Estimation of emigration flows by using immigration figures in receiving countries Michel POULAIN GéDAP UCL Belgium

Which types of statistics on emigration flows are needed ? 1. Emigration by country of citizenship is clearly the most needed. 2. But it may be good to have these statistics cross-tabulated by country of birth 3. Emigration by country of destination is less requested except for example at EU level for identifying migration flows between Member States and between regions.

Which statistical data are available on emigration flows ? Countries may be classified in four main groups as follows : Countries with no data at all Countries with no data at all Countries producing data that is evidently unreliable Countries producing data that is evidently unreliable Countries producing data that are more reliable but only on a clearly identified sub-population Countries producing data that are more reliable but only on a clearly identified sub-population Countries producing more reliable data on the whole population. Countries producing more reliable data on the whole population.

Accordingly the situation has to be improved for the three first groups which include more than half of our countries.

The possible use of the immigration figure in the receiving countries (1) This initiative is compulsory for the first group of countries where no data on emigration is available. In EU as an example for the countries without emigration data, 15 other EU countries out of 24 are providing appropriate corresponding immigration data. But this initiative should not suppress the basic request to develop an ad hoc data collection on emigration that will be compulsory for EU MS according the forthcoming regulation.

The possible use of the immigration figure in the receiving countries (2) This is also highly recommended for the second group of countries where data on emigration flows are produced but clearly underestimated. We agree with the fact that in a given country, emigration flows are systematically less covered compared to immigration flows. But this does not mean that for migration flow from country A to country B, the immigration figure in B is always higher than the emigration flow in country A. For EU25, in 41% of all intra EU flows, emigration figure is higher than immigration one.

The possible use of the immigration figure in the receiving countries (3) This is also highly recommended for the third group of countries where data on emigration flows are produced on a reliable base only for a given sub- population. In this specific case, detailed metadata should be available in order to explain which persons are included (e.g. only non-EU citizens) and which others are excluded (e.g. nationals and other EU-nationals). Moreover the immigration data in the receiving country should propose data on a separate base for these different sub-populations.

The possible use of the immigration figure in the receiving countries (4) Finally this is also recommended for the fourth group of countries where data on emigration flows are considered to be produced on a reliable base. Detailed comparisons between immigration and emigration figures concerning the same flows with some details about citizenship or country of birth of migrants may be helpful for improving the reliability of the data in both sending and receiving countries.

What kind of immigration data is currently available for that purpose ? The situation among the 25 EU MS Immigration data with a detailed list of countries of origin including all immigrants : 15 out of 25 EU MS Immigration data by country of citizenship : 19 out of 25 EU MS

In order to propose the use of emigration data, the corresponding immigration data should be : Available with a detailed list of countries of origin (the Guidelines talk about “comprehensive” emigration data). Reliable which means that the coverage of the data collection should be satisfactory for all sub-populations (the Guidelines talk about accuracy of the proposed data). Comparable which means using the same definition but not necessarily the same data collection method (the Guidelines talk about the necessity to collect complete metadata).

Feasibility of the proposal (1) First the whole proposal is based on the availability of immigration data for a complete list of countries of origin and it is clear that this type of data is less available and also slightly less reliable compared to immigration data by country of citizenship.

Feasibility of the proposal (2) The proposal should fit strictly with the UN recommendations on long term migrant by requesting data on the annual number of long term immigrants. This is the number of persons entering the country with the intention and the right to live in the country for at least 12 months what is not the same as the number of persons living abroad one year ago.

Feasibility of the proposal (3) Table 3 should be the annual number of international immigrations by country of previous residence and sex (this is already collecting the JMQ even by age groups). Table 4 should propose the same by country of citizenship which is also already collected. Table 5 proposes the same by country of birth and this is not yet collected. The “Guidelines” propose to request separate tables by sending country and this will be fully dependant on the overall organisation of the data exchange.

Feasibility of the proposal (4) Tables 1 and 2 refer basically to census data and the question on the country of residence one year ago. The requested tables are cross-tabulation between country of residence one year ago and country of citizenship or country of birth. This is clearly an proposal of exchange of data but the purpose of this is not to propose annual estimates of unknown or unreliable emigration flows as initially proposed.

Feasibility of the proposal (5) Tables 6 and 7 are also very informative tables proposed for exchanging data on stocks. But this data will be also useful for estimating emigration flow if produced annually and considering all other components of population change that are births, deaths, immigrations and changes of citizenship by country of citizenship or by country of birth.

Feasibility of the proposal (6) The way to implement this data exchange may be : - Through direct bilateral agreement between pairs of countries - Via international bodies that would centralise and monitor the whole data exchange.

C ON C L U S I O N S 1. First all investigations done alongside this initiative are really impressive and without contest very useful. 2. All these efforts show the way to analyse data available on migration flows between pairs of countries. And we have found a lot of innovative ideas in the different reports.

A pragmatic proposal for exchange of data should go in three directions 1. Encourage of data between pairs of country on flows and stocks and subsequent in-depth analysis. 1. Encourage bilateral exchange of data between pairs of country on flows and stocks and subsequent in-depth analysis. 2. Develop the aiming improvements in terms of availability, reliability and comparability. 2. Develop the international migration data collection aiming improvements in terms of availability, reliability and comparability. 3. Organise a systematic exchange of data in the framework of the forthcoming 2010 round census on population living abroad one year ago by country of residence, country of citizenship and country of birth.

A pragmatic proposal for bilateral co-operation 1. Unfortunately such an effort may only be requested when both countries are producing statistics and accordingly both countries may take concrete advantages of the work. 2. Then what kind of co-operation is possible when one of the two countries does not produce data ?

A pragmatic proposal for bilateral co-operation (1) Encourage exchange of data for all what concerns migration flows between the two countries but also stocks and characteristics of citizens living in the paired country. Encourage exchange of data for all what concerns migration flows between the two countries but also stocks and characteristics of citizens living in the paired country. In order to improve both immigration and emigration flows estimation we should exchange data on both types of flows by country of previous residence and country of next residence with distinction between citizens of the sending country, citizens of the receiving country and others. The same by persons born in the sending country, persons born in the receiving country or persons born elsewhere. In order to improve both immigration and emigration flows estimation we should exchange data on both types of flows by country of previous residence and country of next residence with distinction between citizens of the sending country, citizens of the receiving country and others. The same by persons born in the sending country, persons born in the receiving country or persons born elsewhere.

A pragmatic proposal for bilateral co-operation (2) Compare similar trends in the two countries in order to identify similarities or non-similarities. Compare similar trends in the two countries in order to identify similarities or non-similarities. Individual data exchange may even be recommended if privacy and susceptibility problems may be solved. Individual data exchange may even be recommended if privacy and susceptibility problems may be solved. In depth investigations should be developed and discussed in appropriate meetings and the findings published and disseminated. In depth investigations should be developed and discussed in appropriate meetings and the findings published and disseminated. All this will help to improve the availability, reliability and comparability of international migration data. All this will help to improve the availability, reliability and comparability of international migration data.

A proposal for estimation of emigration flow on a comparative base when all data from table 3, 4 and 5 will be centralised through the JMQ France has no data on emigration and want to rank emigration flows by relying on immigration figures in the receiving countries. Here are results : Germany (18.619), UK (16.172), Spain (8.200), Italy (4.894), the Netherlands (3.084), Denmark (1.439)… Portugal (552)

The only way to clarify the situation is by attributing under-registration quotas to immigrations recorded in a given country whatever the origin country or the country of citizenship or the country of birth. Coming back to the proposed ranking of emigration flows in France by country of destination. All will be different if we consider that Italy is recording four time less immigrations compared to Germany and Portugal twenty time less…

A starting research project will be launched by Eurostat next January in order to improve existing data and to estimate missing data In conclusion a lot of work has been done but we should be ready for more work in future with the real hope to improve the situation

THANKS AND SOON