1 / 24

COMPARABILITY AND EXCHANGE OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION STATISTICS IN CIS COUNTRIES

This report summarizes outcomes of the joint UN/ECE/Eurostat work session on migration statistics in CIS countries. It discusses data comparability, coverage, and compilation possibilities. It also emphasizes the need for precise population size estimates and the considerations for future actions. Actors, data requested, sources, limitations, and impact of legislation are also outlined.

kbhakta
Download Presentation

COMPARABILITY AND EXCHANGE OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION STATISTICS IN CIS COUNTRIES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Joint UNECE/Eurostat Work Session on Migration Statistics Geneva 3-5 March 2008 COMPARABILITY AND EXCHANGE OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION STATISTICS IN CIS COUNTRIES Olga Chudinovskikh Moscow State Lomonosov University Enrico Bisogno UNECE

  2. Overview • Collected data and actors involved • Main findings: comparability, coverage, possibility of compilation • Concluding remarks (thinking of future activities)

  3. Why CIS: high ratio of intra-regional migration; focus of migration policies, need in correct population size estimates etc.

  4. Actors involved: • 11 CIS countries and agreed to provide data for the templates prepared by UNECE Statistical Division • National Statistical Offices and Migration authorities were the data providers ( i.e. - the objective: to compare data from different countries and different sources, international and national level)

  5. Data requested (years 2000-2006, males and females) and available • Immigration and emigration flows by country of origin/destination 11 and 10 countries • Immigration and emigration flows by citizenship (no data on direction of migration) 6 and 4 countries • Stocks of foreigners 8 • Stocks of foreign-born 8 • Citizenship acquisitions (no data on year of arrival and direction of migration) 8 • Population balance (births, deaths, immigrants, emigrants) 11 • Not all data were available by sex or some years were missing Census based, except 2 countries }

  6. Sources and definitions (1) • Stocks – Census round 2000 Population with usual residence foreign and foreign – born; 3 states used additional sources, only 1 used a household survey; • lack of MOI data on foreign residents (RP holders). • Citizenship acquisition – MOI data. As a rule, not available even by sex. • Population balance: except Georgia all countries utilize data on migration flows. Georgia used border statistics for net migration estimation. - Need in improvement of data collection through the next census and through regular systems as well

  7. Sources and definitions (2) Flows – data are collected in authorized agencies when a person is de-jure registered and de-registered in a place of residence . Primary forms are used in 9 countries, Moldova uses the Population register. A foreigner must have a residence permit. Time criterion to defineplace of stay and place of residence is applied in some countries only; may differ for foreigners and nationals. As a rule - 6 months, “1 year” criterion is not applied. Belarus and Russia do not apply (big underestimation of long-term migrants registered in a place of stay). 2007, RF : 7,6 mln. foreigners were registered in a place of stay and only 183 thousand – in a place of residence

  8. Important limitations of an adequate comparison: • An expected but underestimated problem: some countries registered persons, while the others – hundreds and thousands • Aggregated data mask important details by years and composition of flows • Citizenship of migrants : no data on direction of migration • Citizenship acquisition : no data on year of arrival, type and year of application

  9. Method of comparison:1) Matrix “Immigrants” 2000-2006

  10. 2) Matrix “Emigrants” 2000-2006

  11. 3) Matrix “Net migration” 2000-2006

  12. Some more evidence from data comparison: “Coverage” of immigration and emigration

  13. Some evidence from data comparison: net migration

  14. Some more evidence from comparison of data on flows of immigrants and emigrants : results to be discussed -case of Moldova and the RF

  15. Some more evidence from comparison of data on flows of immigrants and emigrants: rather good results – case of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan

  16. Some more evidence from comparison of data : need in annual data for comparison. Paradox of positive net migration both in Ukraine and the RF Ukraine- decrease of emigration, RF- increase of immigration

  17. Impact of legislation and historical context on statistics of migration and naturalization is obvious • Legislation on data collection procedures (impact on definitions of a migrant) • Legislation on naturalization – simplified procedures for major part of migrants • Stock of non-naturalized migrants of the earlier years of arrival

  18. Impact of legislation on statistics: foreigners are not included into statistics, or acquire citizenship soon after arrival (reason of low % of foreigners in case of the RF) % of foreigners and nationals in flows of immigration and emigration

  19. If the number of naturalized persons can exceed the number of migrants ? In 2007 in the RF 362 thousand persons were naturalized, only 157 persons- via an ordinary procedure , 255 thousand via a simplified way, 107 thousand – via the international agreements

  20. Impact of historical context: migration – in 1990-ies, naturalization – in 2000-ies.Case of the RF

  21. Lessons learnt (1) • Data collection and exchange is possible and very promising, should be done on a regular basis • Extreme richness of data on flows, scarcity of stock data • Interpretation of data is much more efficient when • data from both countries are available, • more variables are used in analysis and • legislation is taken into account.

  22. Lessons learnt (2) • Scarcity of administrative (MOI) data (on stocks of foreigners, on residence permit issuance and holders), • Deficit of variables in administrative data - stimulus to search for other sources and ways to develop data by some important variables • Availability and exchange at a national level should be developed as well • Need of data on short-term/labour/irregular migration • This experience shows that it’s necessary to pool together different capacities and institutional actors. • Involvement of national statistical offices is crucial- experience, traditions, official status

  23. Lessons learnt (3) • Further analysis of data is needed • Importance to invest on Population Census 2010

  24. Thank you for your attention

More Related