OECD 1998 Trends in International Migration

7/22/2019 OECD 1998 Trends in International Migration

1/281

SOPEMI

TRENDSIN INTERNATIONAL

MIGRATION

ANNUAL REPORT

1998 EDITION

OECD


2/281

SOPEMI

TRENDSININTERNATIONAL

MIGRATIONContinuous Reporting System on Migration

ANNUAL REPORT

1998 EDITION

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT


3/281

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION

AND DEVELOPMENT

Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into forceon 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promotepolicies designed:

to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living inMember countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of theworld economy;

to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process ofeconomic development; and

to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordancewith international obligations.

The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany,Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became Members subsequentlythrough accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969),Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic(21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996) and Korea (12th Decem-

ber 1996). The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of theOECD Convention).

OECD CENTRE FOR CO-OPERATION WITH NON-MEMBERS

The OECD Centre for Co-operation with Non-Members (CCNM) was established in January 1998 when theOECDs Centre for Co-operation with the Economies in Transition (CCET) was merged with the Liaison and Co-ordination Unit (LCU). The CCNM, in combining the functions of these two entities, serves as the focal point forthe development and pursuit of co-operation between the OECD and non-member economies.

The CCNM manages thematic and country programmes. The thematic programmes, which are multi-countryin focus, are linked to the core generic work areas of the Organisation (such as trade and investment, taxation,

labour market and social policies, environment). The Emerging Market Economy Forum (EMEF) and theTransition Economy Programme (TEP) provide the framework for activities under the thematic programmes. TheEMEF is a flexible forum in which non-members are invited to participate depending on the theme underdiscussion. The TEP is focused exclusively on transition economies. Country programmes, providing morefocused dialogue and assistance, are now in place for Bulgaria, China, Romania, Russia, the Slovak Republic (acandidate for accession to the OECD), and Slovenia.

Publie en francais sous le titre :

TENDANCES DES MIGRATIONS INTERNATIONALES

RAPPORT ANNUEL

OECD 1998Permission to reproduce a portion of this work for non-commercial purposes or classroom use should be obtained through theCentre francais dexploitation du droit de copie (CFC), 20, rue des Grands-Augustins, 75006 Paris, France,Tel. (33-1) 44 07 47 70, Fax (33-1) 46 34 67 19, for every country except the United States. In the United States permissionshould be obtained through the Copyright Clearance Center, Customer Service, (508)750-8400, 222 Rosewood Drive,

Danvers, MA 01923 USA, or CCC Online: http://www.copyright.com/. All other applications for permission to reproduce ortranslate all or part of this book should be made to OECD Publications, 2, rue Andre-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France.


4/281

File: ENG:[207.TXT]FORE.;2 NGUYEN Seq: 1 Page: Free: 5400D Next: 0D VJ: R 17-AUG-98 14:04


5/281

FOREWORD

The twenty-third annual report of the OECD Continuous Reporting System on Migration (known under itsFrench acronym SOPEMI) published as Trends in International M igration, draws in large part on thirty writtencontributions from national correspondents, listed at the end of the report, and on the summary of debatesat their latest annual meeting (December 1997). Following Denmark, Ireland and Mexico in 1994, the SlovakRepublic joined the SOPEMI network in 1995, and Korea in 1998.

The 1998 Edition is composed of three parts and a Statistical Annex. Part I describes overall trends ininternational migration. It focuses on the magnitude, the nature and the direction of flows. Special attention

is given to changes in the foreign or immigrant population in OECD countries and to the role of immigrants inthe labour market and in the various sectors of economic activity. This section also includes an overview ofmigration policies, in particular those relating to the control of flows, the integration of immigrants in hostcountries and international co-operation.

Part II consists of country notes describing recent developments in migration flows and policies intwenty-seven OECD countries and three non-member countries (Bulgaria, the Slovak Republic and Romania).Part III presents a study on the temporary employment of foreigners in several OECD countries. It comparesthe different categories of these workers as well as the conditions of their admission and recruitment.

This volume is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD.

3


6/281


7/281

TRENDS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION

Part I II

REPORT ON THE TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT OF FOREIGNERSIN SEVERAL OECD COUNTRIES

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

1. The general characteristi cs of temporary employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1862. Conditions of recruitment and residence of the main categories of temporary workers . . . . . . . . . . 188Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Appendix:Recruitment conditions and conditions for staying of the main categories of temporaryforeign workers for selected OECD countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

STATISTICAL ANNEX

A. SOURCES AND COMPARABILITY OF MIGRATION STATISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

1. Sources of migration statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

2. Measurement of migration flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2153. Stocks of migrants and characteristics of the immigrant population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

B. STATISTICAL SERIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

1. Introduction to the Statistical Annex tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2182. Tables of the Statistical Annex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

LIST OF SOPEMI CORRESPONDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

6


8/281

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF CHARTS AND TABLES

Part I

MAIN TRENDS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION

Charts

I.1. Inflows of foreign population relative to the stocks of foreign and total populationin selected OECD countries over the last 10 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

I.2. Immigration flows into selected OECD countries by main categories in 1990 and 1996. . . . . . . 18I.3. Inflows of migrants by country of origin to selected OECD countries, latest available year . . . 19I.4. Average annual inflows of asylum seekers to OECD countries in 1986-1990, 1991-1995

and 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21I.5. Components of total population growth in selected OECD regions and countries, 1960-96 . . . 24I.6. Natural increase and net migration in OECD countries, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25I.7. Share of foreign births in total births relative to the share of foreigners in the total

populat ion in selected OECD countries, 1980 and 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

I.8. Foreign-born and foreign labour force, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36I.9. Change in total and foreign employment by major industry division between 1993 and 1997

in selected European OECD countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38I.10. Share of foreigners or foreign-born in total unemployment relative to their share

in the labour force, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Tables

I.1. Projected old-age dependency ratios for 2010 and 2020 in OECD countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29I.2. Foreign or foreign-born population and labour force in selected OECD countries. . . . . . . . . . . 31I.3. Stocks of European Union cit izens and total foreigners in the European OECD countries,

total population and labour force, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32I.4. Maghrebian, Turkish and former Yugoslavian residents in selected European

OECD countries, total populat ion and labour force, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34I.5. Participation rates and unemployment rates in selected OECD countries by sex, place

of birth and nationality, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35I.6. Comparative development of total employment and employment of foreigners

between 1993 and 1997 and fragility indicator for foreign employment in selected EuropeanOECD countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

I.7A. Stock of Asian nat ionals in selected OECD countries in 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44I.7B. Stock of immigrants born in an Asian country in Australia, Canada and the United States . . . . 44I.8A. Foreign residents who are nationals of central and eastern European countries in selected

European OECD countries, latest available year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48I.8B. Immigrants born in central and eastern European countries residing in selected

OECD countries, latest available year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

I.9. Central and Eastern Europe: economic indicators, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52I.10. Main regularisation programmes of immigrants in an irregular situation in selected

OECD countries, by nationality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Part II

RECENT CHANGES IN MIGRATION MOVEMENTS AND POLICIES(COUNTRY NOTES)

Charts

II.1. Flows of permanent and long-term residents, Australia, fiscal years 1982/83-1996/97 . . . . . . . . 78

II.2. Components of population change, 1983-1996, Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 7


9/281


II.3. Work permits and foreign employment , 1980-1996, Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82II.4. Populat ion and net migration change, 1983-1996, Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83II.5. Inflows of permanent settlers by entry class and region of origin, 1980-1997, Canada . . . . . . . . 92II.6. Share and concentration of foreign employees by economic activity, 1997, France . . . . . . . . . . 106II.7. Migrat ion flows of foreigners, 1960-1996, Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

II.8. Components of German population change, 1970-1996, nationals and foreigners . . . . . . . . . . . 109II.9. Change in employment and unemployment in Germany, 1981-1997, total populationand foreigners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

II.10. Trends and characteristics of migration, Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122II.11. Migration flows and components of foreign population change, 1980-1996, Netherlands. . . . . . 140II.12. Demographic characteristics of permanent emigrants, 1990-1996, Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157II.13. Migration flows and acceptances for settlement, 1986-1996, United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Tables

II.1. Permanent and temporary migration programme outcomes, 1994-1997, and 1998 planninglevels for permanent set tlers, by category, Aust ralia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

II.2. Current figures on the components of total population change, on flows and stocksof foreign population and labour force, Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

II.3. Current figures on the components of total population change, on flows and stocksof foreign population and labour force, Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

II.4. Immigrant landings by type, 1993-1997, Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93II.5. Current figures on flows and stocks of migrants, Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94II.6. Current figures on flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, Denmark . . . . . . . 97II.7. Current figures on flows and stocks of total population and labour force, Finland . . . . . . . . . . 100II.8. Current figures on flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, France . . . . . . . . . 103II.9. Current figures on the components of total population change, on flows and stocks

of foreign population and labour force, Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111II.10. Residence permits issued to foreigners, by country of origin, 1993-1996, Greece . . . . . . . . . . . 114II.11. Current migration figures, Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118II.12. Demographic characteristics of permanent foreign residents and naturalised persons,

30 June 1997, Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119II.13. Current figures on flows and stocks of total population and labour force, Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . 124II.14. Current figures on foreign population, Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126II.15. Regularisation requests of immigrants in an irregular situation, three last regularisation

progammes, by region of residence, Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127II.16. Current figures on flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, Japan . . . . . . . . . . 129II.17. Estimates of foreign workers in Japan by status of residence, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130II.18. Stock of foreign population in Korea by national i ty, 1986, 1994-1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132II.19. Foreign workers in Korea by category, 1993-1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132II.20. Current figures on the components of total population change, on flows and stocks

of foreign population and labour force, Luxembourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134II.21. Mexican emigration to the United States, 1911-1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137II.22. Inflows of temporary visitors for business under NAFTA, by category and nationali ty,

1994-1996, Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138II.23. Current figures on flows and stocks of total population and labour force, Netherlands. . . . . . . 142II.24. Foreign-born population by birthplace, 1 January 1996, Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143II.25. Current figures on flows and stocks of foreign population, Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145II.26. Permanent immigrat ion and emigrat ion, 1993-1996, Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148II.27. Current figures on flows and stocks of total population and labour force, Portugal . . . . . . . . . . 152II.28. Regularisation programmes of immigrants in an irregular situation by country of origin,

1992-1993 and 1996, Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155II.29. Current migration figures, Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

II.30. Current migration figures, Slovak Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1618


10/281

TABLE OF CONTENTS

II.31. Current figures on flows and stocks of total population and labour force, Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . 163II.32. Regularisation programmes of foreigners in an irregular situation, 1991 and 1996, Spain . . . . . 165II.33. Current figures on flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, Sweden . . . . . . . . 167II.34. Current figures on the components of total population change, on flows and stocks

of foreign populat ion and labour force, Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

II.35. Number of Turkish workers sent abroad by the National Employment and Placement Office,by country or region of dest inat ion, 1993-1996, Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173II.36. Current figures on flows and stocks of total population and labour force, United Kingdom . . . 175II.37. Employment-based immigration, by preference, fiscal years 1993-1996, United States . . . . . . . 180II.38. Non-immigrants admitted by class of admission, fiscal years 1994-1996, United States . . . . . . 182

Part I II

IMMIGRATION AND SOCIAL TRANSFERS: ANALYTICAL ISSUES AND RECENT RESULTS

Tables

III.1. Inflows of temporary skilled workers by main category in selected OECD countries, 1992-1996 189III.2. Inflows of seasonal workers in selected OECD countries, 1992-1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192III.3. Inflows of foreign trainees in selected OECD countries, 1992-1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

9


11/281


STATISTICAL ANNEX

A. Cross national tables

A.1. Foreign and/or foreign-born population: stocks and flows

A.1.1. Inflows of foreign population into selected OECD countries, 1986-1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222A.1.2. Outflows of foreign population from selected OECD countries, 1986-1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222A.1.3. Net migration of foreign population in selected OECD countries, 1986-1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222A.1.4. Inflows of asylum seekers into selected OECD countries, 1987-1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223A.1.5. Stocks of foreign-born population in selected OECD countries, 1990-1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223A.1.6. Stocks of foreign population in selected OECD countries, 1986-1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224A.1.7. Acquisit ion of national ity in selected OECD countries, 1988-1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

A.2. Foreign or foreign-born labour force: stocks and flows

A.2.1. Inflows of foreign workers into selected OECD countries, 1986-1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

A.2.2. Inflows of seasonal workers into selected OECD countries, 1986-1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226A.2.3. Stocks of foreign and foreign-born labour force in selected OECD countries, 1986-1996 . . . . . . 227

B. Tables by country of origin

B.1. Foreign and/or foreign-born population: stocks and flows

B.1.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 Luxembourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

B.1.2. Outflows of foreign population by nationality

Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Luxembourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

B.1.3. Net migration of foreign population by nationality

Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 Luxembourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

B.1.4. Inflows of asylum seekers by nationality

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24410


12/281

TABLE OF CONTENTS

B.1.5. Stock of foreign-born population by country of birth

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

B.1.6. Stock of foreign population by nationality

Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Luxembourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

B.1.7. Acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Luxembourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

B.2. Foreign or foreign-born labour force: stocks and flows

B.2.1. Foreign-born labour force by place of birth

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264

B.2.2. Stock of foreign labour by nationality

Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271Luxembourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

Notes related to the tables of the Statistical Annex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

11


13/281

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The analysis of the recent trends in migration movements confirms that a reduction in legal immigrationflows has taken place in the majority of the OECD Member countries over the past four years. Immigration forfamily reasons continues to predominate although temporary migration is gaining in importance, notably thatconcerning the highly qualified; for the OECD area considered as a whole, the number of requests for asylumhas been diminishing. The persistence of irregular migration indicates clearly, however, that host and origincountries are encountering di fficulties in control ling migration flows (see Part I.A).

Migration plays a decisive role in the annual population growth of many OECD countries. However, given

the fluctuational nature of migration movement volumes and the large scale of net migration that would berequired to maintain constant old-age dependency ratios, sole reliance on the contribution of net migrationto reduce or stem demographic decline is inherently problematic.

Foreign labour is becoming increasingly present in the service sector. The proportion of foreigners inself-employment has also increased in some of the Member countries. The supply of foreign labour hasadapted in response to the needs of the labour market. Female labour immigration has grown, as haveforeign womens participation rates, in particular of those born in the host country. However, despite theupturn in economic activity, foreigners vulnerability to unemployment remains higher than that of nationals.

The forthcoming enlargement of the European Union to include countries from Central and EasternEurope has aroused some concern regarding the possibility of uncontrolled immigration flows which couldresult from it . These fears would be abated somewhat were the membership process to be accompanied by

transit ional measures postponing the free movement of persons to a date beyond that of the countries entryinto the Union; such arrangements have been made in the past. In the meantime, it is likely that furtherbilateral agreements governing the movement of persons will be signed, not only with the prospectivemembers but also with their neighbours. Many Central and Eastern European countries are endeavouring toput into place migration policies which, with regard to the entry of refugees, the stay and employment offoreigners, and the control of borders, conform to EU standards (see Part I.B).

The objectives of regulating and controlling flows form the basis of an important part of migration pol icy(see Part I.C). The Member countries of the OECD have adopted a more restrictive attitude regarding theentry and stay of foreigners, notably by tightening the rules governing family reunion and by establishingmore selective criteria for new immigrants. Through the implementation of stricter border controls, by theconducting of workplace inspections and by the practice of identity checks inside the country, the fightagainst illegal immigration has taken on a greater dimension. As a complement to such measures,

programmes for regularising undocumented foreigners have taken place recently in Italy, Spain, Greeceand France.

Alongside the control of flows, OECD Member countries have reaffirmed their desire to accelerate theintegration of immigrants already present. Language instruction and aid towards orienting new arrivalsfeature among the priority measures. Job training and easing the access of youths and the unemployed intothe labour market are other fundamental elements of integration pol icies, likewise are measures designed tocombat the discrimination which immigrants might encounter.

In the area of international co-operation, beyond that directed at gaining a better control of migrationflows, measures have been carried out with the objective of involving a larger number of Member countries inactivities likely to prevent conflict in politically volatile regions. Regional economic integration and tradeliberalisation also feature among those measures which, over the long term, under the impetus of sustainable

development accompanied by significant employment creation, could reduce the incentive to emigrate in 13


14/281


those countries with high emigration potential. The Association Agreements signed by the EuropeanCommunity with the Central and Eastern European countries and with the countries of the Maghreb weredrawn up in this context. This is equally the case with the process of economic integration under way inNorth America within the framework of NAFTA.

* * *

Part II of this report presents detailed country notes on the recent developments in migration move-ments and policies.

Part III touches on a topical subject considered as a high priority by the member countries of the OECD:the temporary employment of foreigners. Such employment enhances labour market flexibility and favoursthe movements of trainees, managers and specialists. This chapter includes a comparative analysis of thecondi tions relating to the recruitment and stay of the principal categories of temporary workers. The regimeswhich prevail in the eight Member countries examined are shown to be quite diverse.

14


15/281

Part I


The following analysis of the main trends in is widening. Although in several European OECDinternational migration has been divided into three countries the economic upturn noticeable sincesections. The first looks at changes in migration 1996 has been accompanied by a reduction in for-movements, in the total and foreign populations of eigners unemployment rates, this reduction hasthe countries considered and in the situation of for- been less marked than that experienced byeigners in the labour market. The second section nationals.

focuses on two regions, Asia and Central and EasternEurope. An overview of migration policies is

1. Trends in migration movements and changespresented in the third section in the course of whichin the foreign populationmeasures to better control and regulate flows and to

promote the improved integration of immigrants in Recent developments in migration movementshost countries are examined. Finally, particular in OECD countries confirm two trends that began inattention is accorded to the links between migration 1993. After the increase in immigration flows duringand economic development. the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, one

observes (with the exception of a few countries) areduction in the number of immigrant entries. InA. MIGRATION, POPULATIONaddition, the d iversification of the modes of entryAND THE LABOUR MARKETused by immigrants and the increase in the number

The analysis of migration movements confirms of nationalities involved continues. At the samethat a reduction in legal immigration flows has taken time, however, traditional flows persist and theplace in the majority of OECD countries over the regional character of migration is intensifying. Threepast four years. The number of requests for asylum additional characteristics of recent migration trendsdeclined over the entire OECD area. Immigration for merit attention: the decline in the number of asylumfamily reasons continues to predominate although claims, the predominance of flows linked to familytemporary migration is gaining in importance. How- reunion and the increasing relative importance ofever, the persistence of irregular migration, the vol- temporary and highly-skilled workers in the totalume of which is by definit ion impossib le to deter- flows.mine with precision, indicates clearly that host andorigin countries are encountering difficulties in con-

a) Decline of legal immigration flowstrolling migration flows.

In spite of the reduction in the flows, immigra- During the 1980s and at the beginning of thetion sti ll plays a significant role in annual population current decade, inflows increased in almost allgrowth. The proportion of foreign births in total OECD countries (see Statistical Annex, Table A.1.1).births is high and the foreign or foreign-born popu- However, for several of them, 1993 marked a turninglation is growing and diversifying. Even though the point: the flows levelled off (Belgium, Denmark,inflows are displaying a declining tendency, foreign Finland, Luxembourg, Norway and the Unit edor immigrant labour nonetheless maintains a visible Kingdom) or fell back sharply (Germany, Sweden,presence in the labour market; in the majority of Switzerland and France). In Japan, Australia, CanadaOECD countries this presence is spreading across an and the United States, after a marked decline in theincreasing number of sectors. Overall, there contin- flows in 1993 and 1994, a mild recovery began, mostues to exist a gap between the unemployment rates noticeably in Australia and the United States. Nev-

of foreigners and of nationals. Indeed, this disparity ertheless, the documented inflows registered by 15


16/281


these four countries remained inferior to the peak period. Finally, the remaining countries included inrecorded in 1992. the chart share the common feature of having

received over the course of the last fifteen years, asGermany emerges as Europes principal immi-a proportion of the total population, the largestgration country with inflows of foreigners approach-immigration flows. These flows have rangeding 700 000 in 1996. However, the size of these

between 5 and 10 per thousand in the case ofinflows merits qualification: not only do these flows Germany, 10 and 15 per thousand in that ofinclude close to 120 000 asylum requests, the regu-Switzerland, and 20 and 25 per thousand in that oflations governing inclusion in Germanys populationLuxembourg. Concerning this last group, one notesregisters are framed in such a way that many peoplethat although, in absolute terms, Germany receiveswho spend only a short period in the country arethe greatest number of foreigners, it is inentered onto the registers. These two reasonsLuxembourg and Switzerland that the inflows of for-largely explain, moreover, Germanys high levels ofeigners, as a proportion of the total population, areoutflows which in 1996 totalled 560 000. The volumethe largest.of immigration flows in the other European countries

which possess the relevant statistics is markedly In 1996 (or in the most recent year for whichlower in absolute terms, ranging from between data are available), for the majority of the countries200 000 entries for Austria and the United Kingdom under consideration, entry flows as a proportion ofto 75 000 for the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the total population stood at a level equal to orFrance. Of the non-European Members of the OECD, below that recorded ten years earlier. The excep-the United States has experienced the most signifi- tions are Luxembourg, Canada, Denmark and Japan.cant increase in inflows (close to 30 per cent Denmark is the only country where the volume ofbetween 1995 and 1996). Australia, Japan and inflows for the most recent available year (1995) wasCanada registered much small er increases, of higher, in relative terms, than during any of the pre-respectively 13, 7 and 6 per cent. ceding ten.

In Chart I.1, the countries of the OECD are If one relates the inflow data to the foreign orranked (in descending order) by their immigration immigrant population rather than to the total popu-flows per thousand of the total population for the lation (see the left-hand side of Chart I.1), the rank-most recent available year. The years considered ings alter slightly. This is most notably the case for

are 1986, 1996 (when the data are available) and the Finland, Japan, Denmark and Norway, countriespeak year of the preceding ten. The countries are where the proportion of foreigners in the total popu-clearly divided into four groups. The first group con- lation was relatively small prior to the rapid growthsists of Japan, Finland, France and Hungary, coun- in inflows which occurred between 1986 and 1992. Intries where inflows of foreigners have accounted these four countries, the volume of foreign inflowsover the period 1986-96 for a very small percentage relative to the foreign population has varied widelyof the total population, fluctuating according to the over the period: in Denmark and Norway it hasyear at between 1.25 and 2.50 per 1 000 inhabitants. ranged from between 10 and 20 per cent; in JapanIn the second group, which comprises Norway, the (1992) and Finland (1991) it has reached peaks ofUnited Kingdom, the United States and Sweden, respectively 22 and 47 per cent. With the exceptionsinflows of foreigners or immigrants as a proportion of of Luxembourg, Denmark and Hungary, all the OECDthe total population vary according to the year at countries which appear in this chart experienced in

between 2.50 and 4 per thousand. In Norway, this the mid-1990s their highest volume of inflows as aproportion varied considerably between 1986 and proportion of the foreign population.1988 due to a huge inflow of asylum seekers; in For European countries with a long-standingSweden the same phenomenon occurred in 1994. In history of immigration and where the percentage ofthe United States, a similar rise took place between foreigners in the total population is relatively high1989 and 1992 as a result of the upsurge in entry (Luxembourg, Switzerland, Germany and Sweden), itregistrations following the implementation of the is only in Germany due to the magnitude of immi-amnesty programme enacted in 1986. gration flows between 1987 and 1992 that the vol-

In Denmark, Australia, Belgium and the ume of entries has been relatively high as comparedNetherlands, countries in the third group, inflows of to the foreign population, varying between 10 andforeigners or immigrants as a proportion of the total 20 per cent over the period, a sharp decline having

population hovered around 5 per thousand over the taken place from 1992 onwards.16


17/281


1986

1986

1996

1986

1992

1996

1995

1992

1992

1986

1993

1996

1986

1992

1986

1991

1996

1986

1996

1993

1996

1994

1996

1986

1986

1996

1986

1994

1996

1995

1991

1991

1986

1993

1996

1986

1991

1986

1992

1996

1988

1996

1992

1996

1990

1996

(47.1)

201001020

201001020

201001020

201001020 201001020

201001020

201001020

201001020

Chart I.1. Inflows of foreign populat ion relative to the stocks of foreign and tot al populatio n

in selected OECD count ries over the last 10 years1

Per 100 foreigners and per 1 000 inhabitants at the beginning of the year2

Note:Countries are ranked by decreasing order of the inflows per 1 000 inhabitants during the latest available year. Data for Australia, Canada and the United Statesrefer to inflows of permanent settlers, for France, to issues of certain types of permits and, in 1996, estimates of other flows (mainly inflows of European EconomicArea family members). For the United Kingdom, the data are based on entry control at ports of certain categories of migrants. For all other countries, figures arefrom population registers or registers of foreigners. Counts for the Netherlands, Norway and especially Germany include substantial numbers of asylulm seekers.For more details on sources, refer to the introduction to the Statistical Annex.

1. The selected years are 1986 and 1996, if available, and the year in the 90s with the highest inflows. Fiscal years for Australia (July to June of the given year) and forthe United States (October to September of the given year).

2. For Australia and Canada, inflows of permanent settlers as a per 100 foreign-born people during the last 3 censuses (1986, 1991 and 1996). For the United States,inflows of permanent settlers as a per 100 foreign-born people in 1980 and 1990 (Censuses) and in 1996 (estimates from the Current Population Survey).

3. The inflows of foreign population relative to the stock of foreign population ratio is calculated using the two last censuses stock data (1982 and 1990) and theestimates from the 1996 Labour Force Survey.

4. The inflows of foreign population relative to the stock of foreign population ratio is not calculated for 1988 and 1990 because stock data on foreign population areonly available from 1994 on.

Source: National Statistical Offices.

Per 100 foreigners/immigrants Per 1 000 inhabitants Per 100 foreigners/immigrants Per 1 000 inhabitants

Per 100 foreigners/immigrants Per 1 000 inhabitants Per 100 foreigners/immigrants Per 1 000 inhabitants

Luxembourg

Switzerland

Germany

Canada

Norway

United Kingdom

United States

Sweden

Denmark

Australia

Belgium

Netherlands

Japan

Finland

France3

Hungary4

17


18/281


b) Predominance of family immigration centage of total inflows at respectively 45 per centand over 30 per cent in 1996. This percentage is

The proportion of total immigration accounted close to 20 per cent in Canada and France (wherefor by each of the component flows (workers, accom- the figures cover only foreign workers). In otherpanying families, family reunion and refugees) dif- countries, including the United States, the figure is

fers widely from one country to another. That said, in rather lower. In fact, in Sweden labour immigrationalmost all the countries of the OECD, inflows related accounts for only one per cent of total inflows.to family reunion and to family members accompa-nying workers predominate. Chart I.2 confirms thistrend and shows that the family component has c) Diversification in regions of origingained in importance in Australia, France, the and the continuation of traditional flowsUnited Kingdom, the United States and Sweden. InCanada, the relative share of family members A comparison of permanent migrant entries intoaccompanying foreign workers accounts for approxi- certain OECD countries for the most recent availablemately half of the total family-linked immigration year by country of origin reveals three trends (seeflows. In Denmark and Sweden refugee flows Chart I.3 and Statistical Annex, Tables B.1.1). Theaccount for the greatest proportion of the total first of these is the confirmation of a new predomi-

inflows. In Switzerland, Australia, Denmark and the nance or of an increase in the part played by certainUnited Kingdom, refugee flows account for a greater nationalities in recent inflows. The importance ofproportion of the total inflows than they did in 1990. immigrant arrivals from Asian countries is a case inAs for labour immigration, it is in Switzerland and in point, particularly from the Philippines, China,Australia (countries where workers and their accom- Hong Kong (China), India, Pakistan and Vietnam forpanying family members are grouped together) that the United States, Japan and Canada. The latterthis category of inflow represents a sizeable per- country received in 1996 close to 30 000 Hong Kong

18 0 20 40 60 80 100

0 60 80 10020 40

United Kingdom2 9296

Switzerland 9096

Australia3 9197

Canada4 9096

France5 9196

Denmark6 9096

United States7 9296

Sweden6 9096

Family membersaccompanying workers

Family reunification

Refugees

Workers

Chart I.2. Immigration f lows int o selected OECD countr ies by main categories1in 1990 and 1996

Percentages of total inflows

Note: Countries are ranked by decreasing order of the percentage ofworkers in total inflows.

1. For Australia, Canada, the United States and Sweden, data concernacceptances for settlement. For Denmark, Switzerland and France,entries correspond to residence permits delivered in general for aperiod longer than one year. For the United Kingdom, data arebased on entry control at ports of certain categories of migrants(excluding European Economic Area citizens). For Switzerland,France, Denmark and Sweden, family members accompanyingworkers are included under Family reunification. For Australia,

Workers include accompanying dependents.2. Passengers, excluding European Economic Area nationals, admitted

to the United Kingdom. The data only include certain categories ofmigrants: work permit holders, spouses and refugees (excludingresidents returning on limited leave or who previously settled). Thecategory Workers include Commonwealth citizens with a UnitedKingdom born grandparent who are taking or seeking employment(UK ancestr y).

3. Data refer to fiscal years (July to June of the given year). Excludingthe Special Eligibility programme. The category Workers includethe accompanying dependents.

4. Excluding retirees.5. Inflows of family members of EU citizens are estimated in 1996.6. Excluding Nordic and EU citizens .7. Data refer to fiscal years (October to September of the given year).

Excluding immigrants who obtained a permanent residence permitfollowing the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act.

Source: National Statistical Offices.


19/281


0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

25.1

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

50.9

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

26.9

Chart I.3. Infl ows of m igrant s by count ry of origin t o selected OECD coun tr ies, lat est available year1

As a per cent of total inflows2

New Zeal. (13.1)

UK (9.6)

China (7.8)

Former Yug. (5.3)

H K (China) (3.9)

South Africa (3.2)

Vietnam (3.0)

Philippines (2.8)

India (2.7)

Chin. Taipei (2.2)

H K (China) (29.9)

India (21.2)

China (17.5)

Chin. Taipei (13.2)

Philippines (12.9)

Pakistan (7.7)

Sri Lanka (6.1)

United States (5.8)

Iran (5.8)

UK (5.6)

Former Yug. (16.6)

Somalia (1.5)

Iceland (1.2)

Germany (1.0)

Iraq (1.0)

Norway (0.9)

UK (0.9)

Turkey (0.8)

Sweden (0.8)

United States (0.6)

Algeria (7.8)

Morocco (6.6)

Turkey (3.4)

United States (2.7)

Tunisia (2.2)

Former Yug. (1.3)

Japan (1.1)

Zaire (0.9)

Sri Lanka (0.9)

Haiti (0.8)

Portugal (2.4)

France (1.5)

Belgium (0.9)

Germany (0.6)

Italy (0.5)

Netherlands (0.3)

United States (0.3)

Spain (0.1)

Poland (77.4)

Turkey (73.2)

Italy (45.8)

Former Yug. (42.9)

Portugal (32.0)

Russian Fed. (31.9)

Greece (18.8)

Romania (17.1)

Hungary (16.6)

United States (16.3)

Canada

France

Luxembourg

Australia

Denmark3

Germany

Belgium

Finland

Japan

Netherlands (7.8)

France (6.6)

Morocco (4.0)

Germany (3.2)

United States (3.0)

UK (2.8)

Italy (2.7)

Turkey (2.5)

Former Yug. (2.5)

Russian Fed. (2.0)

Estonia (0.7)

Sweden (0.6)

Iraq (0.5)

Bos. Herz. (0.4)

Somalia (0.3)

United States (0.2)

UK (0.2)

Iran (0.2)

China (45.6)

Philippines (30.3)


Brazil (22.4)

Korea (17.1)

Thailand (6.6)

UK (6.4)

Canada (4.5)

Chin. Taipei (4.4)

Germany (4.1)

Portugal (1.8)

Germany (0.2)

19


20/281


0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

Chart I.3.(cont.) Inflows of migrant s by countr y of origin to selected OECD countr ies, latest available year1

As a per cent of total inflows2

Former Yug. (14.1)

Germany (8.7)

Portugal (5.5)

Italy (5.4)

France (5.0)

Turkey (3.4)

United States (2.9)

UK (2.4)

Spain (2.0)

Netherlands (1.4)

Turkey (6.4)

Germany (5.7)

UK (4.3)

Morocco (4.3)

Former Yug. (3.4)

United States (3.1)

Surinam (2.8)

Belgium (1.9)

France (1.7)

Poland (1.4)

Sweden (2.9)

Denmark (1.6)

Bos. Herz. (1.0)

UK (0.9)

United States (0.9)

Germany (0.6)

Pakistan (0.5)

Somalia (0.4)

Sri Lanka (0.4)

Finland (2.6)

Iraq (2.1)

Norway (1.5)

Denmark (1.4)

Bos. Herz. (1.2)

United States (1.1)

Turkey (1.1)

UK (0.9)

Former Yug. (0.8)

Iran (0.8)


Australia (25.1)

India (13.0)

South Africa (12.9)

New Zealand (11.0)

Japan (10.8)

Pakistan (7.8)

Canada (7.4)

Philippines (6.8)

Mexico (163.6)

Former URSS(62.8)

Philippines (55.9)

India (44.9)

Vietnam (42.1)

China (41.7)

Dom. Rep. (39.6)

Cuba (26.5)

Jamaica (19.1)

Haiti (18.4)

Turkey (0.3)

Poland (3.6)

Notes:The top ten source countries are given by decreasing order. The abbreviation H K (China) means Hong Kong (China); New Zeal.: New Zealand; UK: UnitedKingdom; Chin. Taipei: Chinese Taipei; Bos. Herz.: Bosnia Herzegovina; Dom. Rep.: Dominican Republic; Russian Fed.: Russian Federation; Former Yug.: Former Yugoslavia.Data for Australia, Canada and the United States refer to inflows of permanent settlers by country of birth, for France, to issues of certain types of permits andestimates of other flows (mainly inflows of European Economic Area family members). For the United Kingdom, the data are based on entry control at ports of

certain categories of migrants. For all others countries, figures are from population registers or registers of foreigners. Counts for the Netherlands, Norway andespecially Germany include substantial numbers of asylum seekers. For more details on sources, refer to the introduction to the Statistical Annex.1. Fiscal year for Australia (July 1996 to June 1997) and the United States (October 1995 to September 1996), 1995 for Denmark and Luxembourg and 1996 for the

other countries.2. The figures in brackets are inflows in thousands.3. Including 16 000 former Yugoslavs already in the country who have been recognised as refugees.4. Passengers, excluding European Economic Area nationals, admitted to the United Kingdom. The data only include certain categories of migrants: work permit holders,

spouses and refugees (excluding residents returning on limited leave or who previously settled).Source: National Statistical Offices.

United States

SwedenNorway

United Kingdom4

Netherlands

Switzerland

(China) nationals; although the figure was slightly In the case of Germany, Austria and the fourdown on those of the previous two years, Hong Kong Scandinavian countries (if we abstract from theremains at the top of Canadas list of source coun- movements of these countries nationals, particu-

tries for new entrants. larly those of Norway and of Sweden), East-West20


21/281


flows account for the greater part of the total flows, nent basis. For example, in a number of OECD coun-with Poles predominating in Germany, nationals of tries an ad hoc status was granted to Bosnians,the former Soviet Union in Finland and those of the accompanied generally by social assistance and theformer Yugoslavia in Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden right of access to the labour market. In France, tem-and Norway. In 1996, the United States experienced, porary residence authorisation has been provided

for the second consecutive year, an increase in the to Algerians forced to leave their country.number of entrants from the former Soviet Union From the middle of the 1980s through to the(63 000, an increase of almost 15 per cent on 1995) beginning of the 1990s (see Statistical Annex,for it to retain its position as the second most impor- Table A.1.4) applications for asylum rose noticeably,tant source country, after Mexico. In 1996, nationals

sometimes spectacularly (Germany, Austria, Canada,of Australia and the United States comprised the

the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the Unitedoverwhelming majority of entrants to the United

Kingdom and the United States). Chart I.4 illustratesKingdom.

the changes over the last decade in the averageThe second obvious trend is the persistence of annual inflows of asylum seekers, respectively over

traditional migration flows. This is the case notably the periods 1986-90, 1991-95 and for the year 1996.in Switzerland where new immigrants come mostly During the first half of the 1990s the average annualfrom the former Yugoslavia, Germany and

inflows of asylum seekers was relatively high, mostSouthern Europe. In France, nationals from North notably in Germany and the United States; inAfrica (Maghreb) account for an important share of Canada, France and Austria the same phenomenonflows, although their numbers are lower than in the was observed during the previous period. In 1996,previous two years. Entries of Algerians were the Germany and the United States had, in absolutemost significant in 1996, followed by Moroccans. Inthe United Kingdom immigrants from Pakistan, Indiaand Bangladesh no longer feature at the top of thelist of source countries. Nevertheless, the volume ofentries from these three countries increased in1996 in comparison with the previous year. In thecase of Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom,Canada, the Netherlands, Switzerland and France,the United States appears in the list of the top tensource countries.

The third and final key trend, the reduction inthe relative proportion of flows to Australia, Canadaand the United States originating from Europe,began in the 1980s; the new data merely confirm it(see Statistical Annex, Tables B.1.1).

d) Asylum claims continue to declinefor the OECD area as a whole

In OECD countries, in principle, the arrival ofrefugees and that of asylum seekers do not occur inquite the same way. The arrival of refugees is gener-ally organised within the framework of governmentprogrammes negotiated either with specialisedinternational organisations or with countries whichare sheltering the refugees. Asylum seekers, on theother hand, most often apply for refugee status(which they do not necessarily obtain) either on arri-val at the border or when already present within thecountry. In addition, OECD countries authorise cer-tain persons, for humanitarian reasons, to remain in

the country either temporarily or on a more perma- 21

19961991-951986-90

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

(254.4)

Chart 1.4. Average annual inf lows of asylum seekers

to OECD count ries in 1986-90, 1991-95 and 1996

Thousands

Sources:United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees and OECD.

United States

Germany

United Kingdom

Canada

Netherlands

Switzerland

France

Belgium

Austria

Australia

Others


22/281


terms, the highest number of asylum seekers, fol- demand for temporary foreign workers is growing.lowed by the United Kingdom and Canada. In fact, The use of temporary foreign labour enhances hostlooking at asylum appl ications across the OECD area countries labour market flexibil ity and helps to alle-as a whole, one observes that Germany received viate sectoral labour shortages. Temporary migra-proportionately the largest number of asylum seek- tion also has other advantages, particularly in the

ers. The available data for 1996 indicate that in rela- short-term. During a period of restricted immigra-ti ve terms the United States has overtaken tion, it may be a means of reducing the employmentGermany. Modifications to the German consti tution of foreigners in an irregular situation. Moreover, itimplemented in 1993 rendering its provisions relat- avoids, in part, the sanctioning of permanent immi-ing to asylum seekers more restrictive have indeed gration with its attendant welfare costs and theled to a sizeable decline in the number of asylum necessity of implementing integration policies.applications addressed to Germany from that date. Finally, temporary employment also promotes the

movement of managerial staff and highly skilledFaced with an increasing number of asylumworkers. Given the scale that temporary movementsseekers, the OECD countries have reacted byof labour have recently taken (this includes those ofspeeding up the processing of applications and byqualified and highly qualified workers), Part III ofintroducing certain restrictive measures, amongthis report is devoted to this phenomenon.

them the extension of visa requirements to a largernumber of countries. The majority of countries havealso decided to restrict asylum applications, except

2. Immigration and population growthfor special cases, to persons from countries that

in OECD countrieshave not signed both of the United Nations Conven-tions provided they have not previously passed Migration plays a significant role in the annualthrough a country that has signed them. population growth of many OECD countries. First of

all , the presence of a foreign or foreign-born popula-The measures taken to stem the flow of newtion contributes to the natural increase in the popu-arrivals (for more details see Section C on migrationlation (excess of births over deaths). The higher thepolicies), combined with the low rate of acceptancefertility of foreign women relative to natives thefor refugee status applications have, with the excep-more significant is this contribut ion. Second, whentions of the United States and the United Kingdom,

net migration is positive, the population of the hostled to a sharp fall in the number of asylum requests country grows by the same amount.since 1993 (see Statistical Annex, Table A.1.1). TheNetherlands, which had registered continuous

In the following section the contribution ofgrowth in the number of requests accepted, wit-migration will be examined from the perspective ofnessed substantial declines both in 1995 and 1996.its impact on total population growth. Special atten-In 1997, however, applications increased. In thetion will then be given to births to foreigners or toUnited Kingdom, asylum requests increased inpersons of foreign origin and to the relationship1994 and 1995. Although the 1996 implementation ofbetween population ageing and migration. Finally,new legislative measures was accompanied by aan analysis of changes in the foreign or immigrantsharp reduction in applications, they rose again inpopulations in OECD countries will highlight the1997. Finally, as several countries of Central andgrowth which has taken place in this populationEastern Europe have signed the Geneva Conventionand confirm i ts trend t owards increasingthey recognise and can therefore accord refugee sta-diversification.tus to applicants. Alongside the end of the civil war

in the former Yugoslavia, this also explains thedecline in requests observed across the whole of

a) The components of total population growththe OECD area.

In order to explain the respective contributionsof net migration and the rate of natural increase toe) Temporary labour migrationtotal population growth, the evolution of these com-and the migration of highly-qualified workersponents over the past three decades in the princi-pal OECD geographic regions will be examined andThe admission of permanent foreign workers isa description of the current situation in the Membercurrently very limited, particularly into the European

countries will be presented.Member countries of the OECD. However, the22


23/281


Main demographic trends: a regional approach A more detailed analysis by country for1996 (see Chart I.6) reveals that Ireland, Iceland and

Chart I.5 covers the period 1961-96. It shows theJapan have registered negative net migration; in the

relative contributions of net migration (nationalscase of Japan this has been combined with a rela-

and foreigners) and of natural increase (excess oftively low rate of natural increase. Germany, Italy

births over deaths) to the total population growth ofand the Czech Republic have in common a negativethe countries of the European Union and other natural increase rate and positive net migration. In

Member countries of the OECD. This time-seriesSweden as in Greece, it is due to net migration that

analysis illustrates the general trend of a slowdownthe population increased in 1996. In New Zealand,

in demographic growth. One will observe, however,Luxembourg and Canada, population growth is

that the rates of population growth at the beginningbeing driven more by the positive net migration

of the period are clearly higher in Turkey, Australiathan by the natural increase, itself relatively high.

and the United States compared to the countries ofMexico and Turkey are the OECD countries with the

the European Union and Japan where the demo-highest natural rates of population growth (28 and

graphic decline is much more marked. The increase15 per thousand respectively). Turkeys slightly pos-

in immigration flows in Europe, noticeable betweenitive net migration indicates that return movements

1989 and 1992, failed to reverse the demographicof Turkish expatriates outweigh the emigration flows.

decline. By contrast, due to the sizeable volume of emigra-In the United States (and also in Canada), the tion flows in 1996, Mexico recorded high negativenatural increase in the population (per 1 000 inhabi- net migration.tants) is the principal component of total population

Population growth in other European OECDgrowth. The contribution of net migration has hardlycountries has in general been rather weak. In thechanged over the period studied except betweenNetherlands, Norway, France, Switzerland, the1979 and 1981 and between 1992 and 1993. TheUnited Kingdom and Finland it has been drivennatural increase fell sharply between 1961 andlargely by the natural increase whereas in Denmark,1973 and remained, on average, at the level ofAustria, Greece, Portugal and Spain the contribution7.5 per 1 000 inhabitants through to 1990 at whichof net migration has predominated.point it began to decline. In Australia, the natural

increase in the population has steadily declined This analysis points to the conclusion that over

over the past three decades but, as in the case of a long period (be it by region or by country) and bythe United States (and Canada), it still remains the cross section (by country, in 1996), natural increaseprincipal component of total population growth. is more important than net migration in total popu-

lation growth in OECD countries. This is true notIn the countries of the European Union, the sit-only in countries which have experienced large emi-uation is more contrasted. At the beginning of thegration flows, such as Ireland, Portugal, Spain, New1960s, the relative share of the natural increase inZealand, Turkey and Mexico, but also in settlementtotal population growth was larger than that of netcountries such as Canada and the United States andmigration. From 1967 onwards, net migration grewto a lesser extent Australia. This is also the case inwhile the natural increase continuously declined.other European countries (France, the Netherlands,Between 1987 and 1991, the relative contribution ofthe United Kingdom) where immigrants havenet migration grew rapidly following an accelerationtended to prolong their stay and settle and wherein immigration flows. The trend was then reversed.entries have been running at lower levels than inHowever, over the whole of the European Union theprevious decades. The settlement of immigrantsrelative contribution of net migration remains moreand members of their families has contributed, byimportant than that of the natural increase, in con-means of foreign births or by those of foreign origintrast to the situation prevailing in the United States,(see below), to the increase in the dominant role ofTurkey, Japan and Poland.the natural increases contribution to populationTurkey too is experiencing a relatively high nat-growth.ural rate of population growth, approximately

15 per thousand in 1996, a sharp reduction, however, The acceleration of migration movements hason the 1970s figure of 24 per thousand. Moreover, played a non-negligible role in population growth indue to the return of former emigrants, net migration certain of the OECD Member countries. This is nota-in Turkey is slightly positive, in contrast to the situa- bly the case in Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Italy,

tion in Poland. Portugal and Spain. The trend is all the more 23


24/281


15

10

5

0

-5

15

10

5

0

-5

15

10

5

0

15

10

5

0

25

20

15

10

5

-5

25

20

15

10

5

-5

0 0

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Chart I.5. Component s of t ot al populat ion growth in selected OECD regions and countri es,

1960-1996

Per 1 000 inhabitants at the beginning of the year

Source: Labour Force Statistics,OECD, 1997.

Australia United States

Pe

r1000

Japan Turkey

Per1000

European Union (15 members) Poland

Per1000

Per1000

Per1000

Per1000

Natural increase rate Net migration rate

24


25/281


10

5

0

-5

-10

0

-5

-100 5 10 15 20 25 30

3

2

1

0

3

2

1

00 1 2 3 4

Chart I.6. Natu ral increase and net migrati on in OECD count ries,11996

Per 1 000 inhabitants as of 1 January 1996

Note:The net migration figures are calculated usingannual population estimates and national figuresfor births and deaths.

1. The data for Korea and Hungary are not available.2. The data are for 1990.Source: Labour Force Statistics, OECD, 1997.Natural increase (per 1 000)

Netmigration(per1000)

Natural increase (per 1 000)

Netmigration(per100

0)

Denmark

Netherlands

Norway

France

Austria

United Kingdom

Finland SwitzerlandBelgium

Poland

Spain

Portugal

Greece

Mexico2

New Zealand

LuxembourgCanada

AustraliaSweden

GermanyItaly

CzechRep. Japan

Ireland

United States

Iceland

Turkey

marked in those countries where fertil ity rates are account for a sizeable percentage of total births; thispercentage is often higher than that of foreigners inlow (Germany, Italy, Greece, Switzerland andthe total population. Foreign births contribute to thePortugal). In the settlement countries, such as

natural increase in the population and can thereforeCanada, the United States and Australia, which con- act as a brake on demographic ageing. However, thistinue to receive substantial numbers of new immi-is not an inevitable result and depends essentiallygrants each year, it may well be that the predomi-on a continuing succession of migration waves. Anance of family immigration among total inflows andsustained halt to new immigration could eventuallythe younger age structure of the new arrivals exertslead to a marked reduction in these beneficialover the short and medium term a marked effect oneffects insofar as the fertility rate of foreign womenthe natural rate of increase in the population.tends to converge with that of nationals.The analysis of the changes in the components

of population growth in OECD countries also revealsMeasuring foreign birthsthat migration movements fluctuate significantly in

volume. Indeed, this component of population It i s difficult to obtain comparable data on for-growth is very much dependent on migration policy

eign births as the term foreign may apply to theand modifications to it in each country. The fluctua- child or to the parents. When reference to the par-tional nature of migration movement volumes ents is made in the definit ion, the number of foreignexplains why it would be difficult to rely on the births will vary according to whether the criterioncontribution of net migration to reduce or stem the adopted is the nationality of both parents, of themarked demographic decline currently occurring in father or of the mother. Generally, since fertility ismany of the OECD countries (see below). studied in relation to women, the nationality of ref-

erence chosen is that of the mother. In Belgium,Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands andb) Foreign births: a brake on demographicSwitzerland, foreign births are those of children pos-ageingsessing foreign nationality. In France and Sweden,

In several European OECD countries, births to for example, foreign births are those born to female

foreign nationals and to persons of foreign origin foreign nationals, in Japan those where both parents 25


26/281


are foreign nationals, and in the United Kingdom Luxembourg (nearly 42 per cent in 1996) andthey are those to mothers born outside the country. Switzerland (23 per cent in 1996). In France,Data based solely on births to foreign mothers do Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdomnot adequately reflect the contribution to total (England and Wales only), foreign births inbirths linked to the presence of the foreign popula- 1996 accounted for between 10 and 13 per cent of all

tion or that of foreign origin. Moreover, in general, births. In Sweden, Switzerland, Luxembourg,the degree to which the legislation on naturalisa- Germany and, albeit to a lesser extent, in Japan thetions is more or less liberal can either speed up or foreign share of total births was greater in 1996 thanslow down the process of absorption of foreigners in 1980; the reverse was true for the four other coun-into the national population and thereby reduce or tries examined.increase the number of foreign births.

Except in Belgium and Japan, in 1996 the for-eign share of total births was in every case higher

Foreign bir ths as a proport ion of total births compared than the proportion of foreign nationals in the totalto the proport ion of foreigners in the total population population (more than twice in Sweden, more than

one and a half times in France and theThe share of foreign births is occasionally veryhigh (see Chart I.7). This is the case, for example, in Unit ed Kingdom and onl y sli ghtl y less in

26

0 1 2

0 1 2

1980 1996

Chart I.7. Share of foreign birt hs1in tot al birt hs relati ve to t he share of foreigners

in t he tot al pop ulat ion in selected OECD count ries, 1980 and 1996

1. Foreign births are births of children of foreign nationality for Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland. For France and Sweden, foreign birthsare births to a foreign mother, for Japan, to foreign parents. For England and Wales, foreign births refer to those to mothers born outside the United Kingdom. The datafor Japan and Germany refer to 1989 and 1991 respectively instead of 1980. The data for Sweden refer to 1993, for France and the United Kingdom to 1995 instead of1996.

2. Data refer to England and Wales. Births are relative to the share of the foreign-born in the total population.3. Data cover Germany as a whole in 1991 and 1996.4. Between 1980 and 1996, the drop in the number of foreign births can be explain by changes in nationality laws in 1985 and 1992.Sources:Data on births are from civil register; data on population are from population registers for all countries except for France (1982 census and 1995 Labour Force

Survey), and the United Kingdom (Labour Force Survey).

Increa

se

Decrease

Share of foreign birthsin total births (%)

10.213.0

10.210.1

15.322.8

0.60.9

13.312.6

10.913.3

7.56.1

37.141.9

15.57.8

Sweden

France

Switzerland

Japan

United Kingdom2

Germany3

Netherlands

Luxembourg

Belgium4


27/281


Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and working-age population by 2020 would be limited. IfLuxembourg (see Chart I.7). A number of explana- anything, this type of scenario presents the prospecttions can be put forward to account for the variations of a period of even greater social costs throughobserved over the past 16 years, the relative impor- increased education and child care requirements.tance of which depend on the country concerned: That said , the long-term benefits of permanent

higher or lower levels of net migration; differences in increases in fertility are obvious in that they eventu-fertility rates between nationals and foreigners; dif- ally shift the age structure of the population backferences in distribution by age and by sex of the towards younger and more economically active ageforeign and national populations; and changes to groups.laws concerning the acquisition of nationality.

Increased immigration possesses the advantageof having an immediate and relatively strong impact

c) Ageing populations and migration on the working age population due to the young agestructure of net migration. In addi tion, ferti li ty ratesIn spring 1998 the OECD published a report onamongst immigrant women are often relatively highageing populations, Maintaining Prosperity in an Ageingwhich can help to boost fertility and hence long-runSociety. The report highlights the prospect of risingpopulation growth. However, there are a number ofshares of the elderly in the population and falling

practical and political constraints in formulating anshares of the population in employment to support immigration policy aimed at achieving demographicpension and health systems. The report suggestschange. A number of these difficulties were outlinedthat the range of possible demographic outcomesin Migration; The Demographic Aspects (OECD, 1991).over the next three decades is fairly limited withThis publication drew three broad conclusions:migration and fertility only capable of partial allevia-i) immigration pol icy cannot easily be fine-tuned totion of the problem. In the following, the reasons forprecise demographic objectives due to difficultiesthis view are investigated. Also, some of the practi-in controlling the volume and composition of netcal and political issues in implementing an effectivemigration; ii) simulations of the impact of immigra-demographic cumlabour market orientated immigra-tion typically show that extremely high volumes oftion policy are reviewed.immigration, much greater than at present, would beAgeing populations are caused by declining fer-required to completely offset ageing processes,tility and reduced rates of mortality amongst the

such as growth in old-age dependency ratios; andelderly population. Declining fertil ity shifts the com- iii) immigration policy is only one of a number ofposition of the population towards older cohorts;ways in which the economic burden of the elderlyreduced mortality rates tend to extend the lifecan be reduced and is unl ikely to rank first amongexpectancy of the elderly populations. Whilst thesethe possible means of tackling the problem.processes have been going on for some time in

many countries, OECD Member countries have Turning to the first of these issues, the mostreached a particularly advanced stage. Shares of the obvious point is that policy usually has control overelderly in the total population, which are already at the volume of immigration and no control over thehigh levels, are set to increase further, particularly volume of emigration, thus making control of netafter around 2010 when the first of the baby-boom migration di fficult. In addit ion, a number of factorsgenerations begins to retire. There are two feasible both limit and complicate the ability to controlways of slowing down or reversing these demo-

immigration: the existence of free-circulation agree-graphic trends: increases in fertility or net migration ments, the persistence of illegal immigration,of relatively young (and preferably economically humanitarian commitments and other obligationsactive) individuals. such as the admission for residence on the basis of

family ties. Whilst a number of these issues could beA reversal in the long-term decline in fertilityfactored into policy design it i s clear that a degree oftrends would gradually provide a slow-down anduncertainty would remain as to the final outcome.even reverse ageing by increasing the number ofFinally, practical means for monitoring net migrationbirths. However, the effect would only be gradualvary across countries. Populations registers (main-and would do little to offset the rapid growth intained by many European countries) provide a fre-elderly populations. For example, were fertility toquent and relatively accurate account of interna-increase rapidly from the year 2000 onwards, onlytional migration, although not without di fficulties. Inthe population of those aged under 20 would have

been affected by 2020. As a result, the impact on the other countries regular estimation is more problem- 27


28/281


atic, inflows are often measured by entry permits of working-age would be required for the depen-(thus excluding those who do not need a permit) dency ratio in 2020 of 33 persons aged 65 and overand outflows are commonly estimated from a variety for every 100 persons aged 15 to 64 to be at theof sources. 2010 ratio of 26. In comparison, the fourth column of

this table shows that over the 10 years betweenAlthough net migration usually has a relatively

1985 and 1995 total net migration in France wasyoung age-profile, pol icymakers may wish to around 600 000. This suggests that even if migrationemphasise this further in pursuit of demographiconly increased the working-age population (e.g.objectives. However, there are limits on the extentthrough a short-term temporary worker program),to which this can be achieved. For example, commit-the number of immigrants required to offset growthments on refugee intakes cannot (by definit ion) bein the dependency ratio would have to be very largeselective on demographic and economic groundscompared with current migration levels.and the ability to be selective with regard to

dependants and relatives may be limited. In addi- In addition to the likelihood of large volumes oftion, it has been suggested that the targeting of net migration being required to maintain constantimmigration by age or fertility behaviour could be old-age dependency ratios, such targets oftenviewed as a form of discrimination. How seriously require wide fluctuations in immigration over time,this point would be taken in policy debate is likely implying a stop-go type of immigration policy whichto vary, depending on the phi losophy and character would be difficult to manage. As a final note, simula-of existing immigration policy. tions also illustrate the fact that at a certain point in

the projection, significant numbers of immigrantsOne way of avoiding some of these issuesthemselves begin to reach reti rement age, provid ingwould be to use a strictly applied temporary workeranother boost to growth in the share of the elderlyprogramme as a more direct means of providingin the population.increased employment during periods of rapid

growth in elderly populations or decline in working- In sum, immigration policy could only act as aage populations. However, historical precedents partial and somewhat imprecise means of reducingsuggest that such programmes are difficult to man- the ageing process in populations. In addit ion toage. Although most countries have mechanisms these practical constraints, the motivation for such awhich cater for temporary labour migration, ex post pol icy may be rather weak. First, a significant shift in

many immigrants entering under these programmes immigration policy to increase employment levelsremain in the country on a permanent basis, either and reduce the economic burden of the elderly onby change of status, or through continual renewal of the population is only li kely if labour-supp lytemporary permits, or as il legal residents. shortages are widespread and self-evident to both

the government and the public. In this regard, theIn addi tion to these practical di fficulties, simu-existence of high levels of structural unemploymentlations of population scenarios have sho

OECD 1998 Trends in International Migration

Documents

Transcript of OECD 1998 Trends in International Migration