International Migration Outlook 2013

Transcription

1 International Migration Outlook 2013

2 This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries. This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Please cite this publication as: OECD (2013), International Migration Outlook 2013, OECD Publishing. ISBN (print) ISBN (PDF) Series: International Migration Outlook ISSN (print) ISSN X (online) The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law. Photo credits: Cover David Rooney. Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: OECD 2013 You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of the source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at or the Centre français d'exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at

3 FOREWORD Foreword This publication constitutes the thirty-seventh report of the OECD s Continuous Reporting System on Migration. The report is divided into five chapters plus a statistical annex. Chapter 1 provides a broad overview of recent trends in international migration flows and migration policies. Chapter 2 takes a close look at the impact of the economic crisis on the employment situation of immigrants and highlights major changes in policies to support the integration of immigrants and their children. Chapters 3 and 4 are devoted to special topics. Chapter 3 provides a first-time comparative analysis of the fiscal impact of immigration in OECD countries, using data for all European OECD countries, as well as Australia, Canada and the United States. It also includes a comprehensive overview of the literature and the methodological issues involved in estimating the fiscal impact of migration. Chapter 4 provides an overview of discrimination against immigrants and their children in OECD countries its measurement, incidence and policy solutions on the basis of empirical literature and policy practices. Chapter 5 presents succinct country-specific notes and statistics on developments in international migration movements and policies in OECD countries in recent years. Finally, the Statistical annex includes a broad selection of recent and historical statistics on immigrant flows, foreign and foreign-born populations and naturalisations. This year s edition of the OECD International Migration Outlook is the joint work of staff of the International Migration Division in the Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs. Chapters 1, 2 and 5 are a collective work of the staff of the International Migration Division with contributions from John Salt (University College London, United Kingdom) and Martina Lubyova (Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovak Republic) for Chapters 1 and 2 respectively. Chapter 3 was prepared by Thomas Liebig and Jeffrey Mo (Consultant to the OECD). Chapter 4 was prepared by Anthony Heath (University of Oxford, United Kingdom), Thomas Liebig and Patrick Simon (Institut national d études démographiques, France). Jean-Christophe Dumont edited the report. Research assistance and statistical work were carried out by Véronique Gindrey and Philippe Hervé. Editorial assistance was provided by Sylviane Yvron. 3

4

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of contents Editorial... 9 Executive summary Chapter 1. Recent developments in international migration movements and policies Introduction Recent trends in international migration Migration policies Notes References Annex 1.A Chapter 2. Recent labour market trends and integration policies in OECD countries.. 67 Introduction Labour market trends Integration policy Notes References Annex 2.A1. Employment, unemployment and participation rates by gender and place of birth in selected OECD countries, Annex 2.A2. Risk of long-term unemployment for different demographic groups and by country of birth in selected OECD countries, 2007/08 and 2011/ Annex 2.A3. Employment and unemployment gaps between native-born and foreign-born over the past decade in selected OECD countries, Annex 2.A4. Foreign-born employment by sector of activity Annex 2.A5. Newhires Chapter 3. The fiscal impact of immigration in OECD countries Introduction Measuring the fiscal impact of immigration an overview Comparative analysis of the fiscal impact of immigration in OECD countries Conclusion Notes References Annex 3.A1. Supplementary tables and figures Annex 3.A2. Sensitivity analysis Annex 3.A3. Technical annex

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 4. Discrimination against immigrants measurement, incidence and policy instruments Introduction Definition and measure Policy responses: What works to counter discrimination? Conclusion Notes References Chapter 5. Country notes: Recent changes in migration movements and policies Australia Latvia Austria Lithuania Belgium Luxembourg Bulgaria Mexico Canada Netherlands Chile New Zealand Czech Republic Norway Denmark Poland Estonia Portugal Finland Romania France Russian Federation Germany SlovakRepublic Greece Slovenia Hungary Spain Ireland Sweden Israel Switzerland Italy Turkey Japan United Kingdom Korea United States Sources and notes of the country tables of Chapter Statistical annex Introduction General comments Inflows and outflows of foreign population Inflows of asylum seekers Stocks of foreign and foreign-born populations Acquisitions of nationality List of correspondents of the continuous reporting system on migration List of OECD Secretariat members involved in the preparation of this publication

7 Follow OECD Publications on: OECD Alerts This book has... StatLinks2 A service that delivers Excel files from the printed page! Look for the StatLinks2at the bottom of the tables or graphs in this book. To download the matching Excel spreadsheet, just type the link into your Internet browser, starting with the prefix, or click on the link from the e-book edition.

8

9 EDITORIAL Editorial The current situation of high and persistent unemployment in many OECD countries, combined with ageing populations and workforces, has brought back the debate over immigration policy. One prominent issue is the extent to which immigrants may rely on social benefits and public services. Beliefs about this net fiscal contribution of immigrants how much they pay in taxes in comparison to what they receive in support are among the main elements shaping public opinion on migration. According to recent opinion polls, about 50% of citizens in European countries and in Canada believe that immigrants contribute less in taxes than they receive in health and welfare services and that they are a big burden on the public purse and are supported by higher taxes paid by native-born citizens. Similar surveys for the United States show an even higher figure. What accounts for this? One reason is that past immigration was often of low-educated workers, who were not always able to find or maintain their place in the labour market as jobs changed and economies modernised. Although this is much less the case today, old beliefs tend to linger, reinforced in part by the difficulties some children of immigrants have had in schools and the labour market. A second reason is that maintaining stereotypes is the objective of certain groups whose interest is more in making political hay than in proposing concrete solutions for real economic problems. A third reason is that people often forget that a significant part of public expenditure is for public goods such as national defence, whose cost does not increase with the number of immigrants. Still, in quite a few OECD countries, there is ongoing debate about immigration and the welfare state. There are fears that immigration may put further pressure on the public purse at a time when fiscal consolidation is at the forefront of policy agendas. These fears go well beyond anti-immigrant parties and risk jeopardising efforts to adapt migration policies to the new economic and demographic challenges that many OECD countries will have to face over the coming decades. In this context, it is critical to get a better understanding of the fiscal impact of migration and to confront public perceptions with hard facts. The OECD has undertaken the first comparative international study of the net fiscal impact of migration, covering a broad range of OECD countries. One benefit of international comparisons is that if the results are all telling more or less the same story, the story is likely to be a true one. The evidence compiled in this publication addresses a number of preconceived ideas. Overall, it shows that the fiscal impact of immigration is close to zero on average over the OECD. It tends to be more negative in countries where the immigrant share of the population receiving pensions is large but is generally proportional to the share of immigrants in the total population. The current impact of the cumulative waves of migration that arrived over the past fifty years is just not that large, whether on the positive or the negative side. In other words, migration represents neither a significant gain nor drain for the public purse. Immigrants are pretty much like the rest of the population in this respect. 9

10 EDITORIAL But there is more. One can be confident that, with the growing focus on skilled labour migration during the past two decades, recent immigrants are more likely to be net fiscal contributors than preceding waves of immigrants. It is the policies of the past that have contributed to produce less favourable results in certain countries and for certain groups, not necessarily policies today. And certainly not those policies that aim to bring in labour migrants with the needed skills for jobs for which there are not enough domestic candidates. What else do the results show? Firstly, although tertiary educated immigrants make a larger net fiscal contribution than low-skilled immigrants, the latter tend to fare better compared with the native-born of the same skill level. This is an important point. Most OECD countries have facilitated migration of highly skilled individuals, but continue to maintain restrictions on recruitments into jobs requiring lower skills, notably because of concerns over possible adverse effects on demand for social services. Our results, however, show that these fears are mainly unfounded, especially as candidates for recruitment for these jobs will be better educated than those of the past and their performance can be expected to compare more favourably with that of resident persons. Secondly, the age profile of immigrants is one of the main factors explaining cross-country differences in immigrants net fiscal position. The younger adult immigrants arrive, the more positive their direct fiscal contribution. Why is this the case? Essentially because those who come sooner, all things being equal, have longer working lives during which their net fiscal contribution is usually positive, and also because younger migrants have a greater incentive to invest in education and training, in particular in the host-country language. This implies giving more weight to younger ages in selecting labour migrants. It also means encouraging immigrants to come with their families, so that their children do not fall too far behind in joining educational systems that are often more demanding than the ones they left behind. Thirdly, it appears that, when immigrants have a less favorable net fiscal position than the native-born, this is not driven by a greater dependence on social benefits, but rather by the fact that with lower wages on average, immigrants tend to contribute less. Most immigrants do not come for social benefits, they come to find work and to improve their lives and those of their families. Employment is a better way to do this than the dole. Indeed, and lastly, employment appears as the single most important determinant of migrants net fiscal contribution, especially in generous welfare states. Raising immigrants employment rate to that of the native-born would result in substantial fiscal gains, notably in European OECD countries. Integration and anti-discrimination policies, to the extent that they can contribute to closing the employment gap between natives and immigrants, can be highly cost effective. International migration is part of the trends that will continue to shape not only global realities but also national strategies. If the results described above tell us anything, they tell us that more immigration does not necessarily mean more public debt. If the policies of the past fifty years have managed to produce a net fiscal impact that is almost neutral, a world of labour migration that is better managed in accordance with labour market needs, with due attention to integration, can only bring benefits. 10

11 International Migration Outlook 2013 OECD 2013 Executive summary Main trends Immigration flows are rising in OECD countries, but remain well below pre-crisis levels. In 2011, total permanent immigration rose overall in OECD countries from 2010, but was still below four million. Preliminary 2012 data suggest a further increase. Temporary labour migration was essentially stagnant relative to 2010, at just below two million entries. OECD countries continue to attract students from around the world, with the number of international students in 2010 up 6% on India and China continue to be important origin countries for immigration into OECD countries, but Poland and Romania appear this year among the top three (after China) because of increased intra-eu mobility. Free circulation within European OECD countries rose in 2011 and is now four times more common in relative terms in the region than migration from elsewhere. Outflows from countries most affected by the crisis, particularly southern European ones, have also accelerated, by 45% from 2009 to In 2011, the number of persons seeking asylum in OECD countries rose by more than one-fifth, exceeding for the first time since This trend is confirmed by preliminary 2012 data. The top destination countries are the United States, France and Germany. Largely due to the Arab Spring, Italy emerged as the fourth largest receiving country in Many governments have become more restrictive towards foreign recruitment, seeking to protect their workforces in face of rising unemployment. However, countries have also introduced measures to ease the situation for foreign workers who have lost their jobs, mainly by allowing them to stay and search for work. More countries are adopting point-based systems, because of the flexibility they provide in the selection of high-skilled candidates. Programmes to attract investors and entrepreneurs are also receiving attention. Migrants labour market situation has worsened over the past years, both in terms of levels and compared with the native-born. On average, the unemployment rate of the foreign-born has increased by 5 percentage points between 2008 and 2012, compared with 3 percentage points for the native-born. Long-term unemployment of migrants is becoming a serious challenge in many OECD countries. In 2012, almost one out of two unemployed migrants had been looking for a job for over a year. Immigrant youth and the low-skilled have been particularly affected by the crisis, but women and high-skilled migrants less so. The impact was strongest on migrants from Latin America and North Africa. Migrants from North Africa in Europe, for example, faced a record high unemployment of 27% in

12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The emphasis on and public funds devoted to integration policies vary substantially across countries, despite a common need to support migrants labour market integration in order to avoid possible long-lasting effects notably on young migrants and native-born children of immigrants. Some countries continued to invest significant public resources in integration initiatives, while others cut back substantially due to the economic recession and fiscal constraints. The fiscal impact of immigration The question whether immigrants are net contributors to or a net drain on public finances is widely debated. Estimates suggest their impact is small, generally not exceeding 0.5% of GDP in either positive or negative terms. However, immigrants usually have a less favourable net fiscal position than the native-born, largely because they tend to pay less in taxes and social security contributions and not because of a higher dependence on social benefits. Immigrants age profile is an important factor in explaining cross-country differences in immigrants net fiscal position, and age at arrival is a key element in determining the net present value of immigrants discounted future net direct fiscal contributions. Despite this, in most migration systems for the selection of labour migrants, age plays a relatively minor role compared with other factors such as work experience, language and education. More generally, differences in the composition of the migrant population by migration category (labour, family, humanitarian) account for a large part of the cross-country variation of migrants fiscal position relative to that of the native-born. Employment is the single most important determinant of migrants net fiscal contribution, particularly in generous welfare states. Raising immigrants employment rate to that of the native-born would entail substantial fiscal benefits for many European OECD economies. Discrimination against immigrants Discrimination against migrants and their children in the labour market and society can damage social cohesion and reduce incentives to invest in education. It can also represent an economic loss to the host country. Measuring discrimination is difficult, but studies suggest that, in order to get invited to a job interview, it is not uncommon for immigrants and their children to have to send more than twice as many applications as persons without a migration background who have otherwise equivalent CVs. Indeed, the biggest impact of discrimination seems to be in the hiring process, although it can also affect subsequent career advancement and wages. Most OECD countries have taken measures to combat discrimination, although scale and scope vary widely. Most common are legal remedies. A number of OECD countries have also applied affirmative action -type policies based on targets and quotas as well as instruments such as anonymous CVs. The evidence suggests that these can effectively combat discrimination, if carefully designed. Diversity policy instruments have also been tested in a number of OECD countries. It is difficult to assess their effectiveness, since it is generally the employers most interested in diversity who participate. Awareness raising seems particularly important to overcome negative stereotypes, which seem to be a key driver of discriminatory behaviour. 12

13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Key figures Immigration accounted for 40% of total population growth in the OECD area over the period Permanent immigration to OECD countries increased 2% in Preliminary figures show a similar increase in Immigration in the context of free movement in Europe has rebounded by 15% in 2011 after a decline of almost 40% during the crisis ( ). In Europe, fewer than one out of two immigrant workers are recruited from abroad. The number of international students is constantly increasing and exceeded 2.6 million in The share of Asian migrants in migration flows to OECD countries continues to increase, reaching 36% in This places Asia close behind Europe as a continent of origin. The number of asylum seekers in OECD countries increased by more than 20% in 2011 and about 7% in Ten new countries have implemented the EU Directive on the EU Blue Card in 2012; it is now issued by all signatory countries. In 2011 and 2012, seven OECD countries modified their system to attract international graduate students into their labour markets. On average in OECD countries, immigrants have been more affected than the native-born by rising unemployment with the immigrant unemployment rate going from 8.1% in 2008 to 12.9% in 2012 against a rise from 5.4% to 8.7% for the native-born. Between 2008 and 2012, the proportion of immigrants among those unemployed for over a year rose from 31% to 44% in OECD countries. 13

14

15 International Migration Outlook 2013 OECD 2013 Chapter 1 Recent developments in international migration movements and policies The following chapter gives a broad overview of recent developments in international migration movements in OECD countries. It describes permanent immigration flows and changes in status in 2011, before describing the situation with respect to departures. More detail is provided on certain categories of migration, in particular temporary labour migration, international students and asylum seekers. An analysis by origin follows, as well as a picture of the evolution of the foreign-born population over the decade. Two special topics close the overview section, one dealing with labour migrants and the incidence of these who arrive with jobs, the second with family migration of married persons. The policy section that follows describes developments in policies that regulate the entry and stay of foreign nationals in OECD countries. The crisis has had a restrictive effect on labour migration in general, but with attention focused on attracting migrants perceived as bringing benefits to the destination country, such as investors and entrepreneurs, graduating international students and EU Blue Card migration. The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law. 15

16 1. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION MOVEMENTS AND POLICIES Introduction After a rebound in GDP growth from -3.6% in 2009 to 3.0% in 2010, OECD countries as a whole saw their growth slow down to 1.8% in However, only a few countries (Greece, Portugal and Japan) actually witnessed a decline in economic output over the year. Notwithstanding the slowdown in output growth, employment grew faster in 2011 (+1.0%) than in 2010 (+0.3%), with only Greece, Portugal, and Spain plus Denmark, Japan and Slovenia showing declines in the level of employment. The improving employment climate did little to dent the level of unemployment, however, which only declined by 0.3 percentage points for the OECD as a whole to 8.0%. This was the consequence of workers who had left the labour force re-entering with what seemed like the prospect of brighter economic conditions. These did not materialise, however, as the recurring debt crisis in the European Union (EU) had a negative impact on employer investment decisions and on consumer confidence. The economic environment thus was not especially conducive to a strong renewal of labour migration movements in 2011, and the statistics for that year, as will be seen, bear this out. Nonetheless, demographic developments are expected to affect prospects for migration during the current decade, which is witnessing the retirement of the large cohorts of baby-boomers born after World War II and the entry of smaller youth cohorts into the workforce. This chapter gives a general overview of trends in international migration movements in 2011 and of recent developments in migration policies. It covers total permanent movements into OECD countries, entries by category, temporary labour migration, outflows, asylum movements and movements by country of origin. The second part deals with policies which affect entry and stay in destination countries, in particular with respect to labour migrants, investors and entrepreneurs, international graduates, EU skilled migrants and unauthorised migrants. Main findings Total permanent immigration increased by about 2% overall in OECD countries in 2011 relative to 2010, with the migration picture being a mixed one at the country level. About half of OECD countries showed increases, with Austria and Germany being among the countries which progressed the most. Free circulation within the European Union increased by 15%. Preliminary data for 2012 suggest an increase of 1% overall for the OECD zone compared to Outflows of nationals from the countries most affected by the crisis, in particular the countries of southern Europe, are accelerating, with movements having risen by 45% from 2009 to Germany and the United Kingdom were the main beneficiaries of these outflows. Preliminary data for 2012 suggest that increases in outflows are continuing. Temporary labour migration shows few signs of turning around, with an essentially stagnant picture relative to Temporary labour migration in the Russian Federation outstrips that for all OECD countries as a whole, almost all of it from Central Asian countries. 16

17 1. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION MOVEMENTS AND POLICIES The international migration picture is thus a mixed one, with an increase in immigration, but with flows remaining significantly below pre-recession levels. Large countries, China, India and the Philippines in particular, remain important origin countries for immigration into OECD countries. However, movements from OECD countries are also prominent with five of them figuring among the top ten countries of origin. Free circulation within the European Union is about four times more common in relative terms than migration from the rest of the world. The foreign-born population represented on average 12.5% of the total population In OECD countries in 2011, an increase of 2.3 percentage points over the past ten years. With demographic developments continuing over the next decades, more and more OECD countries will become similar to countries like Australia and Canada with respect to both the prevalence and diversity of their immigrant populations. Scarcely a quarter of married migrants from non-eu countries arrive with their families when they migrate to an EU country. Generally it is still the male spouse who arrives first, to be joined later by his partner and their children. Many governments have become more restrictive towards foreign recruitment, seeking to protect their domestic workforces in the face of rising unemployment. But they have also introduced measures to ease the situation for foreign workers who have lost their jobs, mainly by allowing them to stay on and search for work. More countries are adopting points-based systems, because of the flexibility they provide in the selection of candidates, generally highly skilled, on the basis of multiple criteria. Programmes to attract investors and entrepreneurs are receiving a lot of attention, both to attract high-value immigrants, but also to ensure that the programmes are yielding the expected benefits. The EU Blue Card Directive has been implemented in many European countries, with conditions varying by country and sometimes alongside continuing national permit regimes. Job-search periods for international graduates wishing to stay on for work are being introduced or extended in more and more countries seeking to attract persons in this group as immigrants. The Arab Spring of 2011, the economic downturn and more limited possibilities for labour migration have focused attention on unauthorised migration and stay and enforcement measures in many countries. Recent trends in international migration In about two-thirds of OECD countries, the working-age share of the total population actually declined in In situations where growth and job prospects are positive, all things being equal, this can be expected to draw more persons in the working-age population into employment, either from the resident workforce or from abroad, as employers attempt to maintain the level of their workforces. The mobilisation of the domestic workforce is generally considered to be the policy option of choice in response to labour shortages, before recourse is made to recruitment from abroad. Increases in participation, however, are more and more difficult to achieve as participation rises, and 17

18 1. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION MOVEMENTS AND POLICIES persons drawn into the labour force may not always have the skills required for current available jobs. In consequence, migration is likely to become more prominent over time as a method of adjustment to imbalances in the labour market. The Great Recession itself has had differential effects on net migration (Figure 1.1), depending on how hard countries were affected by the economic downturn. On average across OECD countries, net migration over the period was still positive, but somewhat less so than it was over the period. This small effect reflects a counterbalancing of net movements between countries that were hard hit by the crisis (Iceland, Ireland, Portugal and Spain) and those where the effects were much less evident, if at all (Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland), and where net migration is even higher over the more recent period than it was prior to the Great Recession Figure 1.1. Average annual net migration rates, and Mexico Netherlands Poland Japan Chile Germany Slovak Republic France Hungary Per thousand population Finland New Zealand Denmark Portugal United States Greece Austria OECD average Belgium Sweden Czech Republic Italy Norway Switzerland Canada Australia Luxembourg Ireland Spain Iceland Notes: Averages for are based on for Australia and Ireland, on 2008 and 2010 for Japan and on 2008 for Greece. Source: OECD, Population and Vital Statistics Database In Iceland and Ireland, migration movements have even reversed, with gains in excess of 15 persons per year per thousand population over turning into losses of almost six and three persons per year per thousand population, respectively, during Net migration to Spain has remained positive, but the rate has declined by about two-thirds. In most other countries, increases or declines compared to were relatively modest. The Great Recession, although it has put a break on movements overall to a certain extent, has thus not fundamentally changed the dynamic of international migration in most countries, which rely more and more on cross-border movements to maintain the size of their workforces. 18

19 1. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION MOVEMENTS AND POLICIES Permanent immigration in 2011 The overall level of permanent international migration to OECD countries showed scarcely any change in 2011 relative to 2010, rising by only about 2% and remaining below 4 million, for countries for which standardised statistics are available (Table 1.1). 1 Levels remained at 13% below the peak reached in Strong increases were recorded in Germany (31%), Austria (27%) and, as well, in Ireland (41%), the country which had shown the strongest decline in immigration as a result of the Great Recession. Other countries with double-digit increases include Finland, Korea, Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain, for the latter mostly labour migrants from Latin America, arriving despite a continuing difficult economic climate in the country. Nothing illustrates more clearly the effects of chain migration than the current situation in Spain, where migration levels remain above even in the presence of high unemployment rates. Almost 45% of this consists of free circulation migrants. Japan also showed a small turnaround of +6% in 2011 after having seen steady decline since The increase in Japan was in labour migration. Among the larger immigration countries, the United States showed immigration levels stable relative to 2010 and Italy a further decline of 11%. The fall in Italy has been steady since 2007 and migration levels now stand at 44% below 2007 levels. Immigration into France, at entries, is at a recent high, with the increase occurring largely in the category of free-circulation migration. The very large increase observed in the Russian Federation in 2011 is due to a definitional change in Russian statistics, which now acknowledge the presence of substantial numbers of persons admitted as temporary workers having their permits renewed for longer stays. Both Canada and the United Kingdom also saw reductions in permanent immigration in 2011, by 11% and 17%, respectively, but for reasons which largely had little to do with economic conditions. The drop in the United Kingdom in 2011 reflects a spike in 2010 attributable to acceptances for settlement from a backlog of refused asylum seekers with a long period of stay in the United Kingdom; 2 the return to normal in 2011 then appears as a fall in immigration. The decline in Canada was also due to a programme to reduce a backlog in 2010, but in permanent immigrant applications, as well as to a policy to cut waiting times for other applicants. As is evident, the decline over the Great Recession has been stronger outside of the settlement countries of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, which have modified their immigration targets only slightly, if at all, in response to changes in economic conditions 3 and where applicants for immigration ostensibly have not wished to forego their place in the queue while waiting for better times. Immigration in Europe, on the other hand, has a strong component of free-circulation movements, where immigrants can come and go as they please and which has seen much larger falls in movements than other forms of migration, namely almost 40%, from 2007 to The international migration picture in 2011 is thus a mixed one, with economic conditions not being especially favourable for a strong resurgence of labour migration. Nonetheless more than half of the countries showed increases in immigration and two large ones showed declines which were largely due to changes in administrative procedures. 19

20 1. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION MOVEMENTS AND POLICIES Table 1.1. Inflows of permanent immigrants into selected OECD countries and the Russian Federation, Variation (%) %of population 2011/ / Standardised statistics United States Spain United Kingdom Italy Germany Canada Australia France Switzerland Netherlands Belgium Sweden Norway Japan Austria Korea New Zealand Denmark Portugal Ireland Czech Republic Mexico Finland Russian Federation Total number of persons (excluding Russian Federation) All countries Settlement countries EU included above EU free movement Annual % change All countries Settlement countries EU countries included above of which EU free movement National statistics (unstandardised) Turkey Chile Poland Greece Slovenia Hungary Luxembourg Israel Slovak Republic Iceland Estonia Total (excluding Turkey) Annual % change Notes: Includes only foreign nationals; the inflows include status changes, namely persons in the country on a temporary status who obtained the right to stay on a longer-term basis. Series for some countries have been significantly revised. Settlement countries include Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. Source: OECD International Migration Database

21 1. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION MOVEMENTS AND POLICIES Preliminary part-year data for 2012 tend to confirm this modest increase. The use of statistics based on national data sources makes it possible to give some idea of what the situation for 2012 will look like when the standardised statistics become available (Table 1.2). The countries shown covered 88% of all permanent flows in the OECD area in 2010 and Table 1.2. Preliminary trends in international migration in OECD countries in % change 2012/11 Period covered 2011/12 Number of months Australia July-June 12 Austria January-September 9 Canada January-September 9 Czech Republic January-December 12 Denmark January-October 10 Finland January-October 10 France (excl. EU) January-December 12 Germany January-December 12 Iceland January-December 12 Ireland May-April 12 Mexico January-December 12 Netherlands January-December 12 New Zealand July-June 12 Norway (excl. EU) January-October 10 Poland January-June 6 Spain October-September 12 Sweden January-November 11 Switzerland September-August 12 United Kingdom October-September 12 United States October-September 12 Total The total is the sum of annualised national data. Sources: OECD International Migration Database and national data sources The 2012 statistics, based on national data, point to an increase in migration to OECD countries on the order of 1% for the year, the same as that observed in This increase would represent roughly an additional immigrants for countries of the OECD area. International migration thus remains on a positive growth path for the second consecutive year, but a slow one, much slower than the 13% increase attained from 2006 to 2007 just before the onset of the downturn. Outflows during the economic crisis If the Great Recession has seen declines in immigration inflows, it has also witnessed increasesinoutflowsofforeignnationalsfromthecountrieswheretheywereresiding (Table 1.3). 4 The lack of economic opportunities seems to have driven a certain number of immigrants to leave the countries to which they had migrated. Note that Table 1.3 does not give a complete picture of the re-migration of immigrants, because it concerns only foreign nationals and thus excludes immigrants who have obtained the nationality of their country of residence. It also gives no indication of where the persons emigrating have gone to, although in most cases, it is likely that they have returned to their country of origin. 21

22 1. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION MOVEMENTS AND POLICIES Table 1.3. Outflows of foreign nationals, by country of residence, Peak year Thousands Change (peak year/2007) Percentages Change (2011/peak year) Australia Austria x Belgium x Czech Republic Denmark x Estonia Finland Germany Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy x Japan Korea Luxembourg Netherlands x New Zealand x Norway x Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden x Switzerland United Kingdom Russian Federation x All OECD countries % change year-to-year Notes: For Slovenia, the decline from the peak year is measured on the basis of 2010 data. For the calculation of the all-countries change from 2011 to the peak year total, countries for which the outflows are still increasing in 2011 are counted as having zero change. x: Not applicable...: Not available. Source: OECD International Migration Database Overall, emigration of foreign nationals from the countries shown increased by about 37% from 2007 to the peak year, which varies from 2008 to 2011 according to the country concerned. For some countries, outflows continued to increase in 2011 (Austria, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden). The outflows increased by more than 25% in two-thirds of the countries shown. Only in the Czech Republic, Luxembourg and the Russian Federation does one see a decline. Note, however, that an increase in outflows can be deceptive, because it can reflect an increase in short-term movements, as was likely the case for Germany, a country that was not strongly affected by the crisis and which saw an increase in inflows from 2007 to Outflows of foreign nationals have turned around in many countries, declining by 9% overall from peak levels, but have not returned to pre-crisis levels. The declines have been especially strong in the countries of Central Europe and in Iceland. The statistics on outflows thus reinforce what has been shown by other indicators, namely a recovery that is still tentative, with fewer job opportunities for immigrants compared to what was observed in

23 1. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION MOVEMENTS AND POLICIES As the debt crisis has followed on the heels of the financial crisis in a number of countries, the deteriorating labour market situation in some of them has resulted in an increase in the outflows of their nationals in search of work towards other OECD countries, which have been less affected, if at all, by the economic downturn and debt crisis. This is especially true for the countries of southern Europe, as shown in Table 1.4, which breaks down these flows by the main countries of destination as well. Table 1.4. Outflows of nationals from selected OECD countries to main European and other OECD destination countries, Index Number (thousands) Country of origin Greece Iceland Ireland Italy Portugal Spain Country of destination Germany United Kingdom Switzerland Belgium Netherlands All other OECD countries Total Sources: OECD International Migration Database except for the United Kingdom, where statistics are from national insurance number allocations to overseas nationals (year ending March 2012) Movements of Greek and Spanish nationals to other EU countries have more than doubled since 2007, most of this increase having occurred in 2010 and Outflows of Icelandic and Irish nationals were also significant, but peaked in 2010, as these countries have eased their way into recovery. The main countries of destination are Germany and the United Kingdom, with flows to these two having almost doubled in recent years and reached almost or more. Flows to Belgium and the Netherlands, although at lower levels, have also almost doubled, but increases since 2009 are smaller than for Germany and the United Kingdom. Switzerland has showed a more modest increase since 2009 (about 25%), despite being a traditional destination country for several of the crisis countries. Figures for Germany for 2012 (year ending in September) suggest that movements are accelerating in 2012 for several countries, in particular Greece and Spain, for which movements have reached and persons, respectively, per year. The increases observed relative to 2011 are 73% for Greek nationals, close to 50% for Spanish and Portuguese nationals and 35% for Italian nationals. Altogether, this represents an increase of almost additional immigrants from crisis countries to Germany in 2012 compared to

24 1. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION MOVEMENTS AND POLICIES The total outflows to Germany for the countries shown has reached in 2012 and although these figures cannot yet be described as an exodus from crisis countries, they do represent a significant contribution to workforce entries in Germany. Outflows of nationals of the same countries to Switzerland also show a increase for 2012, of 26% compared to Greece and Spain show the largest proportional increases (49% and 42%, respectively), but increases from Italy (26%) and Portugal (21%) are larger in numerical terms, with close to additional arrivals. Permanent immigration by category of entry As it was at the beginning of the downturn, free circulation has shown itself to be a reactive category of migration since the trough of the downturn, with an increase of 15% in 2011 relative to 2010 (Figure 1.2). More than half of the increase was in Germany, with the migrants coming especially from Romania and Poland, and to a lesser extent, from Bulgaria, Hungary and Italy. Figure 1.2. Permanent immigration in OECD countries by category of entry or of status change, standardised statistics, Family Free movement Work Humanitarian Accompanying family of workers Other Note: Excludes the Czech Republic and the countries for which standardised data are not available (see Table 1.1). Source: OECD International Migration Database Humanitarian migration has increased by 18%, with most of the rise concentrated in the United States; China, Bhutan and Myanmar were the principal countries of origin. There has been a drop of about 12% in the number of family members accompanying labour migrants, and virtually all of this decline has taken place in the settlement countries and the United Kingdom. This has been associated with declines in labour migration in all of these countries except Australia, which saw a fall in accompanying family members despite an increase in labour migration of almost persons. Other countries either have few entries in this category or classify accompanying family members with other family migrants. 24