• No results found

International Migration Outlook SOPEMI 2010

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "International Migration Outlook SOPEMI 2010"

Copied!
358
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

International Migration

Outlook

(2)

AND DEVELOPMENT

The OECD is a unique forum where governments work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies.

The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD.

OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members.

ISBN 978-92-64-08601-2 (print) ISBN 978-92-64-08602-9 (PDF)

Also available in French: Perspectives des migrations internationales : SOPEMI 2010 Photo credits: Cover illustration:

Left: © Skip Nall/ Photodisc/GettyImages, © DR/GettyImages Middle: © Stockbyte/GettyImages, © Stockbyte/GettyImages

Right: © Thomas Barwick/ Digital Vision/GettyImages, © Ryan McVay/ Photodisc/GettyImages, © Digital Vision/ Photodisc/ GettyImages.

Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.

© OECD 2010

You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at info@copyright.com or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at contact@cfcopies.com.

This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries.

(3)

Foreword

T

his publication constitutes the thirty-fourth report of the OECD’s Continuous Reporting System on migration (known by its French acronym SOPEMI).

The report is divided into five parts plus a statistical annex. Part I contains two subsections. The first of these provides a broad overview of recent trends in international migration flows, both temporary and permanent and a look at population growth in countries undergoing demographic decline. Migration already accounts for about 60% of total population growth in the OECD as a whole, and more than 85% in the countries of southern Europe, Austria and the Czech Republic. Special attention is devoted to changes in labour migration flows associated with the economic crisis. The movement of international students – the number of foreign students in tertiary education more than doubled in the OECD between 2000 and 2007 – is examined, and the first attempt to calculate stay rates – changes of status for those who do not renew their student permits – is presented, showing that stay rates varied between 15 and 35% in 2007.

The second subsection of Part I highlights major changes in migration policy. It looks specifically at the expansion in demand-driven systems for recruitment of workers from abroad, as well as the increasing use of points-based systems to select immigrants likely to succeed on the labour market. Recent developments in integration, residence and citizenship policies are described.

Part II provides a close look at the impact of the economic crisis on the employment situation of immigrants, following up on the 2009 Special Edition of the International Migration Outlook focusing on the crisis. The disproportionate impact of the crisis on immigrants is examined, looking at factors such as concentration in specific sectors and gender differences.

Parts III and IV are devoted to special topics. Part III examines the determinants of public opinion regarding migration. It looks at recent opinion surveys, individual determinants and the role of major stakeholders such as social partners and the media. Parts IV focuses on the determinants of acquisition of nationality and the impact of naturalisation on labour market outcomes.

Part V presents succinct country-specific notes and statistics on developments in international migration movements and policies in OECD countries in recent years. Finally, the statistical annex includes a broad selection of recent and historical statistics on immigrant flows, the foreign and foreign-born populations, naturalisations and migrant workers.

(4)

StatLinks2

A service that delivers Excel

®

files

from the printed page!

Look for the StatLinks at the bottom right-hand corner of the tables or graphs in this book. To download the matching Excel® spreadsheet, just type the link into your Internet browser,

starting with thehttp://dx.doi.org prefix.

If you’re reading the PDF e-book edition, and your PC is connected to the Internet, simply click on the link. You’ll find StatLinks appearing in more OECD books.

(5)

Table of Contents

Editorial:Ensuring that Migrants are Onboard the Recovery Train . . . 15

Introduction . . . 19

Part I RECENT TRENDS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION A. Recent Flows, Demographic Developments and Migration . . . 26

1. Introduction . . . 26

2. International migration flows during 2008 . . . 27

3. Immigration flows by category of entry. . . 29

4. Temporary worker migration . . . 30

5. International migration flows and the economic crisis . . . 32

6. Continents, regions and countries of origin of immigrants . . . 33

7. Asylum seekers . . . 40

8. International students . . . 41

9. Demographic developments in OECD countries and international migration . 45 B. Migration Policy Development in OECD Countries . . . 54

1. Introduction . . . 54

2. Labour migration policies . . . 54

3. International students . . . 62

4. Humanitarian policies . . . 64

5. General administrative procedures and structure . . . 66

6. Enforcement and border control. . . 69

7. International agreements . . . 72

8. Integration policies . . . 73

9. Migration policy in OECD countries . . . 79

Notes . . . 81

References . . . 82

Part II MIGRANTS IN OECD LABOUR MARKETS THROUGH THE CRISIS 1. A brief analysis of the dynamics of foreign-born employment in OECD countries through the crisis . . . . 85

2. How were different migrant groups affected by the worsening of labour market conditions . . . 92

(6)

3. What are the main determinants of the recent labour market outcomes

of immigrants? . . . 97

4. Helping immigrants through the crisis and beyond . . . 101

Notes . . . 103

References . . . 104

Annex II.A1.1. Quarterly employment and unemployment rates (15-64) by place of birth in selected OECD countries, 2007-2009 . . . 106

Annex II.A1.2a. Top 10 industries with the largest changes in foreign- and native-born employment between 2008 and 2009 in the European Union . . . 112

Annex II.A1.2b. Top 10 industries with the largest changes in foreign- and native-born employment between 2007 and 2009 in the United States. . . 113

Part III PUBLIC OPINIONS AND IMMIGRATION: INDIVIDUAL ATTITUDES, INTEREST GROUPS AND THE MEDIA Summary . . . 116

Introduction . . . 116

1. Public opinion on immigration and migration systems. . . 117

2. Determinants of preferences over immigration . . . 123

3. Interest groups and their influence on migration policy . . . 137

4. The role of the media and the weight of beliefs in shaping public opinion . . . 141

Conclusion . . . 145

Notes . . . 146

References . . . 148

Annex III.A1. Presentation of Surveys . . . 151

Annex III.A2. Determinants of Beliefs about the Impact of Immigration and Preferences about Migration Policy Based on the World Value Survey (WVS). . . 155

Part IV NATURALISATION AND THE LABOUR MARKET INTEGRATION OF IMMIGRANTS Key findings . . . 158

Introduction . . . 159

1. Citizenship take-up among immigrants: An overview across selected OECD countries. . . 161

2. The labour market outcomes of naturalised and non-naturalised immigrants. . . . 166

3. The impact of naturalisation on immigrants’ labour market outcomes . . . 175

Conclusions . . . 177

Notes . . . 180

References . . . 181

(7)

Part V

RECENT CHANGES IN MIGRATION MOVEMENTS AND POLICIES (COUNTRY NOTES)

STATISTICAL ANNEX

Introduction . . . 255

General comments on tables. . . 256

Inflows and outflows of foreign population . . . 257

Inflows of asylum seekers . . . 280

Stocks of foreign and foreign-born population . . . 297

Acquisition of nationality . . . 329

Inflows of foreign workers. . . . 345

Stocks of foreign and foreign-born labour . . . 349

List of Correspondents of the Continuous Reporting System on Migration (SOPEMI) . . . 355

List of OECD Secretariat members involved in the preparation of this report. . . 357

Australia . . . 188 Austria . . . 190 Belgium . . . 192 Bulgaria . . . 194 Canada . . . 196 Czech Republic . . . 198 Denmark . . . 200 Finland . . . 202 France. . . 204 Germany . . . 206 Greece. . . 208 Hungary . . . 210 Ireland . . . 212 Italy. . . 214 Japan. . . 216 Korea . . . 218 Lithuania . . . 220 Luxembourg . . . 222 Mexico . . . 224 Netherlands. . . 226 New Zealand . . . 228 Norway. . . 230 Poland . . . 232 Portugal . . . 234 Romania. . . 236 Slovak Republic. . . 238 Spain. . . 240 Sweden. . . 242 Switzerland . . . 244 Turkey . . . 246 United Kingdom . . . 248 United States. . . 250

(8)

Figures, Tables and Boxes

Part I

RECENT TRENDS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION

Figures

I.1. Observed and projected size of the incoming (20-24) and outgoing (60-64)

working-age cohorts in OECD countries, 2000-2030. . . 26

I.2. Permanent-type migration by category of entry, 2008 . . . 30

I.3. Top 20 origin countries of immigrants to the OECD, 1997-2008. . . 36

I.4. Change in inflows of migrants by country of origin, selected OECD countries, 1997-2007 and 2008 . . . 38

I.5. Contribution of natural increase and of net migration to average annual population growth, 2002-2006 . . . 46

I.6. Permanent-type immigration relative to the average size of a single-year cohort 20-24, 2004-2007 . . . 47

I.7. Distribution of the components of change in employment, selected OECD countries, 2005-2008 . . . 49

I.8. Evolution of dependency ratios over the period 2000-2030, OECD countries. . . 52

Tables I.1. International migration flows, 2003-2008 . . . 27

I.2. Temporary worker migration in OECD countries, 2003-2008 . . . 31

I.3. Distribution of inflows of migrants, by region of origin and destination, 2008 . . . . 34

I.4. Immigrant flows to the OECD area by income group and region of origin, 2008. . . 34

I.5. Change in inflows to OECD, 1995-2008 . . . 37

I.6. Inflows of asylum seekers in OECD countries, levels, trends and main countries of origin, 2007-2008 . . . 40

I.7. Tertiary enrolment of international and foreign students (2007) and evolution since 2000 . . . 43

I.8. Status changes of international students and stay rates in selected OECD countries, 2007 . . . 45

I.9. Observed (2000-2010) and projected (2010-2020) growth in the working-age population (20-64) at assumed migration levels. . . 50

I.10. Points attributed under different recruitment systems in selected OECD countries, 2010 . . . 60

Boxes I.1. Standardised statistics on permanent immigrant inflows . . . 28

I.2. Classifying countries of origin by national income levels. . . 35

I.3. The definition of “international students” . . . 42

(9)

Part II

MIGRANTS IN OECD LABOUR MARKETS THROUGH THE CRISIS

Figures

II.1. Harmonised unemployment rates, 2007-2009 . . . 85 II.2. Change in native- and foreign-born employment during recent economic

downturns in selected OECD countries . . . 87 II.3. Change in unemployment and employment rates by place of birth

between 2008 and 2009. . . 90 II.4. Contribution of various factors to foreign- and native-born employment

between 2008 and 2009. . . 91 II.5. Change in employment rates by place of birth and by age in selected

OECD countries, 2008-2009 . . . 94 II.6. Change in unemployment rates by place of birth and by level of education

in selected OECD countries, 2008-2009 . . . 95 II.7a. Unemployment and inactivity rates of foreign born in EU15 by main regions

of origin, 2008-2009 . . . 96 II.7b. Unemployment rates in Spain by region of origin, 2007-2009 . . . 96 II.7c. Unemployment rates in the United Kingdom by region of origin, 2007-2009 . . 96 II.7d. Unemployment rates in the United States by region of origin, 2007-2009 . . . 96

II.8. Actual and expected changes in employment of immigrants in selected

OECD countries between 2008 and 2009 . . . 98 II.9. Growth in part-time employment by place of birth in selected

OECD countries, 2008-2009 . . . 101

Tables

II.1. Unemployment rate and inflows of foreign workers in some European

OECD countries at the time of the second oil crisis . . . 86 II.2. Share of different types of employment in total employment by place

of birth (15-64 years old), 2008. . . 100 Annex

II.A1.1. Quarterly employment and unemployment rates (15-64) by place of birth in selected OECD countries, 2007-2009 . . . 106 II.A1.2a. Top 10 industries with the largest changes in foreign- and native-born

employment between 2008 and 2009 in the European Union . . . 112 II.A1.2b. Top 10 industries with the largest changes in foreign- and native-born

employment between 2007 and 2009 in the United States . . . 113

Box

II.1. Impact of the economic crisis on immigrant workers in Japan and policy

(10)

Part III

PUBLIC OPINIONS AND IMMIGRATION:

INDIVIDUAL ATTITUDES, INTEREST GROUPS AND THE MEDIA

Figures

III.1. Proportions of respondents in favour of increasing, maintaining or reducing current immigration flows to their countries, 2003 . . . 119 III.2. Support for increased immigration in relation to the rising proportion

of immigrants in the populations of certain OECD countries, 1995-2003 . . . 120 III.3. Average opinions on immigrants and refugees, 1995 . . . 120 III.4. Opinions on the importance of different selection criteria for immigration, 2002 . 121 III.5. Opinions about the impact of immigrants on the economy and balance

of opinions in favour of immigration in certain OECD countries, 2003 . . . 122 III.6. Relationship between unemployment rate and beliefs about the positive

economic impact of immigration . . . 123 III.7. Perceived impact of immigration on the economy and the cultural life, 2008 . . . . 126 Annex

III.A1.1. Proportion of non-responses to questions about preferred trends

in immigration flows . . . 154

Tables

III.1. Determinants of beliefs about the impact of immigration and preferences over migration policy, ESS surveys, 2002-2008 . . . 128 III.2. Determinants of beliefs about the impact of immigration and preferences

over migration policy, ISSP survey, 2003 . . . 129 III.3. Determinants of beliefs about the impact of immigration and preferences about

immigration policy, analysis by country . . . 130 III.4. Different countries’ public opinion on conditions governing immigrants’

eligibility to the same social entitlements enjoyed by those already resident in the country, 2008 . . . 134 III.5. Individual determinants of opinions about immigrants’ eligibility for social

benefits, ESS 2008 . . . 135 Annexes

III.A1.1. European countries covered by the analyses based on the European

Social Surveys . . . 151 III.A1.2. Countries covered by the analyses based on the World Value Survey . . . 152 III.A1.3. Countries covered by the analyses based on the International Social

Survey, 2003 . . . 152 III.A2.1. Determinants of beliefs about the impact of immigration and preferences

(11)

Part IV

NATURALISATION AND THE LABOUR MARKET INTEGRATION OF IMMIGRANTS

Figures

IV.1. Share of foreign-born who have the host-country nationality, selected

OECD countries, by gender, around 2007. . . 162 IV.2. Employment rates for immigrants by citizenship status, around 2007 . . . 167 IV.3. Public sector share of total employment, naturalised and non-naturalised

immigrants, as a proportion of the public sector share for native-born

persons, around 2007 . . . 173

Tables

IV.1. Naturalisation rates (%) by origin, around 2007 . . . 162 IV.2. Percentage of foreign-born who have the nationality of the host country,

1999/2000 and 2007/2008, by region of origin, selected European

OECD countries . . . 163 IV.3. Share of low- and high-educated immigrants by citizenship status and origin,

around 2007 . . . 166 IV.4. Estimated higher probability to be in employment associated with

naturalisation (in percentage points), around 2007 . . . 168 IV.5. Distribution of employed immigrants by occupational level, by gender and

citizenship status (%), around 2007 . . . 169 IV.6. Estimated higher probability of employment in a high-skilled occupation

associated with naturalisation (in percentage points), around 2007. . . 170 IV.7. Estimated higher wage associated with naturalisation, by origin, France

and Germany, around 2006 . . . 172 IV.8. Estimated higher probability to be employed in the public sector associated

with naturalisation (in percentage points), around 2007 . . . 174 Annexes

IV.A1.1. Employment rates of immigrant men by citizenship status and origin,

around 2007 . . . 184 IV.A1.2. Employment rates of immigrant women by citizenship status and origin,

around 2007 . . . 185 IV.A1.3. Longitudinal studies on the impact of naturalisation on the labour market

outcomes of immigrants . . . 186

Box

(12)

Part V

RECENT CHANGES IN MIGRATION MOVEMENTS AND POLICIES

Australia: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 189

Austria: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 191

Belgium: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 193

Bulgaria: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 195

Canada: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 197

Czech Republic: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 199

Denmark: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 201

Finland: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 203

France: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 205

Germany: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 207

Greece: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 209

Hungary: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 211

Ireland: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 213

Italy: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 215

Japan: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 217

Korea: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 219

Lithuania: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 221

Luxembourg: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 223

Mexico: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 225

Netherlands: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 227

New Zealand: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 229

Norway: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 231

Poland: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 233

Portugal: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 235

Romania: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 237

Slovak Republic: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 239

Spain: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 241

Sweden: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 243

Switzerland: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 245

Turkey: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 247

United Kingdom: Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks . . . 249

(13)

STATISTICAL ANNEX

Inflows and outflows of foreign population . . . 257

A.1.1.Inflows of foreign population into OECD countries . . . 259

A.1.2.Outflows of foreign population from OECD countries . . . 260

B.1.1. Australia . . . 261 B.1.1. Austria . . . 261 B.1.1. Belgium . . . 262 B.1.1. Canada . . . 262 B.1.1. Switzerland . . . 263 B.1.1. Czech Republic . . . 263 B.1.1. Germany . . . 264 B.1.1. Denmark . . . 264 B.1.1. Spain . . . 265 B.1.1. Finland . . . 265 B.1.1. France . . . 266 B.1.1. United Kingdom . . . 267 B.1.1. Hungary . . . 268 B.1.1. Ireland . . . 268 B.1.1. Italy . . . 269 B.1.1. Japan . . . 269 B.1.1. Korea . . . 270 B.1.1. Luxembourg . . . 270 B.1.1. Mexico . . . 271 B.1.1. Netherlands . . . 271 B.1.1. Norway . . . 272 B.1.1. New Zealand . . . 272 B.1.1. Poland . . . 273 B.1.1. Portugal . . . 273 B.1.1. Slovak Republic . . . 274 B.1.1. Sweden . . . 274 B.1.1. Turkey . . . 275 B.1.1. United States . . . 275

Metadata related to tables A.1.1, A.1.2 and B.1.1 Migration flows in selected OECD countries 276 Inflows of asylum seekers. . . 280

A.1.3. Inflows of asylum seekers into OECD countries . . . 281

B.1.3. Australia . . . 282 B.1.3. Austria . . . 282 B.1.3. Belgium . . . 283 B.1.3. Canada . . . 283 B.1.3. Switzerland . . . 284 B.1.3. Czech Republic . . . 284 B.1.3. Denmark . . . 285 B.1.3. Germany . . . 285 B.1.3. Spain . . . 286 B.1.3. Finland . . . 286 B.1.3. France . . . 287 B.1.3. United Kingdom . . . 287 B.1.3. Greece . . . 288 B.1.3. Hungary . . . 288 B.1.3. Ireland . . . 289 B.1.3. Italy . . . 289 B.1.3. Japan . . . 290 B.1.3. Korea . . . 290 B.1.3. Luxembourg . . . 291 B.1.3. Netherlands . . . 291 B.1.3. Norway . . . 292 B.1.3. New Zealand . . . 292 B.1.3. Poland . . . 293 B.1.3. Portugal . . . 293 B.1.3. Slovak Republic . . . 294 B.1.3. Sweden . . . 294 B.1.3. Turkey . . . 295 B.1.3. United States . . . 295

Metadata related to tables A.1.3. and B.1.3. Inflows of asylum seekers . . . 296

Stocks of foreign and foreign-born population. . . 297

A.1.4. Stocks of foreign-born population in OECD countries . . . 299

B.1.4. Australia . . . 300 B.1.4. Austria . . . 300 B.1.4. Belgium . . . 301 B.1.4. Canada . . . 301 B.1.4. Switzerland . . . 302 B.1.4. Denmark . . . 302 B.1.4. Spain . . . 303 B.1.4. Finland . . . 303 B.1.4. France . . . 304 B.1.4. United Kingdom. . . 304 B.1.4. Greece . . . 305 B.1.4. Hungary . . . 305 B.1.4. Ireland . . . 306 B.1.4. Luxembourg . . . 306 B.1.4. Mexico . . . 307 B.1.4. Netherlands . . . 307

(14)

B.1.4. Norway . . . 308 B.1.4. New Zealand. . . 308 B.1.4. Poland . . . 309 B.1.4. Portugal . . . 309 B.1.4. Slovak Republic . . . 310 B.1.4. Sweden . . . 310 B.1.4. Turkey . . . 311 B.1.4. United States . . . 311

Metadata related to tables A.1.4 and B.1.4. Foreign-born population . . . 312

A.1.5. Stocks of foreign population in OECD countries . . . 314

B.1.5. Austria . . . 315 B.1.5. Belgium . . . 315 B.1.5. Switzerland. . . 316 B.1.5. Czech Republic . . . 316 B.1.5. Germany . . . 317 B.1.5. Denmark . . . 317 B.1.5. Spain . . . 318 B.1.5. Finland. . . 318 B.1.5. France . . . 319 B.1.5. United Kingdom . . . 319 B.1.5. Greece . . . 320 B.1.5. Hungary. . . 320 B.1.5. Ireland . . . 321 B.1.5. Italy . . . 321 B.1.5. Japan . . . 322 B.1.5. Korea . . . 322 B.1.5. Luxembourg . . . 323 B.1.5. Netherlands . . . 323 B.1.5. Norway . . . 324 B.1.5. Poland . . . 324 B.1.5. Portugal . . . 325 B.1.5. Slovak Republic . . . 325 B.1.5. Sweden . . . 326 B.1.5. Turkey . . . 326

Metadata related to tables A.1.5. and B.1.5. Foreign population . . . 327

Acquisition of nationality. . . 329

A.1.6. Acquisition of nationality in OECD countries . . . 330

B.1.6. Australia . . . 331 B.1.6. Austria . . . 331 B.1.6. Belgium . . . 332 B.1.6. Canada. . . 332 B.1.6. Switzerland. . . 333 B.1.6. Czech Republic . . . 333 B.1.6. Germany . . . 334 B.1.6. Denmark . . . 334 B.1.6. Spain . . . 335 B.1.6. Finland. . . 335 B.1.6. France . . . 336 B.1.6. Hungary. . . 336 B.1.6. Ireland . . . 337 B.1.6. Italy . . . 337 B.1.6. Japan . . . 338 B.1.6. Korea . . . 338 B.1.6. Luxembourg . . . 339 B.1.6. Netherlands . . . 339 B.1.6. Norway . . . 340 B.1.6. New Zealand. . . 340 B.1.6. Poland . . . 341 B.1.6. Portugal . . . 341 B.1.6. Slovak Republic . . . 342 B.1.6. Sweden . . . 342 B.1.6. Turkey . . . 343 B.1.6. United States . . . 343

Metadata related to tables A.1.6. and B.1.6. Acquisition of nationality. . . 344

Inflows of foreign workers . . . 345

A.2.1. Inflows of foreign workers into OECD countries . . . 346

Metadata related to table A.2.1. Inflows of foreign workers . . . 347

Stocks of foreign and foreign-born labour . . . 349

A.2.2. Stocks of foreign-born labour force in OECD countries . . . 350

Metadata related to table A.2.2. Foreign-born labour force . . . 351

A.2.3. Stocks of foreign labour force in OECD countries . . . 352

(15)

© OECD 2010

Editorial:

Ensuring that Migrants are Onboard

the Recovery Train

(16)

T

he recent recession has slowed migration, especially that driven by labour demand. Yet, migration did not come to a halt – in part because family and humanitarian movements are less sensitive to changes in labour market conditions, but also because of structural needs and demographic trends. Concealed behind a slack labour market, the ageing of the population is starting to reduce the working-age population in many countries.

The crisis has also had the effect of throwing many immigrant workers out of work, at a higher rate than for native-born workers. Many were recent migrants, but not all. The road to steady employment for migrants in the past has often been a long one. With job loss, the return to such employment in the wake of the crisis could also be long. Add to this the fact that, even in good times, labour market integration for immigrants and their children in many OECD countries has not always met expectations.

The current situation for immigrants, particularly youth, is a particularly difficult one. The sharpest decline in employment is observed among immigrant youth, particularly in the countries hardest hit by the crisis. There is a real threat that this will have a long-term negative impact on their integration outcomes.

It is important to remember that migrants were contributors to the national economy when times were good; they should not be seen as a burden when times are bad. Those who are without work should be given equal opportunity with native-born unemployed to develop their skills and to re-integrate the ranks of the employed during the recovery. Jobs are the best insurance against social exclusion and marginalisation of migrants and their children. Employment contributes to their integration and to broader social cohesion. It also addresses the concerns of public opinion towards immigration.

There is no escaping the fact that more labour migration will be needed in the future in many OECD countries as the recovery progresses and the current labour market slack is absorbed. There are several reasons for this, which it is useful to recall.

More and more new jobs in OECD economies are highly skilled, but many countries are struggling to meet increasing demand for highly-skilled workers. Recruitment from abroad is one possible solution to which many countries will have recourse in the future as they did prior to the recent recession.

Many lesser-skilled jobs are not finding enough takers among young entrants to the workforce. Immigrants are the ones who often have been taking on these jobs in food processing, cleaning, hotels, restaurants and construction. Without immigrants, services in these areas would be harder to obtain and prices higher.

Personal care is another sector where there will be large labour needs, both to look after dependent older persons but also after children whose mothers wish to pursue their careers or enter the workforce. One likely source of workers in these occupations is the immigrant workforce.

Public pensions and health-care systems are largely financed by the contributions of persons who are working. The drop in the birth rate which occurred in the 1970s means that there will not be enough workers to pay for the pensions of persons retiring and their

(17)

additional health expenses. After raising the participation rate of the resident population, one way to reduce the need for higher taxes and pressure on public finances is to bring in immigrant workers, who contribute to pension and health-care regimes, but do not draw on them immediately.

But participation rates in many OECD countries are already high. Although mobilising domestic labour resources is the best way to address expected declines in the working-age population, it may not be sufficient. Further increases to participation rates will be harder and harder to come by, making a greater recourse to labour migration likely.

Under what circumstances is additional labour migration politically possible? There are two main requirements. The first is good outcomes for immigrants already here. The second is labour migration that corresponds to real labour market needs.

Good labour force outcomes for immigrants are not just desirable. They are an imperative which OECD economies cannot afford to ignore. Immigrants need to be actively engaged in the labour market and to be as self-sufficient as native-born persons of comparable education and skill. This means that as the recovery train pulls out of the station and employment grows again, immigrants have to be on board. Demography should provide a helping hand, because more and more baby-boomers will be retiring every year. But this does not ensure that everybody will get on the train – measures to address immigrant-specific obstacles to skill development, labour market entry and stable jobs need to be reinforced.

Better language proficiency needs to be encouraged and financed – good labour market-oriented training is costly, but a wise investment. Links to employers and to jobs, which immigrants have fewer of, must be fostered. Training for available jobs should be organised and adapted for immigrants as well as the native-born. In a world where labour is becoming scarcer, immigrants are a valuable resource and employers need to see this. Discrimination, whether based on prejudice or on inaccurate information, needs to be combated effectively. The recovery needs to be one for everyone, both immigrants and natives.

As for new labour migration, more than ever this must be in accordance with real labour market needs. Tackling slack in the labour market should have priority: where resident unemployed workers are available or can be easily trained to fill a job, this should be the first option before workers are recruited from abroad. But it is admittedly not always easy to determine if this is the case. Safeguards can be introduced, by means of a close and regular monitoring of the labour market, by lowering the costs of domestic hiring (for example, via wage subsidy or training programmes) or by raising the costs of recruitment from abroad, and by more effective border control and workplace enforcement.

Ensuring that both settled immigrants and newcomers to OECD countries from varied cultural and social backgrounds play a productive role requires good policies to ensure good outcomes. And immigrants’ productive role needs to be recognised as such. The crisis has not made it easier to achieve good outcomes, but in the face of an ageing future, this has become more necessary than ever before.

John P. Martin

(18)
(19)

© OECD 2010

(20)

2010 edition of International Migration Outlook shows a slight drop in migration flows

to the OECD…

Permanent-type legal immigration of foreign nationals (about 4.4 million) fell 6% in 2008, the first decline after 5 years of averaging 11% growth. However, this decline was mostly due to decreases in just a few countries, and also reflected the particularly high flows in 2007. Nonetheless, the decline in flows continued in 2009, with migration declining in most OECD countries as a result of the economic crisis.

… notably in free movement migration and family migration…

Migration within free movement areas accounted for about a quarter of all migration in the OECD in 2008, and 44% in Europe. In Norway, Switzerland, Austria and Denmark such migration accounts for well more than half of all migration. Among European countries, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom and Italy all appeared as important labour migration countries in 2008, with 20-30% of permanent-type immigrants arriving for work-related reasons. Elsewhere, except in Japan and Korea, family migration continues to dominate among the inflows of permanent-type immigrants. Family migration remains predominant in the United States (65%) and in France and Sweden.

… temporary migration remains important, although affected by the economic downturn…

Temporary migration had been growing since the mid-2000s, but started to decline in 2008, although this decline was most apparent in the temporary labour migration programmes. In 2008, over 2.3 million temporary labour migrants arrived in OECD countries, a 4% decline after four years of steady growth, and all signs are of further decline in 2009. Seasonal work, working holiday programmes, and intra-company transfers all saw increases in 2008, while other categories – largely fixed-term labour migration – declined. Temporary labour migration was also one of the first migration channels to be affected by the economic downturn.

… while the number of asylum seekers continues to rise

Asylum seeking in OECD countries has been rising again since 2006. In 2008, the United States was the largest receiving country at 39 400, with France, Canada, the United Kingdom and Italy all over 30 000. Norway, Sweden and Switzerland are the main receiving countries in per-capita terms. Iraq, Serbia and Afghanistan are the most important countries of origin.

(21)

The increasing flows of international students lead to some permanent stay

Overall the number of international students more than doubled between 2000 and 2007, to over 2 million; the United States and the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Australia are the main destination countries. The sharpest percentage increases have occurred in New Zealand, Korea, followed by the Netherlands, Greece, Spain, Italy and Ireland. International students are a potential source of highly skilled labour migrants for OECD countries, and the International Migration Outlook provides a first attempt to analyse stay rates – changes of status for those who do not renew their student permits. Using this method, the estimated stay rates vary between 15 and 35%, with an average of 21%.

China accounts for 10% of the flows, Poland, India and Mexico less than half this

The top twenty countries of origin in terms of inflows accounted for over half of all inflows in 2008, with China, Poland, India and Mexico at the top of the list. Compared to the flows seen in the late 1990s, the largest increases were from Colombia, China, Romania and Morocco. Since the year 2000, however, flows have been falling from the Philippines and the Russian Federation. Outflows of Poles to other European countries remained high in 2008.

Much of the population growth – and a

substantial part of those entering the working-age population – in many OECD countries in recent years was due to international migration…

If migration rates stay largely at their current levels, the working-age population in OECD countries will rise by 1.9% between 2010 and 2020, compared to the 8.6% growth seen between 2000 and 2010. Between 2003 and 2007, 59% of population growth was accounted for by migration. Immigrants represent up to a third of new entries to the working-age population, although the arrival of children and older immigrants reduces this contribution. Only in France, the United States and New Zealand was natural increase the main driver of population growth. For a number of countriesin Southern Europe, Austria and the Czech Republic – about 90% of population growth was due to migration.

… Yet more of the growth in employment has come from increased employment rates of residents rather than international migration

Overall, 51% of employment growth has come from increases in the employment rate of residents, and 39% from international migration, with wide variations among OECD countries. Many of the countries which saw employment growth principally through greater mobilisation of the resident labour force were those with relatively high employment rates – above 75% – such as Denmark, Switzerland and Sweden. On the contrary, with the exception of the United Kingdom, those countries where employment growth came largely from external sources had employment rates below the OECD average.

(22)

This year’s report provides a review of structural and institutional developments in migration policies...

The focus on high-skilled migrants, including the use of points-based systems (Denmark, United Kingdom, Netherlands) continued, as did the shift in supply-driven systems towards favouring applicants with job offers in permanent programmes (Australia, Canada). While one country (Sweden) opened to migration by migrants of all skill levels, elsewhere the only opening to less skilled migration was in modifications to some seasonal work programmes to favour recourse to this form of temporary migration (Australia, Poland).

… including integration and naturalisation policies

Changes in family reunification policies have tended to impose restrictive criteria, such as residency and income requirements. The use of language or civics tests as a precondition for family reunification and for naturalisation continues to expand.

Some changes can be specifically related to the crisis

In 2008-2009, a number of new migration policy initiatives aimed at dealing with the challenges posed by the economic downturn. Labour migration channels were examined closely, and criteria for admission refined, in a number of OECD countries. Provisions for unemployed migrants unable to renew temporary permits were adopted (Spain, Ireland), and assistance provided for their return (Spain, Japan, Czech Republic). Some quotas were cut (Italy, Korea, Spain, Australia).

The report looks at the disproportionate impact of the economic crisis on employment

of immigrants in the OECD

The rise in unemployment between 2008 and 2009 was higher among the foreign-born than among the native-born in almost all OECD countries. Similarly, in most OECD countries, employment rates fell further for the foreign-born than for the native-born, although in several countries the impact was counteracted by rising participation rates among immigrants. While total native-born employment decreased in almost all OECD countries during the downturn, a number of countries saw significant increases in total employment of the foreign-born. Even so, the rise in employment did not keep pace with the increase in the size of the foreign-born labour force due to continuing inflows.

Young migrants are particularly affected…

In most OECD countries, foreign-born youth have seen steeper drops in employment than native-born youth. While the overall decrease in employment for youth (15-24) was 7% in

(23)

the year following the second quarter of 2008, the decline was as much as twice for immigrant youth. Unemployment was already high among immigrant youth, and in 2009 stood at 15% in the United States, 20% in Canada and 24% in the EU15. Because the rapid integration of youth and recently arrived immigrants into the labour market has been identified as one of the key determinants for their long-term integration, low employment rates are worrying. A recession carries the risk of “scarring effects”, as immigrants who have not managed to get employed quickly after arrival may be stigmatised in the labour market. Language, training, mentoring and apprenticeships appear particularly important policy responses to reinforce during a downturn.

... although immigrant women have been faring better than men

Foreign-born women have been less affected by the crisis than men, as the latter are concentrated in the sectors which suffered the most (construction, manufacturing, finance). In all countries but Belgium and Hungary, the unemployment rate of foreign-born women increased less than that of their male counterparts. In some countries, foreign-born women have increased their participation rate, as usually occurs to compensate for income loss by male members of their families.

The factors which make immigrants vulnerable to job loss also make it more difficult for active labour market policies to reach them

The report examines the determinants of the recent labour market outcomes of immigrants. They tend to be overrepresented in sectors sensitive to economic fluctuations, generally have less secure contractual arrangements and are more often in temporary jobs, have less tenure in the job, and may be subject to selective lay-offs. Immigrants may de facto be excluded from certain measures where eligibility is explicitly or implicitly linked to the duration of stay in the country or to administrative status, such as public-sector job schemes, or those requiring minimum tenure or permanent contracts. The report identifies some areas where policy can help reduce the negative long-term effects on the employment of immigrants.

Two special chapters deal with topical issues…

Two particularly salient issues are covered in special chapters. The first examines how public opinion regarding immigration is shaped. The second examines the determinants and labour market impact of naturalisation.

… the first special chapter addresses the issue of public opinion and migration

This chapter analyses a number of opinion surveys over the past decade and presents new empirical findings about the shaping of public opinion on immigration. The role of individual characteristics both in shaping opinions about the economic and cultural consequences of

(24)

immigration and in forming preferences over migration policies is assessed. One of the main points to emerge from the analysis is that beliefs about the economic and cultural impact of immigration significantly influence individual attitudes towards immigration. Public debate on the issues of immigration and migration policy is still broadly determined by the way these issues are covered by the media and by the effects of a certain number of collective beliefs. Certain parts of the population are likely to adopt different positions on immigration, not only because of its distributive effects, but also according to how they value cultural diversity, among other things. The point therefore is not so much to seek consensus in public opinion on immigration issues as to limit the effect of popular beliefs and misconceptions. In this context, reforms of migration policies need to enhance public knowledge and understanding of the economic, social and cultural impact of migration. Achieving this objective requires greater transparency over the scale of international immigration, better access to information and comparable international migration statistics. Regular and open discussion with interest groups should be based on relevant research findings. Public knowledge could also be improved through objective and broader coverage of the migration issue by the media.

… and the second special chapter analyses the impact of naturalisation on labour market integration

Take up of citizenship varies greatly among immigrants in OECD countries. In countries that have been settled by migration, virtually all regular migrants acquire nationality within ten years of arrival. In European OECD countries, the share of long-term resident immigrants who have naturalised has increased over the last decade. Naturalisation rates of migrants differ among migrant groups. In almost all countries, citizenship take-up tends to be higher among immigrants from lower-income countries than among immigrants from high-income OECD countries. Likewise, immigrant women are more likely to have the host-country nationality than men, as are immigrants with tertiary education. Immigrants who have naturalised tend to have better labour market outcomes. This is particularly true for migrants from lower-income countries and for immigrant women. Immigrants who naturalise already tend to have better labour market outcomes prior to naturalisation, but there is an additional improvement following naturalisation which suggests that it has, in itself, a positive impact on immigrants’ labour market outcomes. This improvement of outcomes may be due to lower labour market barriers, increased mobility and reduced discrimination. Naturalisation seems to especially affect immigrants’ access to better-paid jobs and to employment in the public sector. Among the lessons to be drawn from this chapter are that lowering barriers – such as limits on dual nationality and overly restrictive eligibility criteria – would help improve immigrants’ labour market outcomes in the aggregate. Those who are already eligible should be encouraged to take up the nationality of the host country.

(25)

© OECD 2010

P

ART

I

Recent Trends in International

Migration

(26)

A. Recent Flows, Demographic Developments and Migration

1. Introduction

The period 2005-2015 is a transition period in OECD countries with respect to the demographic impact of the baby-boom on the working-age population and the labour force. Persons born after 1945 have been entering their sixties and will be retiring over the period, if they have not already done so before the age of sixty. These baby-boom cohorts are significantly larger than those that came before. While the incoming (20-24) working-age cohorts in OECD countries were some 32% larger on average1 than the outgoing retiring (60-64) ones in 2005, the situation in 2015 will be substantially different, with the incoming labour force cohorts being scarcely 2% larger (see Figure I.1). By 2020 they will be some 9% smaller. For almost half of OECD countries, the outgoing cohorts will be larger than the incoming ones in 2015. The countries which are aging the most in this respect are Germany and Japan, the countries of southern Europe but also Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland.

At a time when many OECD countries were thus poised for what seemed a tightening of the labour supply with a likely greater recourse to labour migration, the economic crisis arrived to put a brake on movements. An overview of migrants in OECD labour markets through the economic crisis appears later in Part II. Here we will focus on migration movements during 2008 and 2009, keeping in mind that it was only in the autumn of 2008 that the scale of the crisis became evident, as was the fact that it would be affecting all countries. However, in some countries, notably Ireland, GDP was already in decline in the

Figure I.1. Observed and projected size of the incoming (20-24) and

outgoing (60-64) working-age cohorts in OECD countries, 2000-2030

Thousands

Note:The statistics exclude Mexico and Turkey.

Source: World Population Prospects, the 2008 revision, UN Population Division.

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/882382530058 40 000 45 000 50 000 55 000 60 000 65 000 70 000 75 000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 20-24 60-64

(27)

first quarter of 2008 and by the second quarter, GDP growth in the large economies of Europe and in Japan had fallen below the zero line. The rise in unemployment followed in most countries in the third quarter of 2008. In some countries, it is clear that the decline in labour migration began earlier and gathered momentum over the year. The total inflows for 2008 show some inertia, however, because some of the movements were already planned and were maintained despite the onset of the crisis.

2. International migration flows during 2008

Overall permanent international migration movements declined by about 6% from 2007 to 2008 to reach 4.4 million persons (Table I.1), the first time a decline has been

Table I.1. International migration flows, 2003-2008

Permanent-type migration (standardised statistics) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Change 2007-2008 % Spain .. .. .. .. 682 300 391 900 –290 400 –43 Czech Republic 57 100 49 700 55 900 63 000 98 800 71 800 –27 000 –27 Italy 120 100 153 100 193 500 171 300 571 500 424 700 –146 800 –26 Ireland 42 400 41 800 66 100 88 900 89 500 67 600 –21 900 –24 Japan 87 500 94 100 98 700 104 100 108 500 97 700 –10 800 –10 United Kingdom 260 200 322 900 369 400 354 200 364 400 347 400 –17 000 –5 Sweden 47 900 49 300 53 700 74 400 74 400 71 300 –3 100 –4 Germany 231 300 230 100 196 100 166 400 232 800 228 300 –4 500 –2 New Zealand 48 400 41 600 59 400 54 800 52 000 51 700 –300 –1 France 170 200 173 300 167 800 168 100 160 700 167 500 6 800 4 Canada 221 400 235 800 262 200 251 600 236 800 247 200 10 400 4 United States 703 500 957 900 1 122 400 1 266 300 1 052 400 1 107 100 54 700 5 Austria .. .. .. 32 900 50 200 52 900 2 700 5 Korea 82 200 88 900 153 600 189 400 184 200 194 700 10 500 6 Australia 125 900 150 000 167 300 179 800 191 900 205 900 14 000 7 Belgium .. .. 35 000 35 600 40 300 43 900 3 600 9 Finland 9 400 11 500 12 700 13 900 17 500 19 900 2 400 14 Switzerland 79 700 80 700 78 800 86 300 122 200 139 300 17 100 14 Norway 22 200 24 900 25 700 28 000 43 800 51 000 7 200 16 Netherlands 60 700 53 800 60 300 61 300 69 800 82 500 12 700 18 Denmark 16 800 15 400 16 900 20 200 26 400 37 500 11 100 42 Portugal 11 000 13 100 11 500 25 100 42 900 65 900 23 000 54 Mexico 4 800 8 500 9 200 6 900 6 800 15 100 8 300 122 Total 4 520400 4 183 000 –337 400 –7

TotalexcludingSpain,AustriaandBelgium 2 402 700 2796500 3 181 300 3 374 000 3 747 500 3 694 200 –53 300 –1

% change –7

% change excluding Spain, Austria and Belgium 16 14 6 11 –1 National statistics (not standardised)

Turkey 147 200 148 000 169 700 191 000 174 900 175 000 100 0 Poland 30 300 36 900 38 500 34 200 40 600 41 800 1 200 3 Luxembourg 12 600 12 200 13 800 13 700 15 800 16 800 1 000 6 Slovak Republic 4 600 7 900 7 700 11 300 14 800 16 500 1 700 11 Hungary 19 400 22 200 25 600 19 400 22 600 .. .. ..

TotalexcludingHungary 194 700 205 000 229 700 250 200 246 100 250 100 4 000 2

% change excluding Hungary 5 12 9 –2 2

n.a.: not available.

Sources and definitions: see Box I.1.

(28)

observed since the OECD has been standardising statistics according to the “permanent migration” concept (see Box I.1).2 By contrast, immigration had increased by an average of over 11% per year since 2003. The aggregate decline, however, reflects the result of falls in

Box I.1. Standardised statistics on permanent immigrant inflows

The statistics presented in Table I.1 are taken from an OECD-defined series which attempts to standardise the statistics on inflows on the basis of a common definition. The immigration flows covered in the statistics are those which can be considered to be permanent, viewed from the perspective of the destination country. In the case of regulated movements, this consists of persons who are granted a residence permit which is more or less indefinitely renewable, although the renewability is sometimes subject to conditions, such as the holding of a job. Excluded therefore are persons such as international students, trainees, persons on exchange programmes, seasonal or contract workers, service providers, installers, artists entering the country to perform or persons engaging in sporting events, etc.

In the case of free movement migration, permanent immigrants are often problematic to identify, because there are few, if any, restrictions placed on their movements or duration of stay. In some cases, they may not even be identified explicitly in the national statistics. In some cases, free movement migrants are granted a nominal permit of a specific duration, which is then used to assess whether the migration is likely to be “permanent” or not. In other cases, a one-year criterion is applied, that is, a permanent free-movement migrant is considered to be one who stays or intends to stay in the country of destination for at least one year. One exception concerns international students who are excluded from the ranks of “permanent immigrants”, in conformity with the practice when such students are from countries not participating in a free-movement regime.

The year of reference for these statistics is often the year when the residence permit was granted rather than the year of entry. In some cases these may differ. The data may also include persons who changed status, that is, persons who entered on a temporary status and then applied for and were granted permanent status, for example international students who become permanent labour migrants.

The term “permanent” here does not mean that the immigrants enter the country with the right of permanent residence. This generally occurs only in the principal migration regimes of the “settlement countries”, that is, the countries which were largely settled by immigrants within historical memory, namely Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, and in some special circumstances, if at all, in other countries. In these countries, immigrants generally receive a temporary permit upon arrival. The holding of temporary permits does not necessarily imply that immigrants with such permits are always viewed as temporary by the destination country. The temporary permits which some migrants receive can be renewed until a more stable permit is granted or the nationality of the destination country is acquired. This is not the case for temporary migrants, who also receive temporary permits, generally of shorter duration, and which are either not renewable or renewable only on a limited basis. In addition, the designation “permanent” does not imply that the migrants are in the country of residence for good, but rather that they are, in principle, on a migration “track” that is associated with or that can lead to permanent residence.

Every attempt is made to standardise national statistics according to this common definition, given data availability and limitations. The result is approximate but represents a considerable improvement on compilations of national statistics, whose coverage can vary by a factor of one to three.

Five new countries have been added to the series since the last time they were published in 2008, namely the Czech Republic, Ireland, Korea, Mexico and Spain.

(29)

some countries and increases in others, to some extent reflecting the timing of the onset of the crisis in different countries as well as the relative magnitude of labour and free movement migration, which have been more affected by labour market conditions than were family and humanitarian migration.

Spain, the Czech Republic, Italy and Ireland saw the largest declines (about 25% or more), while Denmark, Portugal and Mexico showed increases of over 40%. In some cases, the decline (or the increase) represents in part statistical anomalies rather than reflecting entirely actual changes in immigration patterns. In Italy, for example, the inflow figures for 2007 were artificially inflated by the entry of Romania and Bulgaria into the European Union in 2007. This resulted in large numbers of nationals from these countries who had arrived irregularly over a number of years formally entering the immigration statistics in that year, resulting in an apparent decline in flows in 2008. The decline might nonetheless have occurred, but would not have been so large.

Likewise, the large increase observed in Portugal from 2007 to 2008 is the consequence of a special programme allowing Brazilians who had been in the country for a number of years to regularise their situation and thus to enter the statistics.

The decline in inflows in 2008 manifested itself essentially in free movement and in discretionary labour migration,3 which fell by 21 and 7% respectively. The decline in labour migration accelerated in 2009, as is amply attested by national statistics. On the other hand, family migration – which includes family members accompanying labour migrants, family members joining an immigrant already present or persons entering for or as a result of marriage – increased slightly by over 3% and is the only category of migration which did not decline in 2008.

3. Immigration flows by category of entry

The increase in free movement migration within the European Economic Area (EEA) has been a new feature in the OECD international migration landscape since the initial EU enlargement in 2004 and again in 2007 with the addition of Bulgaria and Romania. This form of migration currently accounts for almost a quarter of all permanent migration in OECD countries and 44% of all migration in the European Economic Area, where it now significantly exceeds family migration of persons from outside the EEA (28% of the total), as well as labour migration from other countries (see Figure I.2).

It is in Norway and Switzerland, neither of which are members of the European Union but which to all intents and purposes participate in the EU free-movement regime, that free movement migration has become the most frequent, accounting for almost 78% of all permanent migration in Switzerland and 63% in Norway. The high wage levels in these countries no doubt account in large part for these developments. Among EU countries, free movement migration was most common as a per cent of the total in Austria and Denmark, where it accounted for 61% of permanent migration in 2008.

Discretionary labour migration represented about 20% of all migration in both the OECD and the EEA (OECD) in 2008. It was common in the settlement countries except for the United States, but also in Southern Europe, the United Kingdom and Korea.

It is in the four most populous countries of the OECD (Mexico and Turkey excepted) that legal permanent migration movements were the lowest in proportion to the total population in 2008. The demographic situation in these countries, however, is far from uniform, with Germany and Japan having among the lowest fertility rates in the OECD

(30)

and France and the United States with fertility rates just below replacement level (2.1). The United States would move to the right in Figure I.2 if irregular migration were to be included, with flows estimated to be at about 500 000 per year (Passel and Cohn, 2008), but the relative level of migration would still remain below the OECD average. In addition to its low level of permanent labour migration, the United States is also characterised by the highest share of family migration in total migration in the OECD, almost 65%. This form of migration in the United States includes not only the migration of immediate family (spouses and minor children), but also that of adult siblings or children as well as parents.

4. Temporary worker migration

The number of temporary workers entering OECD countries declined in 2008 relative to 2007, by approximately 4%, after registering gains in each of the previous four years of 7% on average (Table I.2). They numbered approximately 2.3 million in 2008, significantly higher than the number of permanent labour migrants, which stood at roughly 1.5 million.4 A significant proportion of this migration occurs between OECD countries.

Temporary worker migration concerns both high- and low-skilled migrants, from high-level intracorporate transfers in multinational corporations to seasonal low-skilled workers in agriculture. In settlement countries, they include workers recruited from abroad to meet cyclical as well as seasonal labour needs, but also situations where employers cannot afford the delays associated with permanent migration. The largest category, “other temporary workers” is extremely heterogeneous and groups together many different types of workers, including highly skilled computer specialists as well as short-order cooks and hotel workers.

The category of working holiday makers constituted almost 11% of temporary workers in 2008 and seasonal workers more than one fourth. Two countries accounted for close to

Figure I.2. Permanent-type migration by category of entry, 2008

Percentage of the total population

Sources and definitions: see Box I.1.

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/882411434834 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Family Humanitarian Other

Work Free movement Accompanying family of workers

Japa n Fran ce Ger man y Unite d Sta tes Finla nd Kor ea Belg ium Neth erla nds Unite d Ki ngd om Por tuga l Aus tria OECD Den mar k Italy Can ada Swed en Spa in Aus tralia Nor way New Z eala nd Switz erla nd

(31)

one half or more of each of these two categories, Germany in the case of seasonal workers and Australia for working holiday workers.

The number of working holiday makers increased by over 12% in 2008, showing increases in all countries for which there were data except the United Kingdom. This category of temporary work was the only one which registered a large increase in 2008. All others increased slightly (seasonal workers or intracorporate transfers) or declined (other temporary workers, by 12%).

The coverage of the statistics on temporary workers is incomplete, both with respect to countries and categories. In addition, in some countries, movements that appear in the table as temporary are classified as permanent because the migrants in question, for example intracorporate transfers, are granted a status that essentially places them on a permanent migration track. Some movements, for example those involving cross-border service providers, may not be explicitly identified. In still other cases, work assignments are short and the movements may escape recording entirely. Nonetheless, the statistics

Table I.2. Temporary worker migration in OECD countries, 2003-2008

Thousands

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008/2007 change (%) Trainees 85 97 105 121 138 136 –1 Working holiday makers 187 208 221 225 245 274 12 Intra-company transfers 85 86 85 98 116 118 2 Seasonal workers 537 594 615 605 619 642 4 Other temporary workers 985 1 147 1 136 1 313 1 303 1 148 –12

All categories 1 879 2 133 2 163 2 362 2 421 2 319 –4 Annual change (%) 13 1 9 3 –4 Sweden 10 8 5 5 9 14 51 Canada 103 113 123 139 165 193 17 Australia 152 159 183 219 258 300 17 Belgium 2 2 5 16 30 34 14 Spain 56 106 97 167 164 183 12 Denmark 5 5 5 5 7 7 11 Austria 23 21 18 15 15 16 4 Finland 14 15 19 22 24 25 4 Portugal 3 13 8 7 5 5 0 New Zealand 63 68 78 87 99 99 0 Japan 217 230 202 164 165 161 –2 Germany 402 406 390 353 349 332 –5 United States 326 361 367 426 484 443 –8 Switzerland 142 116 104 117 109 99 –9 Korea 26 26 29 39 53 47 –12 Norway 41 61 51 73 86 74 –15 Mexico 45 42 46 40 28 23 –16 United Kingdom 117 239 275 266 225 184 –18 France 25 26 27 29 30 22 –25 Italy 69 70 85 98 66 40 –39 Netherlands 39 45 47 75 52 17 –67 All countries 1 879 2 133 2 163 2 362 2 421 2 319 –4

Source: OECD Database on International Migration.

(32)

shown here provide a reasonably complete view of temporary worker movements which are consistent over time and provide an indication of developments in this area.

5. International migration flows and the economic crisis

The impact of the crisis is increasingly perceptible in international migration flows. If declining employer demand does not translate immediately into lower flows, by late 2008 in most OECD countries the effects of lower demand were visible. Most countries saw declining flows in 2009.

In countries where labour migration is directly dependent on employer demand, significant declines were evident in many countries in 2009. One indication of lower demand is the number of applications by employers for authorisation to hire a worker from abroad. In the United States, the number of certified requests for temporary workers under the H-1B programme fell from a peak of 729 000 in FY 2007 to 694 000 in 2008 and to 479 000 in 2009. Certifications for the H-2B programme also fell sharply, from 254 000 in FY 2008 to 154 000 in 2009. These declines do not translate into a corresponding decline in flows, since the entries are capped at 85 000 (with some exemptions) for the H-1B programme and 66 000 for the H-2B programme.

In other countries, the drop in employer demand led to fewer entries. In Canada, confirmed labour market opinions for temporary workers fell 41% in 2009 compared to 2008. In Australia, employer requests for temporary skilled workers in 2009 were only 60% of the 2008 level. In Finland, demand was down 43%. Countries affected first by the crisis – notably, Spain and Ireland – saw some of the sharpest declines in demand-driven migration. In Spain, labour migration under the general regime fell from more than 200 000 in 2007, to 137 000 in 2008 and to less than 16 000 in 2009. The Spanish seasonal work programme fell even further: from 41 300 in 2008 to just 3 600 in 2009. In Ireland, new work permits for non-EEA nationals fell from 10 200 to 8 600 and 3 900 over the period 2007 to 2009. In Japan, recruitment of new industrial trainees fell by about 30%.

A number of countries have targets or caps for their permanent labour migration programmes. However, these programmes are supply-driven and are generally oversubscribed. As a result, with the target levels remaining unchanged in Canada, New Zealand and the United States, entries did not decline. Australia, on the other hand, lowered its target level in response to the economic downturn, and the number of labour migrants admitted consequently fell.

Free movement within the European Union – much of which is for employment – appeared to be particularly sensitive to economic changes. Migration from the countries which joined the EU in 2004, especially Poland, has slackened significantly. The number of new applicants to the United Kingdom’s Worker Registration Scheme fell 26% in 2008 and 34% in 2009. In Ireland, the number of citizens of these countries registering for a social security number fell 42% in 2008 and 60% in 2009. In Norway and Switzerland, the decline in free-movement inflows was about 30% between 2008 and 2009.

Other forms of international migration are less closely correlated with economic changes, or may be affected in different ways by economic changes. Family reunification rose in some OECD countries, in part due to previous increases in migrants present without their families. In other countries, however, family reunification declined as income criteria for sponsorship as well as transportation costs became more difficult to meet as unemployment spread among immigrants.

(33)

While flows have tended to decrease noticeably in OECD countries, this has not generally meant a decline in stocks, since inflows continued and have generally exceeded outflows. Nevertheless, return migration has been notable in some OECD countries, especially those hardest hit by the crisis, namely Ireland and Iceland. These countries have also seen increasing outflows of nationals. In Ireland, after years of net returns by Irish living abroad, emigration rose 37% between April 2008 and April 2009, resulting in zero net migration. Iceland saw net migration change from a net inflow of more than 1.5% of the total population in 2007 to a migration-induced population decline of the same order (i.e., net emigration of 1.5%) in 2009, with about half of the net emigration being attributable to Icelandic citizens.

Free movement migration has been more reactive to labour market conditions than discretionary labour migration, because the jobs taken up by migrants in free-movement regimes have tended to be lesser skilled and to be precisely in those occupations and sectors that were booming, such as construction and hospitality. By contrast, permanent discretionary labour migration in OECD countries is generally selective and concerns higher level occupations or skills that are structurally in shortage, that is, where the national educational system is not generating a sufficient supply from domestic sources. This form of labour migration has tended to be less affected by the economic crisis but has declined as well.

6. Continents, regions and countries of origin of immigrants

In 2008, around one half of migrants to an OECD country went to Europe, a third to North America, 10% to Japan and Korea and 8% to Australia and New Zealand. These percentages are calculated on the basis of unstandardised data,5 however, and are therefore to be treated with caution. Their aim is to give an order of magnitude of movements in the OECD zone.

Several factors explain the distribution by region of origin. Geographical proximity is especially important when there exist significant income differences between neighbouring origin and destination countries. In addition, historical links between countries as well as the presence of immigrants of the same origin already resident in the destination country explain the fact that the geographic origin of current migrants is not the same in Europe, North America, Asia and Oceania. Overall, one half of migrants who went to Europe in 2008 came from within Europe, while an equal proportion (around 14% each) were from Africa/Middle East and the Asia/Pacific region (Table 1.3). Migrants who went to North America were in large part from Latin America and the Caribbean (37%) and Asia (35%). Migration flows to Japan and Korea are less varied, with more than 75% of entries coming from Asia. Finally, almost one half of new migrants in Australia and New Zealand were from the Asia/Pacific region, 22% were from Europe and 15% were from another country in the Oceania/South Pacific region.

The various regions of the world are represented to a very unequal degree in migration flows. In particular, persons from the poorest countries show the lowest propensity to emigrate, given the often high cost of an international migration (Table I.4). In 2008, 8% of the total flows originated in low-income countries (gross national income less than or equal to USD 975 in 2008 according to the World Bank classification6), which represented 14% of world population. Note that the groupings in the table below are made on the basis of the average wealth of the country and not according to the individual situation of

Figure

Table 1.3. Distribution of inflows of migrants, by region of origin and destination, 2008
Table I.6. Inflows of asylum seekers in OECD countries, levels, trends and main  countries of origin, 2007-2008
Table I.7. Tertiary enrolment of international and foreign students (2007)  and evolution since 2000
Figure I.6. Permanent-type immigration relative to the average size  of a single-year cohort 20-24, 2004-2007
+7

References

Related documents

We have proposed an adaptive meshfree Galerkin method to numerically approximate the dynamics phase-field models of biomembranes embedded in a viscous fluid.. We have

Any control scheme in which only the motion of the manipulator end point may be controlled and the computer can control the actuators at the various degrees of freedom to achieve

■ Before using, test the Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter (GFCI) provided with the power cord to ensure it is operating properly.. GFCI reduces the risk of

Massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) are a fast-growing computer game genre; they are multiplayer role-playing games (RPGs) played online over the internet in

It is therefore being advised that IMF programmes put greater focus on institutional quality determinants so that it can perform better in terms of its objectives of

1) For each of the 26 source countries, we create dummy variable related to each of the eight supervision and regulation measures used in our previous analysis. For each

Key words: bile duct proliferation, chlordanes, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, dieldrin, East Greenland, HCB, hexacyclohexanes, Ito cells, lipid granulomas, liver, mononuclear