1. 1 1 and the consistency between inter- Nordic migration figures Kåre Vassenden Statistics Norway Presentation for the Joint UNECE/Eurostat Work Session on Migration Statistics Geneva, 14-16 April 2010 The Nordic agreement on population registration

2. 2 What this is about A. The national population registration systems B. The Nordic agreement on population registration D. The quality of the statistics: consistency between statistics from different countries Pop. reg. syst- em C. Adaption of the register data to statistical needs NSI Developing principles and methods for studying the consistency between high quality migration statistics from a limited number of similar countries

3. 3 Which are the Nordic countries? 1. Sweden 2. Denmark 3. Finland 4. Norway 5. Iceland 6. Greenland 7. Faroe Islands ”Norden” (in Scandinavian) is divided into …

4. 4 B. The Nordic agreement on population registration

5. 5 History 1954:The new Nordic Council proposed a study 1969:An arrangement with Inter-Nordic migration certificates was introduced 2003:Nordic politicians demanded faster handling of inter- Nordic migrations 2007: A quite new system was launched based on electronic flow of data between the Nordic population registration authorities

6. 6 Basic principles of the agreements The Nordic countries constitute one population area The purpose is to avoid double registration or no registration A person is registered as resident in only one country at a time The countries keep their own laws and rules. The concept of residence may differ The legislation in the country of immigration is decisive. This country makes the decision

7. 7 Some abbreviations and terms used SC= Sending country /population registration authority RC= Receiving country /population registration authority NN= a specific (possible) migrant Registration of residence= immigration

8. 8 Features of the new system Inter-Nordic migrants now face the same rules and routines as other international migrants However, the inter-Nordic immigrants are asked to give their PIN and address (as in SC) A dedicated electronic system is used for the communication between the relevant authorities

9. 9 How the system works 1. RC receives a request for residence from NN, who has just arrived from SC 2. RC may need more information about NN in order to decide if he qualifies for residence. RC sends a request to SC 3. RC accepts the request for residence. When RC records the immigration in its database a notice is automatically sent to SC, informing that NN from now on is registered as resident in RC

10. 10 How the system works (cont.) 5. The relevant office in SC will find NN in a list on the computer screen 6. SC follows the decision made by RC without any questioning, and registers NN as emigrated from SC 7. SC use the same date of event as RC 8. After this process, RC may ask SC for supplementary information on NN

11. 11 Notice about the Nordic system! A collaboration between the population registration authorities. The NSIs are not involved Includes more than sharing data. This is public administration across the borders It presupposes … –a certain level of infrastructure –a concept of residence –a general population registration system serving all the society –similar ideologies and traditions of population registration –similar societies –trust between the involved authorities/countries –etc.

12. 12 C.In the NSIs: Adaption of register data to the statistical needs

13. 13 The situation for the Nordic NSIs They are supplied with “pre-harmonised” data This quality should not be reduced by the process of producing statistics. New incoherence should not be introduced into the data However, transforming the data into statistics necessarily means choosing certain conditions for extraction and processing

14. 14 The NSIs may have different policies, procedures and conditions 1. Length of the waiting period before extraction of data 2. Choice of variable for date of event (actual or official) 3. Handling of annulments and corrections 4. Handling of events with a date of event before the reference year (“the lag”) May differ:

15. 15 The size of the lag The percentage of lag in Norwegian immigration and emigration statistics *) *) All migrations, not only the inter-Nordic ones

16. 16 D. The consistency between the inter-Nordic migration figures D1. General discussion

17. 17 To Grey is according to sending country White is according to receiving country FromFinlandGermanyPolandSwedenUK Finlandx 2 20463 395246 761233 4281 070 Germany 807 x 2 2612 87214 558 2 38082 9103 78615 550 Poland 89104 924 x 1 1343 534 1115 013117282 Sweden 3 4383 39791 x 1 959 3 3861 5802163 676 UK 91413 1972613 022 x 70825 5763 172487 Inspiration for the project: the classical “double entry matrix”

18. 18 Example of an annual flow

19. 19 D2. Results so far

20. 20 The annual flows *) sorted by percentage difference *) Annual flows with minimum 10 migrations. Sweden-Faroe Island is not included

21. 21 Comparing the annual flows

22. 22 Aggregating the differences The 570 annual migration flows cover 737 600 migrations The absolute differences sum up to 22 000 which equals 3 per cent of the migrations i.e. the deviation was 3 per cent in the period 1990-2008 The weight of the countries is proportional to the number of migrations

23. 23 The total difference for all migration flows. 1990-2008

24. 24 More about the increase from 2006 to 2007 From 1,8 per cent to 4,0 (+2,2) Increase for all countries. Lowest in Norway: 1,6 If we take away Denmark the total increase is 1,7 Without Denmark and Finland the total increase is 0,6

25. 25 Possible reasons for the setback in 2007 1. New policy in Statistics Denmark: From 2007 lags are excluded from the population statistics 2. The Finnish residence concepts have been a challenge for the new system? 3. Maybe the new exchange system is not as good as the old one, or maybe it has teething troubles?

26. 26 Consequences of excluding the lag (1)

27. 27 Consequences of excluding the lag (2) Swedish statistics have lost 5 500 emigrations since 1998, judged by the number of immigrations from Sweden to the other Nordic countries (from Sweden) i.e. Swedish figures for emigration to the Nordic countries have been 4 per cent too low Similarly for Danish statistics since 2007: 945 lost emigrations, figures 4 per cent too low

28. 28 General conclusions Strangely enough, the new Nordic data exchange system may have had a slight negative effect on the statistical consistency. Too early to conclude The NSIs should be aware of their impact on the consistency Excluding the lag definitely reduces the consistency Continued monitoring is necessary. The increasing difference from 2007 should be followed up

29. 29 The end