingdom Germany Turkey United States Italy Spain Portugal Poland Japan Suriname Dem. Rep. of Congo China Other countries

5.8 6.2 3.4 3.2 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.6 0.8 1.9 0.5 0.7 .. 1.9 0.6 18.0

5.9 6.6 3.3 3.1 2.8 2.7 3.1 2.6 1.1 3.2 0.6 0.7 .. 2.7 0.6 16.1

6.0 6.7 3.4 2.9 3.0 2.5 2.7 2.8 1.0 2.1 0.7 1.0 .. 2.3 0.6 15.4

6.2 4.3 4.8 2.8 3.1 3.6 2.9 1.9 1.0 1.2 0.8 1.1 .. 2.2 0.5 19.8

6.2 6.5 3.6 2.8 3.1 2.5 3.0 2.6 1.0 1.7 0.8 0.9 .. 1.0 0.6 16.8

6.6 7.8 4.0 2.8 3.2 2.5 3.0 2.7 1.0 1.8 0.9 0.8 .. 0.8 0.6 13.3

7.0 6.3 3.9 2.7 3.1 1.4 3.1 2.8 1.2 1.6 1.1 0.8 .. 0.6 0.6 13.0

7.4 6.2 4.3 2.7 3.2 2.4 2.8 2.5 1.1 1.4 1.1 0.9 .. 0.7 0.7 13.2

7.9 6.2 4.9 3.0 3.1 2.2 2.9 2.6 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 28.7

8.1 7.2 5.7 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.6 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 26.0

Total Of which: EU

54.1 24.8

55.1 27.1

53.0 26.4

56.0 27.0

53.1 26.6

51.9 28.7

49.2 27.6

50.7 27.4

68.5 28.0

68.6 29.6

Note:

Data are from population registers. Asylum seekers awaiting a decision are excluded from 1995 on. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

300

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.1.1.

CANADA, inflows of permanent settlers by region or country of birth Thousands 1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Asia and the Pacific China India Pakistan Philippines Korea Sri Lanka Chinese Taipei Hong Kong (China) Vietnam Other Asian countries

97.6 13.9 12.8 .. 12.3 .. 6.8 4.5 22.3 9.0 15.9

120.9 10.4 12.7 .. 13.3 .. 12.6 7.5 38.9 7.7 17.9

130.8 9.5 20.5 .. 19.8 .. 9.1 9.9 36.6 8.3 17.2

128.2 12.5 17.2 3.7 19.1 .. 6.7 7.4 44.2 6.2 11.2

112.9 13.3 16.3 4.0 15.2 .. 8.9 7.7 31.8 4.0 11.8

124.8 17.5 21.3 7.8 13.2 3.2 6.2 13.2 30.0 2.5 10.1

117.1 18.5 19.6 11.2 10.9 4.0 5.1 13.3 22.3 1.8 10.4

84.2 19.8 15.4 8.1 8.2 4.9 3.3 7.2 8.1 1.6 7.6

96.4 29.1 17.4 9.3 9.2 7.2 4.7 5.5 3.7 1.4 9.0

120.5 36.7 26.1 14.2 10.1 7.6 5.8 3.5 2.9 1.8 11.8

Europe United Kingdom Russian Federation Poland Bosnia Herzegovina Other European countries

48.1 7.5 .. 15.7 .. 24.8

44.9 7.1 .. 11.9 .. 25.9

46.6 7.2 .. 6.9 2.8 29.7

38.6 6.0 .. 3.4 4.9 24.3

41.3 6.2 .. 2.3 6.3 26.6

40.0 5.6 2.5 2.1 5.1 24.8

38.7 4.7 3.7 1.7 3.8 24.7

38.5 3.9 4.3 1.4 3.7 25.2

38.9 4.5 3.8 1.3 2.8 26.6

42.9 4.6 3.5 1.3 1.0 32.4

Africa and the Middle East Iran Other African and Middle Eastern countries

41.6 .. 41.6

41.6 .. 41.6

36.5 .. 36.5

29.4 2.7 26.7

32.9 3.7 29.2

36.5 5.8 30.7

37.8 7.5 30.3

32.6 6.8 25.8

33.5 5.9 27.6

40.8 5.6 35.2

America United States Other American countries

43.5 6.6 36.9

45.4 7.5 37.9

41.9 8.0 33.9

27.6 6.2 21.4

25.7 5.2 20.5

24.7 5.8 18.9

22.5 5.0 17.4

18.8 4.8 14.0

20.8 5.5 15.2

22.7 5.8 16.9

..

..

..

..

–

–

–

–

0.3

0.3

230.8

252.8

255.8

223.9

212.9

226.0

216.0

174.2

189.9

227.2

Not Stated Total Note:

Counts include both principal applicants and their accompanying dependents, if any. Figures include backlog clearance. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.1.

CZECH REPUBLIC, inflows of foreigners by nationality Thousands 1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Ukraine Slovak Republic Russian Federation Vietnam Germany Bulgaria Belarus Kazakhstan Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Bosnia Herzegovina Romania Poland United States Other countries

0.7 2.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 .. .. .. .. .. 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.2

1.1 2.6 0.4 0.7 0.3 .. .. .. .. .. 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.7

1.4 2.4 0.7 1.7 0.3 .. .. .. 0.4 .. .. .. 0.2 2.9

1.5 2.0 0.5 1.2 0.3 0.2 .. 0.3 0.2 0.5 .. .. .. 1.3

1.6 1.7 0.6 0.8 0.2 .. .. 0.2 0.1 .. .. .. 0.1 1.4

1.1 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 .. .. .. .. .. .. 1.1

Total

5.9

7.4

9.9

7.9

6.8

4.2

Note:


301

© OECD 2003


DENMARK, inflows of foreign population by nationality

Table B.1.1.

Thousands 1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

0.4 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.6 .. 0.4 .. 0.6 0.6 .. .. 0.2 0.4 0.2 9.3

0.5 0.7 1.8 0.7 0.7 .. 0.4 .. 0.7 0.6 .. .. 0.3 0.4 0.2 10.5

1.3 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.7 .. 0.4 .. 0.5 0.6 .. .. 0.3 0.4 0.3 10.1

1.0 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.9 .. 0.5 .. 0.3 0.7 .. .. 0.2 0.3 0.4 9.2

0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.3 0.7 1.1 0.2 0.6 .. 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 6.4

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.2 0.9 16.61 0.6 .. 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5 6.0

1.1 1.0 1.2 0.9 1.2 2.5 1.2 1.0 .. 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 12.0

1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.8 0.9 0.9 1.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 7.4

2.3 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.2 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 8.2

1.9 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 8.1

15.1 2.3

17.5 2.6

16.9 2.7

15.4 3.0

15.6 3.7

33.0 4.4

24.7 3.9

20.4 4.9

21.3 5.1

20.3 ..

Iraq Norway Turkey Sweden Germany Somalia Iceland United Kingdom Former Yugoslavia United States Afghanistan Thailand France Pakistan Netherlands Other countries Total Of which: EU2 Note:

Entries of foreigners staying in Denmark more than one year. Asylum seekers and refugees with a provisional residence status are not included. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Including 16 077 ex-Yugoslavs who have been recognised as refugees after 3 years of legal residence in Denmark as war refugees (temporary status). 2. Including Finland and Sweden from 1995 on and also Austria from 1998 on.

Table B.1.1.

FINLAND, inflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands

Russian Federation Sweden Estonia Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Iraq United States United Kingdom China Germany Somalia Thailand Iran Ukraine Turkey Vietnam Other countries Total Note:

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2.9 0.6 2.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 .. 0.3 0.2 2.5

2.2 0.4 2.0 1.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 2.0

1.9 0.6 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.8

2.0 0.6 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.1

2.0 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 2.0

2.4 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.8

2.5 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 2.1

2.2 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 – 2.2

2.5 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.9

10.4

10.9

7.6

7.3

7.5

8.1

8.3

7.9

9.1

Entries of foreigners intending to stay in Finland for longer than one year. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

302

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

FRANCE, inflows of foreign population by nationality

Table B.1.1.

Thousands 1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

18.2 12.9 9.2 4.3 .. .. .. .. .. 1.5 .. .. 1.3 .. 62.6

16.4 12.3 9.2 4.0 .. .. .. 15.2 .. .. 1.3 .. .. 1.1 .. 57.2

13.8 13.1 6.8 3.5 .. 3.2 .. 7.5 .. .. 1.2 .. .. 1.0 2.2 46.8

8.1 9.7 4.7 2.3 2.4 1.9 1.3 4.6 .. .. 1.1 .. .. 0.7 1.3 31.3

6.6 8.4 3.6 1.9 2.4 1.4 0.9 3.0 .. 0.8 1.0 .. .. 0.6 0.9 25.2

6.6 7.8 3.4 2.2 2.7 0.8 0.7 2.7 .. 0.9 1.1 .. 0.6 0.5 0.9 24.5

10.3 12.2 5.1 3.6 .. 1.9 2.8 2.3 .. .. 1.2 .. 0.7 0.6 2.9 37.2

16.1 16.7 6.8 5.3 .. 1.9 5.7 2.0 .. .. 1.1 .. 0.9 0.9 4.6 54.9

14.1 11.4 5.7 4.0 2.7 1.4 1.7 1.6 .. 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.5 36.2

16.9 12.4 6.6 5.6 2.6 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 37.4

109.9 11.7

116.6 25.9

99.2 14.4

69.3 10.8

56.7 7.9

55.6 7.1

80.9 6.4

116.9 6.1

86.3 5.6

95.2 5.3

..

..

..

91.5

77.0

75.5

102.4

139.5

108.1

119.3

Morocco Algeria Turkey Tunisia United States Haiti China Portugal Switzerland Sri Lanka Japan Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Russian Federation Romania Dem. Rep. of Congo Other countries Total1 Of which: EU Total2

Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Immigration on a long term basis (mainly workers, refugees, family reunification and visitors). In 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000, data include 18 900, 45 800, 3 300 and 170 persons respectively who benefited from the 1997 regularisation programme. 2. Figures include estimates of some unregistered flows (inflows of family members of European Economic Area citizens for example).

Table B.1.1.

GERMANY, inflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Poland Turkey Italy Russian Federation Romania Greece United States Ukraine France Hungary Portugal Croatia Bosnia Herzegovina Czech Republic Other countries

.. 200.9 83.6 36.9 .. 78.2 26.5 .. .. 12.7 15.9 7.0 .. .. .. 380.8

.. 128.4 81.9 35.4 .. 61.4 28.3 .. .. 12.9 24.9 10.7 .. .. .. 536.6

.. 131.7 80.6 30.1 24.6 109.8 23.6 21.3 6.6 13.3 27.9 10.1 .. .. .. 727.9

141.6 75.2 67.8 31.7 29.4 81.6 18.3 17.6 12.3 13.0 24.2 12.9 26.0 107.0 11.0 317.2

63.2 78.6 63.9 38.7 33.4 31.4 18.9 15.8 13.9 13.6 19.3 26.5 16.7 68.3 9.6 262.1

54.1 87.2 73.6 48.0 33.0 24.8 20.3 16.0 15.4 14.4 18.8 30.5 14.9 55.2 10.0 272.2

42.9 77.4 73.2 45.8 31.9 17.1 18.8 16.3 13.7 14.9 16.6 32.0 12.3 11.1 8.9 275.0

31.2 71.2 56.0 39.0 24.8 14.2 16.4 15.1 12.5 14.4 11.2 26.4 10.0 6.9 7.7 258.2

59.9 66.1 48.0 35.6 21.3 17.0 16.1 17.0 14.1 14.3 13.3 18.8 10.1 8.4 7.7 237.8

87.8 72.2 47.1 34.9 27.8 18.8 17.6 16.8 15.3 15.3 14.9 14.7 12.6 10.3 9.3 258.5

Total Of which: EU1

842.4 139.6

920.5 147.4

1 207.6 140.8

986.9 136.7

774.0 155.8

788.3 177.2

708.0 172.5

615.3 151.5

605.5 136.0

673.9 ..

Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. European Union 15 for all years.

303

© OECD 2003


Table B.1.1.

GREECE, inflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands 1998

Of which: Women

Russian Federation Bulgaria Albania Egypt Romania Ukraine Former Yugoslavia United States Poland Germany United Kingdom Philippines Turkey Syria Lebanon Other countries

4.8 2.9 2.7 2.2 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 12.0

3.1 2.2 1.9 0.3 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 6.9

Total

38.2

23.1

Note:


Table B.1.1. HUNGARY, inflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands 1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

19991

Romania Former Yugoslavia2 Ukraine China Germany Russian Federation Slovak Republic Vietnam Israel United Kingdom Norway Austria Croatia Greece Poland Other countries

29.6 0.4 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 – 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.8 2.8

10.9 3.6 1.3 2.1 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 – 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 2.5

6.5 3.2 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 – 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.0

6.1 5.0 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 – 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.8

4.3 2.3 1.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 2.1

4.7 1.4 1.2 1.2 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.2

4.0 0.9 1.3 1.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 2.3

3.4 0.8 1.2 1.7 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 2.6

4.1 0.8 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.6

6.0 1.7 1.6 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.2

Total Of which: EU 3

37.2 1.3

23.0 1.4

15.1 1.0

16.4 1.0

12.8 1.3

13.2 1.3

12.8 1.5

12.2 1.7

12.3 1.5

15.0 1.5

Note: Data are from the Register of long-term residence permits. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Preliminary data. 2. Excluding Croatia. 3. European Union 15 for all years.

304

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

IRELAND, inflows of foreign population by nationality

Table B.1.1.

Thousands 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

6.3 2.0 5.0

5.8 1.5 6.3

8.3 4.0 9.2

8.2 4.2 11.1

8.3 2.2 10.3

7.9 2.5 11.2

7.1 2.2 14.8

7.0 2.8 18.1

13.3 9.6

13.6 9.0

21.5 13.3

23.5 13.7

20.8 14.1

21.6 14.7

24.1 14.2

28.0 12.8

United Kingdom United States Other countries Total Of which: EU Note:

CSO estimates on the basis of 1996 Census results. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.1.

ITALY, inflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands

Albania Morocco Romania China Philippines United States Poland India Tunisia Bangladesh Egypt Pakistan Sri Lanka Former Yugoslavia Germany Other countries Total Note:

1998

1999

2000

11.2 7.3 5.9 3.4 2.6 4.7 3.9 2.6 1.5 – 1.1 – 2.7 5.7 3.3 55.1

37.2 24.9 20.9 11.0 5.7 5.7 6.7 5.4 5.8 3.2 6.1 3.3 3.9 24.5 4.7 99.3

31.2 24.7 20.7 15.4 12.2 7.2 7.1 7.0 6.8 6.6 6.5 6.0 6.0 5.3 5.1 103.7

111.0

268.0

271.5

New entries were 130 745 in 1999 and 155 264 in 2000. The other permits were first-time permits issued to foreigners who had applied for amnesty in 1998. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.1.

JAPAN, inflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands

1991

China Philippines Brazil United States Korea United Kingdom Thailand Chinese Taipei Canada Germany Peru Other countries Total Note:

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

35.6 63.8 17.3 26.6 29.8 6.1 8.3 7.6 4.2 4.1 1.1 53.9

52.4 57.5 19.2 26.0 29.3 6.7 7.7 6.0 4.2 4.2 0.9 52.9

45.2 48.2 14.6 21.3 27.4 5.9 6.5 5.2 3.8 4.2 1.0 51.3

38.9 58.8 11.8 21.3 27.6 6.6 6.8 4.7 4.1 4.0 1.0 51.9

38.8 30.3 11.9 18.8 27.0 6.4 6.5 4.7 4.1 3.7 1.7 55.9

45.6 30.3 16.4 17.1 27.9 6.4 6.6 4.4 4.6 4.2 2.4 59.6

53.3 43.2 39.6 17.9 27.7 6.9 6.4 5.1 4.8 4.3 3.1 62.6

55.7 47.6 21.9 17.1 27.7 6.8 7.5 4.9 4.6 4.4 3.1 64.1

59.1 57.3 26.1 23.1 24.7 7.0 6.4 4.4 4.2 3.4 2.7 63.7

75.3 74.2 45.5 24.3 24.0 7.0 6.6 4.4 4.2 4.2 3.9 72.3

258.4

267.0

234.5

237.5

209.9

225.4

274.8

265.5

281.9

345.8

New entry except temporary visitors. Re-entry are excluded. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

© OECD 2003

305


Table B.1.1.

LUXEMBOURG, inflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands

France Portugal Belgium Germany Italy United States Netherlands Spain Other countries Total Of which: EU1

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

1.1 3.5 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.3 .. 2.9

1.1 2.4 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 .. 3.9

1.2 2.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 2.5

1.3 2.4 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.2 2.6

1.5 2.4 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 2.9

1.5 2.0 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 2.8

1.7 1.9 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 2.7

2.0 2.0 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 3.4

2.2 2.1 1.3 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 4.4

2.3 2.2 1.3 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 3.1

10.0 7.8

9.8 7.1

9.2 7.1

9.2 7.1

9.6 7.1

9.2 ..

9.4 ..

10.6 ..

11.8 ..

10.8 ..


Table B.1.1.

NETHERLANDS, inflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

United Kingdom Germany Turkey Morocco United States France Suriname Belgium China Italy Poland Japan Spain Iran Somalia Other countries

6.0 6.8 12.4 8.9 2.6 1.7 6.7 2.4 .. 1.0 1.4 .. .. .. .. 34.4

6.5 7.1 9.1 7.2 2.9 1.8 6.9 2.2 .. 1.0 1.4 .. .. .. .. 36.9

5.0 7.4 7.8 5.9 2.6 1.5 7.8 2.0 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.0 .. .. .. 43.1

3.5 6.1 4.3 3.2 2.2 1.4 2.9 1.7 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.1 .. .. .. 39.3

3.7 4.7 4.8 3.1 2.2 .. 1.7 1.3 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 45.6

4.3 5.7 6.4 4.3 3.1 1.7 2.8 1.9 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.0 .. .. 40.8

4.3 5.7 6.5 4.5 3.1 2.1 2.6 2.2 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.4 36.0

4.7 4.7 5.1 5.3 3.3 2.1 3.2 1.9 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.3 0.3 44.1

5.0 4.5 4.2 4.4 3.3 2.0 1.8 2.0 1.3 1.5 0.9 1.3 1.2 0.3 0.2 44.4

5.9 4.9 4.5 4.2 3.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.4 0.1 54.7

Total Of which: EU1

84.3 20.8

83.0 22.3

87.6 19.7

68.4 16.0

67.0 14.8

77.2 19.2

76.7 20.3

81.7 19.9

78.4 20.4

91.4 22.1


306

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.1.1. NEW ZEALAND, inflows of permanent and long-term arrivals by country of birth Thousands 1999

2000

United Kingdom China Australia Japan India South Africa Fiji Samoa Chinese Taipei United States Other countries

5.5 3.1 3.4 3.8 1.9 2.1 .. .. 1.5 1.3 13.5

6.2 4.9 3.7 3.6 2.3 2.1 1.4 1.0 .. .. 13.5

Total

36.2

38.8

Note:


Table B.1.1.

NORWAY, inflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands

Iraq Sweden Denmark Somalia Germany Russian Federation United Kingdom United States Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia1 Iran Thailand Pakistan Philippines Turkey Bosnia Herzegovina2 Other countries Total Of which: EU3

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

.. 1.1 1.8 0.7 0.3 .. 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.4 .. 7.3

0.6 1.3 1.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 1.1 0.9 2.5 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 .. 6.3

0.5 1.6 1.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 1.1 0.9 1.8 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.3 6.2 5.6

0.2 1.9 1.9 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 3.2 5.6

0.3 2.1 1.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.3 1.7 5.8

0.4 2.9 1.6 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 1.0 6.3

0.7 4.9 1.8 0.5 0.8 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.6 7.8

1.1 6.0 2.1 1.1 1.1 0.6 1.3 1.0 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 9.2

2.1 4.5 1.8 1.2 1.1 0.8 1.0 0.7 6.5 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.5 9.8

4.5 3.5 1.9 1.5 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 9.6

16.1 3.6

17.2 3.9

22.3 4.0

17.9 3.9

16.5 6.6

17.2 7.7

22.0 10.8

26.7 13.3

32.2 11.0

27.8 9.8

Note: Data are from population registers. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Former Yugoslavia until 1992. 2. Included in former Yugoslavia before 1993. 3. Excluding Austria, Finland and Sweden.

307

© OECD 2003


Table B.1.1.

PORTUGAL, inflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands

Angola Cape Verde Brazil Guinea-Bissau Spain United Kingdom Germany France Sao Tome and Principe China Netherlands Italy Venezuela United States Mozambique Other countries Total Of which: EU Note:

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

3.1 1.1 2.9 1.8 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 .. 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.3 1.9

1.9 1.1 1.8 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 .. 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 1.4

0.4 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.1 .. 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 – 1.0

0.3 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.1 .. 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 – 0.8

0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3 – .. 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 – 0.7

– 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 – .. 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 – 0.6

0.4 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 1.1

0.9 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.7

2.5 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 2.2

13.7 1.5

9.9 1.8

5.7 2.3

5.0 2.4

3.6 1.9

3.3 1.9

6.5 2.9

10.5 4.4

15.9 4.6


Table B.1.1.

SWEDEN, inflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Iraq Norway Finland Denmark Germany United Kingdom Bosnia Herzegovina1 Iran United States Russian Federation China Afghanistan Thailand Turkey Poland Other countries

2.5 2.6 3.0 1.7 0.5 0.7 .. 3.8 0.9 – 0.6 0.2 0.6 1.5 1.6 23.7

3.8 1.9 2.7 1.3 0.4 0.7 .. 3.6 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.7 1.1 1.5 19.8

4.6 1.5 2.4 1.2 0.4 0.7 20.7 1.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.8 1.0 17.0

3.5 1.6 2.8 1.8 0.6 0.6 25.7 1.5 0.8 1.1 0.6 0.3 0.6 1.1 1.0 31.2

2.3 1.7 2.8 1.8 0.8 0.8 4.6 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.6 1.1 0.9 14.9

2.1 1.5 2.6 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.2 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 1.1 0.7 12.5

3.7 1.5 2.8 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.8 1.7 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 14.4

5.4 1.6 3.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.6 14.9

5.5 2.0 3.4 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.7 12.9

6.6 3.9 3.6 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 6.6

Total Of which: EU2

43.9 7.2

39.5 6.2

54.8 5.8

74.8 7.0

36.1 7.9

29.3 7.9

33.4 7.1

35.7 8.4

34.6 8.8

33.8 10.8

Note: Data are from population registers. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex 1. Included in former Yougoslavia before 1993. 2. EU 15 for all years.

308

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

SWITZERLAND, inflows of foreign population by nationality

Table B.1.1.

Thousands

Germany Former Yugoslavia France Italy Portugal United Kingdom United States Turkey Austria Spain Canada Netherlands Other countries Total Of which: EU Note:

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1995

1997

1998

1999

2000

9.9 27.0 4.9 8.3 14.1 2.5 3.0 6.7 2.1 4.6 0.7 1.7 24.2

9.6 33.6 5.1 8.3 13.3 2.5 2.6 5.3 2.0 3.9 0.7 1.8 23.4

8.6 34.2 4.5 7.3 10.0 2.5 2.4 4.8 1.6 3.1 0.6 1.4 22.8

8.7 25.3 5.0 6.9 8.6 2.4 2.6 3.8 1.5 2.3 0.7 1.5 22.3

8.6 22.3 5.0 6.7 7.6 2.6 2.9 3.8 1.3 2.7 0.9 1.5 22.0

8.7 14.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 2.4 2.9 3.4 1.3 2.0 0.8 1.4 21.6

8.5 12.8 4.8 5.0 4.0 2.4 2.7 3.4 1.3 1.8 0.8 1.1 24.1

9.3 11.5 5.4 5.3 5.1 2.7 2.8 2.6 1.3 1.7 0.9 1.0 25.4

11.0 12.6 6.2 6.0 5.0 3.4 3.2 3.0 1.5 1.6 1.1 1.2 30.1

12.5 6.7 6.6 5.4 4.9 3.7 3.3 2.8 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.3 35.3

109.8 ..

112.1 ..

104.0 ..

91.7 37.8

87.9 39.3

74.3 35.7

72.8 34.4

74.9 35.1

85.8 39.5

87.4 42.0

Data are from the register of foreigners. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.1.

UNITED KINGDOM, inflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands

United States Australia India South Africa New Zealand Pakistan Philippines Canada Japan Poland Russian Federation Bangladesh Somalia China Sri Lanka Other countries Total Note:

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

43.9 25.0 9.2 2.3 10.6 8.3 2.6 6.4 10.4 3.5 .. 3.2 3.1 1.8 4.1 69.5

37.3 21.5 8.9 2.6 9.3 7.5 3.3 5.8 9.4 3.5 .. 3.2 4.2 2.3 4.6 66.9

38.2 27.2 9.9 5.6 12.1 6.6 5.2 6.7 10.4 3.5 3.5 3.2 2.0 2.7 1.7 55.1

39.4 26.6 11.6 11.1 12.0 7.2 6.5 6.7 10.1 3.5 4.2 2.8 1.9 3.2 1.7 58.1

43.2 25.1 13.0 12.9 11.0 7.8 6.8 7.4 10.8 3.6 3.6 3.3 1.9 3.2 1.9 61.0

42.5 26.5 16.1 13.0 12.1 9.6 7.5 8.3 10.4 5.4 4.0 4.0 1.3 2.5 2.2 71.6

44.2 30.1 18.4 19.1 14.3 13.2 7.3 9.6 10.3 5.9 4.1 3.9 1.5 3.1 2.5 70.5

44.8 33.4 19.6 24.1 15.8 8.9 8.1 10.8 10.7 5.7 4.9 3.4 0.5 3.4 2.5 80.4

47.0 31.3 19.9 19.5 13.7 12.4 11.0 10.7 9.6 5.5 4.6 4.2 4.1 4.0 3.2 87.9

203.9

190.3

193.6

206.3

216.4

236.9

258.0

276.9

288.8

Passengers, excluding European Economic Area nationals, admitted to the United Kingdom. Data exclude visitors, passengers in transit or returning on limited leave or who previously settled. Students and au pair girls are excluded. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

309

© OECD 2003


Table B.1.1.

UNITED STATES, inflows of permanent settlers by region or country of birth Thousands 1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

1 211.0 946.2 17.8 47.4 47.5 10.3 41.4 100.3

384.0 213.8 8.9 26.2 11.0 11.8 42.0 70.3

301.4 126.6 7.1 26.8 10.1 13.7 45.4 71.7

272.2 111.4 5.3 17.6 13.3 14.7 51.2 58.7

231.5 89.9 4.4 11.7 14.0 17.9 38.5 55.0

340.5 163.6 6.9 17.9 18.4 26.5 39.6 67.7

307.5 146.9 6.3 18.0 15.1 33.6 27.1 60.6

253.0 131.6 3.5 14.6 13.4 17.4 20.4 52.1

271.4 147.6 13.4 14.6 16.5 14.1 17.9 47.3

344.8 173.9 24.0 22.6 22.4 20.8 17.5 63.5

Asia China Philippines India Vietnam Korea Pakistan Other Asian countries

358.5 33.0 63.6 45.1 55.3 26.5 20.4 114.7

357.0 38.9 61.0 36.8 77.7 19.4 10.2 113.0

358.0 65.6 63.5 40.1 59.6 18.0 8.9 102.3

292.6 54.0 53.5 34.9 41.3 16.0 8.7 84.1

267.9 35.5 51.0 34.7 41.8 16.0 9.8 79.2

307.8 41.7 55.9 44.9 42.1 18.2 12.5 92.6

265.8 41.1 49.1 38.1 38.5 14.2 13.0 71.8

219.7 36.9 34.5 36.5 17.6 14.3 13.1 66.9

199.4 32.2 31.0 30.2 20.4 12.8 13.5 59.2

265.4 45.7 42.5 42.0 26.7 15.8 14.5 78.1

Europe Russian Federation Ukraine Other European countries

135.2 .. .. 135.2

145.4 8.9 14.4 122.2

158.3 12.1 18.3 127.9

160.9 15.2 21.0 124.7

128.2 14.6 17.4 96.2

147.6 19.7 21.1 106.8

119.9 16.6 15.7 87.5

90.8 11.5 7.4 71.8

92.7 12.3 10.1 70.2

132.5 17.1 15.8 99.6

South America Colombia Other South American countries

79.9 19.7 60.2

55.3 13.2 42.1

53.9 12.8 41.1

47.4 10.8 36.5

45.7 10.8 34.8

61.8 14.3 47.5

52.9 13.0 39.9

45.4 11.8 33.6

41.6 10.0 31.6

56.1 14.5 41.6

Africa

36.2

27.1

27.8

26.7

42.5

52.9

47.8

40.7

36.7

44.7

6.2

5.2

4.9

4.6

4.7

5.3

4.3

3.9

3.7

5.1

1 827.2

974.0

904.3

804.4

720.5

915.9

798.4

654.5

646.6

849.8

North and Central America Mexico Nicaragua El Salvador Haiti Cuba Dominican Republic Other North or Central American countries

Oceania Total Note:

Data refer to fiscal years (October to September of the given year). Since 1989, approximately 2.9 millions of immigrants have obtained a permanent residence permit following legalization under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

310

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.1.2. AUSTRALIA, outflows of foreign-born population by country of nationality Thousands 1992

1993

1994

1995

United Kingdom New Zealand Hong Kong (China) China Malaysia United States India Greece Vietnam Chinese Taipei South Africa Indonesia Ireland Singapore Germany Other countries

12.0 8.4 3.1 1.0 1.8 1.6 0.9 1.4 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.6 1.0 14.2

10.4 7.5 2.6 1.2 1.8 1.5 0.8 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.8 13.6

9.9 7.7 2.9 1.1 1.7 1.3 0.7 1.3 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.7 12.9

9.4 7.7 3.8 1.9 1.6 1.2 0.8 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.7 12.5

9.8 7.7 3.8 2.0 1.7 1.4 0.8 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 12.6

10.0 7.3 4.2 2.1 1.8 1.4 0.9 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 13.2

10.7 7.6 4.2 2.4 1.8 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 13.9

10.1 5.8 4.2 2.8 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 13.6

10.5 6.7 4.3 3.2 1.9 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 14.5

Total

48.7

44.7

43.4

44.3

45.4

46.7

49.5

47.4

50.8

Note:

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Data below refer to persons indicating an intention to reside abroad permanently or departing for a temporary stay of more than twelve months. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.2.

AUSTRIA, outflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands

Europe Of which: Former Yugoslavia Of which: Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Croatia Bosnia Herzegovina Slovenia Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia Germany Turkey Poland Hungary Slovak Republic Romania Czech Republic Italy Africa America Asia Other countries Total Of which: EU Note:

1998

1999

2000

38.0

40.1

35.7

13.7

16.1

13.5

5.4 3.4 3.6 0.9 0.4 4.1 3.8 4.7 1.8 1.4 1.1 1.3 0.9 1.6 2.1 2.7 0.5

7.9 3.5 3.5 0.8 0.4 3.9 3.7 4.8 1.8 1.3 1.2 1.2 0.9 1.5 2.2 3.1 0.4

5.8 3.4 3.4 0.6 0.4 4.1 3.6 3.0 1.9 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.6 2.9 3.8 0.4

44.9 8.2

47.3 8.0

44.4 8.4


311

© OECD 2003


Table B.1.2.

BELGIUM, outflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands

France Netherlands United States United Kingdom Germany Italy Former Yugoslavia Spain Portugal Japan Greece Morocco Poland China Turkey Other countries Total Of which: EU Note:

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

4.4 3.4 3.1 2.4 2.2 3.6 0.3 2.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.7 9.1

3.3 3.4 3.0 2.3 2.1 2.0 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.6 7.0

3.4 3.5 3.0 2.4 2.2 2.0 0.3 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.6 9.5

4.0 3.6 2.9 2.7 2.3 0.7 0.3 1.2 0.6 0.9 2.7 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.8 10.4

4.2 3.9 2.9 2.7 2.3 2.1 0.2 1.5 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.6 8.8

4.3 4.1 2.7 2.6 2.3 1.9 0.0 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.5 8.7

4.5 4.4 3.0 2.8 2.4 2.2 0.1 1.4 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 8.7

5.3 4.2 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.7 0.2 1.6 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.6 8.3

5.3 4.4 3.2 2.8 2.7 2.3 0.7 1.6 1.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.6 8.0

5.3 3.7 3.3 2.8 2.6 2.2 2.1 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 7.3

35.3 20.7

28.1 15.7

31.2 16.6

34.1 19.1

33.1 20.0

32.4 19.7

34.6 15.4

36.3 23.3

36.4 23.6

35.6 21.8

Data are from population registers. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.2.

DENMARK, outflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Iceland United Kingdom Norway Sweden Germany United States Somalia France Netherlands Finland Italy Turkey Poland Latvia Spain Other countries

0.5 .. 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 .. 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 .. .. 2.1

0.4 .. 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 .. 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 .. .. 2.3

0.4 .. 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 – 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 .. .. 2.2

0.4 .. 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 – 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 .. .. 2.3

0.3 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 .. 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 .. .. 1.7

0.2 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 .. .. 1.8

0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 .. .. 2.1

0.7 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 – 0.1 2.2

0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.2

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 2.2

Total Of which: EU1

4.6 1.4

5.2 1.6

4.8 1.4

4.9 1.4

5.0 1.7

5.3 2.2

6.0 1.8

6.7 2.5

7.7 2.9

8.2 3.3

Note:

Departures of foreigners for more than one year. Departures of asylum seekers and refugees with a provisional residence status are not included. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Including Finland and Sweden from 1995 on.

312

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.1.2.

FINLAND, outflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Sweden Estonia United States Russian Federation China United Kingdom Somalia Germany Other countries

0.4 – 0.1 0.2 – 0.1 – 0.1 0.7

0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 – 0.1 – 0.1 0.6

0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 – – – 0.1 0.6

0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 – 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.2

0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 – 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6

0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 – 0.1 – 0.1 0.7

0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8

0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.0

Total

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

3.0

1.6

1.7

2.0

4.1

Note:

Data are from population registers. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.2.

GERMANY, outflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands 1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Poland Federal Rep. of Yugoslavia Turkey Italy Bosnia Herzegovina Greece Portugal United States Romania Hungary Croatia Russian Federation Spain Bulgaria Morocco Other countries

157.7 38.3 35.1 34.1 .. 14.3 2.9 .. 15.8 8.7 .. .. 6.1 .. 1.5 151.5

115.3 53.0 36.1 36.4 .. 15.4 4.1 .. 30.2 14.9 .. .. 6.2 .. 2.0 183.9

109.5 99.4 40.3 32.7 .. 16.2 4.9 16.2 51.9 21.2 28.5 6.2 6.5 10.8 2.3 168.1

101.8 73.5 45.5 31.0 10.3 17.5 6.3 16.9 101.9 25.1 25.0 7.8 7.2 34.9 2.8 202.8

65.8 62.1 46.4 32.1 16.5 19.2 14.3 17.2 44.0 22.0 28.5 12.3 7.6 17.8 3.3 212.4

70.7 40.4 43.2 33.5 15.7 19.3 20.5 16.0 25.2 18.8 22.0 13.5 7.2 10.3 2.7 202.1

71.7 34.3 43.5 36.8 27.2 20.1 25.4 16.0 16.6 17.0 17.3 12.6 8.2 7.0 2.5 203.1

70.2 44.5 46.0 37.9 83.9 21.8 26.5 14.7 13.6 15.1 18.9 11.2 9.2 6.3 2.4 214.8

60.7 58.5 45.1 37.9 97.5 20.3 22.1 15.7 13.5 12.2 16.7 10.3 8.4 4.9 2.8 212.5

58.6 56.2 40.9 37.2 33.3 20.0 16.4 15.5 14.7 12.6 12.3 10.1 9.5 5.5 2.7 209.9

Total Of which: EU 1

466.0 100.9

497.5 114.6

614.7 111.8

710.2 116.4

621.5 133.4

561.1 139.6

559.1 153.9

637.1 159.3

639.0 146.7

555.6 141.2

Note: Data are from population registers. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. European Union 15 for all years.

313

© OECD 2003


Table B.1.2.

HUNGARY, outflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands

Romania China Former USSR2 Former Yugoslavia Germany United States Poland Greece Mongolia Vietnam United Kingdom Israel Russian Federation France Libya Other countries Total Of which: EU3

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

19991

6.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 1.1 – 0.1 0.2 0.1 – 0.3 – 0.1 2.2

2.5 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 – 0.4 0.1 – 0.3 – 0.1 1.3

1.1 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 – 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.5

1.5 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 – 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 – 0.1 1.1

1.0 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 – 0.9

1.0 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 – 0.1 0.1 0.2 – – 0.9

1.5 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 – 1.0

1.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.9

1.4 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1

1.7 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0

11.7 0.7

5.9 0.7

5.7 0.9

5.0 0.9

5.1 1.0

4.5 0.8

5.7 1.0

6.1 0.9

6.1 1.1

6.1 0.9

Note:

Data are calculated on the basis of the Register of long-term residence permits. Figures include people who have registered their departure and those who have overstayed. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Preliminary data. 2. Excluding Russian Federation. 3. European Union 15 for all years.

Table B.1.2.

JAPAN, outflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands

Philippines China United States Korea Brazil United Kingdom Thailand Germany Chinese Taipei Canada Peru Other countries Total Note:

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

50.7 12.7 25.0 18.2 6.9 4.9 6.7 3.8 5.9 3.1 0.8 42.6

57.2 17.0 26.0 18.9 13.8 5.8 6.8 4.1 5.2 3.3 2.1 44.6

43.2 23.0 25.7 16.6 20.7 5.1 6.1 4.1 4.4 3.2 1.8 46.6

50.7 20.9 25.6 16.5 19.7 5.9 5.4 3.8 4.2 3.2 1.4 46.9

44.2 21.7 24.9 14.5 16.8 5.5 5.5 3.6 4.0 3.3 0.9 49.5

16.3 21.8 24.8 12.4 14.0 5.0 5.3 3.9 3.2 3.3 0.8 49.3

31.4 23.6 24.3 12.4 14.1 5.4 4.7 3.9 3.5 3.5 0.6 49.2

34.9 24.2 24.8 10.4 20.0 5.5 5.2 4.2 3.3 3.6 0.7 51.1

43.3 25.9 22.5 12.9 19.4 5.5 5.4 3.1 3.0 3.3 0.9 53.0

55.5 28.1 21.4 16.2 12.0 5.7 4.5 4.0 3.0 3.0 0.6 56.9

181.3

204.8

200.5

204.2

194.4

160.1

176.6

187.8

198.3

210.9

Data are from the register of foreigners. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

314

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.1.2.

LUXEMBOURG, outflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Portugal France Belgium Germany Italy United States Netherlands Spain Other countries

1.3 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.3

1.4 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.3

1.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.2

1.2 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 1.2

1.2 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 1.0

1.3 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 1.3

1.3 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 1.4

1.5 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.8

1.8 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.7

1.6 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 2.0

Total

5.9

5.6

5.0

5.3

4.9

5.6

5.8

6.7

6.9

7.1

Note:

Data are from the Central Population Register. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.2.

NETHERLANDS, outflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands

Germany United Kingdom United States Japan Belgium France Turkey Italy Morocco Poland China Suriname Former Yugoslavia Other countries Total Of which: EU 1

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2.7 2.4 1.7 .. 1.3 0.9 1.7 0.5 1.1 .. .. 0.6 .. 8.4

2.9 2.4 1.9 .. 1.3 0.8 1.8 0.5 1.0 .. .. 0.7 0.3 9.1

3.0 2.6 1.9 0.9 1.1 0.7 1.7 0.4 1.1 1.2 0.1 0.6 0.3 6.5

3.2 2.8 1.8 0.9 1.3 0.8 1.6 0.5 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 7.4

2.9 2.9 1.5 .. 0.9 .. 1.6 .. 1.1 .. .. 0.4 .. 10.4

3.5 2.5 1.9 1.1 1.2 0.8 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 7.2

3.1 2.3 2.2 1.1 1.1 0.8 1.1 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 7.6

3.0 2.6 1.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 7.7

3.0 2.5 1.8 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 7.8

3.2 2.4 1.7 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 .. 8.0

21.3 9.6

22.7 10.0

22.2 10.5

22.7 10.4

21.7 10.0

22.4 10.7

21.9 10.0

21.3 10.3

20.7 10.1

20.7 10.8


Table B.1.2.

NEW ZEALAND, outflows of foreign-born population by country of birth July 2000 to June 2001

Australia United Kingdom Japan United States China Samoa Fiji India Other countries Total Note:

3.2 3.1 1.5 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 5.6 15.6


315

© OECD 2003


Table B.1.2.

NORWAY, outflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Sweden Denmark Former Yugoslavia United Kingdom United States Germany China Bosnia Herzegovina1 Russian Federation Pakistan Somalia Philippines Poland Turkey Sri Lanka Other countries

0.7 1.7 0.4 1.1 0.9 0.2 0.1 .. .. 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 2.6

0.7 1.4 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.1 – – 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.7

0.7 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.3 0.1 – – 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 3.6

1.0 1.6 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.2 – 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 3.3

1.0 1.7 0.2 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.3 – 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.9

1.1 1.4 0.1 1.0 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.2 – 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.4

1.7 1.4 0.1 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 – 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.5

2.7 1.4 0.1 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 4.2

3.5 1.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 – 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.0

3.6 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.7

Total Of which: EU2

8.4 3.6

8.1 3.0

10.5 3.5

9.6 3.3

9.0 5.0

10.0 5.1

10.0 5.5

12.0 6.9

12.7 8.1

14.9 9.1

Note: Data are from population registers. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Included in "former Yugoslavia" in 1991. 2. European Union 15 from 1995 on.

Table B.1.2. SWEDEN, outflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands

Finland Norway Denmark United States United Kingdom Germany Iceland France China Japan Former Yugoslavia Spain Australia Iran Netherlands Other countries Total Of which: EU1

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

4.5 4.1 2.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.1 – 0.1 0.2 – 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.6

3.1 3.4 1.8 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.1 – 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.1

2.8 2.9 1.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 3.7

2.6 2.4 1.6 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.1 4.5

2.7 2.2 1.6 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 5.2

2.9 2.0 1.6 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 4.3

3.0 2.0 1.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 4.6

2.9 1.8 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 4.2

2.7 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 3.9

2.7 1.6 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.8

15.0 7.9

13.2 6.2

14.8 6.0

15.8 6.1

15.4 6.8

14.5 6.5

15.3 6.5

14.1 6.3

13.6 6.4

12.1 6.2


316

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.1.2.

SWITZERLAND, outflows of foreign population by nationality Thousands

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Italy Portugal Germany Spain France Former Yugoslavia Turkey Austria Other countries

11.5 6.3 7.2 7.9 3.9 6.4 2.7 1.7 18.9

15.3 10.1 7.1 11.6 4.0 7.5 2.9 1.8 20.2

11.7 8.7 7.3 8.1 3.8 7.0 3.0 1.6 20.0

9.9 7.5 6.2 6.1 3.5 8.0 3.0 1.3 18.9

10.3 7.4 6.6 6.1 3.8 8.7 2.7 1.4 20.5

10.8 7.9 6.2 6.3 3.7 9.0 2.5 1.2 20.1

9.9 8.7 5.9 5.8 3.5 7.2 2.3 1.2 19.0

8.6 7.8 5.5 5.3 3.3 6.2 2.3 1.0 19.0

8.7 8.0 5.9 5.4 3.7 2.2 1.5 1.0 21.7

8.0 6.8 5.9 4.7 3.8 2.8 1.3 1.0 21.5

Total Of which: EU

66.4 ..

80.4 ..

71.2 ..

64.2 ..

67.5 42.3

67.7 42.6

63.4 41.7

59.0 ..

58.1 ..

55.8 ..

Note:

Data are from registers of foreigners. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

317

© OECD 2003


Table B.1.3.

AUSTRIA, inflows of asylum seekers by nationality Thousands 1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Afghanistan Iraq Turkey India Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Armenia Nigeria Bangladesh Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia Iran Georgia Pakistan Russian Federation Somalia Sierra Leone Stateless and other

0.1 0.7 0.5 0.2 1.4 – 0.1 0.0 .. 0.5 .. 0.1 0.1 – – 2.2

0.8 1.6 0.5 0.2 1.0 – 0.2 0.1 .. 0.7 .. 0.3 0.1 0.1 – 1.5

0.7 1.5 0.3 0.3 1.1 – 0.2 0.1 .. 0.5 .. 0.2 – 0.1 0.1 1.6

0.5 2.0 0.2 0.5 6.6 – 0.2 – .. 1.0 .. 0.2 0.1 0.1 – 2.5

2.2 2.0 0.3 0.9 6.8 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 3.3 – 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 2.8

4.2 2.4 0.6 2.4 1.5 0.2 0.4 0.3 – 2.6 – 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 2.5

13.0 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 2.8

Total

5.9

7.0

6.7

13.8

20.1

18.3

30.1

Note:


Table B.1.3.

BELGIUM, inflows of asylum seekers by nationality Thousands

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Russian Federation Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Algeria Dem. Rep. of Congo Iran Turkey Slovak Republic Albania Romania Sierra Leone Rwanda Ukraine Armenia Bosnia Herzegovina Bulgaria Other countries

0.2 0.7 .. 3.8 0.1 .. – 0.1 .. .. .. – – .. 0.5 12.1

0.3 0.9 .. 4.1 0.1 .. – 0.2 .. .. .. 0.1 0.1 .. 1.4 19.2

0.2 1.2 .. 2.0 0.1 .. – 0.2 .. .. .. 0.1 0.2 .. 0.6 9.9

0.2 1.5 .. 1.0 0.1 .. – 0.2 .. .. .. 0.1 0.5 .. 0.4 7.6

0.3 1.8 .. 0.8 0.1 .. 0.2 0.4 .. .. .. 0.1 0.9 .. 0.6 7.1

0.2 1.3 .. 1.2 0.1 .. 0.3 1.0 .. .. .. 0.1 0.6 .. 0.2 6.8

0.2 6.1 .. 1.8 0.1 .. 1.0 1.1 .. .. .. 0.3 0.7 .. 0.5 10.4

1.4 13.1 0.4 1.4 0.2 0.5 1.2 1.0 1.7 0.4 1.0 1.3 1.5 0.2 0.9 9.6

3.6 4.9 0.8 1.4 3.2 0.8 1.4 2.7 0.9 0.6 0.9 1.6 1.3 0.8 1.7 16.1

2.4 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 9.2

Total

17.5

26.4

14.6

11.6

12.4

11.8

22.1

35.8

42.7

24.5

Note:


318

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.1.3. CANADA, inflows of asylum seekers by nationality Thousands

Pakistan Sri Lanka China Mexico Turkey India Albania Nigeria Somalia Iran Algeria Afghanistan Bangladesh Russian Federation Romania Other countries Total Note:

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

0.7 2.5 0.5 0.2 .. 1.2 0.1 0.2 2.0 1.5 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.5 9.0

1.0 2.3 0.8 0.6 .. 1.3 0.1 0.3 1.6 1.9 0.7 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.5 12.1

1.1 2.8 0.9 0.9 .. 1.4 0.1 0.4 0.9 1.7 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.5 12.0

1.2 2.6 1.2 1.0 .. 1.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.4 11.2

1.8 2.5 2.1 1.2 .. 1.2 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.4 10.9

2.5 2.8 2.8 1.1 .. 1.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.9 0.5 14.2

3.2 2.9 2.2 1.3 .. 1.4 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.3 19.3

3.0 2.8 2.4 1.7 1.6 1.4 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 24.9

20.7

25.0

25.0

23.9

24.6

29.9

35.7

42.7


Table B.1.3. FRANCE, inflows of asylum seekers by nationality Thousands 1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Turkey Dem. Rep. of Congo China Mali Algeria Haiti Mauritania Sri Lanka Congo Russian Federation Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Georgia Angola Ukraine Bangladesh Other countries

1.8 3.1 2.1 .. 0.6 0.6 .. 4.0 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 16.8

1.3 2.2 0.4 .. 1.1 0.3 .. 2.8 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 19.5

1.3 1.2 1.3 0.8 2.4 0.4 0.6 1.7 .. .. .. .. 0.6 .. .. 15.7

1.7 1.2 1.6 0.5 1.8 0.1 0.4 1.1 .. .. .. .. 0.4 .. .. 11.5

1.2 1.1 1.4 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.3 1.2 .. .. .. .. 0.2 .. .. 10.7

1.4 1.2 1.7 0.2 0.9 .. 0.3 1.6 .. .. .. .. 0.2 .. .. 13.9

1.6 1.8 2.1 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.5 1.8 .. .. .. .. 0.3 .. .. 12.6

2.2 2.3 5.2 1.7 1.3 0.5 0.8 2.0 1.2 0.5 2.5 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.9 9.0

3.6 2.9 5.0 2.9 1.8 1.9 1.3 1.9 1.6 0.8 2.0 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.9 10.7

5.3 3.8 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 13.2

Total

28.9

27.6

26.0

20.4

17.4

21.4

22.4

30.9

38.7

47.3

Note:


319

© OECD 2003


Table B.1.3.

GERMANY, inflows of asylum seekers by nationality Thousands

1992

1993

Iraq Turkey Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Afghanistan Russian Federation Vietnam Iran India Syria Bosnia Herzegovina Algeria Azerbaijan China Sierra Leone Georgia Other countries

.. 28.3 115.4 6.4 .. 12.3 3.8 .. .. 6.2 .. .. .. .. .. 265.8

1.2 19.1 73.5 5.5 .. 11.0 2.7 .. .. 21.2 .. .. .. .. .. 188.4

2.1 19.1 30.4 5.6 .. 3.4 3.4 .. .. 7.3 .. .. .. .. .. 55.8

6.9 25.5 34.5 7.5 .. 2.6 3.9 2.7 .. 4.9 .. .. .. .. .. 39.4

10.8 23.8 24.8 5.7 .. 1.1 4.8 2.8 .. 3.5 .. .. .. .. .. 39.1

14.1 16.8 31.0 4.7 .. 1.5 3.8 1.9 .. 1.7 .. .. .. .. .. 28.9

7.4 11.8 35.0 3.8 .. 3.0 3.0 1.5 .. 1.5 .. .. .. .. .. 31.7

8.7 9.1 31.8 4.5 2.1 2.4 3.4 1.5 2.2 1.7 1.5 2.8 1.2 1.5 1.1 19.7

11.6 9.0 11.3 5.4 2.8 2.3 4.9 1.8 2.7 1.6 1.4 1.6 2.1 1.2 0.8 18.2

17.4 10.9 7.8 5.9 4.5 3.7 3.5 2.6 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.2 19.7

Total

438.2

322.6

127.2

127.9

116.4

104.4

98.6

95.1

78.6

88.4

Note:


Table B.1.3.

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

NETHERLANDS, inflows of asylum seekers by nationality Thousands

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Angola Afghanistan Sierra Leone Iran Guinea Turkey Iraq Somalia Bosnia Herzegovina Russian Federation Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Sudan China Sri Lanka Azerbaijan Other countries

.. 0.4 .. 1.3 .. 0.7 0.8 4.2 .. .. .. 0.1 .. 1.0 .. 11.8

.. 1.5 .. 2.6 .. 0.6 3.2 4.3 .. .. .. 0.2 0.9 1.9 .. 20.1

.. 2.5 .. 6.1 .. 0.6 2.9 5.4 .. .. .. 0.3 0.9 1.8 .. 32.2

.. 1.9 .. 2.7 .. 0.7 2.4 4.0 .. .. .. 0.6 0.5 1.3 .. 15.1

.. 3.0 .. 1.5 .. 0.7 4.4 1.5 .. .. .. 0.7 0.5 1.5 .. 9.2

.. 5.9 .. 1.3 .. 1.1 9.6 1.3 .. .. .. 0.7 1.2 1.5 .. 11.9

.. 7.1 .. 1.7 .. 1.2 8.3 2.8 .. .. .. 1.9 0.9 1.0 .. 20.3

1.6 4.4 1.3 1.5 0.5 1.5 3.7 2.7 .. 1.0 3.7 1.7 1.2 0.9 .. 17.0

2.2 5.1 2.0 2.6 1.4 2.3 2.8 2.1 1.7 1.0 3.9 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.2 12.0

4.1 3.6 2.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 9.9

Total

20.3

35.4

52.6

29.3

22.9

34.4

45.2

42.7

43.9

32.6

Note:


320

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.1.3.

SWEDEN, inflows of asylum seekers by nationality Thousands

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Iraq Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Bosnia Herzegovina Russian Federation Iran El Salvador Afghanistan Somalia Bulgaria Turkey Syria Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia Croatia Slovak Republic Ukraine Other countries

3.2 .. 9.7 .. 0.8 .. .. 2.7 .. 0.4 0.3 .. .. .. .. 67.0

2.3 .. 25.1 0.3 0.3 .. 0.1 0.7 .. 0.3 0.1 .. .. .. .. 8.3

1.7 .. 2.6 0.3 0.4 .. 0.3 0.9 .. 0.3 .. .. .. .. .. 12.1

1.8 .. 1.1 0.3 0.5 .. 0.3 0.9 .. 0.3 .. .. .. .. .. 4.0

1.6 .. 0.3 0.2 0.4 .. 0.1 0.4 .. 0.2 .. .. .. .. .. 2.6

3.1 .. 0.7 0.2 0.4 .. 0.2 0.4 .. 0.2 0.1 .. .. .. .. 4.4

3.8 .. 1.3 0.2 0.6 .. 0.3 0.2 .. 0.3 0.2 .. .. .. .. 5.4

3.6 1.8 0.5 0.4 0.9 – 0.4 0.3 – 0.2 0.3 – – 0.1 0.1 2.7

3.5 2.1 4.2 0.6 0.7 – 0.4 0.3 – 0.2 0.3 – 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.7

6.2 3.1 2.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 5.2

Total

84.0

37.6

18.6

9.0

5.8

9.6

12.5

11.2

16.3

23.5

Note:


Table B.1.3.

SWITZERLAND, inflows of asylum seekers by nationality Thousands 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Turkey Bosnia Herzegovina Iraq Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia Algeria Sierra Leone Guinea Sri Lanka Angola Dem. Rep. of Congo Afghanistan Russian federation Somalia Iran Other countries

.. 1.1 .. .. .. .. .. .. 1.5 1.1 .. .. .. .. .. 12.5

.. 1.3 3.5 0.3 .. 0.4 0.1 .. 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 .. 0.1 9.2

.. 1.3 1.3 0.4 .. 0.4 0.1 .. 2.0 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.1 10.2

.. 1.4 2.0 0.5 .. 0.6 0.2 .. 2.1 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.9 0.1 15.0

.. 1.6 1.9 2.0 .. 0.5 0.2 .. 1.9 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.1 31.1

29.3 1.5 1.5 1.7 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.4 1.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.2 6.5

3.6 1.4 1.3 0.9 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.7 5.1

3.5 2.0 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 6.1

Total

16.1

17.0

18.0

24.0

41.3

46.1

17.7

20.8

Note:


321

© OECD 2003


Table B.1.3.

UNITED KINGDOM, inflows of asylum seekers by nationality Thousands 1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

0.3 0.7 1.6 2.1 1.9 0.4 5.6 1.7 0.3 0.3 1.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 7.5

0.3 0.5 1.5 2.0 1.5 0.4 1.8 1.1 0.2 1.1 1.3 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.3 9.8

0.3 0.6 1.8 2.4 2.0 0.5 1.4 1.8 0.4 1.8 2.0 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.6 15.7

0.6 0.9 3.5 2.1 1.8 0.6 1.6 2.9 0.8 0.9 3.3 0.8 0.1 1.9 0.6 21.8

0.7 1.0 1.8 1.3 1.5 0.6 1.0 1.9 0.8 0.4 2.2 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.4 14.8

1.1 1.1 2.7 1.8 1.4 0.6 2.3 1.6 1.9 0.8 1.3 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.2 13.9

2.4 1.3 4.7 3.5 2.0 0.7 8.0 2.0 1.9 0.6 1.0 1.1 0.6 1.3 0.2 14.8

4.0 1.8 7.5 5.1 2.9 1.3 14.2 2.6 2.6 1.1 1.4 2.0 1.3 1.4 0.5 21.5

5.6 7.5 5.0 6.4 4.0 5.6 6.1 3.2 4.0 1.3 2.1 2.2 1.5 1.6 0.8 23.5

9.1 6.7 6.4 5.5 3.7 3.4 2.8 2.7 2.4 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.0 20.6

Total (excluding dependents)

24.6

22.4

32.8

44.0

29.6

32.5

46.0

71.2

80.3

71.4

Total (including dependents)

32.3

28.0

42.2

55.0

37.0

41.5

58.5

91.2

98.9

92.0

Afghanistan Iraq Somalia Sri Lanka Turkey Iran Former Yugoslavia Pakistan China Sierra Leone India Romania Albania Algeria Angola Other countries

Note:


Table B.1.3.

UNITED STATES, inflows of asylum seekers by nationality Thousands

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

0.6 3.5 0.6 5.4 0.4 .. 3.2 1.0 .. .. 43.9 .. 1.4 .. 6.8 37.2

6.4 14.4 1.3 10.9 0.9 .. 5.7 1.2 .. .. 34.0 .. 0.8 .. 14.6 52.9

9.3 10.8 1.3 9.4 0.9 .. 4.4 0.8 .. .. 34.2 .. 0.8 .. 18.5 54.2

9.1 4.8 0.7 2.4 0.5 .. 3.1 0.8 0.2 0.4 22.0 .. 0.7 .. 75.1 28.7

7.8 2.0 0.3 3.8 0.4 .. 3.9 0.9 1.1 0.3 8.9 1.2 0.6 .. 63.2 12.8

13.7 2.4 0.3 4.3 0.4 .. 3.8 1.0 1.9 1.0 2.4 1.4 0.7 .. 4.7 14.5

4.5 3.1 0.2 2.7 0.5 0.2 1.8 0.7 2.3 0.9 2.7 0.8 0.6 .. 3.8 11.3

2.3 4.2 0.3 2.5 0.8 2.3 1.2 1.1 3.1 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.7 .. 2.0 9.6

3.8 5.7 2.7 4.3 1.8 0.9 1.3 1.5 2.4 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.0 .. 1.0 11.7

9.7 8.8 7.6 4.9 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 14.6

Total

104.0

143.1

144.6

148.7

107.1

52.2

35.9

32.7

40.7

61.7

Total (estimates incl. dependents)

145.5

200.4

202.4

208.2

150.0

73.1

50.3

45.8

57.0

86.4

Mexico China Colombia Haiti Armenia Indonesia India Ethiopia Somalia Albania Guatemala Mauritania Liberia Myanmar El Salvador Other countries

Note:

Data refer to fiscal years (October to September of the given year) except for 2001 (Calendar year). For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex .

322

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.1.4.

AUSTRALIA, stock of foreign-born population by country of birth Thousands 1990

1995

20001

2 426.5 1 238.6 271.7 167.3 147.9 121.2 100.4 71.0 308.4

2 407.0 1 220.9 261.6 186.1 142.3 120.1 96.1 70.8 309.1

2 403.7 1 215.9 241.7 210.0 141.2 120.2 90.6 68.3 315.8

Asia Vietnam China Philippines India Malaysia Other

655.9 114.3 76.1 71.5 61.5 75.7 256.8

880.0 157.8 107.2 98.3 80.0 82.8 353.9

1 077.8 174.4 168.1 123.0 110.2 97.6 404.5

Oceania New Zealand Other

365.5 287.2 78.3

395.5 304.2 91.3

482.1 374.9 107.2

Middle East and North Africa Lebanon Other

186.0 75.3 110.7

206.8 77.1 129.7

229.8 79.9 149.9

Americas

149.3

161.1

176.7

Africa (excl. North Africa) South Africa Other

102.3 53.5 48.8

113.8 58.8 55.0

147.2 80.1 67.1

3 885.6 22.8

4 164.1 23.0

4 517.3 23.6

Europe United Kingdom Italy Former Yugoslavia Greece Germany Netherlands Poland Other


Note: Estimated resident population, 30 June. For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Preliminary data.

Table B.1.4.

AUSTRIA, stock of foreign-born population by country of birth Thousands Of which: Women 1998

2000 2000

Germany Bosnia Herzegovina Former Yugoslavia (Others) Turkey Croatia Former CSFR Poland Romania Italy Hungary Slovenia Other countries

122.8 113.1 129.9 118.8 50.8 52.5 41.2 40.5 24.8 24.2 29.1 148.0

126.0 115.4 111.0 110.1 54.7 45.6 42.3 31.2 23.2 18.0 15.9 149.6

76.7 13.6 24.8 19.7 24.6 12.2 9.9 29.5 58.5 53.2 52.5 77.0

Total

895.7

843.0

452.2

Note:


323

© OECD 2003


Table B.1.4.

CANADA, stock of immigrant population by country of birth Thousands Of which: Women 1986

1991

1996 1996

United Kingdom Italy United States Hong Kong (China) India China Poland Philippines Germany Portugal Vietnam Netherlands Former Yugoslavia Jamaica Former USSR Other and not stated Total % of total population Note:

793.1 366.8 282.0 77.4 130.1 119.2 156.8 82.2 189.6 139.6 82.8 134.2 87.8 87.6 109.4 1 069.6

717.8 351.6 249.1 152.5 173.7 157.4 184.7 123.3 180.5 161.2 113.6 129.6 88.8 102.4 99.4 1 357.4

655.5 332.1 244.7 241.1 235.9 231.1 193.4 184.6 181.7 158.8 139.3 124.5 122.0 115.8 108.4 1 702.2

352.2 158.0 139.8 124.3 117.0 122.2 100.1 111.7 95.2 79.3 69.7 60.9 59.3 67.3 57.1 851.4

3 908.2 15.6

4 342.9 16.1

4 971.1 17.4

2 565.7 9.0


Table B.1.4. DENMARK, stock of foreign-born population by country of birth Thousands 1990

1995

2000

Turkey Germany Bosnia Herzegovina Iraq Norway Sweden Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Lebanon Somalia Iran United Kingdom Poland Pakistan Vietnam Sri Lanka Other countries

21.6 20.9 .. 2.7 11.7 11.9 8.4 8.4 0.7 8.7 8.2 8.8 7.9 5.6 4.7 59.6

25.3 21.9 15.2 6.3 13.0 11.9 10.3 11.0 5.7 10.0 9.9 9.7 8.9 7.5 5.8 72.2

29.7 22.7 18.0 15.1 13.4 12.6 12.5 11.9 11.8 11.3 10.5 10.4 10.3 8.3 6.8 103.2

Total Of which: EU % of total population

189.6 56.0 ..

244.5 61.2 4.7

308.7 66.4 5.8

Note:


324

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.1.4.

FINLAND, stock of foreign-born population by country of birth Thousands

Former USSR Sweden Estonia Somalia Former Yugoslavia Germany Iraq United States Vietnam United Kingdom Turkey Iran China Thailand Canada Other countries Total % of total population Note:

1995

2000

24.8 26.6 5.6 3.2 3.1 2.9 1.4 2.7 2.4 2.1 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.0 1.0 25.2

32.9 28.0 7.8 4.4 4.2 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.2 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.2 34.3

106.3 2.0

136.2 2.6


Table B.1.4.

HUNGARY, stock of foreign-born population by country of birth Thousands 1995

2000

Romania Former CSFR Former Yugoslavia Former USSR Germany Austria China Poland United States Bulgaria France Greece Vietnam Other countries

141.2 43.3 33.9 27.1 13.2 3.8 0.5 2.7 2.2 1.4 1.3 1.2 0.4 11.6

144.2 36.0 35.1 31.5 14.4 3.9 3.5 2.7 2.3 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.2 16.1

Total Of which: EU

283.7 22.0

294.6 24.3

Note:


325

© OECD 2003


Table B.1.4.

NETHERLANDS, stock of foreign-born population by country of birth Thousands

Suriname Turkey Indonesia Morocco Germany Former Yugoslavia Belgium United Kingdom Iraq Afghanistan China Somalia Iran United States Spain Other countries Total % of total population Note:

1990

1995

2000

162.9 149.5 186.1 122.9 128.7 15.2 42.2 38.3 1.5 .. 11.8 3.6 6.3 14.7 17.3 316.2

181.0 167.5 177.7 140.7 130.1 43.8 43.3 42.3 10.2 .. 16.1 17.2 14.9 17.4 17.4 387.6

186.5 181.9 165.8 155.8 123.1 53.9 46.0 45.7 33.7 24.3 22.7 21.7 21.5 21.4 18.3 493.2

1 217.1 8.1

1 407.1 9.1

1 615.4 10.1


Table B.1.4.

NEW ZEALAND, stock of foreign-born population by country of birth Thousands Of which: Women 2001 2001

United Kingdom Australia Samoa China South Africa Fiji Netherlands India Tonga Korea Cook Islands United States Chinese Taipei Malaysia Hong Kong (China) Other countries

218.4 56.3 47.1 38.9 26.1 25.7 22.2 20.9 18.1 17.9 15.2 13.3 12.5 11.5 11.3 143.2

109.7 30.1 24.7 20.5 13.4 13.5 10.2 10.2 9.1 9.4 7.9 6.8 6.8 6.0 6.0 75.6


698.6 19.5

359.7 10.0

Note:


326

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.1.4.

NORWAY, stock of foreign-born population by country of birth Thousands 1986

1989

1995

2000

Sweden Denmark United States United Kingdom Pakistan Rep. Fed. of Yugoslavia Germany Bosnia Herzegovina Vietnam Iran Turkey Sri Lanka Korea Poland Chile Other countries

17.9 19.9 15.5 14.5 8.2 2.1 7.8 .. 5.4 0.8 3.2 1.6 4.1 3.0 1.6 43.2

18.1 20.5 15.0 14.3 10.5 4.2 8.1 .. 7.5 5.2 5.0 4.7 4.7 4.3 5.5 55.6

24.3 20.9 15.2 13.6 11.8 7.9 9.5 10.8 10.8 7.1 6.1 6.3 5.5 5.3 5.2 79.9

33.2 22.0 14.7 14.2 13.6 12.9 11.8 11.7 11.3 9.3 7.6 7.5 6.1 5.9 5.5 117.9


148.9 3.6

183.3 4.3

240.3 5.5

305.0 6.8

Note:


Table B.1.4.

SWEDEN, stock of foreign-born population by country of birth Thousands 1993

1995

2000

Finland Former Yugoslavia Bosnia Herzegovina1 Iran Iraq Norway Poland Denmark Germany Turkey Chile Lebanon United Kingdom United States Syria Other countries

209.5 70.5 .. 48.1 20.2 47.1 38.5 41.1 36.6 28.5 27.7 21.2 12.5 13.8 8.6 245.3

205.7 119.5 .. 49.0 26.4 53.9 39.4 40.5 36.5 29.8 27.0 .. 12.7 13.8 9.4 272.5

195.4 72.0 51.5 51.1 49.4 42.5 40.1 38.2 34.1 31.9 26.8 20.0 14.6 14.4 14.2 307.5


869.1 9.9

936.0 10.5

1 003.8 11.3

Note: For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Included in former Yugoslavia until 1995.

327

© OECD 2003


Table B.1.4.

UNITED STATES, stock of foreign-born population by place of birth Thousands

Mexico Philippines Canada Cuba Germany United Kingdom Italy Korea Vietnam China India Former USSR Poland Dominican Republic Jamaica Other and not stated Total % of total population Note:

1970

1980

1990

759.7 184.8 812.4 439.0 833.0 708.2 1 008.7 88.7 .. 172.2 51.0 463.5 548.1 .. .. 3 550.0

2 199.2 501.4 842.9 607.8 849.4 669.1 831.9 289.9 231.1 286.1 206.1 406.0 418.1 169.1 196.8 5 375.0

4 298.0 912.7 744.8 737.0 711.9 640.1 580.6 568.4 543.3 529.8 450.4 398.9 388.3 347.9 334.1 7 581.1

9 619.3 4.7

14 079.9 6.2

19 767.3 7.9


328

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.1.5.

AUSTRIA, stock of foreign population by nationality Thousands 1995

2000

Former Yugoslavia Turkey Other countries

329.5 142.8 251.2

341.6 134.5 281.7

Total Of which: EU

723.5 ..

757.9 105.4

Note:

Data are from population registers and refer to the population on 31 December of the years indicated. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.5.

BELGIUM, stock of foreign population by nationality Thousands Of which: Women 1985

1990

1995

2000 2000

Italy France Morocco Netherlands Turkey Spain Germany United Kingdom Portugal Greece United States Dem. Rep. of Congo Former Yugoslavia Algeria Poland Other countries1

252.9 92.3 123.6 59.6 74.2 51.2 24.3 20.8 9.5 19.3 11.0 8.9 4.7 10.0 .. 84.2

241.2 94.3 141.7 65.3 84.9 52.2 27.8 23.3 16.5 20.9 11.7 12.0 5.9 10.7 4.9 91.0

210.7 100.1 140.3 77.2 81.7 48.3 31.8 26.0 23.9 19.9 12.0 12.2 8.1 9.5 5.4 102.8

195.6 109.3 106.8 88.8 56.2 43.4 34.6 26.6 25.6 18.0 11.9 11.3 9.8 7.7 6.9 109.3

88.3 56.7 50.1 39.9 28.5 22.2 17.0 12.0 12.7 8.4 6.0 5.6 4.8 3.5 4.5 55.7

Total Of which: EU Total women

846.5 538.1 386.5

904.5 551.2 417.5

909.8 554.5 428.0

861.7 .. 415.8

415.8

Note:

Data are from population registers and refer to the population on 31 December of the years indicated. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Including refugees whose stock is not broken down by nationality.

329

© OECD 2003


Table B.1.5.

CZECH REPUBLIC, stock of foreign residents by nationality Thousands 1992

1995

2000

Ukraine Slovak Republic1 Vietnam Poland Russian Federation Germany Bulgaria Belarus Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia China United States Republic of Moldova Romania Croatia Austria Other countries

.. .. 2.6 12.7 .. 1.5 2.9 .. .. 1.4 1.5 .. 0.2 .. .. 18.5

28.2 39.7 14.2 23.1 4.4 5.6 4.3 0.4 4.8 4.2 4.4 0.2 1.6 1.5 2.2 19.9

50.2 44.3 23.6 17.1 13.0 5.0 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.4 2.2 1.9 20.3

Total

41.2

158.6

201.0

Note:

Data are from registers of foreigners and refer to the population on 31 December of the years indicated. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Up to 1 January 1993, Slovak permanent residents were registered in the National Population Register. Since the split of the Czech and Slovak Republics, Slovak citizens residing in the Czech Republic are subject to the same rules as any other foreign resident and they are registered in the Central Register of Foreigners.

Table B.1.5.

DENMARK, stock of foreign population by nationality Thousands Of which: Women

1985

1990

1995

2000 2000

Turkey Former Yugoslavia Somalia Iraq Norway Germany United Kingdom Sweden Pakistan Iceland Poland United States Iran Vietnam Netherlands Other countries Total Of which: EU1 Total women

20.4 7.9 .. 0.7 9.8 8.2 9.7 8.1 6.6 3.3 2.2 4.3 4.7 3.7 1.6 25.7

29.7 10.0 0.6 2.8 10.2 8.4 10.2 8.2 6.2 3.0 4.7 4.5 9.0 3.7 2.0 47.2

35.7 28.1 6.9 7.1 11.1 10.6 12.1 9.1 6.6 4.8 5.3 5.1 7.4 5.0 3.2 64.7

35.2 35.0 14.4 13.8 13.0 12.7 12.6 10.8 7.1 5.9 5.5 5.3 5.0 4.6 4.5 73.1

17.3 17.1 7.0 6.3 7.5 5.9 4.4 6.2 3.8 2.9 3.9 2.4 2.4 2.5 1.8 39.5

117.0 37.3 54.0

160.6 38.2 75.2

222.7 46.5 109.2

258.6 54.3 130.8

130.8 24.2

Note:

Data are from population registers and refer to the population on 31 December of the years indicated. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. European Union 15 for all years.

330

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.1.5.

FINLAND, stock of foreign population by nationality Thousands Of which: Women 1985

1990

1995

2000 2000

Russian Federation1 1

.. .. 4.9 .. .. 1.1 1.6 1.3 .. .. .. ..

Estonia Sweden Somalia Iraq United Kingdom Germany United States Iran Vietnam Turkey China Bosnia Herzegovina Thailand Former Yugoslavia2 Other countries Total Total women

.. .. 8.2

.. .. 6.1 .. .. 1.3 1.6 1.5 0.1 .. 0.2 .. .. .. .. 15.9

9.7 8.4 7.0 4.0 1.3 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.3 2.1 1.3 1.4 0.9 0.8 2.4 22.5

20.6 10.8 7.9 4.2 3.1 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.2 26.7

12.7 6.5 3.5 2.1 1.4 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.1 0.6 11.7

17.0 ..

26.6 11.5

68.6 32.8

91.1 45.5

45.5

Note: Data are from population registers and refer to the population on the 31 December of the years indicated. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Figures include Ingrians (ethnic Finns). 2. Excluding Bosnia Herzegovina.

Table B.1.5.

FRANCE, stock of foreign population by nationality Thousands

Portugal Morocco Algeria Turkey Italy Spain Tunisia Former Yugoslavia Cambodia Poland Senegal Vietnam Laos Other countries Total Of which: EU Total women Note:

1982

1990

1999

767.3 441.3 805.1 122.3 340.3 327.2 190.8 62.5 37.9 64.8 32.3 33.8 32.5 456.1

649.7 572.7 614.2 197.7 252.8 216.0 206.3 52.5 47.4 47.1 43.7 33.7 31.8 631.0

553.7 504.1 477.5 208.0 201.7 161.8 154.4 .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 002.1

3 714.2 1 594.8 1 594.6

3 596.6 1 311.9 1 614.3

3 263.2 1 195.5 1 531.0

Data are from the population censuses. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

331

© OECD 2003


Table B.1.5.

GERMANY, stock of foreign population by nationality Thousands Of which: Women4 1985

1990

1995

2000 2000

Turkey Former Yugoslavia1 Italy Greece Poland Croatia2 Austria Bosnia Herzegovina2 Portugal Spain Russian Federation United States United Kingdom Netherlands France Other countries Total Of which: EU3 Total women

1 401.9 591.0 531.3 280.6 104.8 .. 172.5 .. 77.0 152.8

1 694.6 662.7 552.4 320.2 242.0 .. 183.2 .. 85.5 135.5

2 014.3 797.7 586.1 359.5 276.7 185.1 184.5 316.0 125.1 132.3

85.7 88.1 108.4 74.8 710.0

92.7 96.5 111.7 85.1 1 080.4 5 342.5 1 632.6 2 330.74

4 378.9 1 539.0 1 867.4

108.4 112.5 113.1 99.1 1 763.5

1 998.5 662.5 619.1 365.4 301.4 216.8 187.7 156.3 133.7 129.4 115.9 113.6 112.8 110.8 110.2 1 962.7

915.4 295.9 250.5 164.7 147.3 105.1 85.1 75.3 57.8 61.7 66.5 48.5 46.4 50.7 59.0 907.6

7 173.9 1 811.7 2 459.8

7 296.8 1 870.1 3 337.5

3 337.5 830.9

Note: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Data are from population registers and refer to the population on 31 December of the given year. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. From 1993 on, Serbia and Montenegro. Included in former Yugoslavia until 1992. European Union 15 for all years (except Swedish citizens before 1991). Women aged 16 years and over from 1990 on.

Table B.1.5.

HUNGARY, stock of foreign population by nationality Thousands 1994

1995

19991

Of which: women 1999

Romania Former Yugoslavia Germany China Ukraine Slovak Republic Russian Federation Poland Vietnam Bulgaria Mongolia Greece United Kingdom Austria France Other countries Total Of which: EU Total women

68.3 14.5 7.4 3.5 11.1 3.4 3.7 4.6 1.3 1.7 0.5 1.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 14.9

65.7 15.5 7.8 4.3 11.5 3.5 3.7 4.5 1.3 1.6 0.6 1.6 0.8 0.7 0.4 16.3

48.6 15.3 8.5 7.7 7.6 4.1 3.8 2.5 2.2 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 21.0

24.8 9.3 5.3 3.2 5.8 2.8 2.2 1.5 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 5.2

137.9 11.8 65.0

139.9 13.0 65.6

127.0 14.2 63.8

63.8 7.4

Note:

Data are from registers of foreigners and refer to the population on 31 December of the years indicated. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Preliminary figures.

332

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.1.5.

IRELAND, stock of foreign population by nationality Thousands 1995

2001

United Kingdom Other EU citizens United States Other countries

60.0 13.0 8.2 14.9

74.0 25.2 10.2 42.0

Total

96.1

151.4

Note:

Estimated from the annual Labour Force Survey. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.5. ITALY, stock of foreign population by nationality Thousands 1985

1990

1995

2000

2.6 .. .. 7.6 1.6 51.1 4.4 13.9 0.3 37.2 2.5 7.0 .. 5.3

94.2 34.7 24.5 43.4 21.5 60.6 40.5 56.1 24.0 39.4 20.3 21.9 22.0 14.6 10.0 463.7

159.6 142.1 68.9 65.4 60.1 47.4 45.7 40.0 39.0 37.3 33.7 32.8 31.4 30.3 29.9 524.6

991.4 164.0

1 388.2 151.8

Morocco Albania Romania Philippines China United States Tunisia Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Senegal Germany Sri Lanka Egypt Poland India Peru Other countries

289.5

78.0 .. 7.5 34.3 18.7 58.1 41.2 29.8 25.1 41.6 11.5 19.8 17.0 11.3 5.4 381.9

Total Of which: EU

423.0 ..

781.1 148.6

Note:

Data are from residence permits and refer to the population on the 31 December of the years indicated. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. Figures for 2000 include 116 253 regularised persons.

Table B.1.5.

JAPAN, stock of foreign population by nationality Thousands 1985

1990

1995

2000

Korea China1 Brazil Philippines Peru United States Thailand Indonesia Vietnam United Kingdom Canada India Australia Malaysia Pakistan Other countries

683.3 74.9 2.0 12.3 0.5 29.0 2.6 1.7 4.1 6.8 2.4 .. 1.8 1.8 1.0 3.0

687.9 150.3 56.4 49.1 10.3 38.4 6.7 3.6 6.2 10.2 4.9 .. 4.0 4.7 2.1 40.5

666.4 223.0 176.4 74.3 36.3 43.2 16.0 7.0 9.1 12.5 7.2 5.5 6.0 5.4 4.8 69.3

635.3 335.6 254.4 144.9 46.2 44.9 29.3 19.3 16.9 16.5 10.1 10.1 9.2 8.4 7.5 98.0

Total

827.2

1 075.3

1 362.4

1 686.4

Note:

Data are based on registered foreign nationals which include foreigners staying in Japan for more than 90 days and refer to the population on the 31 December of the years indicated. 1. Including Chinese Taipei.

© OECD 2003

333


Table B.1.5.

KOREA, stock of foreign population by nationality Thousands Of which: women 1986

1990

1995

2000 2000

China Of which: Chinese with Korean descents Chinese Taipei United States Indonesia Philippines Vietnam Japan Bangladesh Uzbekistan Canada Thailand Pakistan Russian Federation Other countries

– – 24.8 8.4 – 0.2 – 3.0 – – 0.4 – – – 4.8

0.1 – 23.6 14.0 0.1 0.6 – 5.3 – – 0.6 0.1 – – 5.1

19.2 7.4 23.3 22.2 3.4 9.0 5.7 9.4 2.7 0.8 3.0 0.5 0.8 0.5 9.6

59.0 32.4 23.0 22.8 16.7 16.0 15.6 14.0 7.9 3.7 3.3 3.2 3.2 2.6 19.2

29.3 15.3 10.6 10.3 3.3 7.3 5.5 9.7 – 0.8 1.3 1.1 0.1 2.0 6.3


41.6 3.1 ..

49.5 3.0 22.6

110.0 3.6 47.0

210.2 5.1 87.5

87.5 1.7

Note:

Data are from population registers and refer to the population on the 31 December of the years indicated. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.5.

LUXEMBOURG, stock of foreign population by nationality Thousands 1985

1990

1995

2000

Portugal Italy France Belgium Germany Spain Other countries

29.0 20.7 12.6 8.5 8.9 2.2 16.0

39.1 19.5 13.0 10.1 8.8 2.5 20.1

51.5 19.8 15.0 11.8 9.7 2.8 27.5

58.4 20.3 20.1 15.1 10.6 .. 40.2

Total

97.9

113.1

138.1

164.7

Note:


334

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.1.5. NETHERLANDS, stock of foreign population by nationality Thousands Of which: women 1985

1990

1995

2000 2000

Morocco Turkey Germany United Kingdom1 Belgium Italy Spain United States Portugal Greece Tunisia Former Yugoslavia Other countries

116.4 156.4 41.0 38.5 22.8 17.8 19.0 10.5 7.5 3.8 2.6 11.7 104.5

156.9 203.5 44.3 39.0 23.6 16.9 17.2 11.4 8.3 4.9 2.6 13.5 150.3

149.8 154.3 53.9 41.1 24.1 17.4 16.7 12.8 9.1 5.4 1.9 33.5 205.4

111.4 100.8 54.8 41.4 25.9 18.2 17.2 14.8 9.8 5.7 1.3 .. 266.6

53.1 50.8 27.7 16.5 13.6 6.3 8.2 7.2 4.4 2.0 0.5 .. 132.7

Total Of which: EU2 Total women

552.5 166.4 239.8

692.4 173.9 311.1

725.4 191.1 335.4

667.8 201.6 323.0

323.0 93.8

Note:

Data are from population registers and refer to the population on the 31 December of the years indicated. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Including Hong Kong (China). 2. European Union 15 for all years.

Table B.1.5.

NORWAY, stock of foreign population by nationality Thousands Of which: Women 1985

1990

1995

2000 2000

Sweden Denmark Bosnia Herzegovina1 United Kingdom Iraq Former Yugoslavia United States Germany Pakistan Somalia Finland Iceland Iran Netherlands Turkey Other countries Total Of which: EU Total women

10.0 15.7 .. 12.5 .. 1.7 10.0 3.7 8.4 .. .. .. 0.3 2.4 3.4 33.4

11.7 17.2 .. 11.8 0.9 4.2 9.5 4.3 11.4 1.7 3.1 2.2 5.9 2.6 5.5 51.3

15.4 17.9 11.2 11.1 2.6 6.4 9.0 4.8 9.7 3.7 3.7 2.9 4.7 3.0 4.4 50.3

25.2 19.4 11.6 11.1 9.9 8.8 8.0 7.1 6.7 6.2 6.0 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.3 32.0

12.9 9.5 5.9 4.3 3.1 4.2 4.2 3.5 3.6 2.9 3.5 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.4 17.6

101.5 52.9 48.1

143.3 55.9 66.5

160.8 61.6 80.3

184.3 79.2 92.7

92.7 38.1

Note:

Data are from population registers and refer to the population on the 31 December of the years indicated. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Included in former Yugoslavia until 1992.

335

© OECD 2003


Table B.1.5.

PORTUGAL, stock of foreign population by nationality Thousands 1988

1990

20001

1995

Of which: Women 2000

Cape Verde Brazil Angola Guinea-Bissau United Kingdom Spain Germany United States France Sao Tome and Principe Mozambique Netherlands Venezuela China Italy Other countries

27.1 9.3 4.4 3.1 7.1 7.1 4.1 6.1 2.8 1.7 2.8 1.5 4.8 1.0 1.1 10.6

28.8 11.4 5.3 4.0 8.5 7.5 4.8 6.9 3.2 2.0 3.2 1.8 5.1 1.2 1.2 12.7

38.7 19.9 15.8 12.3 11.5 8.9 7.4 8.5 4.7 4.1 4.4 2.7 4.5 2.2 1.9 20.7

47.2 22.4 20.5 16.0 14.1 12.2 10.4 8.1 7.2 5.5 4.7 4.1 3.5 3.3 3.0 26.1

19.8 10.6 8.6 4.5 6.5 6.0 4.6 3.5 3.4 2.7 2.1 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.1 11.7


94.7 25.3 ..

107.8 28.8 ..

168.3 41.5 69.5

208.2 56.8 89.6

89.6 26.3

Note: Figures include all foreigners who hold a valid residence permit. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Preliminary data for 2000.

Table B.1.5.

SPAIN, stock of foreign population by nationality Thousands

Morocco United Kingdom Germany France Portugal Ecuador Italy China Peru Dominican Republic Colombia Cuba Netherlands Argentina Algeria Other countries Total Of which: EU Note:

1985

1990

1995

2000

5.8 39.1 28.5 17.8 23.3 .. 10.3 1.6 1.7 1.2 2.7 5.0 10.9 9.7 .. 84.1

11.4 55.5 31.2 19.7 22.8 .. 10.8 2.8 2.6 1.5 3.1 3.5 11.7 12.1 .. 90.1

74.9 62.3 41.9 30.8 37.0 2.0 19.8 9.2 15.1 14.5 7.0 .. 13.0 18.4 .. 154.1

199.8 74.0 60.6 42.3 42.0 30.9 30.9 28.7 27.9 26.5 24.7 19.2 16.7 16.6 13.8 241.2

242.0 143.5

278.8 164.6

499.8 235.6

895.7 ..

Numbers of foreigners with a residence permit. Data refer to the population on the 31 December of the years indicated. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

336

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.1.5.

SWEDEN, stock of foreign population by nationality Thousands Of which: women 1985

1990

1995

2000 2000

Finland Iraq Norway Denmark Bosnia Herzegovina Poland Germany Turkey Iran United Kingdom Somalia Chile United States Croatia Syria Other countries Total Total women Note:

138.6 3.5 26.4 25.1 .. 15.5 12.0 21.5 8.3 8.9

113.2

119.7 7.7 38.2 28.6 .. 15.7 13.0 25.5 39.0 10.1 1.4 19.9 8.0 .. 3.6 153.3

104.9 21.3 32.3 26.5 53.9 16.0 13.4 20.3 29.3 11.2 11.3 13.0 9.2 3.8 3.3 162.0

98.6 33.1 32.0 25.6 22.8 16.7 16.4 15.8 14.3 13.1 11.5 10.3 10.0 7.5 6.0 143.6

55.4 15.2 16.6 10.9 11.5 11.3 7.7 7.9 7.4 4.4 5.7 4.8 4.5 3.8 3.0 72.9

388.6 192.7

483.7 237.5

531.8 256.5

477.3 243.2

243.2

9.2 6.4 ..


Table B.1.5.

SWITZERLAND, stock of foreign population by nationality Thousands Of which: women 1985

1990

1995

2000 2000

Italy Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Portugal Germany Spain Turkey France Bosnia Herzegovina Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia Croatia Austria United Kingdom United States Netherlands Belgium Other countries

392.5 69.5 30.9 81.0 108.4 50.9 47.1 .. .. .. 29.2 15.4 9.1 10.8 4.8 90.1

378.7 140.7 85.6 83.4 116.1 64.2 50.0 .. .. .. 28.8 16.7 9.7 11.9 5.6 108.7

358.9 294.2 134.8 90.9 101.4 78.6 53.6 .. .. .. 28.1 18.4 11.4 13.6 6.3 140.2

321.6 190.7 140.2 110.7 83.8 79.5 61.1 55.9 44.3 43.6 29.6 20.8 16.9 14.4 7.5 163.7

136.9 89.5 66.6 50.9 37.8 36.9 28.9 .. .. .. 13.4 8.7 8.2 6.8 3.6 163.2


939.7 702.7 419.1

1 100.3 760.2 483.7

1 330.6 824.9 608.7

1 384.4 809.1 651.4

651.4 363.4

Note:


337

© OECD 2003


Table B.1.5.

UNITED KINGDOM, stock of foreign population by country or region of nationality Thousands Of which: Women 1985

1990

1995

2001 2001

Ireland United States India Italy France Pakistan Bangladesh South Africa Australia Germany Jamaica Portugal Turkey Somalia Sri Lanka Other countries Total Of which: EU Total women Note:

569 86 138 83 27 49 41 .. 28 36 .. – .. .. .. 674

478 102 156 75 38 56 38 .. 44 41 .. 21 12 .. .. 662

443 110 114 80 60 81 53 31 47 51 46 30 29 .. 20 753

436 148 132 102 82 82 70 68 67 59 58 58 58 56 50 1 061

229 85 73 47 47 45 32 33 33 36 30 29 24 33 19 549

1 731 796 ..

1 723 731 910

1 948 902 1 036

2 587 918 1 344

1 344 479

Estimated from the annual Labour Force Survey. The symbol "–" indicates that figures are less than 10 000. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex

338

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

AUSTRALIA, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality

Table B.1.6. 1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

41 963 8 502 5 018 2 006 .. 2 130 6 763 9 697 .. 2 003 .. 1 313 .. .. 2 459 43 304

39 876 9 772 4 872 1 781 .. 2 645 6 633 12 406 .. 2 104 .. 982 .. .. 1 980 39 034

36 401 7 786 5 242 1 595 .. 2 836 6 600 10 713 .. 1 691 2 018 .. 1 634 887 1 805 32 978

36 134 9 033 5 971 1 324 .. 3 107 5 408 7 772 .. 1 730 2 204 .. 1 912 895 1 882 37 385

35 431 11 724 4 250 1 262 .. 2 638 4 021 7 741 .. 1 644 1 815 .. 2 272 870 1 688 36 281

27 294 9 982 16 173 1 578 1 637 2 563 3 815 5 083 1 591 1 620 1 721 764 1 701 891 1 278 30 575

23 080 8 764 21 053 1 880 2 728 3 358 3 688 4 685 2 877 2 049 1 934 719 1 565 1 143 1 167 31 653

13 529 6 320 10 947 1 606 1 841 2 695 2 606 3 083 1 698 1 707 1 665 1 002 1 083 876 724 73 872

14 592 6 676 7 664 2 253 1 531 2 381 2 349 3 441 1 853 1 832 1 379 1 154 989 755 698 21 289

12 474 11 007 6 890 2 992 2 661 2 335 2 211 1 953 1 862 1 672 1 398 1 057 1 004 827 682 21 045

125 158

122 085

112 186

114 757

111 637

108 266

112 343

76 474

70 836

72 070

United Kingdom New Zealand China South Africa Bosnia Herzegovina India Philippines Vietnam Iraq Sri Lanka Fiji Malaysia United States Iran Ireland Other countries Total Note:


Table B.1.6.

AUSTRIA, acquisition of nationality by country or region of former nationality 1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

3 221 1 809

4 337 1 994

5 791 2 688

5 623 3 379

4 538 3 209

3 133 7 499

3 671 5 068

4 151 5 683

6 745 10 350

7 576 6 732

2 413 455 3 496

1 839 410 3 340

1 858 406 3 659

2 672 328 4 268

2 588 202 4 772

2 083 140 3 388

2 898 164 4 473

3 850 157 4 480

3 515 91 4 331

4 758 102 5 477

11 394

11 920

14 402

16 270

15 309

16 243

16 274

18 321

25 032

24 645

Former Yugoslavia Turkey Central and Eastern Europe Germany Other countries Total Note:

1999

2000

Figures include naturalisations granted to persons living abroad. For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.6.

BELGIUM, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality 1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Morocco Turkey Italy Zaire Former Yugoslavia Algeria France Tunisia Poland Netherlands Romania India Greece Philippines Spain Other countries

2 091 879 762 185 211 191 514 96 151 217 273 179 104 .. 110 2 494

6 862 3 886 22 362 454 386 932 2 179 486 237 1 179 69 165 940 .. 1 795 4 436

5 500 3 305 1 431 410 353 543 532 416 174 222 94 119 170 118 196 2 793

8 638 6 273 2 326 474 417 714 618 573 239 335 118 159 312 147 281 4 163

9 146 6 572 2 096 452 416 780 608 537 176 336 85 148 294 124 246 4 113

7 912 6 609 1 940 442 .. 556 539 406 175 259 115 158 253 115 261 4 841

11 076 6 884 1 726 756 438 608 530 566 220 292 358 186 238 147 221 7 441

13 484 6 177 1 536 1 202 499 672 491 585 277 249 387 162 175 162 180 7 762

9 133 4 402 1 187 1 890 756 520 363 301 253 234 267 172 168 190 137 4 300

21 917 17 282 3 650 2 993 2 187 1 071 948 859 551 492 403 345 319 315 281 8 469

Total

8 457

46 368

16 376

25 787

26 129

24 581

31 687

34 000

24 273

62 082

Note:

Data cover all means of acquiring the nationality. For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

339

© OECD 2003


Table B.1.6.

1991

1992

1993

4 982 4 297 9 845 5 988 .. .. 2 609 2 214 1 035 11 257 .. 3 744 1 077 3 521 3 604 64 457

4 706 4 946 13 347 6 776 1 121 887 2 164 2 329 1 226 9 131 1 521 2 623 817 3 266 3 122 58 219

118 630

116 201

China India Hong Kong (China) Philippines Chinese Taipei Pakistan Sri Lanka Iran Former Yugoslavia United Kingdom Romania Vietnam Korea United States Jamaica Stateless and others Total Note:

CANADA, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality 1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

7 777 6 306 11 717 9 388 1 538 1 469 2 848 3 229 1 704 10 012 1 814 3 833 967 4 334 3 341 80 293

14 228 8 953 17 109 11 508 2 036 2 597 5 768 5 124 2 114 12 620 2 288 5 223 966 5 244 4 159 117 383

12 878 11 677 14 978 12 953 2 738 3 341 10 154 6 457 1 920 11 173 2 489 6 426 1 426 4 812 5 258 119 040

10 563 10 756 15 110 9 771 3 774 2 598 6 288 3 226 2 926 8 944 2 294 4 579 1 679 3 120 3 039 66 978

11 535 10 766 9 751 12 703 4 751 2 867 4 925 2 602 4 037 11 484 3 297 5 528 1 205 2 760 2 245 64 168

14 110 8 804 13 096 11 069 4 351 2 394 6 114 2 631 2 861 6 177 2 856 4 150 1 395 2 143 2 010 50 324

17 991 11 446 15 050 11 565 4 818 3 226 6 302 3 645 4 557 4 741 3 824 3 967 2 129 2 429 2 390 60 673

24 310 19 402 17 886 14 134 8 945 8 478 6 692 6 637 5 460 5 279 4 571 4 128 3 724 3 180 2 944 78 798

150 570

217 320

227 720

155 645

154 624

134 485

158 753

214 568


Table B.1.6.

DENMARK, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality 1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Turkey Iraq Former Yugoslavia Somalia Iran Lebanon Sri Lanka Vietnam Pakistan Morocco Afghanistan Germany China Thailand Poland Other countries

376 181 128 6 989 44 84 568 551 202 11 231 27 81 317 1 688

502 236 78 4 1 083 109 179 209 265 167 14 158 26 23 278 1 773

560 241 138 5 710 234 370 169 192 168 27 134 17 32 219 1 821

915 166 806 7 491 237 515 125 203 136 20 140 7 27 151 350

797 177 413 12 531 216 635 137 145 122 24 118 18 56 175 1 684

917 339 629 32 829 314 765 200 220 201 29 126 42 65 237 2 338

1 036 244 291 17 553 160 376 126 149 110 15 138 32 44 130 2 061

1 243 718 695 159 969 811 613 365 284 248 101 173 117 85 241 3 440

3 154 918 709 215 914 601 523 439 463 322 98 197 169 137 173 3 384

2 787 2 210 1 523 1 189 1 105 1 099 819 647 545 485 276 240 228 214 201 5 243

Total

5 484

5 104

5 037

4 296

5 260

7 283

5 482

10 262

12 416

18 811

Note:


Table B.1.6.

FINLAND, acquisition of nationality by country or region of former nationality 1991

Europe Of which: Former USSR Nordic countries Asia Africa North America South America Oceania Stateless and unknown Total 340

1994

Note:

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

736

506

450

342

335

365

509

1 245

1 612

1 472

142 306 200 101 57 45 10 87

232 162 140 104 7 48 4 66

158 114 214 67 5 39 1 63

48 94 152 56 11 32 – 58

149 104 144 81 1 27 2 44

198 111 328 120 5 30 1 132

254 106 489 180 6 46 2 207

804 148 1 299 788 7 70 6 602

935 94 696 1 365 7 34 4 1 012

714 55 715 522 13 68 1 184

1 236

875

839

651

668

981

1 439

4 017

4 730

2 977


© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.1.6.

FRANCE, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality

1991

1992

1993

19941

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Morocco Algeria Tunisia Turkey Portugal Former Yugoslavia Cambodia Vietnam Sri Lanka Laos Lebanon Dem. Rep. of Congo Italy Senegal Haiti Other countries

10 289 6 631 4 375 1 124 7 126 1 367 1 729 2 139 .. 1 343 1 390 650 1 475 .. 714 15 781

12 292 7 410 4 991 1 296 5 575 1 400 1 701 1 888 .. 1 305 1 508 739 1 117 .. 678 14 977

13 131 7 909 5 370 1 515 5 233 1 652 1 847 1 775 .. 1 187 1 568 795 936 .. 744 16 345

22 676 10 868 9 248 3 197 6 908 2 278 3 319 2 660 .. 1 991 2 445 1 505 1 370 .. 1 351 23 266

12 249 9 499 4 182 2 143 3 775 1 499 2 445 1 950 546 1 496 1 689 161 1 022 560 962 17 706

15 452 13 218 5 109 3 447 4 644 1 722 2 950 2 773 837 1 647 2 390 1 057 1 255 935 1 202 21 340

16 365 13 488 5 420 3 977 4 997 1 549 2 896 2 432 1 046 1 539 2 104 1 171 1 353 1 054 1 174 23 111

16 345 13 377 5 699 4 530 4 505 1 536 2 404 2 186 980 1 361 1 783 1 269 1 261 1 091 1 145 22 440

21 245 15 468 5 914 6 018 4 517 1 828 2 297 1 940 1 408 1 507 1 495 1 312 1 114 1 408 1 274 67 690

23 856 17 302 7 330 7 209 3 815 2 513 2 268 1 986 1 778 1 707 1 681 1 611 1 522 1 508 1 470 63 899

Total2 Total (estimates)3

59 655 95 500

59 246 95 300

60 007 95 500

93 082 126 337

61 884 92 410

79 978 109 823

83 676 116 194

81 912 122 261

136 435 141 455 145 435 150 025

Note: For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. From 1994 onwards, data broken down by nationality include children acquiring French nationality as a consequence of the parent’s naturalisation. 2. Data exclude people automatically acquiring French nationality upon reaching legal majority (this procedure was in effect until 1993) as well as people born in France to foreign parents who declared their intention to become French in accordance with the legislation of 22 July 1993. 3. Data include estimates of people acquiring French nationality upon reaching legal majority until 1993 as well as the number of people born in France to foreign parents who declared their intention to become French in accordance with the legislation of 22 July 1993.

Table B.1.6.

Turkey Former Yugoslavia Russian Federation1 Romania Poland Italy Austria Kazakhstan1 Former USSR Other countries Total naturalisations Of which: naturalisations by discretionary decision

GERMANY, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality 1991

1992

3 529 2 832 .. 29 011 27 646 679 793 .. 55 620 21 520

7 377 2 326 .. 37 574 20 248 1 218 959 .. 84 660 25 542

141 630 27 295

1993

1994

1995

12 915 5 241 .. 28 346 15 435 1 154 810 .. 105 801 29 741

19 590 4 374 .. 17 968 11 943 1 417 772 .. 43 086 160 020

31 578 3 623 60 000 12 028 10 174 1 281 493 101 000 35 477 57 952

179 904 199 443

259 170

313 606

26 295

31 888

37 042

44 950

1996

1997

1998

19992

20002

46 294 2 967 60 662 9 777 7 872 1 297 605 94 961 21 457 56 938

40 396 2 244 62 641 8 668 5 763 1 176 582 88 583 8 966 52 754

56 994 2 721 65 868 6 318 4 968 1 144 533 83 478 3 925 10 198

31 694 536 9 451 544 477 116 27 .. 141 21 316

82 861 9 776 4 583 2 008 1 604 1 036 522 .. .. 84 298

302 830 271 773

236 147

64 302

186 688

37 604

39 162

49 909

Note:

Data include naturalisations on the basis of a claim until 1998, which concern essentially ethnic Germans. For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Including in former USSR until 1994. 2. Excluding ethnic Germans.

Table B.1.6.

HUNGARY, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality 1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Romania Former Yugoslavia Former USSR Other countries

5 274 12 271 336

20 480 153 788 459

10 589 272 567 378

6 943 852 1 585 525

7 055 1 132 1 182 651

8 549 1 999 1 227 491

5 229 1 610 788 1 030

3 842 1 082 713 799

3 463 1 135 874 594

4 231 1 655 1 015 637

Total

5 893

21 880

11 805

9 905

10 021

12 266

8 658

6 435

6 066

7 538

Note:


341

© OECD 2003


ITALY, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality

Table B.1.6.

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Romania Switzerland Albania Morocco Poland Brazil Former USSR1 Dominican Republic Egypt Argentina Iran Philippines Vietnam Other countries

112 335 – 126 228 128 112 89 222 278 113 164 80 2 555

194 385 – 141 211 123 179 133 152 432 64 169 154 2 071

446 472 – 235 262 175 325 245 246 570 95 222 115 3 077

521 423 – 295 211 225 260 375 169 392 73 139 88 3 442

577 638 – 333 313 191 435 390 223 286 131 177 243 3 505

639 514 198 323 302 215 282 468 228 260 168 162 162 5 010

811 768 72 586 96 131 106 544 28 73 39 32 23 8 324

222 26 123 97 76 110 105 151 32 68 53 45 21 9 651

928 828 746 641 497 459 448 420 272 255 – – – 8 154

Total

4 542

4 408

6 485

6 613

7 442

8 931

11 633

10 780

13 648

1999

2000

Note: For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Russian Federation from 1996 on.

Table B.1.6.

JAPAN, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality

1991

1992

1993

1994

Korea China Other countries

5 665 1 818 305

7 244 1 794 325

7 697 2 244 511

8 244 2 478 424

Total

7 788

9 363

10 452

11 146

Note:

1995

1996

1997

1998

10 327 3 184 593

9 898 3 976 621

9 678 4 729 654

9 561 4 637 581

10 059 5 335 726

9 842 5 245 725

14 104

14 495

15 061

14 779

16 120

15 812


Table B.1.6.

LUXEMBOURG, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality 1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Italy Belgium France Germany Netherlands Other countries

123 76 75 54 11 243

147 86 75 68 13 220

151 63 89 78 18 279

169 75 71 64 16 344

209 67 78 70 15 363

193 65 85 55 20 361

192 64 79 60 17 337

149 48 53 44 15 322

94 53 43 41 11 307

157 72 52 50 14 303

Total

582

609

678

739

802

779

749

631

549

648

Note:

Minor children acquiring nationality as a consequence of the naturalisation of their parents are excluded. For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex

342

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.1.6.

NETHERLANDS, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality 1991

Morocco Turkey Bosnia Herzegovina Iraq Suriname Somalia Iran China Afghanistan Poland Germany Egypt Russian Federation United Kingdom Former Yugoslavia Stateless Other countries Total Note:

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

7 300 6 110 .. .. 4 010 .. .. .. .. .. 380 30 .. 900 520 360 9 500

7 990 11 520 .. .. 5 120 .. .. .. .. .. 380 30 .. 670 1 060 210 9 260

7 750 18 000 .. .. 4 990 .. .. .. .. .. 330 350 .. 490 2 090 180 8 890

8 110 23 870 .. .. 5 390 .. .. .. .. .. 310 540 .. 460 1 880 170 8 720

13 480 33 060 .. .. 3 990 .. .. .. .. .. 500 810 .. 820 1 700 610 16 470

15 600 30 700 .. .. 4 450 .. .. .. .. .. 780 1 080 .. 1 170 2 240 820 25 860

10 480 21 190 .. .. 3 020 .. .. .. .. .. 560 550 .. 690 2 830 680 19 830

11 250 13 480 .. .. 2 990 .. .. .. .. .. 560 390 .. 580 6 670 120 23 130

14 220 5 210 .. .. 3 190 .. .. .. .. .. 580 500 .. 450 7 990 4 620 25 330

13 471 4 708 2 646 2 403 2 008 1 634 1 375 1 002 945 587 508 443 422 374 .. 7 400 10 042

29 110

36 240

43 070

49 450

71 440

82 700

59 830

59 170

62 090

49 968


Table B.1.6. NORWAY, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality 1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Former Yugoslavia Pakistan Vietnam Turkey Sweden Poland India Denmark Philippines Chile China Morocco Korea United Kingdom Germany Other countries

140 778 1 082 474 103 234 166 108 235 82 76 280 95 93 40 1 069

201 1 054 931 238 108 215 220 108 298 81 95 299 107 107 46 1 024

274 664 746 393 153 265 242 119 213 117 149 275 105 106 56 1 661

659 616 710 752 150 275 251 187 243 310 148 257 135 136 59 3 890

754 997 727 793 130 374 346 102 343 923 235 248 121 110 45 5 530

554 1 530 1 446 836 112 267 313 91 315 531 383 318 122 162 41 5 216

520 1 583 1 276 837 167 282 274 143 360 416 348 294 109 142 63 5 223

560 1 097 781 705 154 192 157 149 155 240 279 154 146 129 55 4 291

1 176 106 651 170 241 209 232 158 199 252 315 90 144 94 73 3 878

1 322 1 077 738 523 246 196 188 170 157 156 156 131 113 104 74 4 166

Total

5 055

5 132

5 538

8 778

11 778

12 237

12 037

9 244

7 988

9 517

Note:


343

© OECD 2003


Table B.1.6.

PORTUGAL, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality

Venezuela Brazil Cape Verde United States Canada Angola Guinea-Bissau Mozambique India United Kingdom Sao Tome and Principe China France Spain Germany Other countries Total Of which: EU Note:

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

431 235 169 164 76 76 43 30 .. 16 18 .. 14 9 1 131

411 241 80 120 69 57 27 19 .. 14 10 .. 11 12 2 81

431 296 93 203 92 56 16 26 .. 9 12 .. 18 9 2 101

1 46 159 7 4 56 67 56 6 0 28 43 3 3 1 39

219 186 117 91 70 62 37 37 4 17 15 12 8 3 2 66

186 175 69 64 55 42 27 10 10 8 7 7 6 4 3 48

1 413 45

1 154 44

1 364 47

519 13

946 32

721 25


Table B.1.6.

SPAIN, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Morocco Dominican Republic Peru Cuba Argentina Colombia Portugal Philippines Chile Brazil China India Ecuatorial Guinea Venezuela Uruguay Other countries

427 105 136 119 639 174 234 188 249 .. .. .. .. 139 147 1 195

597 146 212 146 944 247 447 283 344 .. .. .. .. 183 187 1 544

986 298 246 .. 1 532 433 424 380 725 .. .. .. .. 373 268 2 747

897 393 468 172 1 690 383 503 340 335 .. 106 129 .. 211 246 1 929

785 499 658 169 1 314 364 372 281 317 .. 74 111 .. 130 217 1 465

687 833 1 150 250 1 387 457 452 455 425 128 109 128 .. 133 260 1 579

1 056 1 257 1 159 442 1 368 478 524 583 428 217 180 172 140 153 279 1 875

1 542 1 860 1 863 773 1 126 624 677 499 473 299 238 206 200 203 310 2 284

2 053 2 652 2 374 1 109 1 027 818 683 551 432 308 302 270 278 290 309 2 938

1 921 1 755 1 488 893 661 594 452 365 302 273 240 232 206 197 177 2 243

Total

3 752

5 280

8 412

7 802

6 756

8 433

10 311

13 177

16 394

11 999

Note:

Persons recovering their former (Spanish) nationality are not included. For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

344

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.1.6.

Bosnia Herzegovina Former Yugoslavia (Others) Iraq Somalia Iran Turkey Finland Syria Chile Vietnam Thailand China Lebanon Stateless Other countries Total Note:

SWEDEN, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality 1991

1992

1993

1994

.. 2 832 1 182 72 3 530 1 358 4 208 639 1 323 548 226 137 1 096 1 485 9 027

.. 3 969 958 93 4 783 1 569 3 805 587 1 305 560 203 114 700 1 441 9 239

– 10 940 1 436 173 5 119 4 201 3 070 1 032 1 762 985 297 234 1 113 1 810 10 487

12 6 352 1 167 209 4 365 2 742 2 974 867 1 446 757 288 222 1 883 1 807 9 993

27 663

29 326

42 659

35 084

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

27 3 550 1 466 610 3 867 2 836 2 125 1 330 946 421 301 333 2 728 1 398 10 055

98 2 416 1 851 491 2 696 2 030 2 009 616 707 595 264 363 820 933 9 663

2 550 6 052 2 328 491 2 423 1 402 1 882 567 545 601 343 302 33 830 8 518

10 860 8 991 3 719 737 7 480 1 694 1 668 653 426 716 336 334 146 942 7 800

11 348 4 000 2 328 739 4 476 1 833 1 632 438 693 719 492 300 235 776 7 768

12 591 5 134 4 181 2 843 2 798 1 398 1 389 693 687 580 525 434 366 979 8 876

31 993

25 552

28 867

46 502

37 777

43 474


Table B.1.6.

SWITZERLAND, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality 1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Italy Former Yugoslavia Turkey France Spain Portugal Germany United Kingdom Austria Hungary Former CSFR Netherlands Other countries

1 802 607 333 677 408 146 971 135 478 186 362 111 2 541

1 930 936 614 809 353 101 1 099 307 465 223 338 90 3 943

2 778 1 454 820 862 319 89 890 347 413 207 415 76 4 258

3 258 1 821 966 935 305 119 657 263 256 243 370 57 4 507

4 376 2 491 1 205 871 432 175 706 278 261 297 385 52 5 266

5 167 2 783 1 432 1 045 453 262 675 299 248 278 465 55 6 213

4 982 2 956 1 814 985 481 291 644 269 223 206 272 71 5 976

5 613 3 311 2 093 1 152 619 421 605 285 186 187 231 76 6 501

5 510 2 365 2 260 848 507 481 461 228 140 153 184 45 7 181

6 652 3 285 3 127 1 360 851 765 646 339 240 167 132 74 11 062

Total

8 757

11 208

12 928

13 757

16 795

19 375

19 170

21 280

20 363

28 700

Note:


Table B.1.6. UNITED KINGDOM, acquisition of nationality by region of former nationality 1992

1993

1994

Africa Indian sub-continent Middle East Rest of Asia European Economic Area Rest of Europe America Oceania Other countries

6 304 10 528 3 821 5 176 2 257 2 996 4 562 1 462 5 137

7 452 12 246 4 330 5 690 2 177 3 298 4 828 1 452 4 318

7 877 11 263 4 322 5 144 2 058 3 107 4 531 1 539 4 192

7 940 9 879 3 543 4 817 1 755 2 860 4 096 1 666 3 960

9 162 10 792 3 535 5 207 1 722 2 928 4 266 1 542 3 915

Total Acquisitions of nationality to residents of Hong Kong (China)

42 243

45 791

44 033

40 516

Note:

..

41 800

5 900

1995

25 700

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

8 018 8 465 2 833 4 102 1 546 2 784 3 544 1 443 4 275

12 941 14 619 4 288 6 395 1 291 4 647 5 224 1 645 2 475

12 863 14 786 4 713 6 154 1 710 5 575 5 415 1 524 2 162

21 923 22 146 6 621 9 148 2 075 9 370 6 965 1 671 2 291

29 790 23 745 5 330 8 630 1 680 9 405 7 245 1 515 2 955

43 069

37 010

53 525

54 902

82 210

90 295

5 500

3 285

2 780

725

350

365


345

© OECD 2003


Table B.1.6. UNITED STATES, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality 1991

Mexico Vietnam China Philippines India Dominican Republic El Salvador Korea Jamaica Iran Ukraine Poland Cuba Haiti Colombia Other countries Total Note:

1992

1993

1994

1995

81 655 31 728 21 564 37 870 18 558 9 999 13 702 15 709 11 156 11 761 2 715 8 092 17 511 7 884 12 823 185 361

22 878 30 078 16 947 34 450 13 286 6 396 3 691 12 538 6 949 10 595 – 5 568 9 661 4 455 5 619 124 947

12 873 18 422 13 616 28 587 13 452 8 494 2 061 8 330 6 710 6 787 9 4 699 7 750 3 988 6 451 98 023

23 615 22 520 16 943 33 925 16 527 12 303 3 038 9 681 7 911 7 033 141 5 592 15 064 5 190 9 985 125 213

46 169 29 555 22 331 40 777 20 940 11 390 5 643 12 367 12 252 10 041 583 7 062 16 380 7 989 12 309 178 319

308 058

240 252

314 681

434 107

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

254 988 51 910 34 320 51 346 33 113 29 459 35 478 27 969 25 458 19 278 6 959 14 047 63 234 25 012 27 483 344 635

142 569 36 178 20 947 30 898 21 206 21 092 18 273 16 056 20 253 11 434 5 971 8 037 13 155 16 477 11 645 204 034

112 442 30 185 16 145 24 872 17 060 11 916 12 267 10 305 15 040 10 739 6 952 5 911 15 331 10 416 7 024 156 455

207 750 53 316 38 409 38 944 30 710 23 089 22 991 17 738 28 604 18 268 12 190 13 127 25 467 19 550 13 168 276 623

189 705 55 934 54 534 46 563 42 198 25 176 24 073 23 858 22 567 19 251 16 849 16 405 15 661 14 428 14 018 307 568

488 088 1 044 689

598 225

463 060

839 944

888 788


346

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.2.1.

AUSTRALIA, immigrant labour force by place of birth Thousands Of which: women 1986

1991

1996

2001 2001

Europe United Kingdom and Ireland Former Yugoslavia Italy Germany Greece Netherlands Poland Malta Others

1 343.4 677.2 106.8 154.1 70.2 86.6 63.4 29.0 28.2 127.8

1 332.1 697.6 109.3 138.6 70.2 80.3 55.6 26.6 28.8 125.1

1 224.1 661.3 110.8 95.8 59.8 60.1 45.0 31.2 30.1 130.1

1 142.1 630.0 92.9 86.2 62.3 45.3 40.7 32.7 20.3 131.6

450.4 255.9 36.9 25.0 24.1 16.1 15.6 14.2 7.6 55.1

Asia Vietnam China1 India Philippines Malaysia Others

227.9 49.7 16.3 33.7 16.3 24.6 87.3

378.0 60.8 59.5 39.6 44.3 43.1 130.7

479.5 83.6 56.3 49.0 56.4 51.1 183.2

582.1 90.8 80.0 75.0 64.8 47.1 224.4

262.6 38.7 35.0 27.7 41.1 23.9 96.3

New Zealand

139.8

187.3

208.7

251.1

115.0

North Africa and the Middle East Lebanon Others

71.2 23.8 47.5

94.4 37.0 57.4

104.9 35.8 69.1

119.6 39.3 80.3

39.7 11.4 28.3

America

55.8

75.6

97.3

99.9

47.5

Other and not stated

77.9

101.6

134.7

172.5

78.9

1 916.0 25.5

2 169.0 25.7

2 249.3 24.8

2 367.3 24.2

994.1 23.1

Total % of total labour force

Note: For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Excluding Hong Kong (China) and Chinese Taipei.

Table B.2.1.

CANADA, immigrant labour force by place of birth Thousands

United Kingdom Italy India United States Hong Kong (China) Philippines China Portugal Germany Poland Vietnam Jamaica Netherlands Other countries Total % of total labour force Note:

1991

1996

422.0 214.0 127.0 144.0 96.0 .. 90.0 111.0 115.0 89.0 .. .. 82.0 1 191.0

372.5 166.2 158.3 142.0 129.4 126.7 113.8 101.0 100.7 98.0 85.8 79.5 70.5 1 094.7

2 681.0 18.5

2 839.1 19.2


347

© OECD 2003


Table B.2.1.

UNITED STATES, immigrant labour force by place of birth Thousands 1990

Mexico Philippines Cuba Germany Canada United Kingdom Korea China El Salvador India Vietnam Italy Jamaica Dominican Republic Colombia Other countries Total % of total labour force Note:

2 630.9 629.0 459.2 378.3 371.8 349.4 328.7 313.6 308.8 308.6 303.7 266.0 232.3 195.4 192.5 4 296.4 11 564.6 9.4


348

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.2.2.

AUSTRIA, stock of foreign labour by nationality Thousands Of which: women 1992

1995

2000 2000

Former Yugoslavia Turkey Bosnia Herzegovina1 Croatia Hungary Poland Romania Slovenia Slovak Republic Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia1 Czech Republic China2 Bulgaria Philippines India Other countries

133.6 55.6 .. 1.2 10.1 11.1 9.2 1.3 .. .. .. 1.8 1.7 2.4 1.6 44.2

108.0 55.7 22.8 16.0 9.6 10.8 9.3 5.8 2.9 1.9 3.6 2.0 1.5 2.1 1.8 15.9

75.6 46.6 37.4 24.6 9.5 8.7 7.2 6.1 4.3 4.2 4.1 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.0 9.0

32.5 12.6 14.8 9.4 2.0 2.3 2.5 1.6 1.3 0.8 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.3 2.3

Total Total women

273.9 91.7

269.7 89.5

242.2 85.3

85.3

295.9

325.2

345.6

129.8

Total including foreign unemployed3

1. Included in Former Yugoslavia in 1992. 2. Including Chinese Taipei. 3. From 1994 on, data on employed foreigners are stock of workers registered with Social Security offices (including EEA nationals).

Table B.2.2.

BELGIUM, stock of foreign labour by nationality Thousands 1990

Italy France Morocco Netherlands Turkey Spain Portugal Germany United Kingdom Greece Dem. Rep. of Congo Algeria Luxembourg Sweden Other countries Total Note:

1995

1999

95.6 43.7 .. 23.0 .. 21.8 5.6 7.0 6.6 6.3 .. .. 1.5 .. 79.3

101.8 51.6 44.5 30.4 30.1 22.8 10.6 8.4 8.3 6.9 3.6 3.4 1.5 0.8 37.5

98.8 63.9 43.4 35.1 26.6 23.1 12.3 9.4 9.0 7.1 4.8 3.4 1.5 1.1 46.7

290.3

362.1

386.2

Calculations on the basis of MET, INASTI, ONEm figures. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

349

© OECD 2003


Table B.2.2.

CZECH REPUBLIC, stock of foreign workers by nationality Thousands 1993

1995

2000

Slovak Republic Ukraine Poland Bulgaria Germany Moldova United States Belarus United Kingdom Russian Federation Romania Mongolia France Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia Other countries

23.3 7.7 10.6 0.7 0.7 .. 1.2 .. 0.9 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 .. 1.9 2.4

59.3 26.7 12.1 0.8 1.5 .. 1.7 0.3 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 4.9

63.6 15.8 7.7 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 4.6

Total

51.6

111.9

103.6

Note:


Table B.2.2.

DENMARK, stock of foreign labour by nationality Thousands Of which: women

1985

1990

1995

2000 2000

Turkey Former Yugoslavia United Kingdom Germany Norway Sweden Iceland Pakistan Finland Other countries

10.1 4.2 5.9 4.8 5.7 4.7 1.4 2.5 1.1 16.1

12.8 4.9 6.2 5.1 5.8 4.6 1.3 2.2 1.0 25.0

13.5 6.3 7.2 5.9 6.0 5.0 2.3 2.4 1.0 34.2

13.0 11.5 7.6 6.9 6.5 5.8 2.7 2.3 1.0 39.5

4.9 4.6 2.2 2.9 3.8 3.3 1.3 0.7 0.8 17.5


56.5 14.8 23.6

68.8 16.7 28.3

83.8 26.5 35.2

96.8 30.2 41.9

41.9 12.0

Note:

Data are from population registers and give the count as of the end of the given year from 1995 on (end of November for the previous years). For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

350

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.2.2. FINLAND, stock of foreign workers by nationality Thousands 19991

1995

Former USSR Estonia Sweden United Kingdom Former Yugoslavia Germany Somalia Turkey United States Iraq Vietnam China Bosnia Herzegovina Iran Thailand Other countries Total

6.6 3.3 2.7 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.3 7.1

9.3 4.7 3.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 9.8

26.9

37.2

Note: For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Estimates.

Table B.2.2.

FRANCE, stock of foreign labour by nationality Thousands Of which: women

1986

1991

1996

2001 2001

Portugal Algeria Morocco Tunisia Turkey Italy Spain Former Yugoslavia Poland Other countries Total Of which: EU1 Total women

408.2 271.6 177.3 72.6 38.7 116.2 129.2 35.8 15.9 290.2

421.7 236.3 175.6 63.9 42.0 96.6 98.9 24.7 13.4 333.1

359.0 253.3 203.1 75.2 72.5 74.3 85.6 31.8 10.1 439.7

371.0 233.6 186.0 84.2 81.7 72.2 58.3 24.3 16.2 490.1

154.9 77.9 61.7 24.5 20.4 24.2 23.2 10.7 8.6 215.6

1 555.7 722.7 489.7

1 506.0 689.6 492.5

1 604.7 612.3 581.0

1 617.6 608.4 621.7

621.7 255.4

Note: Data are derived from the Labour Force Survey and refer to the month of March. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. European Union 12 for all years.

351

© OECD 2003


Table B.2.2.

GERMANY, stock of foreign labour by nationality Thousands 1997

2000

Turkey Italy Greece Croatia Bosnia Herzegovina Austria Portugal Poland Spain United Kingdom Netherlands United States France Other countries

1 039 375 214 215 169 123 65 94 75 76 63 53 58 956

1 290 392 198 149 96 87 74 66 64 64 56 53 39 918

Total

3 575

3 546

Note:

Data are issued from the Microcensus. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.2.2. HUNGARY, stock of foreign labour by nationality Thousands 1990

1995

2000

Romania Former USSR Slovak Republic China Former Yugoslavia Vietnam Poland Other countries

26.2 .. .. .. .. .. 3.0 2.5

9.8 2.6 0.7 0.9 1.4 0.2 1.4 4.0

17.2 5.2 2.9 2.1 1.4 0.7 0.3 5.2

Total

31.7

21.0

35.0

Note:


Table B.2.2.

ITALY, stock of foreign labour by nationality Thousands 1995

2000

Morocco Albania Philippines Romania China Senegal Tunisia Egypt Former Yugoslavia Sri Lanka Peru Poland Bangladesh India Nigeria Other countries

46.4 14.8 24.6

47.9 18.2 27.7

9.0 12.3 21.3 10.1 12.5 7.4 .. 3.7 .. 3.0 2.2 118.1

10.0 13.6 19.5 9.7 17.7 11.5 .. 5.2 .. 4.1 2.4 144.6

115.1 89.3 53.4 46.8 44.1 36.5 34.2 25.6 23.6 23.5 22.7 17.8 16.9 16.2 15.8 269.3

Total Total women

285.3 83.6

332.2 111.2

850.7 258.8

Note:

352

1991

Figures refer to number of foreigners with a valid work permit (including self-employed). Data exclude unemployed until 1995. EU citizens do not need a work permit. Data exclude unemployed until 1995. EU citizens do not need a work permit. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.2.2.

JAPAN, stock of foreign labour by nationality Thousands 1992

1995

2000

Philippines China1 United States Korea United Kingdom Canada Australia India France Germany Other countries

21.3 17.1 18.3 5.5 5.2 3.3 2.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 8.8

13.7 23.3 17.5 6.4 5.6 4.1 2.4 1.7 1.4 1.3 10.6

45.6 35.8 17.6 10.7 8.1 5.8 4.6 3.5 1.9 1.5 19.6

Total

85.5

88.0

154.7

Note:

Foreigners whose activity is restricted according to the Immigration Act (revised in 1990). For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Including Chinese Taipei.

Table B.2.2.

KOREA, stock of foreign labour by nationality Thousands Of which: women 1994

1995

2000 2000

China Of which: Chinese with Korean ancestor Philippines Uzbekistan United States Canada Russian Federation Japan United Kingdom Australia New Zealand India France Germany South Africa Other countries

10.6 4.4 5.3 – 2.7 0.4 0.2 1.3 0.2 0.1 – 0.1 0.1 0.1 – 9.3

18.0 6.7 8.5 0.8 4.2 1.1 0.2 1.5 0.3 0.2 – 0.1 0.1 0.2 – 17.0

43.2 20.4 9.8 3.5 3.4 2.5 1.9 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 55.1

11.3 6.6 4.0 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.6 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 – – – 0.1 17.2

Total Total women

30.5 9.3

52.2 18.0

122.5 37.3

37.3

Note:


353

© OECD 2003


Table B.2.2.

LUXEMBOURG, stock of foreign labour by nationality Thousands 1985

1990

France Portugal Belgium Germany Italy Former Yugoslavia United Kingdom Spain Other countries

11.2 15.7 8.9 5.5 8.5 0.7 .. 0.9 3.6

21.2 22.8 14.6 9.1 8.5 1.2 0.9 1.0 5.4

33.2 27.3 19.6 12.7 7.7 1.7 1.3 1.0 7.3

52.0 32.0 28.4 19.1 9.0 1.8 1.8 1.2 7.4


55.0 52.3 18.4

84.7 79.8 29.4

111.8 105.4 39.9

152.7 141.7 54.8

Note:

1995

2000

Data are for 1 October of each year and cover foreigners in employment, including apprentices, trainees and cross-border workers. The unemployed are not included. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.2.2.

NETHERLANDS, stock of foreign labour by nationality Thousands Of which: women 1985

1990

1995

1998 1998

Germany Morocco United Kingdom Turkey Belgium Spain Other countries Total Of which: EU Total women Note:

16 25 15 35 21 8 45

18 27 18 41 24 8 61

15 32 22 39 22 7 84

34 27 25 24 18 9 98

13 7 7 6 10 .. 42

166 65 40

197 88 53

221 98 69

235 116 85

85 ..

Estimates are for 31 March and include cross-border workers, but exclude the self-employed, family workers and the unemployed. From 1990 onwards, foreigners legally residing in the Netherlands but working abroad are excluded. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.2.2.

NORWAY, stock of foreign labour by nationality Thousands 1988

1990

1995

2000

Sweden Denmark United Kingdom Pakistan Germany Sri Lanka Finland Turkey Chile Poland United States India Netherlands Other countries

6.2 9.2 5.1 2.6 1.9 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.0 0.9 3.1 1.2 1.2 12.1

5.5 8.6 4.6 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.3 0.8 2.8 1.2 1.2 11.4

7.8 9.0 5.2 1.9 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.0 1.3 0.6 3.1 1.0 1.4 14.2

13.6 9.0 5.4 4.9 4.4 4.2 3.7 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.4 2.3 1.9 50.6

Total

49.5

46.3

52.6

111.2

Note:

354

Data are for the 2nd quarter (except for 1995 and 2000: 4th quarter). The unemployed and the self-employed are not included. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.2.2.

PORTUGAL, stock of foreign labour by nationality Thousands 1991

1995

2000

Cape Verde Brazil Angola Guinea Bissau Spain United Kingdom Germany France United States Sao Tome and Principe Mozambique Italy Netherlands China Venezuela Other countries

16.9 5.4 1.7 2.3 3.9 4.2 3.0 2.1 2.7 0.8 1.6 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0 6.7

21.8 9.6 8.0 7.0 4.7 5.4 4.1 2.9 3.0 1.9 1.9 1.3 1.3 .. 0.8 10.5

23.1 10.6 9.7 8.9 6.8 6.5 5.3 4.1 3.2 2.3 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 .. 12.3

Total Of which: EU

54.9 16.0

84.3 21.1

99.8 ..

Note:


Table B.2.2.

SPAIN, stock of foreign labour by nationality Thousands Of which: women 1988

1990

1995

1999 1999

Morocco Peru China Dominican Republic Ecuador Philippines Senegal Colombia Algeria Argentina Cuba Poland Gambia Romania Chile Other countries Total Of which: EU Total women

5.0 0.6 1.3 0.5 .. 3.3 .. 0.8 .. 3.5 .. .. .. 1.3 42.1

8.8 0.9 1.7 0.7 .. 4.1 .. 1.2 0.2 6.3 .. .. 0.9 .. 1.7 58.9

51.6 11.4 6.2 9.7 1.4 7.1 3.4 3.1 2.7 7.5 1.4 2.6 2.7 0.9 2.5 24.7

80.4 14.7 12.4 11.0 9.4 7.5 5.0 4.8 4.2 3.9 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.0 .. 33.4

14.4 9.5 4.5 9.2 6.2 4.9 .. 3.3 .. 1.5 1.4 1.1 .. 1.2 0.8 4.3

58.2 31.4 21.5

85.4 34.8 29.8

139.0 92.9 46.1

199.8 110.4 62.4

62.4 ..

1. Data are for 31 December of each year and are counts of valid work permits. From 1992 onwards, workers from the EU are not included. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

355

© OECD 2003


Table B.2.2.

SWEDEN, stock of foreign labour by nationality Thousands Of which: women 1986

1991

1996

2001 2001

Finland Former Yugoslavia Norway Denmark Poland Turkey Iran Other countries Total Total women Note:

83 21 14 15 .. .. .. 81

69 21 21 16 8 10 16 80

57 23 19 13 7 7 10 82

53 23 16 14 10 7 4 100

31 9 9 5 7 3 2 41

215 99

241 112

218 100

227 107

107

Annual average. Estimates are from the Labour Force Survey. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.2.2.

SWITZERLAND, stock of foreign labour by nationality Thousands Of which: women 1985

1990

1995

2000 2000

1

A. Resident workers Italy Former Yugoslavia Portugal Germany Spain Turkey France Austria United Kingdom United States Netherlands Other countries

228.7 47.2 20.9 46.8 68.7 26.0 27.2 19.7 7.6 3.8 5.6 47.1

234.3 84.4 55.2 53.6 75.1 33.2 31.5 20.9 9.2 4.8 7.0 60.5

214.3 134.6 80.5 56.3 63.5 35.6 32.3 19.4 9.9 5.4 8.1 68.7

177.4 82.8 77.0 65.4 50.1 33.7 33.2 17.9 11.4 8.5 8.0 152.0

58.7 29.8 32.9 24.5 19.7 12.0 13.1 6.6 3.3 3.3 3.1 64.0


549.3 .. 185.1

669.8 476.1 228.7

728.7 499.2 261.3

717.3 452.3 271.0

271.0 167.2

26.2 17.8 1.9 2.0 21.9 1.9 0.2 29.7 1.2

40.5 13.5 2.4 2.5 14.6 2.5 – 44.5 1.3

23.8 6.1 2.3 2.0 4.1 1.6 – 12.2 1.7

18.0 4.3 2.5 1.9 1.8 1.2 – – 1.2

.. .. .. .. .. .. – – ..

102.8 17.4

121.7 20.3

53.7 12.7

31.0 8.6

8.6

B. Seasonal workers2 Portugal Italy Germany France Spain Austria Turkey Former Yugoslavia Other countries Total Total women

Note: For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Data as of 31 December of each year and are counts of the number of foreigners with an annual residence permit or a settlement permit (permanent permit), who engage in gainful activity. Cross-border workers and seasonal workers are excluded. 2. Data as of 31 August of each year, when seasonal work is at its peak.

356

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Table B.2.2.

UNITED KINGDOM, stock of foreign labour by country or region of nationality Thousands Of which: women 1986

1991

1996

2001 2001

Ireland United States India Italy France Australia1 Germany Portugal Spain Pakistan2 New Zealand Bangladesh Central and Eastern Europe3 Caribbean and Guyana Other countries

261 47 74 44 13 23 23 – 18 23 .. .. 24 79 186

242 39 57 51 23 34 22 12 20 26 .. .. 20 50 232

218 46 58 42 27 32 30 15 20 17 26 12 23 41 258

212 75 61 58 47 45 35 35 30 29 25 19 .. .. 558

101 36 24 22 24 21 19 14 18 – 12 – .. .. 253


815 389 ..

828 398 376

865 395 421

1 229 483 544

544 209

Note:

Estimates are from the labour force survey. The unemployed are not included. The symbol "–" indicates that figures are less than 10 000. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. 1. Including New Zealand until 1991. 2. Including Bangladesh until 1991. 3. Including former USSR.

357

© OECD 2003


Notes related to Tables A.1.1, A.1.2, B.1.1 and B.1.2 Migration flows in selected OECD countries Flow data based on Population Registers Types of migrant recorded in the data

Austria

Criteria for registering foreigners: holding a residence permit and wishing to stay in the country for at least 6 weeks.

Belgium

Criteria for registering foreigners: holding a residence permit and wishing to stay in the country for at least 3 months.

Other comments

Source

Statistics Austria.

Until 1994, some asylum seekers were included in the population register. Since 1995 then they have been recorded in a separate register.

Population Register, National Statistical Office.

Outflows include administrative corrections.

358

Czech Republic

Criteria for registering foreigners: holding a permanent or a long-term residence permit.

Czech Statistical Office.

Denmark

Criteria for registering foreigners: holding a residence permit and wishing to stay in the country for at least 3 months. However, the data only count immigrants once they they have lived in the country for 1 year. Outflows include administrative corrections.

Excluded from inflows are asylum seekers, and all those with temporary residence permits (this includes some war refugees).

Central population register, Danmarks Statistik.

Finland

Criteria for registering foreigners: holding a residence permit and wishing to stay in the country for at least 1 year.

Inflows of those of Finnish origin are included.

Central population register, Finnish Central Statistical Office.

Germany


Includes asylum seekers living in private Population register, Statistisches households. Excludes inflows of ethnic Bundesamt. Germans. The figures represent Germany as a whole from 1991 on.

Hungary

Criteria for registering foreigners: holding a long-term residence permit (valid for up to 1 year).

Data include foreigners who have Register of long-term residence been residing in the country for at permits, Ministry of the Interior. least a year and who currently hold a long-term permit. Data are presented by actual year of entry (whatever the type of permit when entering the country). Data for 1999 are preliminary. Outflow data include people whose permit’s validity expired.

Japan

Criteria for registering foreigners: remaining in the country for more than 90 days.

Excluding temporary visitors and re-entries.

Luxembourg


Netherlands

Criteria for registering foreigners: holding a residence permit and wishing to stay in the country for at least 6 months. Outflows include administrative corrections.

Inflows include some asylum seekers (except those staying in reception centres).

Population registers, Central Bureau of Statistics.

Norway


From 1987 on, includes asylum seekers waiting decisions on their application for refugee status. In 1999, inflow data include refugees from Kosovo who received a temporary protection in Norway.

Central population register, Statistics Norway.

Sweden

Criteria for registering foreigners: holding a residence permit and wishing to stay in the country for at least 1 year.

Asylum seekers and temporary workers are not included in inflows.

Population register, Statistics Sweden.

Switzerland

Criteria for registering foreigners: holding a permanent or an annual residence permit.

Inflows do not include conversions from seasonal permits to non-seasonal permits.

Register of foreigners, Federal Foreign Office.

Register of foreigners, Ministry of Justice, Immigration Office. Central population register, Service central de la statistique et des études économiques.

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Notes related to Tables A.1.1, A.1.2, B.1.1 and B.1.2 Migration flows in selected OECD countries (cont.) Flow data based on residence permits or other sources

Australia

Types of migrant recorded in the data

Other comments

Source

A. Permanent migrants: Permanent arrivals comprise travellers who hold migrant visas, New Zealand citizens who indicate an intention to settle and those who are otherwise eligible to settle.

Data refer to the fiscal year (July to June Department of Immigration of the year indicated) from 1992 on. and Population Research Inflow data do not include those persons granted permanent residence whilst already temporary residents in Australia.

Permanent departures comprise movements of persons who on departure state that they do not intend to return to Australia. B. Temporary residents: entries of temporary residents (i.e. excluding students). Including arrivals under Temporary Business Entry (long stay). Long-term departures include departing for a temporary stay of more than twelve months. Canada

Permanent: Issues of permanent residence permits.

France

Data consist of those entering as permanent workers, those entering under family reunification. Those entering as self employed and additional permits relating to family reunification are also included. In 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000, data include 18 900, 45 800, 3 300 and 170 persons respectively who benefited from the 1997 regularisation programme.

Entries from the EU are not counted, Office des migrations except permanent workers (including internationales and Ministry entries from the EEA since 1994) who of the Interior are included through declarations made by employers to the authorities. From 1994 on, figures include estimates of some unregistered flows (inflows of family members of EEA citizens for example).

Greece

Issues of residence permits

Excluding ethnic Greeks.

Ministry of Public Order

Ireland

Estimates on the basis of 1996 Census results.

Data from 1997 on are preliminary.

Central Statistical Office

Italy

Inflows: Issues of residence permits (excluding renewals).

New entries were 130 745 in 1999 and Ministry of the Interior 155 264 in 2000. The other permits were first-time permits issued to foreigners who had applied for amnesty in 1998.

New Zealand

Permanent and long-term arrivals/ departures.

Data refer to the fiscal year (July to June Statistics New Zealand of the year indicated).

Portugal

Data based on residence permits.

SEF and INE, Estatísticas Demográficas and unpublished data.

United Kingdom

Inflows: Passengers, excluding EEA nationals, Data exclude visitors, passengers admitted to the United Kingdom. in transit or returning on limited leave or who previously settled. Students and au pair girls are excluded. Outflows: Non-British citizens admitted Data by nationality are not reliable. on the territory.

Control of Immigration, Home Office

Permanent inflows: Issues of permanent residence permits.

US Department of Justice

United States

Data include those already present Statistics Canada in Canada, and also those granted residence in a programme eliminating a backlog of applications. Temporary: Inflows of foreign workers entering Statistics Canada Canada to work temporarily (excluding seasonal workers) provided by initial entry.

Temporary inflows: Inflows of non-immigrants excluding visitors and transit passengers.

© OECD 2003

The figures include those persons already present in the United States: those who changed status and those benefiting from the 1986 legalisation program. Data cover the fiscal year (October to September of the year indicated).

International Passenger Survey, Office for National Statistics.

US Department of Justice 359


Notes related to Tables A.1.3. and B.1.3. Inflows of asylum seekers Comments

Source

Australia

Fiscal years (July to June of the given year) except for 2001 (data provided by the UNHCR). Including accompanying dependents.

Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.

Austria

Excluding de facto refugees from Bosnia Herzegovina.

Österreichisches Statistisches Zentralamt.

Belgium

Applications registered by the General Commissioner for refugees and stateless (Commissariat général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides). In 1999 and 2000, applications registered by the Office des étrangers.

National Statistical Office, Office des étrangers, Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides.

Bulgaria

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Canada


Czech Republic

Ministry of the Interior.

Denmark

Danmarks Statistik.

Finland


France

Excluding accompanying dependents.

Office français de protection des réfugiés et des apatrides.

Germany

Bundesministerium des Innern.

Greece


Hungary


Ireland

Department of Justice.

Italy



Japan


Luxembourg

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Justice.

Netherlands

Ministry of Justice.

New Zealand


Norway

Immigration Directorate.

Poland

Department for Migration and Refugee Affairs, Ministry of the Interior.

Portugal


Romania


Slovak Republic


Spain


Officine de Asilo y Refugio.

Sweden

Swedish Immigration Board.

Switzerland

Office fédéral des réfugiés.

United Kingdom

Breakdown by country excludes accompanying dependents.

Home Office.

United States

Data by nationality (see Table B.1.3.) exclude US Department of Justice and United Nations High accompanying dependents. Table A.1.3 give an Commissioner for Refugees. estimate by assuming that there are 1.4 persons per application. Fiscal years (October to September of the years indicated) except in 2001 (January to December). Figures exclude applications reopened during year.

360

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Notes related to Tables A.1.4. and B.1.4. Foreign-born population

Australia

Comments

Source

Estimated resident population Reference date: 30 June.

Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Austria

Population Register, Österreichisches Statistisches Zentralamt.

Canada

Quinquennial censuses, Statistics Canada.

Denmark

Danmarks Statistik.

Finland

Coverage: Stock of foreign-born citizens recorded in population register. Includes those who are of Finnish origin.


France

Coverage: Mainland only. Reference date: 8 March 1999.

Census, Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques.

Hungary

Coverage: Holders of a permanent or a long-term residence permit. Reference date: 31 December.

Register of foreigners, Ministry of the Interior.

Mexico

Population aged 5 and over.

2000 Census, National Council of Population of Mexico.

Netherlands

Reference date: 31 December.

Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS).

New Zealand

Census results. Reference date: March 2001.

Statistics New Zealand.

Norway


Statistics Norway.

Sweden


Statistics Sweden.

United States

Persons born overseas whose parents are US citizens are not included in census figures (1970, 1980 and 1990, see Table B.1.4). Note that estimates by country of birth are not sufficiently accurate in the Current Population Survey and therefore are not shown in Table B.1.4. However total stock of foreign-born persons issued from CPS from 1994 on is given in Table A.1.4.

Decennial censuses (1970, 1980 and 1990), US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census and Current Population Survey (from 1994 on), US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

361

© OECD 2003


Notes related to tables A.1.5. and B.1.5. Foreign population

Austria

Comments

Source

Coverage: Stock of foreign citizens recorded in population register.

Population Register, Österreichisches Statistisches Zentralamt.

Reference date: Annual average Other comments: The data were revised following the 1991 census. Belgium

Coverage: Stock of foreign citizens recorded in population register. Until 1994, asylum seekers were included in the population register. Since 1995 they have been recorded in a separate register. Reference date: 31 December. Other comments: There are two breaks in the series between 1984-1985 and 1991-1992, due to important changes in the law on nationality in June 1984 and September 1991.

Population register, National Statistical Office.

Czech Republic

Coverage: Holders of a permanent residence permit (mainly for family reasons) or a long-term residence permit (1-year permit, renewable). Reference date: 31 December. Other comments: 1992 data cover former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic.


Denmark

Coverage: Stock of foreign citizens recorded in population register. Excludes asylum seekers and all those with temporary residence permits (this includes some war refugees). Reference date: 31 December.

Central population register, Danmarks Statistik.

Finland

Coverage: Stock of foreign citizens recorded in population register. Includes inflows of those who are of Finnish origin. Reference date: 30 September.


France

Coverage: Foreigners with permanent residence in France. Comprises of permanent workers, trainees, students and their dependent families. Seasonal and frontier workers are not included. Reference date: 4 March 1982, 6 March 1990, 8 March 1999.

Census (25 per cent sample), Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques.

Germany

Coverage: Stock of foreign citizens recorded in population register. Includes asylum seekers living in private households. Excludes foreign citizens of German origin (ethnic Germans). Reference date: 31 December. Other comments: Since 1992, disaggregation by sex and nationality covers only those aged 16 and over. Figures represent Germany as a whole from 1991.

Central population register, Statistisches Bundesamt.

Hungary

Coverage: Holders of a permanent or a long-term residence permit.


Reference date: 31 December. Ireland

The only significant distinction between nationalities is between EU/non-EU and the United States.

Labour Force Survey, Central Statistical Office (CSO).

Italy

Coverage: Holders of a residence permit. Children under 18 who are registered on their parents' permit are not counted. Data include foreigners who were regularised following 1987-1988, 1990, 1995-1996 and 1998 programmes. In 1999 and 2000, figures include 139 601 and 116 253 regularised persons respectively. The falls in stocks in 1989 and 1994 are the result of a clean-up of the register of foreigners. Reference date: 31 December.


362

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Notes related to Tables A.1.5. and B.1.5. Foreign population (cont.) Comments

Source

Japan

Coverage: Foreigners staying in Japan more than 90 days and registered Register of foreigners, Ministry of Justice, in population registers as stated by the law. Office of Immigration. Reference date: 31 December.

Korea

Coverage: Foreigners staying in Korea more than 90 days and registered in population registers as stated by the law.


Luxembourg

Coverage: Stock of foreign citizens recorded in population register. Does not include visitors (less than three months) and frontier workers. Reference date: 31 December. Other comments: Figures have been revised from 1987 on to take into account the effects of the change in the legislation on naturalisation which took place at the end of 1986.

Population register, Service central de la statistique et des études économiques.

Netherlands

Coverage: Stock of foreign citizens recorded in population register. Figures include administrative corrections and asylum seekers (except those staying in reception centres). Reference date: 31 December. Other comments: The fall in stocks between 1994 and 1995 is due to revision of estimates. Figures for 2000 are provisional.

Population register, Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS).

Norway

Coverage: Stock of foreign citizens recorded in population register. From 1987 on, data include asylum seekers waiting decisions on their application for refugee status. Reference date: 31 December.

CPR, Statistics Norway.

Poland

Estimates made on the basis of the number of permanent residents who renewed their permit as it is stipulated by the 1997 Alien law. Reference date: 31 December.


Portugal

Coverage: Holders of a valid residence permit. Data take into account the 1992-93 and 1996 regularisation programmes.


Slovak Republic

Coverage: Holders of a long-term or a permanent residence permit.


Spain

Coverage: Holders of residence permits. Does not include those with temporary permits (less that six months duration) and students. The figures for 1992 include 108 372 permits issued following a regularisation program held in 1991. Reference date: 31 December. Other comments: The fall in figures between 1988 and 1989 is due to a clean-up of the population register.


Sweden

Coverage: Stock of foreign citizens recorded in population register.

Population register, Statistics Sweden.

Reference date: 31 December. Switzerland

Coverage: Stock of all those with annual or settlement permits.Does not include seasonal or frontier workers. Reference date: 31 December

Register of Foreigners, Federal Foreign Office.

United Kingdom

Coverage: Foreign residents. Those with unknown nationality from the New Commonwealth are not included (around 10 to 15 000 persons). Reference date: 31 December. Other comments: Figures are rounded and not published if less than 10 000.

Labour force survey, Home Office.

363

© OECD 2003


Notes related to Tables A.1.6. and B.1.6. Acquisition of nationality Comments

Source

Australia

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

Austria

Österreichisches Statistisches Zentralamt.

Belgium

Significant numbers of foreigners were naturalised as a result of changes to the law on nationality in June 1984 and September 1991.

National Statistical Office and Ministry of Justice.

Canada

Statistics Canada.

Denmark

Danmarks Statistik.

Finland

Includes naturalisations of those of Finnish origin.

Central Statistical Office.

France

Excludes minors who were automatically Ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité. naturalised on reaching adulthood under legislation existing prior to 1 January 1994 and those under new legislation (July 1993) requiring minors to state their intention to become French citizens.

Germany

Includes naturalisations of those of German origin until 1998.

Statistisches Bundesamt.

Hungary

Including ethnic Hungarians mainly from former Yugoslavia and Ukraine.


Italy


Japan

Ministry of Justice, Civil Affairs Bureau.

Korea

Ministry of Justice

Luxembourg

Excludes children acquiring nationality as a consequence of the naturalisation of their parents.


Netherlands

Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS).

Norway

Statistics Norway.

Portugal

National Statistical Office.

Spain

Excludes individuals recovering their former (Spanish) nationality.

Ministry of Justice and Ministry of the Interior.

Sweden

Statistics Sweden.

Switzerland

Office fédéral des étrangers.

United Kingdom

Home Office.

United States

Data refer to fiscal years (October to September of the year indicated).

US Department of Justice.

364

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Notes related to Table A.2.1. Inflows of foreign workers Types of workers recorded in the data

Source

Australia

A. Permanent settlers Department of Immigration, Skilled workers including the following categories of visas: Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Employer nominations, Business skills, Occupational Shares System, special talents, Independent. Including accompanying dependents. Period of reference: Fiscal years (July to June of the given year). B. Temporary workers Skilled temporary resident programme (including accompanying dependents). Including Long Stay Temporary Business Programme from 1996/1997 on. Period of reference: Fiscal years (July to June of the given year).

Austria

Data for all years cover initial work permits for both direct inflows from Ministry of Labour, Health and Social abroad and for first participation in the Austrian labour market of foreigners Affairs. already present in the country. Seasonal workers are included. From 1994 on, only non-EU citizens need a work permit which explains the reduction in the numbers.

Belgium

Work permits issued to first-time immigrants in wage and salary employment. Citizens of European Union (EU) Member states are not included, except for those of Greece until 1987, and of Spain and Portugal until 1992.

Ministère de l'Emploi et du Travail.

Canada

Persons issued employment authorisations to work in Canada (excluding people granted a permit on humanitarian grounds, foreign students and their spouses). From 1997 on, persons are shown in the year in which they received their first temporary permit except for seasonal workers who are counted each time they enter the country. Figures prior to 1994 are not comparable because of multiple entries by the same person.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

Denmark

Residence permits issued for employment. Nordic and EU citizens are not included.

Danmarks Statistik.

Finland

Work and residence permit for foreign workers entering Finland are granted from abroad through Finnish Embassies and Consulates.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

France

1. Permanent workers "Permanents" are foreign workers subject to control by the Office des migrations internationales (OMI). Certain citizens of EU Member states employed for short durations may not be included. Resident family members of workers who enter the labour market for the first time are not included. 2. Provisional work permits (APT) Provisional work permits (APT) cannot exceed six months, are renewable and apply to trainees, students and other holders of non-permanent jobs.

Office des migrations internationales.

Germany

New work permits issued. Data include essentially newly entered foreign Bundesanstalt für Arbeit. workers, contract workers and seasonal workers. Citizens of EU Member states are not included, except those of Greece until 1987, and of Spain and Portugal until 1992. Data refer to western Germany up to 1990, to Germany as a whole from 1991 on.

Hungary

Grants of work permits (including renewals).

Ministry of Labour.

Ireland

Work permits issued (including renewals). EU citizens do not need a work permit.

Ministry of Labour.

Italy

New work permits issued to non-EU foreigners.

Ministry of Labour and ISTAT.

Japan

Residents with restricted permission to work. Excluding temporary visitors and re-entries. Including renewals of permits.


Luxembourg

Data cover both arrivals of foreign workers and residents admitted for the first time to the labour market.

Inspection générale de la sécurité sociale.

New Zealand

Work permits approved

Statistics New Zealand

Portugal

Grants of work permits.

National Statistical Office. 365

© OECD 2003


Notes related to Table A.2.1. Inflows of foreign workers (cont.) Types of workers recorded in the data

Source

Spain

Data include both initial "B" work permits, delivered for 1 year maximum Ministry of Labour and Social (renewable) for a specific salaried activity and "D" work permits Security. (same type of permit for self employed). From 1997 on, data also include permanent permits. Since 1992, EU citizens do not need a work permit.

Switzerland

Data cover foreigners who enter Switzerland to work and who obtain an annual residence permit, whether the permit is renewable or not (e.g. trainees). The data also include holders of a settlement permit returning to Switzerland after a short stay abroad. Issues of an annual permit to persons holding a seasonal one are not included.

United Kingdom

Grants of work permits. Both long-term and short-term permits are now Department of Employment. mostly delivered to highly qualified workers. Most short duration permits are for entertainers and sports people. The new data-recording system no longer allows identification of trainees. Citizens of EU Member states are excluded. "First permissions" (issued to foreigners already residents and now entering the labour market), extensions and changes of employment are included. The implementation of a new data-recording system allowed to revise series from 1995 on.

United States

A. Permanent settlers Prior to fiscal year 1992, data include members of the professions or persons of exceptional ability in the sciences and arts, skilled and unskilled workers in short supply, and special immigrant visas. Data include immigrants issued employment-based preference visas from fiscal year 1992 on. Period of reference: fiscal years (October to September of the given year). B. Temporary workers Including trainees, excluding intra-company transferees and treaty traders/investors. Period of reference: Fiscal years (October to September of the given year). Figures may be overestimated because of multiple entries by the same person.



366

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Notes related to Table A.2.2. Inflows of seasonal workers Comments

Source

Australia

WHM programme (Working Holiday Makers) for young persons aged 18 to 25. The duration of stay is restricted to 1 year (not renewable). Period of reference: fiscal year (July to June of the given year).

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

Canada

Caribbean and Mexican Seasonal Agricultural Workers Programme. Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

France

Number of contracts with the Office des migrations internationales Office des migrations internationales. (OMI). European Union nationals are not subject to OMI control.

Germany

Workers recruted under bilateral agreements. From 1991 on, data cover Germany as a whole.

Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.

Italy

Agricultural seasonal workers entered in Italy with a work authorisation.

Ministry of Labour.

Norway

Not renewable work permits granted. Issued for 3 months mostly to Polish nationals.

Statistics Norway.

Switzerland


United Kingdom

Seasonal workers under the special Agricultural Workers Scheme. Including readmissions.

Department of Employment.

United States

Agricultural workers with a H-2A visa (non-immigrants).


367

© OECD 2003


Notes related to Tables A.2.3., B.2.1. and B.2.2. Foreign and foreign-born labour Comments

Source

Annual average. The unemployed are included and the self-employed are excluded. Data on employment by nationality are from valid work permits. Figures may be overestimated as a result of persons holding more than one permit. From 1994 on, data on employment are from Social Security records and include EEA nationals.

Ministry of Labour, Health and Social

Belgium

Data are estimates on the basis of MET (for salaried workers), INASTI (for unemployed) and ONEm data (for self employed). The breakdown of self employed by nationality is estimated on the basis of the breakdown of total persons working on their own and family workers by nationality. Reference date: 30 June.

Ministère de l'Emploi et du Travail (MET), Office national de l'Emploi (ONEm), Institut national d'Assurances sociales pour les Travailleurs indépendants (INASTI).

Czech Republic

Holders of a work permit and registered Slovak workers. Excluding holders of a trade licence. Reference date: 31 December.

Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs.

Denmark

Data are from population registers Reference date: 30 November until 1991; 31 December from 1992 on.

Danmarks Statistik.

Finland

All foreigners working in Finland (holders of a work permit and workers exempted from a permit after two years legally residing in the country). Data for 1999 are estimates. Reference date: 31 December.

Statistics Finland.

France

Labour Force Survey. Reference date: March of each year.

Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques.

Germany

Microcensus. Data include unemployed and self-employed. Reference date: April.

Federal Statistical Office.

Hungary

Number of valid work permits Reference date: 31 December.

Ministry of Labour.

Ireland

Estimates are from the Labour Force Survey.

Central Statistical Office.

Italy

Figures refer to number of foreigners with a valid work permit ISTAT. (including self-employed). Data exclude unemployed. EU citizens do not need a work permit.

Japan

Foreigners whose activity is restricted according to the Immigration Act (revised in 1990). Permanent resident, spouse or child of Japanese national, spouse or child of permanent resident and long-term resident have no restriction imposed to the kind of activities they can engage in Japan and are excluded from these data.

Ministry of Justice, Service of Immigration.

Korea

Data are based on registered foreign workers which exclude short-term (under the 90 days) workers. Including trainees.


Luxembourg

Number of work permits. Data cover foreigners in employment, including apprentices, trainees and cross-border workers. The unemployed are not included. Reference date: 1 October.

Inspection générale de la sécurité sociale.

Netherlands

Central Bureau of Statistics. Estimates include cross-border workers, but exclude the self-employed, family workers and the unemployed. From 1990 onwards, foreigners legally residing in the Netherlands but working abroad are excluded.

Foreign labour Austria

368

Affairs.

Reference date: 31 March.

© OECD 2003

Statistical Annex

Notes related to Tables A.2.3., B.2.1. and B.2.2. Foreign and foreign-born labour (cont.) Comments

Source

Norway

Data are from population registers. Excluding unemployed and self-employed. Reference date: second quarter of each year (except in 1995 and 1996: 4th quarter).

Statistics Norway.

Portugal

Workers who hold a valid residence permit (including the unemployed). Including foreign workers who benefited from the 1992-1993 and 1996 regularisation programmes. Reference date: 31 December.


Slovak Rep.

Foreigners who hold a valid work permit. Czech workers don’t need a work permit but they are registered through the labour Offices.

National Labour Office.

Spain

Number of valid work permits. From 1992 on, EU workers are not included. From 1991 to 1993, the data include work permits delivered following the 1991 regularisation programme. The data for 1999 are provisional. Reference date: 31 December.

Ministry of Labour and Social Security.

Sweden

Annual average from the Labour Force Survey.

Statistics Sweden.

Switzerland

Data are counts of the number of foreigners with an annual residence permit or a settlement permit (permanent permit), who engage in gainful activity. Reference date: 31 December (resident workers); 31 August (seasonal workers).


United Kingdom

Estimates are from the Labour Force Survey. The unemployed are not included.

Employment Department.

Australia

Labour force aged 15 and over. Reference date: August.

Labour Force Survey (ABS).

Canada

Labour force aged 15 and over.

1991 and 1996 Censuses.

United States

Coverage: Labour force aged 15 and over. Foreign-born citizens with American parents are not included in census figures (1990). Note that estimates by country of birth are not sufficiently accurate in the Current Population Survey and therefore are not shown in Table B.2.1. Only total stock of foreign-born labour force is mentioned in Table A.2.3.

1990 Census (US Department of Commerce). and Current Population Survey (from 1994 on), US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

Foreign-born labour

369

© OECD 2003

LIST OF SOPEMI CORRESPONDENTS

AUSTRALIA AUSTRIA BALTIC STATES BELGIUM BULGARIA CANADA CZECH REPUBLIC DENMARK FINLAND FRANCE GERMANY GREECE HUNGARY IRELAND ITALY

JAPAN

KOREA LUXEMBOURG MEXICO NETHERLANDS

© OECD 2003

Mr. A. RIZVI Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Canberra Ms G. BIFFL Austrian Economic Institute, Vienna Ms A. SIPAVICIENE Lithuanian Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Vilnius Mrs. N. OUALI Université libre de Bruxelles Ms D. BOBEVA Sofia Ms E. RUDDICK Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Ottawa Ms J. MARESOVA University of Prague M. B. HOLST Ministry of the Interior, Copenhagen M. O. SORAINEN Ministry of Labour, Helsinki Mr. A. LEBON Ministère des Affaires sociales, du Travail et de la Solidarité, Paris Ms B. FRÖHLICH Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, Berlin Mr. S. ROBOLIS University of Athens Ms J. JUHASZ Budapest Mr. J.J. SEXTON The Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin Ms C. COLLICELLI CENSIS, Rome Mr. J. CHALOFF CENSIS, Rome Ms. N. FUKUHARA Ministry of Justice, Tokyo M. T. ISHIGAKI Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Tokyo Mr. K-S. YOO Korea Labour Institute, Seoul Ms. C. MARTIN Commissaire du Gouvernement aux Etrangers Mr. J.A. BUSTAMANTE El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Tijuana Mr. P. MUUS IMER Malmö University

371


NEW ZEALAND NORWAY POLAND PORTUGAL ROMANIA SLOVAK REPUBLIC SPAIN SWEDEN SWITZERLAND TURKEY UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES

Ms. M. LITTLE New Zealand Immigration Service, Wellington Mr. M. HOLTER Royal Ministry of Local Government and Labour, Oslo Mr. M. OKOLSKI University of Warsaw, Institute for Social Studies Mr. J. MALHEIROS University of Lisbon Mr. D. GHEORGHIU National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies, Bucarest Ms M. LUBYOVA Bratislava Mr. A. IZQUIERDO ESCRIBANO Faculté des Sciences politiques et de sociologie, La Coruna Ms B. ORNBRANT Ministry of the Interior, Stockholm Ms. C. SCHENINI Office fédéral des étrangers, Berne Mr. A. ICDUYGU University of Ankara Mr. J. SALT University College London, Department of Geography, London Mr. R. KRAMER U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau for International Labor Affairs, Washington

372

© OECD 2003

OECD PUBLICATIONS, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16 PRINTED IN FRANCE (81 2003 06 1 P 1) ISBN 92-64-19949-7 – No. 52733 2003

Trends in International Migration

Trends in International Migration: SOPEMI - 2003 Edition

Trends in International Migration: Annual Report 2004

International Migration: Trends, Policy and Economic Impact (Contemporary Economic Policy)

International Migration Outlook

International Migration Outlook 2006

International Migration Outlook 2008: Annual Report (International Migration Outlook)

International Migration Outlook: SOPEMI 2009

International migration and citizenship today

International Migration: Globalization's Last Frontier

International Migration Outlook 2011. SOPEMI

International Migration in Europe: New Trends and New Methods of Analysis (IMISCOE Research)

The Politics of International Migration Management (Migration, Minorities and Citizenship)

Migration

Migration

Migration

Migration

Migration

Migration

Migration

Migration

Migration in European History

International Migration, Remittances, and the Brain Drain

International Migration. A Very Short Introduction

International Migration in Europe: Data, Models and Estimates

The International Migration of Health Workers: A Gobal Health System? (Routledge Research in Population & Migration)

Modes of Migration Regulation and Control in Europe (International Migration, Integrationand Social Cohesion)

International Migration: Prospects and Policies in a Global Market (International Studies in Demography)

Social Rights Jurisprudence: Emerging Trends in International and Comparative Law

Trends in Acarology: Proceedings of the 12th International Congress

Trends in International Migration