Part 1 MAIN TRENDS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION The part concerning the main trends in interna- reversed in 1992-93, in part because of efforts by the tional migration is presented in four sections. The main receiving countries to tighten controls over first (I.A) looks at changes in migration movements migratory flows. From that time on, and until at and in the foreign population of the OECD member least 1997, entries of foreign nationals dropped countries. The second Section (I.B) focuses on the significantly despite the persistence of family migra- position of immigrants in the labour market. The tion and arrivals of asylum seekers, due in part to third (I.C) sheds particular light on two regions – the closing of other channels of immigration and a Asia and Central and Eastern Europe. This is new flare-up of regional conflicts. followed by an overview of migration policies (I.D), The resumption of immigration in the OECD which reviews policies to regulate and control flows, countries, which has been perceptible since the late along with the full range of measures to enhance the 1990s, was confirmed and tended to gather pace in integration of immigrants and developments in co- 2000 and 2001. It results primarily from greater operation at international level in the area of migra- migration by foreign workers, both temporary and tion. In addition, the issue of the integration of permanent. Conditions for recruiting skilled foreign immigrants into host-country societies is highlighted labour have been eased in most of the OECD in theme boxes to be found in Part I. member countries in order to meet labour market needs, especially in the new technologies and A. MIGRATION AND POPULATION TRENDS health care sectors. Over the past two decades, trends in migratory In 2002, under the combined effects of the tech- flows and in the levels of foreign and foreign-born nology bust and the 11 September terrorist attacks populations in OECD member countries have in the United States, OECD-area countries were reversed course on several occasions. These rever- unable to escape recession. That recession, even if sals have resulted from major regional geopolitical it may be only short-lived and of moderate inten- upheavals in Central and Eastern Europe, but in sity, has nonetheless helped to ease the tightness of Asia and Africa as well. They are also tied in with the labour markets and to limit business recruitment important changes – both legislative (amendments requirements, including the need for skilled work- to the conditions of entry and residence of foreign- ers. Even so, it is difficult to gauge the impact of ers, naturalisation, and so on) and economic – that those events on the international mobility of have taken place in a number of host countries. persons, or to predict whether they will reverse the These changes have resulted in broad contrasts in trend in immigration flows. the dynamics of migratory flows, the main sending countries and the profiles of immigrants. a) Migratory trends very clearly on the rise In 2000 and the first half of 2001, the increased 1. Trends in migration movements and changes inflows that had been observed since 1996-97 in the foreign population continued in a great many OECD countries (see During the 1980s and early 90s, immigration Chart I.1). This phenomenon, more pronounced in flows intensified, spurred both by the opening up of the non-European OECD countries, still remained Eastern Europe and the rapid economic development moderate within the European Union as a whole, of a number of Asian countries. The trend was since EU immigration rose by only 3.2% between 17 © OECD 2003 Trends in International Migration Chart I.1. Inflows of foreigners in selected OECD countries, 1980-2000 Thousands, per 1 000 inhabitants and per 100 foreigners Inflows of foreigners,1 1980-2000 Inflows of foreigners in 2000 Thousands, per 1 000 inhabitants and per 100 foreigners Thousands 2 3 3 UE USA and CAN USA DEU GBR 849.8 Thousands 2 000 648.8 450 400 1 600 350 300 1 200 250 200 800 150 400 100 50 0 0 5 19801985 1990 1995 2000 IRL FIN USA DEU GBR JPN ITA CAN FRA AUS NLD CHE BEL AUT NZL SWE NOR DNK PRT HUN LUX CZE JPN CAN FRA AUS Per 1 000 inhabitants 400 24.5 16 350 14 300 12 250 10 200 8 150 6 100 4 50 2 0 0 19801985 1990 1995 2000 5 IRL FIN LUX CHE NZL AUT DEU CAN BEL GBR NOR NLD AUS ITA SWE DNK USA JPN FRA PRT HUN CZE 4 NLDNordic countries CHE BEL Per 100 foreigners6 140 22 20 120 18 100 16 14 80 12 60 10 8 40 6 4 20 2 0 0 5 19801985 1990 1995 2000 IRL FIN NZL JPN ITA GBR NOR NLD HUN DEU AUT BEL DNK PRT SWE LUX CHE FRA CZE CAN USA AUS NZL IRLPRT HUN LUX Note: Data for the United Kingdom are from the International Passenger Survey; for New 70 Zealand, data are based on arrival cards. For Australia, Canada and the United States, data relate to new permanent immigrants; for France and South European countries, 60 data are issued from residence permits. For all other countries, data are based on Population Registers. 50 1. The host countries have been split into 4 groups according to the volume of inflows in 2000. No series are available for Austria, Czech Republic and Italy. 2. Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden, and 40 the United Kingdom. 3. Excluding immigrants legalised in the United States under IRCA regularisation 30 programme. 4. Excluding Iceland. 20 5. Including foreigners who benefited from the 1998 regularisation programme. 6. For Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, inflows in 2000 are related 10 to the stocks of foreign-born residents (1996 Census for Canada). Sources: National Statistical Offices (for more details on sources, refer to the notes at the 0 end of the Statistical Annex). 19801985 1990 1995 2000 AUS Australia CZE Czech Republic GBR United Kingdom LUX Luxembourg SWE Sweden AUT Austria DEU Germany HUN Hungary NLD Netherlands USA United States BEL Belgium DNK Denmark IRL Ireland NZL New Zealand CAN Canada FIN Finland ITA Italy NOR Norway 18 CHE Switzerland FRA France JPN Japan PRT Portugal © OECD 2003 Main Trends in International Migration 1999 and 2000. It was in the United States, Canada Growth in the inflows of foreigners was just as and Japan that growth was particularly strong. sharp in Japan, where 346 000 persons settled in The left-hand side of Chart I.1 shows the trend 2000, up almost 23% from the previous year and the in foreign migrant inflows since 1980. The host coun- highest level in decades. The significance of this is tries are divided into four groups, in decreasing heightened by the fact that it came at a time when order of the volume of their 2000 inflows. The right- the Japanese economy was gripped by the recession hand side of the chart shows the volume of inflows that began in August 2000, with unemployment at an in absolute terms, and as a proportion of the total unprecedented level (5% in 2001). Much of this population and the stock of foreigners in each increased inflow is attributable to returns of descen- country. dants of Japanese, mostly from Brazil, and to entries of Chinese and Philippine citizens. In the United States, the change in inflows was spectacular between 1999 and 2000. Nearly In Canada, the rise in permanent immigration, 850 000 new permanent immigrants were admitted perceptible in 1999, continued and gathered pace in in 2000, up more than 30% from the previous year. 2000, since 227 000 persons settled in Canada that This dynamic is in clear contrast to what had year, or nearly 20% more than in 1999. The figure for happened in the three previous years, and the main 2001 will be even higher, probably exceeding explanation for it is the fact that major efforts were 250 000 entries. In the early 1990s, similar levels had made to reduce the number of pending applica- been reached (256 000 in 1993) and had constituted tions. For 2001, it is expected that over a million all-time highs. The Canadian authorities have stated permanent entries will have been recorded, which their determination to increase immigration gradu- would constitute an all-time high, excluding the ally, so that inflows amount to roughly 1% of the total figures for 1990 and 1991, which incorporated population, which for 2001 was estimated at over amnesties under the IRCA programme. 30 million. Box I.1. Migration statistics: definitions and comparability1 International migration statistics are patchy, of varying degrees of reliability, and subject to problems of comparability. These difficulties stem largely from the diversity of migration systems and legislation on nationality and naturalisation, which reflect the individual history and circumstances of each country. For example, in settlement countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States), immigrants are classified by their place of birth (“foreign-born”), while in the other OECD member countries the criterion of nationality is applied (“foreigners”). Some international organisations, in particular the UN, have recommended adopting a common definition of the concept of international migrant, but implementing these recommendations is fraught with numerous difficulties. The main sources of information on migration vary across countries, which poses difficulties for the comparability of available data. Some countries (notably northern European ones) keep population registers, while others base their statistics on records of residence and work permits issued to foreign nationals or, in the case of workers, on information provided by social security systems.