1

1

Kåre Vassenden, Statistics Norway

ECE Work Session on Migration Statistics

Geneva, 17-19 October 2012

The quality of Norwegian data for The quality of Norwegian data for

analysis of return and circular analysis of return and circular

migrationmigration

2

Background

Increasing demand for higher quality statistics on international migration

In short: ’more advanced statistics on international migration’

- return migration - circular migration - intra-EU mobility- measuring emigration using data collected by the receiving

country- the EU regulation on migration statistics

3

Motivations

• Study and elaborate the relevant conceptual framework

• Find out more about the quality of – the Norwegian migration statistics

– the Nordic migration statistics. The effect of Nordic cooperation

• Strike a blow for the variables ’country of last/next residence’

• Express a wish for better dissemination of statistics on Internet

• Draw the attention to the superior level: the population balance

4

Outline of the presentation

1. A general, theoretical discussion

2. Information on the situation in Norway

1. Including comparisons with other countries, in particular the Nordic

countries and the Netherlands.

5

Indicators of quality

• Measuring quality – a real challenge

• Both qualitative and quantitative data

• Dates of migration (length of stay)

• Coverage of country of previous/next residence

• (The consistency between migration figures from different countries may indicate something about the quality)

6

Non-Norwegian statistics used

• Data available on web sites– national databanks– the Nordic databank– Eurostat’s databank– direct request to some few NSIs

• Stored in spreadsheets, further processed in SAS

7

Different perspectives observed on the treatment of international migration in statistics

• 1. National perspective The main interest is the dichotomy between the country of interest and the

outside world. ’Country of last/next residence’ is unimportant ’Citizenship’ goes a long way to describing the migration flows However, comparison with other countries is interesting and useful

• 2. International perspective• ’Country of last/next residence’ is fundamental

• Simplified version Seen from one country. International comparability does not have highest

priority

• True version With an birds eye perspective. International comparability is essential

8

One country or more in the model

9

Different return concepts

AB

C

Out-returnIn-return

‘False return’

True return

10

The case of Norway

11

Important frame conditions

• A well-functioning PIN

• A population registry with administrative authority

• Nordic agreement on population registration

• Long data history

• Broad scope of relevant registers and variables

12

The correction factor

Growth_P = Population 31.12. – Population 1.1.

Growth_C = Births – Deaths + Immigration – Emigration

The correction factor as percentage =

Growth_P – Growth-C / (the highest of G-P and G-C) *100

13

Size of correction factor – an indicator?

Year Nor-way

Swe-den

Den-mark

Fin-land

Ice-land

Green-land

Faroe Is-

lands Nether-

lands Belg-

ium Slo-

venia Austria

1996 -0.6 -2.4 1.5 7.9 -4.5 -20.6 0.0 6.1 12.5 -50.9 0.0 1997 -3.9 -9.4 1.4 7.3 5.2 -49.3 0.0 2.9 17.9 18.7 0.0 1998 -1.2 1.0 -0.2 8.8 2.8 81.8 0.0 0.9 0.3 50.1 0.0 1999 0.1 -6.3 3.1 5.6 0.5 -77.7 0.0 3.3 -2.9 89.6 0.0 2000 0.1 -0.8 3.2 -1.7 2.6 -53.1 0.0 2.6 1.2 5.6 0.0 2001 -0.2 -0.1 0.2 2.5 -3.6 15.2 0.0 4.4 0.9 50.1 21.2 2002 0.2 -0.7 2.6 0.3 -2.9 -38.2 0.0 3.7 5.7 34.0 2.9 2003 -0.2 -0.2 5.8 0.4 -3.9 22.5 0.0 11.3 6.9 8.4 6.4 2004 -0.2 -0.3 0.9 0.3 2.2 -36.8 -5.4 13.2 4.9 -13.7 5.6 2005 -0.3 -1.1 0.9 0.9 0.2 60.3 7.8 16.1 7.5 0.0 10.6 2006 -0.2 -0.1 0.8 1.2 0.2 4.3 0.0 22.8 5.2 0.0 3.4 2007 -0.2 -0.1 -9.1 1.2 0.5 11.8 -55.4 10.2 4.3 -99.3 -2.1 2008 -0.1 -0.4 -10.2 -0.2 -2.1 13.1 -0.3 6.4 12.4 0.0 -1.2 2009 -0.1 -0.5 -23.0 0.1 -4.0 -1.5 25.4 4.5 10.4 0.0 2.4 2010 -0.3 -0.3 -17.7 0.1 8.4 -20.1 47.2 -0.7 2011 -0.4 0.2 -31.6 -0.8 1.4 0.0 0.6

Sources: National statistical databases and the Nordic statistical database.

14

An uneven distribution of length of stay indicates low accuracy

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

12 000

14 000

16 000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

Length of stay in Norway (months)

15

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Norway

Netherlands

Sweden

Finland

Denmark

Percentage unknown country of next residence

16

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Norway – not Nordic

Norway – all

Sweden – not Nordic

Sweden – all

Percentage unknown country of next residence – emigration to Nordic countries excluded

17

Recent developments and discoveries

• A separate variable distinguishes between – ‘notified emigration‘ and– ‘emigration by administrative decision’

• Turned out that country of next residence had been imputed in some cases

– > The real percentage unknown is even higher

18

Percentage of emigration events registered by administrative decision, by citizenship

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

NorwayNetherland

GermanyUK

FrancePoland

LithuaniaSpain

CanadaUSA

AustraliaIndiaBrazil

ThailandRussia

RomaniaChina

PakistanPhilippines

Somalia

19

Summary and conclusions (1)

• Norway has good preconditions for producing statistics on

return and circular migration

• The basic administrative system provides the necessary

data and the possibilities to exploit them

• However, the administrative definition of migration events

does fully comply with the statistical wishes

– Strict criteria for being registered as emigrated

• Emigration to other Nordic countries is handled by a system

that provides for full coverage of country of next residence

20

Summary and conclusions (2)

• Emigration events to countries outside the Nordic ones have

substantial coverage problems at the variable country of

next residence

• The biggest problems relates to countries that are natural to

include in circular migration studies

• Totally dependant on the administrative system for

improvements. Possibilities within Statistics Norway are

depleted

21

Further work on the problem of unknown country of next residence

• Obtain some qualitative information on the issue from other countries

• Collect more statistics for comparison purposes

• Develop the internal quality statistics

• Inform the Population registry about the findings, and follow up with further contact

• Learn more about the projects for exchange of national insurance data between EEA countries

22

22

Thank you!Thank you!

Kåre VassendenStatistics NorwayDivision for Population Statisticskva@ssb.no+47 62 88 52 94