OECD 1999 Trends in International Migration

Recent immigration trends in OECD countries are registering a slight upturnfollowing the slowdown which began in 1993. In certain countries, thisupturn results from improvements in the employment situation. In others, itcorresponds more to either a surge in the numbers of refugees and asylumseekers, principally from Kosovo and Albania (to Austria, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden) or to the implementation ofregularisation programmes (in France, Greece and the United States).Temporary inflows of highly skilled workers continue to increase. Contraryto expectations, although the financial crises in Asia have had a majorimpact on migration movements within that region, they have not led tosignificant increases in emigration to OECD countries.This report presents an analysis of recent trends in migration movementsand policies in OECD countries as well as in certain non-member countries.It includes a detailed description of the flows, the different channels ofimmigration and the nationalities of the migrants concerned. It highlights thecontribution of immigration to increases in the total population and thelabour force and describes the changes which have taken place in thesectoral distribution of foreign workers. This report also provides details ofthe significant changes that many host countries (such as Australia, France,Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Poland) have made to theirlegislation in order to obtain greater control over migration flows and toredefine entry criteria in such a way as to render them more selective andmore oriented towards the needs of the labour market. Finally, this reportalso presents an inventory of policies implemented to improve theintegration of immigrants and to extend international co-operation. Specialattention is paid to the links between globalisation, migration anddevelopment.Beside this overall analysis, the reader will also find:■ Detailed notes presenting the main migration characteristics of each

country.■ An analysis of the economic and political implications of irregular

immigration illustrating the different situations of irregularity, the methodsemployed to measure its extent, its impact on the labour market and thesanctions imposed on employers.

■ A statistical annex containing the most recent available data on foreignand immigrant populations, foreign workers, migration flows andnaturalisations.

FORTHCOMINGFor more detailed statistics on migration, you can also consult OECDStatistics on International Migration, in a new edition coming out on diskettein December 1999. It works under Beyond 20/20TM (WindowsTM), a new,very user-friendly software programme that will enable you to extract dataand create tables and figures so that you can carry out your own analyses.This database comprises not only the series dating back to 1980 that are published in the statistical annex of our latest edition, but alsomacroeconomic data on the socio-economic characteristics of sending andreceiving countries (total population and labour force, GDP, trade,remittances and official development assistance).

TRENDS IN

INTERNATIONAL

MIGRATION

TRENDS IN

INTERNATIONAL

MIGRATION

1999

EDITION

1999

EDITION

SOPEMI

OEC

D

99(81 1999 06 1 P) FF 350ISBN 92-64-17078-2

-:HSTCQE=V\U\]U:www.oecd.org OECD

OR

GA

NI

SA

TI

ON

F

OR

E

CO

NO

MI

C

CO

-O

PE

RA

TI

ON

A

ND

D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

◆

TREN

DS IN

INTER

NA

TION

AL M

IGRA

TION

1999 EDITIO

N

OECD, 1999.

Software: 1987-1996, Acrobat is a trademark of ADOBE.

All rights reserved. OECD grants you the right to use one copy of this Program for your personal use only. Unauthorised reproduction,lending, hiring, transmission or distribution of any data or software is prohibited. You must treat the Program and associated materials and anyelements thereof like any other copyrighted material.

All requests should be made to:

Head of Publications Service,OECD Publications Service,2, rue Andre-Pascal, 75775 ParisCedex 16, France.

SOPEMI

TRENDS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION

Continuous Reporting System on Migration

ANNUAL REPORT

1999 EDITION

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATIONAND 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 theOECD’s 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. Regional/Country programmes, providingmore focused dialogue and assistance, are now in place for the Baltic countries, Brazil, Bulgaria, China,Romania, Russia, the Slovak Republic (a candidate for accession to the OECD), and Slovenia.

Publie en fran¸cais sous le titre :TENDANCES DES MIGRATIONS INTERNATIONALES

RAPPORT ANNUEL

OECD 1999Permission to reproduce a portion of this work for non-commercial purposes or classroom use should be obtained through theCentre fran¸cais d’exploitation 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 Andr´e-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France.

3

OECD 1999

FOREWORD

This twenty-fourth annual report of the OECD Continuous Reporting System on Migration (known under itsFrench acronym SOPEMI), published as Trends in International Migration, draws in large part on thirty written con-tributions from national correspondents (listed p. 327), and on the summary of their discussions at their lastannual meeting (December 1998). Following Denmark, Ireland and Mexico in 1994, the Slovak Republic joinedthe SOPEMI network in 1995 and Korea in 1998.

The 1999 Edition is divided into three parts complemented by a Statistical Annex.

• Part I describes the overall trends in international migration. It focuses on the magnitude, the nature andthe direction of flows. Special attention is given to changes in the foreign or immigrant population inOECD countries and to the role of immigrants in the labour market and in the various sectors of economicactivity. This section is completed by an overview of migration policies, in particular those relating to thecontrol of flows, the integration of immigrants in host countries and international co-operation.

• Part II is composed of country notes describing recent developments in migration flows and policies intwenty-seven OECD countries (New Zealand and Iceland are not covered) and three non-member coun-tries (Bulgaria, the Slovak Republic and Romania). A note on the Baltic States is presented for the firsttime.

• Part III analyses the economic and political issues surrounding clandestine immigration in OECD coun-tries. The different situations of irregularity are described as well as the methods of measuring theirextent, most often partial or indirect. This part also considers the impact of illegal immigration on thelabour market, the attempts to curb illegal immigration and the sanctions imposed on employers.

• The statistical annex presents the most recent available data on foreign and immigrant populations,foreign workers, migration flows and naturalisations.

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

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GENERAL INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Part IMAIN TRENDS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION

A. MIGRATION, POPULATION AND THE LABOUR MARKET. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1. Trends in migration movements and changes in the foreign population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172. Immigration and population growth in OECD countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243. Immigrants and the labour market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

B. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN ASIA AND CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

1. Migration flows of Asian origin to OECD countries and the impact of the financial crisisin Asia on migration movements between Asian countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

2. Recent migration trends in Central and Eastern Europe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

C. AN OVERVIEW OF MIGRATION POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

1. Policies for regulating and controlling flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642. Policies aimed at integrating immigrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 773. Migration and international co-operation to promote economic development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Part IIRECENT CHANGES IN MIGRATION MOVEMENTS AND POLICIES

(COUNTRY NOTES)

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97The Baltic States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103Belgium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151Ireland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168Luxembourg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183Poland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196Slovak Republic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200Spain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204Sweden. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210Turkey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

Part IIICLANDESTINE IMMIGRATION: ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL ISSUES

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

A. ILLEGAL MIGRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

1. Illegal migration: a multi-faceted concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2292. Measurement methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

B. THE ECONOMIC IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

1. The behaviour of labour supply and demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

OECD 1999

Trends in International Migration

6

2. Undocumented migrant workers and the hidden economy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2373. Impact on the labour market. Empirical results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2374. The macroeconomic impact, distribution and taxation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

C. COMBATING CLANDESTINE IMMIGRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

1. Frontier control and controlling the length of stay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2412. Employment controls and penalties against employers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2433. Policies designed to reduce the propensity to emigrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

STATISTICAL ANNEX

A. SOURCES AND COMPARABILITY OF MIGRATION STATISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

1. Sources of migration statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2532. Measurement of migration flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2543. Stocks of migrants and characteristics of the immigrant population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

B. STATISTICAL SERIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

LIST OF SOPEMI CORRESPONDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327

OECD 1999

Table of contents

7

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Part I

MAIN TRENDS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION

Charts

I.1. Inflows of foreigners in some OECD countries, 1980-1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18I.2. Immigration flows into selected OECD countries by main categories in 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20I.3. Inflows of migrants by country of origin to selected OECD countries, latest available year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21I.4. Inflows of asylum seekers as a proportion of the foreign population (or born abroad)

at the beginning of the year, 1984-90, 1991-97, 1998.Top ten host countries for asylum applicants in 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

I.5. Components of total population growth in the European Unionand in selected OECD countries, 1960-1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

I.6. Natural increase in total population and net migration in OECD countries, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32I.7. Share of foreign births in total births relative to the share of foreigners

in the total population in selected OECD countries, 1980 and 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33I.8. Foreigners in total population and labour force and European Union citizens

in total foreign population and labour force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39I.9. Participation rate and unemployment rate by sex, place of birth

and nationality in some OECD countries, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43I.10. Changes in employment of foreigners and in total employment during economic recoveries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45I.11. Share of foreigners or the foreign-born in total unemployment

relative to their share in the labour force in 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46I.12. Naturalisation rate in some OECD countries, 10-year average (1988-1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81I.13. Share of mixed marriages in total marriages in some OECD countries, last available year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Tables

I.1. Entries of temporary workers in certain OECD countries by principal categories, 1992, 1996-1997 . . . . . . . . . . . 25I.2. Conditions for the recruitment and residence of the categories

of temporary foreign workers mentioned in Table I.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26I.3. Distribution of the world’s population by principal region in 1999

and the projected distribution in 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35I.4. “Youthfulness” indicator by principal regions in 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36I.5. Foreign or foreign-born population and labour force in selected OECD countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38I.6. Maghrebian, Turkish and former Yugoslavian residents

in selected European OECD countries, total population and labour force, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40I.7A. Stock of Asian national’s in selected OECD countries in 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48I.7B. Stock of immigrants born in an Asian country in Australia, Canada and the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48I.8. Unemployment rates in some Asian countries, 1997 and 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51I.9A. Foreign residents who are nationals of central and eastern European countries

in selected European OECD countries, latest available year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61I.9B. Immigrants born in central and eastern European countries residing

in selected OECD countries, latest available year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61I.10. Main regularisation programmes of immigrants in an irregular situation

in selected OECD countries, by nationality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Part II

RECENT CHANGES IN MIGRATION MOVEMENTS AND POLICIES

(COUNTRY NOTES)

Charts

II.1. Flows of permanent and long-term residents, Australia. Fiscal years 1982/83-1997/98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94II.2. Components of population change, 1983-1997, Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99II.3. Stocks of foreigners holding a work permit in Austria, 1980-1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100II.4. Migratory flows in the Baltic States, 1989-1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104II.5. Components of foreign and Belgian populations change, 1983-1997, Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

OECD 1999


8

II.6. Inflows of permanent settlers by entry class and region of origin, Canada, 1980-1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118II.7. Migration flows of foreigners, 1960-1997, Germany. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142II.8. Components of German population change, 1970-1997. National and foreigners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143II.9. Change in employment and unemployment in Germany, 1981-1998, total population and foreigners . . . . . . . 146II.10. Trends and characteristics of migration, Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156II.11. Migration flows and components of foreign population change, 1980-1997, Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179II.12. Permanent migratory flows in Poland, 1960-1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188II.13. Demographic characteristics of permanent emigrants, 1990-1997, Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197II.14. Immigration flows to the United Kingdom, 1987-1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Tables

II.1. Permanent and temporary migration programme outcomes,1995-1998 and 1999 planning levels for permanent settlers, by category, Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

II.2. Australia’s labour force by birthplace, August 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97II.3. Current figures on the components of total population change,

on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Austria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98II.4. Bosnians in employment in Austria by type of permits, 1995-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101II.5. National composition of population in the Baltic States based on the declared ethnic origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105II.6. Current figures on the components of total population change,

on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110II.7. Employment and unemployment in Belgium by nationality and sex, 1995-1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111II.8. Immigrant landings by type, 1994-1997, Canada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119II.9. Immigrant landings by type, 1993 and 1997, Canada. Top ten countries of origin in 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120II.10. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of migrants in Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125II.11. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Denmark . . . . . . . . . . 128II.12. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of total and foreign populations in Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132II.13. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135II.14. Foreign pupils attending public and private schools in France, 1994/95, 1996/97 and 1997/98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139II.15. Current figures on the components of total population change,

on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Germany. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144II.16. Residence permits issued to foreigners, by country of origin, 1994-1997, Greece. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148II.17. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . 152II.18. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of total population and labour force in Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158II.19. Current figures on foreign population in Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160II.20. Regularisation requests of immigrants in an illegal situation,

three last regularisation programmes, by region of residence, Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163II.21. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164II.22. Inflows of foreigners by main categories and nationality, 1997, Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167II.23. Stock of foreign population in Korea by nationality, 1988, 1990, 1995-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169II.24. Foreign workers in Korea by category, 1995-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170II.25. Current figures on the components of total population change,

on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Luxembourg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173II.26. Mexican emigration to the United States, 1911-1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176II.27. Socio-economic characteristics of undocumented Mexican immigrants

to the United States, 1988, 1990, 1996-1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177II.28. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of total population and labour force in the Netherlands . . . . . . 180II.29. Foreign-born population by birthplace, 1 January 1998, Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181II.30. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population in Norway. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184II.31. Permanent immigration and emigration, 1994-1997, Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189II.32. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of total population and labour force in Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192II.33. Regularisation programmes of immigrants in an illegal situation

by country of origin, 1992-1993 and 1996, Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195II.34. Current migration figures in Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199II.35. Current migration figures, Slovak Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201II.36. Bilateral agreements on the employment of foreigners concluded by the Slovak Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203II.37. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of total population and labour force in Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205II.38. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . 208II.39. Current figures on the components of total population change,

on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211II.40. Number of Turkish workers sent abroad by the National Employment and Placement Office,

by country or region of destination, 1994-1997, Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215II.41. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of total population and labour force in the United Kingdom . . 219

OECD 1999

Table of contents

9

II.42. Employment-based immigration, by preference, fiscal years 1994-1997, United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224II.43. Non-immigrants admitted by class of admission, fiscal years 1994-1996, United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

Part III

CLANDESTINE IMMIGRATION: ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL ISSUES

Chart

III.1. Presentation of the various situations in which foreign migrants can find themselves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

Tables

III.1. Typology of the methods used to estimate clandestinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234III.2. Tested or concieved methods to estimate clandestinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

OECD 1999


10

STATISTICAL ANNEX

1. Summary table on the sources of migration statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262A.1.2. Outflows of foreign population from selected OECD countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262A.1.3. Net migration of foreign population in selected OECD countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262A.1.4. Inflows of asylum seekers into selected OECD countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263A.1.5. Stocks of foreign-born population in selected OECD countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263A.1.6. Stocks of foreign population in selected OECD countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264A.1.7. Acquisition of nationality in selected OECD countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

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

A.2.1. Inflows of foreign workers into selected OECD countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266A.2.2. Inflows of seasonal workers in selected OECD countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266A.2.3. Stocks of foreign and foreign-born labour force in selected OECD countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

B. Tables by country of origin and by category of migrant

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

B.1.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality

B.1.1. Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268B.1.1. Belgium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268B.1.1. Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269B.1.1. Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269B.1.1. Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270B.1.1. France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270B.1.1. Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271B.1.1. Hungary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

B.1.1. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272B.1.1. Luxembourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272B.1.1. Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272B.1.1. Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273B.1.1. Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273B.1.1. Switzerland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274B.1.1. United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274B.1.1. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

B.1.2. Outflows of foreign population by nationality

B.1.2. Belgium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275B.1.2. Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276B.1.2. Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276B.1.2. Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277B.1.2. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

B.1.2. Luxembourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277B.1.2. Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278B.1.2. Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278B.1.2. Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279B.1.2. Switzerland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

B.1.3. Net migration of foreign population by nationality

B.1.3. Belgium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279B.1.3. Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280B.1.3. Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280B.1.3. Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281B.1.3. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

B.1.3. Luxembourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282B.1.3. Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282B.1.3. Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282B.1.3. Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283B.1.3. Switzerland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

B.1.4. Inflows of asylum seekers by nationality

B.1.4. France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283B.1.4. Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284B.1.4. Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284B.1.4. Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

B.1.4. Switzerland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285B.1.4. United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285B.1.4. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286

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

B.1.5. Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286B.1.5. Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

B.1.5. Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287B.1.5. Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

OECD 1999

Table of contents

11

B.1.5. Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288B.1.5. Sweden. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

B.1.5. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

B.1.6. Stock of foreign population by nationality

B.1.6. Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290B.1.6. Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290B.1.6. Denmark. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291B.1.6. Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291B.1.6. France. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292B.1.6. Germany. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292B.1.6. Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293B.1.6. Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293B.1.6. Japan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294B.1.6. Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294

B.1.6. Luxembourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295B.1.6. Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295B.1.6. Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296B.1.6. Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296B.1.6. Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297B.1.6. Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297B.1.6. Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298B.1.6. United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298B.1.6. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

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

B.1.7. Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299B.1.7. Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300B.1.7. Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300B.1.7. Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300B.1.7. Denmark. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301B.1.7. Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301B.1.7. France. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302B.1.7. Germany. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302B.1.7. Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303B.1.7. Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

B.1.7. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303B.1.7. Luxembourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304B.1.7. Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304B.1.7. Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304B.1.7. Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305B.1.7. Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305B.1.7. Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305B.1.7. United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306B.1.7. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

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

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

B.2.1. Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307B.2.1. Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

B.2.1. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308

B.2.2. Stock of foreign labour by nationality

B.2.2. Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308B.2.2. Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309B.2.2. Denmark. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309B.2.2. France. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309B.2.2. Germany. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310B.2.2. Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310B.2.2. Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310B.2.2. Japan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

B.2.2. Luxembourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311B.2.2. Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311B.2.2. Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312B.2.2. Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312B.2.2. Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313B.2.2. Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313B.2.2. Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314B.2.2. United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

Notes related to the Statistical Annex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316

OECD 1999

13

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

In 1997, immigration increased in many OECD countries…

Over the course of the 1980s and above all at the beginning of the1990s, migration movements accelerated in many OECD countries.This trend reached its peak in 1993, notably in major immigrationcountries such as Germany, the United States and Canada. Certaincountries (France, Switzerland, Australia and the United Kingdom)even went on to experience significant reductions in legal inflows andasylum applications. Since 1997, the beginnings of a reversal in trendhave been perceptible. Immigration flows have increased notably inFrance, Japan, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands. In Belgium andSwitzerland, their rate of decline has decelerated markedly. Thedownward trend remains distinct however in Germany, Canada,Australia and the United States.

… due, according to the country, to family-linked flows, labour migration or to asylum applications.

Far behind the United States and Germany, Japan, Canadaand the United Kingdom featured among the principal receivingcountries in 1997-98. France, the Netherlands and Switzerlandhave also been receiving large numbers of foreigners. Over thelast two years, growth in immigration flows has been highest inJapan and Norway, followed by the Netherlands and Denmark.Family-linked immigration predominates in almost all the Mem-ber countries of the OECD, in particular in Canada, France and theUnited States. As a proportion of total flows, that of refugees andasylum applicants is the highest in Sweden, followed by theNetherlands and Switzerland. Temporary labour migration isincreasing, notably to Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom andthe United States. Finally, irregular migration persists, confirmingthe difficulties that host and origin countries are encountering intheir attempts to control migration flows.

Positive net migration and the increasing relative importance of foreign births are contributing to population growth in host countries…

In certain OECD countries, the acceleration of migration move-ments over the course of the last fifteen years has played a non-negligible role in population growth. This tendency is particularlymarked in those countries with low fertility rates (Germany, Italy,Greece, Sweden, Switzerland and Portugal). Births to foreigners and topeople of foreign origin account for a large percentage of total births inmany European OECD Member countries. Practical and political con-straints militate against the formulation and implementation of migra-tion policies based on the common strategic interests of countriesexperiencing falling populations and those whose population is grow-ing rapidly. At the moment, increasing the labour supply through theimplementation of specific programmes to facilitate the entry of tem-porary workers seems to be preferred to permanent settlement poli-cies, even of the kind operated in Canada and Australia.

OECD 1999

14


… at the same time, the foreign and immigrant populations are increasing and diversifying

In almost all OECD countries, the foreign or immigrant popula-tion continues to increase. Over the last decade it has increasedconsiderably in Germany, the United Kingdom, Switzerland,Sweden, Austria, Italy, Greece and Japan. The relative size of thedifferent communities varies across the host countries. In all ofthem, the range of nationalities is increasing. Certain EuropeanOECD Member countries have recorded increased numbers ofnationals from Central and Eastern Europe and from the formerSoviet Union. Others are recording larger numbers of migrants fromNorth and sub-Saharan Africa. The proportion of immigrants fromAsia is growing not only in the Nordic countries but also in Australia,Canada and the United States. Finally, the ethnic conflicts and warswhich have taken place in the former Yugoslavia, most recently inKosovo, have led to sizeable displacements of the resident popu-lations towards OECD countries.

The economic upturns have in some cases been accompanied by relatively higher rates of growth in foreigners’ employment than in total employment. Their unemployment rates remain relatively high however.

The employment of foreigners fluctuates more markedly thantotal employment. In Portugal, Austria, Italy, Norway and Ireland inparticular, their economic upturns have been accompanied by rela-tively higher increases in foreigners’ employment. In almost all coun-tries the disparity between the unemployment rates of foreignersand nationals persists; in certain countries, for example Denmarkand the Netherlands, the proportion of foreigners in the total unem-ployed is three times greater than their proportion of the labourforce. In general, the unemployment rates of foreign women remainhigher than those of foreign men. The disparity between the unem-ployment rates of foreign and native men is even more marked. For-eigners’ greater vulnerability to unemployment is clearly higher inthe settlement countries (Australia, Canada and the United States).

Following the recent financial crises in Asia the number of undocumented foreign workers in the region has grown accompanying freezes on the renewal of work permits.

The financial crises recently experienced by certain Asian coun-tries have not led to sizeable emigration flows towards OECD Mem-ber countries. However, unskilled foreign workers, in general illegal,have been disproportionately affected by the labour shedding whichhas been taking place in these countries. On the other hand, a num-ber of indicators point to the continuing employment of undocu-mented foreigners as firms seek to hold down their costs in the faceof increased competitive pressure. In Europe, East-West migrationflows are much lower than those recorded at the beginning of the1990s. At the same time, migration movements between the CEECspersist and those towards this zone from neighbouring counties tothe East and South (NIS and the former Yugoslavia) are increasing.

New legislation has been introduced with the aim of improving foreigners’ integration. At the same time the criteria for entry, residence and employment have been tightened and measures to more effectively combat illegal immigration have been implemented.

Many member countries have implemented new legislationconcerning the entry, residence and employment of foreigners.Admission procedures for asylum applicants and refugees arebecoming increasingly harmonised and measures to combat illegalimmigration have been strengthened. Integration policies havefocussed on access to the host country’s nationality, children’s edu-cation and training for adults as well as combating racism andemployment-related discrimination.

OCDE 1999

15

General Introduction

The acceleration of regional economic integration and trade liberalisation can be expected, over the long-term, to facilitate the control of migration flows.

In the sphere of international co-operation, numerous measureshave been taken in order to develop collaboration between OECDMember and non-Member countries in their attempts to better controlmigration flows. By promoting sustainable development and its accom-panying employment creation, the acceleration of regional economicintegration and trade liberalisation will, over the long-term, contributeto reducing incentives to emigrate in those countries of high migrationpotential. The conclusions of the Lisbon conference (November 1998)on “Globalisation, migration and development” emphasised the poten-tial of this approach. As well as highlighting the key factors necessary forsuccessful economic integration, proposals to facilitate the accelerationof economic convergence were put forward.

***

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 theOECD: illegal migration. The economic dimension of illegal migration, its impact on domestic labour mar-kets and the policies implemented to combat it are examined, as are the problems surrounding itsmeasurement.

OCDE 1999

17

Part I

MAIN TRENDS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION

The following analysis of the main trends ininternational migration has been divided into threesections. The first looks at changes in migrationmovements, in the total and foreign populations ofthe countries considered and in the situation of for-eigners in the labour market. The second sectionfocuses on two regions, Asia and Central and EasternEurope. An overview of migration policies is pre-sented in the third section in the course of whichmeasures to better control and regulate flows and topromote the improved integration of immigrants inhost countries are examined. Finally, particular atten-tion is accorded to international co-operation in thesphere of migration and development.

A. MIGRATION, POPULATION AND THE LABOUR MARKET

The analysis of migration movements during1997-98 points to a slight upturn in legal immigrationflows, marking a distinct break with the declinesrecorded in the majority of OECD countries over thefour preceding years. The number of requests forasylum has significantly increased in certain membercountries, notably in Europe. Immigration for familyreasons continues to predominate although tempo-rary migration is gaining in importance. The persis-tence of irregular migration, the volume of which is bydefinition impossible to determine with precision,indicates clearly that host and origin countries areencountering difficulties in their attempts to controlmigration flows.

Immigration still plays a significant role in theannual population growth of certain OECD countries.The proportion of foreign births in total births is highand the foreign or foreign-born population is growingand diversifying. Foreign or immigrant labour main-tains a visible presence in the labour market; in themajority of OECD countries this presence is spread-ing across an increasing number of sectors. Overall,there continues to exist however a gap between the

unemployment rates of foreigners and of nationals.Although in several European OECD countries theeconomic upturn noticeable since 1996 has beenaccompanied by a reduction in foreigners’ unem-ployment rates, this reduction has been less markedthan that experienced by nationals.

1. Trends in migration movements and changes in the foreign population

The slight upturn in migration flows noticeablein 1997-98 in many OECD countries, notably inEurope and Japan, has taken place in a contextmarked by an increase in immigration flows duringthe 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s followed bya slowdown beginning in 1993 which continuedthrough to 1996.

In addition, the diversification of the modes ofentry used by immigrants and the increase in thenumber of nationalities involved continues. At thesame time, however, traditional flows persist and theregional character of migration is intensifying. Threeadditional characteristics of recent migration trendsmerit attention: the increase in the number of asylumapplications in many European members of the OECD,the predominance of flows linked to family reunion andthe increasing relative importance of temporary andhighly-skilled workers in the total flows.

a) Slight upturn in legal immigration flows

During the 1980s and above all at the beginningof the current decade, inflows increased in almost allOECD countries (see Chart I.1). However, for severalof them, notably the main immigration countries suchas Germany, the United States, Japan and Canada,1992 or 1993 marked a turning point. In others, nota-bly Australia and the United Kingdom, the peak hadoccurred earlier. From 1992-93, onwards a largenumber of countries recorded declines in legalimmigration flows; following the implementation of

OECD 1999


18

1 250 900

200

125

40

1980

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

100

75

50

25

0

150

100

50

0

1 000

750

500

250

0

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

25.022.520.017.515.012.510.07.55.02.50

20.0

17.5

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5

0

1985 1990 1995

1980 1985 1990 1995

1980 1985 1990 1995

1980 1985 1990 1995

Chart I.1. Inflows of foreigners in some OECD countries, 1980-1997Thousands, per 1 000 inhabitants and per 100 foreigners

Inflows of foreigners, 1980-19971

Thousands

Inflows of foreigners in 1997Thousands, per 1 000 inhabitants and per 100 foreigners

Note: Data for the United Kingdom are from the International PassengerSurvey, for Australia, Canada, France and the United States, frompermits of residence. For all other countries, data are based on PopulationRegisters.

1. The host countries have been split into 4 groups according to the volumeof inflows in 1997.

2. Excluding immigrants legalised under the 1986 IRCA regularisationprogramme.

3. 1996.4. For Australia, Canada and the United States, the inflows in 1997 are

related to the stocks of foreign-born residents (last census data).Sources: National Statistical Offices (for more details on sources, refer to

the notes at the end of the Statistical Annex).

Per 1 000 inhabitants

Per 100 foreigners4

Thousands

United Stat

es

Germany

Japan

Canada

United Kingdom

France

Australia

Netherl

ands

Switzerla

nd

Belgium

Sweden

Denmark3

Norway

Hungary

Luxembourg

Finlan

d

Luxembourg

Switzerla

nd

Germany

Canada

Norway

Netherl

ands

Belgium

Denmark3

Australia

Sweden

United Kingdom

United Stat

esJap

anFra

nceFin

land

Hungary

Japan

Norway

Netherl

ands

Denmark3

Finlan

d

United Kingdom

Hungary

Germany

Luxembourg

Sweden

Switerlan

d

Belgium

France

Canada

United Stat

es

Australia

Norway Hungary Luxembourg Finland

United States2 Germany Japan Canada

United Kingdom France Australia Netherlands

Switzerland Belgium Sweden Denmark

1 250 900

200

125

40

1980

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

100

75

50

25

0

150

100

50

0

1 000

750

500

250

0

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

25.022.520.017.515.012.510.07.55.02.50

20.0

17.5

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5

0

1985 1990 1995

1980 1985 1990 1995

1980 1985 1990 1995

1980 1985 1990 1995



Thousands









Per 100 foreigners4

Thousands

United Stat

es

Germany

Japan

Canada

United Kingdom

France

Australia

Netherl

ands

Switzerla

nd

Belgium

Sweden

Denmark3

Norway

Hungary

Luxembourg

Finlan

d

Luxembourg

Switzerla

nd

Germany

Canada

Norway

Netherl

ands

Belgium

Denmark3

Australia

Sweden

United Kingdom

United Stat

esJap

anFra

nceFin

land

Hungary

Japan

Norway

Netherl

ands

Denmark3

Finlan

d

United Kingdom

Hungary

Germany

Luxembourg

Sweden

Switerlan

d

Belgium

France

Canada

United Stat

es

Australia





1 250 900

200

125

40

1980

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

100

75

50

25

0

150

100

50

0

1 000

750

500

250

0

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

25.022.520.017.515.012.510.07.55.02.50

20.0

17.5

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5

0

1985 1990 1995

1980 1985 1990 1995

1980 1985 1990 1995

1980 1985 1990 1995



Thousands









Per 100 foreigners4

Thousands

United Stat

es

Germany

Japan

Canada

United Kingdom

France

Australia

Netherl

ands

Switzerla

nd

Belgium

Sweden

Denmark3

Norway

Hungary

Luxembourg

Finlan

d

Luxembourg

Switzerla

nd

Germany

Canada

Norway

Netherl

ands

Belgium

Denmark3

Australia

Sweden

United Kingdom

United Stat

esJap

anFra

nceFin

land

Hungary

Japan

Norway

Netherl

ands

Denmark3

Finlan

d

United Kingdom

Hungary

Germany

Luxembourg

Sweden

Switerlan

d

Belgium

France

Canada

United Stat

es

Australia





OECD 1999

Main Trends in International Migration

19

restrictive measures these were sometimes verysharp (as in Germany, France and Switzerland).

The left-hand side of Chart I.1 presents post-1980time-series for foreign migrant inflows. The host coun-tries are divided into four groups in descending orderaccording to the volume of their 1997 inflows. On theright-hand side of this chart, only 1997 is analysed. Thehost countries are ranked in descending order accord-ing to their inflows in, respectively, absolute terms,per 1 000 inhabitants and per 100 foreigners.

For a number of countries (France, Japan, Sweden,Norway and the Netherlands), 1997 marks a reversal intrend or (in the cases of Belgium and Switzerland) adeceleration in the rate of decline recorded after 1993.In those aforementioned countries where it is possi-ble to estimate the departures of foreigners throughthe use of population registers, net migration hasincreased slightly (see Statistical Annex, Table A.1.3).Certain important exceptions are, however, worthy ofmerit. In Germany, inflows of foreigners have onceagain fallen and their net migration balance was nega-tive for the first time since 1984. Immigration flows tothe United States, after having increased in 1996through the indirect effect of the 1986 regularisationprogramme (see the United States country note inPart II), immigration flows declined once more to justunder 800 000. These latter two countries are still atthe top of the host country rankings set out in Chart I.1even though they received 58% of total flows as com-pared with 72% in 1993.

Far behind Germany and the United States, Japan,Canada and the United Kingdom were, in absoluteterms, the principal host countries in 1997. In that yearthey each received between 200 and 280 000 foreigners(or immigrants). France, Australia, the Netherlands andSwitzerland received between 75 and 100 000 people.Emigration flows to Europe, then, are still largelydirected towards Germany even though other countriessuch as the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlandsand Switzerland receive sizeable numbers. If onerelates the inflow data to the foreign or immigrant pop-ulation at the beginning of the year rather than to thetotal population (see the right-hand side of Chart I.1),the rankings alter only slightly. In the preceding editionof Trends in International Migration it was shown that thisratio fluctuates considerably from one year to another,in particular in those countries where the proportion offoreigners in the total population is relatively small.In 1997, Japan, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmarkand Finland received in relative terms the greatestnumbers of foreigners. Moreover, the rate of theseflows’ growth in 1997 was particularly high in Japan

and Norway (respectively 22 and 28%, see StatisticalAnnex Tables B.1.1).

For European countries with a long-standing his-tory of immigration and where the percentage of for-eigners in the total population is relatively high(Luxembourg, Switzerland, Germany and Sweden), itis only in Germany that the volume of entries is highrelative to the size of the foreign population.

Not all the OECD countries have recorded anupward trend in their inflows. Moreover, there isnothing to suggest that this trend will continue overthe medium term. In France, Italy and in Greece theincrease in recorded inflows has been due largely toregularisation programmes (which are, in principle,exceptional). In the United Kingdom, Denmark andin Sweden notably, the current trend is largely beingdriven by influxes of asylum seekers; it is thereforedifficult to estimate the volume of future flows.Finally, the upward trend in inflows in northernEurope, due in large part to upturns in their econo-mies (in particular in Norway and in Finland), hasconcerned only small numbers of people.

b) Predominance of family-linked immigration

In a number of countries, changes in the volumeof inflows have been accompanied by changes intheir composition. In the preceding edition of Trendsin International Migration, it was noted that since thebeginning of the 1990s, the family members compo-nent has gained in importance in Australia, France,the United States and Sweden; in Canada and theUnited Kingdom the proportion of labour migrants(and their accompanying family members) has simi-larly increased in importance.

The proportion of total immigration accountedfor by each of the component flows (workers, accom-panying families, family reunion and refugees) differswidely from one country to another (see Chart I.2).That said, inflows related to family reunion and tofamily members accompanying workers predominatein almost all the countries of the OECD, in particularto Canada, France and the United States. It is worthnoting that in a number of countries family memberswho receive permanent residence status are alsoaccorded the right to take up employment. In Canada,the relative share of family members accompanyingforeign workers accounts for over half of the total fam-ily-linked immigration flows. In Sweden, refugee flowsaccount for the greatest proportion of the total inflows.As for labour immigration, it is in the United Kingdom,Switzerland and Australia (country where workers and

OECD 1999


20

their accompanying family members are groupedtogether) that this category of inflow accounts for thegreatest percentage of total inflows.

c) Diversification in regions of origin and the continuation of traditional flows

Chart I.3 allows one to compare the structure bycountry of origin of permanent migrant entries intocertain OECD countries. The most striking feature isthat for most of the countries examined one or twoorigin countries predominate. These are often neigh-bouring traditional source countries (New Zealandfor Australia, Russia for Finland, Algeria for France,China for Japan, Sweden for Norway, Mexico for theUnited States) or more rarely recent migration flowsof refugees (Somalia for Denmark, former Yugoslaviafor Switzerland and Sweden). In Finland, Japan andLuxembourg, the three principal origin countriesaccount for almost one half all new permanententrants. By contrast, in Germany, Denmark and theNetherlands, this proportion is under 25%. In these

three countries, one finds among the principal origincountries both long-standing migration flows (fromTurkey in all three cases, Poland as well in the caseof Germany) as well as the emergence of new migra-tion flows (from Russia, Hungary and Romania toGermany, and from China and the former Yugoslaviato the Netherlands).

In the case of Germany and to a lesser extentSwitzerland and the four Scandinavian countries(if we abstract from the movements of these coun-tries’ nationals, particularly those of Norway and ofSweden), East-West flows account for the greater partof the total flows (for more details, see Section Bbelow), with Poles predominating in Germany, nation-als of the former Soviet Union in Finland and those ofthe former Yugoslavia in Denmark, Switzerland,Sweden and Norway. In addition, the long-standingpredominance of migration flows from certain Asiancountries is also worthy of note (in Australia, Canada,Japan and the United States) as is the emergence offlows from these countries to some Europeancountries (for more details see Part B, below).

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100

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

1. For Australia, Canada, the United States and Sweden, data concernacceptances for settlement. For Switzerland and France, entriescorrespond to residence permits delivered in general for a period longerthan one year. For the United Kingdom, data are based on entry controlat ports of certain categories of migrants (excluding European EconomicArea citizens). For Switzerland, France and Sweden, family membersaccompanying workers are included under “Family reunification”. ForAustralia, “Workers” include accompanying dependents.

2. Passengers, excluding European Economic Area nationals, admittedto the United Kingdom. The data only include certain categories ofmigrants: work permit holders, spouses and refugees (excluding residentsreturning on limited leave or who previously settled). The category“Workers” include Commonwealth citizens with a United Kingdom borngrandparent who are taking or seeking employment (UK ancestry).

3. Data refer to fiscal year (July 1997 to June 1998). Excluding the SpecialEligibility programme. The category “Workers” includes accompanyingdependents.

4. Excluding the retired.5. Inflows of family members of EU citizens are estimated. Excluding

visitors and persons who benefited from the regularisation programme.6. Data refer to fiscal year (October 1996 to September 1997). Excluding

immigrants who obtained a permanent residence permit following the1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act.

Sources: National Statistical Institutes.

Chart I.2. Immigration flows into selected OECD countries by main categories1 in 1997Percentages of total inflows

Workers

United Kingdom2

Switzerland

Australia3

Canada4

France5

United States6

Sweden

Family reunification

Family membersaccompanying workers

Refugees

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100










Workers

United Kingdom2

Switzerland

Australia3

Canada4

France5

United States6

Sweden



Refugees

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100










Workers

United Kingdom2

Switzerland

Australia3

Canada4

France5

United States6

Sweden



Refugees

OECD 1999


21
201510502015105020151050
201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

(29.4)

Chart I.3. Inflows of migrants by country of origin to selected OECD countries,latest available year1

As a percentage of total inflows2

Australia

New Zealand (14.7)

United Kingdom (9.2)

Former Yug. (5.2)

China (4.3)

South Africa (4.3)

H K (China) (3.2)

India (2.8)

Philippines (2.8)

Vietnam (2.3)

Chinese Taipei (1.5)

Belgium Canada

Germany Japan Luxembourg

Denmark Finland France

France (7.0)

Netherlands (6.3)

Morocco (3.9)

United States (3.1)

Germany (3.1)

Italy (2.8)


Portugal (1.6)

Turkey (1.4)

Spain (1.2)

H K (China) (22.1)

India (19.6)

China (18.5)


Pakistan (11.2)

Philippines (10.9)

Iran (7.5)

Sri Lanka (5.1)

United States (5.0)


Somalia (2.5)

Turkey (1.2)

Iceland (1.2)

Germany (1.2)

Iraq (1.1)

Norway (1.0)


Sweden (0.9)

United States (0.6)

Iran (0.5)

Former USSR (2.4)

Sweden (0.7)

Estonia (0.6)

Iraq (0.5)

Somalia (0.5)

Iran (0.3)

Turkey (0.2)

Former Yug. (0.2)


United States (0.2)

Algeria (12.2)

Morocco (10.3)

Turkey (5.1)

Tunisia (3.6)

Zaire (2.9)

China (2.8)

Haiti (1.9)

Former Yug. (1.5)

Japan (1.2)

Poland (0.8)

Poland (71.2)

Turkey (56.0)

Italy (39.0)

Former Yug. (31.2)

Portugal (26.4)

Russian Fed. (24.8)

Greece (16.4)

United States (15.1)

Romania (14.2)

Hungary (11.2)

China (53.3)

Philippines (43.2)

Brazil (39.6)


Korea (17.9)


Thailand (6.4)


Canada (4.8)

Germany (4.3)

Portugal (1.9)

France (1.7)

Belgium (1.2)

Germany (0.7)

Italy (0.5)

Netherlands (0.3)

United States (0.2)

Spain (0.1)

201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

(29.4)



Australia

New Zealand (14.7)


Former Yug. (5.2)

China (4.3)

South Africa (4.3)

H K (China) (3.2)

India (2.8)

Philippines (2.8)

Vietnam (2.3)


Belgium Canada



France (7.0)

Netherlands (6.3)

Morocco (3.9)

United States (3.1)

Germany (3.1)

Italy (2.8)


Portugal (1.6)

Turkey (1.4)

Spain (1.2)

H K (China) (22.1)

India (19.6)

China (18.5)


Pakistan (11.2)

Philippines (10.9)

Iran (7.5)

Sri Lanka (5.1)

United States (5.0)


Somalia (2.5)

Turkey (1.2)

Iceland (1.2)

Germany (1.2)

Iraq (1.1)

Norway (1.0)


Sweden (0.9)

United States (0.6)

Iran (0.5)

Former USSR (2.4)

Sweden (0.7)

Estonia (0.6)

Iraq (0.5)

Somalia (0.5)

Iran (0.3)

Turkey (0.2)

Former Yug. (0.2)


United States (0.2)

Algeria (12.2)

Morocco (10.3)

Turkey (5.1)

Tunisia (3.6)

Zaire (2.9)

China (2.8)

Haiti (1.9)

Former Yug. (1.5)

Japan (1.2)

Poland (0.8)

Poland (71.2)

Turkey (56.0)

Italy (39.0)

Former Yug. (31.2)

Portugal (26.4)

Russian Fed. (24.8)

Greece (16.4)


Romania (14.2)

Hungary (11.2)

China (53.3)

Philippines (43.2)

Brazil (39.6)


Korea (17.9)


Thailand (6.4)


Canada (4.8)

Germany (4.3)

Portugal (1.9)

France (1.7)

Belgium (1.2)

Germany (0.7)

Italy (0.5)

Netherlands (0.3)

United States (0.2)

Spain (0.1)

201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

(29.4)



Australia

New Zealand (14.7)


Former Yug. (5.2)

China (4.3)

South Africa (4.3)

H K (China) (3.2)

India (2.8)

Philippines (2.8)

Vietnam (2.3)


Belgium Canada



France (7.0)

Netherlands (6.3)

Morocco (3.9)

United States (3.1)

Germany (3.1)

Italy (2.8)


Portugal (1.6)

Turkey (1.4)

Spain (1.2)

H K (China) (22.1)

India (19.6)

China (18.5)


Pakistan (11.2)

Philippines (10.9)

Iran (7.5)

Sri Lanka (5.1)

United States (5.0)


Somalia (2.5)

Turkey (1.2)

Iceland (1.2)

Germany (1.2)

Iraq (1.1)

Norway (1.0)


Sweden (0.9)

United States (0.6)

Iran (0.5)

Former USSR (2.4)

Sweden (0.7)

Estonia (0.6)

Iraq (0.5)

Somalia (0.5)

Iran (0.3)

Turkey (0.2)

Former Yug. (0.2)


United States (0.2)

Algeria (12.2)

Morocco (10.3)

Turkey (5.1)

Tunisia (3.6)

Zaire (2.9)

China (2.8)

Haiti (1.9)

Former Yug. (1.5)

Japan (1.2)

Poland (0.8)

Poland (71.2)

Turkey (56.0)

Italy (39.0)

Former Yug. (31.2)

Portugal (26.4)

Russian Fed. (24.8)

Greece (16.4)


Romania (14.2)

Hungary (11.2)

China (53.3)

Philippines (43.2)

Brazil (39.6)


Korea (17.9)


Thailand (6.4)


Canada (4.8)

Germany (4.3)

Portugal (1.9)

France (1.7)

Belgium (1.2)

Germany (0.7)

Italy (0.5)

Netherlands (0.3)

United States (0.2)

Spain (0.1)

OECD 1999


22

201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

(22.5)

Chart I.3. Inflows of migrants by country of origin to selected OECD countries,latest available year1 (cont.)


Netherlands Norway Sweden

Switzerland United Kingdom3 United States

Turkey (6.5)

Germany (5.7)

Morocco (4.5)


United States (3.1)

Suriname (2.6)

Belgium (2.2)

France (2.1)

China (1.6)

Former Yug. (1.6)

Sweden (4.9)

Denmark (1.8)

United States (1.0)


Germany (0.8)

Iran (0.6)

Bosnia-Herzeg. (0.6)

Pakistan (0.5)

Somalia (0.5)

Sri Lanka (0.4)

Former Yug. (3.9)

Iraq (3.7)

Finland (2.8)


Iran (1.7)

Norway (1.5)

Somalia (1.1)

Denmark (1.0)

United States (0.9)

Turkey (0.8)

Former Yug. (12.8)

Germany (8.5)

Italy (5.0)

France (4.8)

Portugal (4.0)

Turkey (3.4)

United States (2.7)


Spain (1.8)

Austria (1.3)


Australia (26.5)

India (16.1)

South Africa (13.0)

New Zealand (12.1)

Japan (10.4)

Pakistan (9.6)

Canada (8.3)

Philippines (7.5)

Poland (5.4)

Mexico (146.9)

Philippines (49.1)

China (41.1)

Vietnam (38.5)

India (38.1)

Cuba (33.6)

Dominican Rep. (27.1)

El Salvador (18.0)

Jamaica (17.8)

Former USSR (16.7)

Note: The top ten source countries are presented by decreasing order. The abbreviation H K (China) means Hong Kong (China). Data for Australia, Canadaand the United States refer to inflows of permanent settlers by country of birth, for France, to issues of certain types of permits and estimates of otherflows (mainly inflows of European Economic Area family members). For the United Kingdom, the data are based on entry control at ports of certaincategories of migrants. For all other countries, figures are from population registers or registers of foreigners. The figures for the Netherlands, Norwayand especially 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 1997 to June 1998) and the United States (October 1996 to September 1997), 1996 for Denmark and 1997 for the othercountries.

2. The figures in brackets are inflows in thousands.3. 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).Sources: National Statistical Offices.

201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

(22.5)





Turkey (6.5)

Germany (5.7)

Morocco (4.5)


United States (3.1)

Suriname (2.6)

Belgium (2.2)

France (2.1)

China (1.6)

Former Yug. (1.6)

Sweden (4.9)

Denmark (1.8)

United States (1.0)


Germany (0.8)

Iran (0.6)


Pakistan (0.5)

Somalia (0.5)

Sri Lanka (0.4)

Former Yug. (3.9)

Iraq (3.7)

Finland (2.8)


Iran (1.7)

Norway (1.5)

Somalia (1.1)

Denmark (1.0)

United States (0.9)

Turkey (0.8)

Former Yug. (12.8)

Germany (8.5)

Italy (5.0)

France (4.8)

Portugal (4.0)

Turkey (3.4)

United States (2.7)


Spain (1.8)

Austria (1.3)


Australia (26.5)

India (16.1)

South Africa (13.0)

New Zealand (12.1)

Japan (10.4)

Pakistan (9.6)

Canada (8.3)

Philippines (7.5)

Poland (5.4)

Mexico (146.9)

Philippines (49.1)

China (41.1)

Vietnam (38.5)

India (38.1)

Cuba (33.6)


El Salvador (18.0)

Jamaica (17.8)

Former USSR (16.7)





201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

201510502015105020151050

(22.5)





Turkey (6.5)

Germany (5.7)

Morocco (4.5)


United States (3.1)

Suriname (2.6)

Belgium (2.2)

France (2.1)

China (1.6)

Former Yug. (1.6)

Sweden (4.9)

Denmark (1.8)

United States (1.0)


Germany (0.8)

Iran (0.6)


Pakistan (0.5)

Somalia (0.5)

Sri Lanka (0.4)

Former Yug. (3.9)

Iraq (3.7)

Finland (2.8)


Iran (1.7)

Norway (1.5)

Somalia (1.1)

Denmark (1.0)

United States (0.9)

Turkey (0.8)

Former Yug. (12.8)

Germany (8.5)

Italy (5.0)

France (4.8)

Portugal (4.0)

Turkey (3.4)

United States (2.7)


Spain (1.8)

Austria (1.3)


Australia (26.5)

India (16.1)

South Africa (13.0)

New Zealand (12.1)

Japan (10.4)

Pakistan (9.6)

Canada (8.3)

Philippines (7.5)

Poland (5.4)

Mexico (146.9)

Philippines (49.1)

China (41.1)

Vietnam (38.5)

India (38.1)

Cuba (33.6)


El Salvador (18.0)

Jamaica (17.8)

Former USSR (16.7)





OECD 1999


23

d) Asylum applications have increased in many OECD member countries

In OECD countries, in principle, the arrival of ref-ugees 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 onarrival at the border or when already present withinthe country. In addition, OECD countries authorisecertain persons, for humanitarian reasons, to remainin the country either temporarily or on a more perma-nent basis. For example, in a number of OECD coun-tries an ad hoc status was granted to Bosnians andmore recently to Kosovars, accompanied generallyby social assistance and the right of access to thelabour market. In France, temporary residenceauthorisation has been provided to Algerians forcedto leave their country.

From the middle of the 1980s through to the begin-ning of the 1990s (see Statistical Annex, Table A.1.4)applications for asylum rose noticeably, some-times spectacularly (Germany, Austria, Canada, theNetherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdomand the United States). During the first half of the1990s the average annual inflows of asylum seekerswere relatively high, most notably in Germany andthe United States; in Canada, France and Austria thesame phenomenon was observed during the period1989-92. In 1998, Germany, the United Kingdom and theUnited States had, in absolute terms, the highest num-ber of asylum seekers, followed by the Netherlands andSwitzerland. Relative to the resident foreign (or for-eign-born) population at the beginning of each year(see Chart I.4), one observes that over the period1984-90 that Sweden and Austria were, in relativeterms, the principal OECD receiving countries ofasylum seekers. Over the period 1991-97, Swedenremained the most important followed by theNetherlands and Germany. The available data for1998 indicate that in relative terms the Netherlandsand Switzerland received the greatest numbers ofapplications, followed by the United Kingdom,Sweden and Germany.

Faced with an increasing number of asylum seek-ers, the OECD countries have reacted by speeding upthe processing of applications and by introducing cer-tain restrictive measures, among them the extension

of visa requirements to a larger number of countries.The majority of countries have also decided to restrictasylum applications, except for special cases, to per-sons from countries that have not signed both of theUnited Nations Conventions on Refugees and onHuman Rights, provided they have not previouslypassed through a country that has signed them.

The measures taken to stem the flow of newarrivals (for more details see Section C on Migrationpolicies), combined with the low rate of acceptancefor refugee status applications have, with the excep-tions of the United States and the United Kingdom,

0

1984-90 1991-97 1998

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Netherlands (45.2)

Switzerland (41.2)


Sweden (13.0)

Belgium (22.0)

Austria (13.8)

Germany (98.7)

France (21.8)

Canada (22.6)


Chart I.4. Inflows of asylum seekers as a proportionof the foreign population

(or born abroad) at the beginning of the year,1984-90, 1991-97, 1998

Top ten host countries for asylum applicants in 1998Per 100 foreigners at the beginning of the year1

Note: For the periods 1984-90 and 1991-97, an average of the ratios (annualflows of asylum applicants as a proportion of the foreign population atthe beginning of the year) has been calculated. In the cases of theUnited States and Canada, the inflow of asylum applicants is comparedwith the foreign-born population, which explains why the figure is lowfor these countries. For Canada, France and the United States, theforeign (or foreign-born) population has been estimated from censusdata (and for France, from the Ministry of the Interior data too) on theassumption that the growth of the foreign population has been constantover the inter-census periods. The countries have been classed indescending order on the basis of the inflows of asylum applicants asa proportion of the foreign population in 1998.

1. Figures in brackets indicate the inflows of asylum seekers in 1998(thousands).

Sources: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and OECD.

0

1984-90 1991-97 1998

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Netherlands (45.2)

Switzerland (41.2)


Sweden (13.0)

Belgium (22.0)

Austria (13.8)

Germany (98.7)

France (21.8)

Canada (22.6)








0

1984-90 1991-97 1998

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Netherlands (45.2)

Switzerland (41.2)


Sweden (13.0)

Belgium (22.0)

Austria (13.8)

Germany (98.7)

France (21.8)

Canada (22.6)








OECD 1999


24

led to a sharp fall in the number of asylum requestssince 1993 (see Statistical Annex, Table A.1.4). TheNetherlands, which had registered continuous growthin the number of requests accepted, witnessed sub-stantial declines both in 1995 and 1996. In 1997 and1998, however, applications have clearly increased.In the United Kingdom, whilst asylum requestsincreased in 1994 and 1995, the implementation ofnew legislative framework was accompanied by a signif-icant decline in applications in 1996. Nevertheless, theyincreased slightly the following year and considerablyin 1998. Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium, Norway, Austriaand Italy also recorded marked increases in the numberof asylum applications in 1998, linked in large part tothe ethnic conflict in Kosovo, to the degradation of theeconomic situation in Albania and to an influx of Kurdsoriginating from Iraq and Turkey. Finally, as severalcountries of Central and Eastern Europe have signedthe Geneva Convention on Refugees they recogniseand can therefore accord refugee status to applicants.This explains the increase in demands recorded inHungary and in the Czech Republic.

e) Temporary labour migration and the migration of highly-skilled workers

Although the admission of permanent foreignworkers is currently very limited, particularly into theEuropean Member countries of the OECD, the demandfor temporary foreign workers is growing. The use oftemporary foreign labour enhances host countries’labour market flexibility and helps to alleviate sec-toral labour shortages. Temporary migration also hasother advantages, particularly in the short-term. Dur-ing a period of restricted immigration, it may be ameans of reducing the employment of foreigners in anirregular situation. Moreover, it avoids, in part, thesanctioning of permanent immigration with its atten-dant welfare costs and the necessity of implementingintegration policies. Finally, temporary employmentalso promotes the movement of managerial staff andhighly skilled workers (the 1998 edition of Trends inInternational Migration included a special chapterdevoted to a detailed analysis of the temporaryemployment of foreigners in many OECD countries).

Table I.1 sets out for a number of Member coun-tries the inflows of temporary foreign workers byprincipal category. The upward trend in their inflowsis clear in Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom andthe United States. Scrutiny of the recruitment and res-idence criteria for temporary workers (see Table I.2)reveals, in addition to the wide diversity of the regu-lations applied in the Member countries of the

OECD, a certain flexibility in the admissions proce-dures for this type of entrant.

2. Immigration and population growth in OECD countries

Migration plays a significant role in the annualpopulation growth of many OECD countries. First ofall, the presence of a foreign or foreign-born popula-tion contributes to the natural increase in the popu-lation (excess of births over deaths). The higher thefertility of foreign women relative to natives the moresignificant is this contribution. Second, when netmigration is positive, the population of the hostcountry grows by the same amount.

In the following section the contribution ofmigration will be examined from the perspective ofits impact on total population growth. Special atten-tion will then be given to births to foreigners or topersons of foreign origin and to the relationshipbetween population ageing and migration. Finally, ananalysis of changes in the foreign or immigrant popu-lations in OECD countries will highlight the growthwhich has taken place in this population and confirmits trend towards increasing diversification.

a) The components of total population growth

In order to explain the respective contributionsof net migration and the rate of natural increase tototal population growth, the evolution of these com-ponents over the past three decades in the principalOECD geographic regions will be examined and adescription of the current situation in the Membercountries will be presented.

Main demographic trends: a regional approach

Chart I.5 covers the period 1960-97. It shows therelative contributions of net migration (nationals andforeigners) and of natural increase (excess of birthsover deaths) to the total population growth of thecountries of the European Union and other Membercountries of the OECD. This comparative analysisillustrates the general trend of a slowdown in demo-graphic growth. One will observe, however, that therates of population growth at the beginning of theperiod are clearly higher in Turkey, Australia and theUnited States compared to the countries of theEuropean Union and Japan where the demographicdecline is much more marked. The increase in immi-gration flows to Europe, noticeable between 1989and 1992, did not reverse the demographic decline.

OECD 1999

Ma

in T

ren

ds in

Inte

rna

tion

al M

igra

tion

OE

CD

199

Table I.1. Entries of temporary workers in certain OECD countries by principal categories, 1992, 1996-1997Thousands

1992 1996 1997

108.1 78.5 93.9

. . 36.7 42.29.7 53.2 51.1. . 90.0 93.3

126.1 62.7 46.71.6 0.7 0.7

127.8 63.4 47.4(39.7) (24.5) (25.4)

7 12.7 16.9 18.714.0 16.8 19.024.0 33.0 33.3

3.4 4.0 4.754.1 70.7 75.7

110.2 144.5 . .12.5 27.0 . .

O) 0.5 7.2 . .16.4 9.6 . .

3.4 3.0 . .143.0 191.2 . .(116.2) (117.5) (90.6)

rackets indicate the number of entries of permanent workers.

of the same year.

ar. The data may well therefore be over-estimates.

des migrations 97; Germany: Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit; Japan: Ministryf Justice, 1996 Statistical Yearbook of Immigration and Naturalization

25

9 1992 1996 1997

Australia JapanSkilled temporary resident programme1 14.6 15.4 12.5 Highly skilled workersWorking Holiday Makers 25.9 40.3 50.0Total 40.5 55.7 62.5 Korea

(40.3) (20.0) (19.7) Highly skilled workersCanada2 Trainees

Highly skilled workers TotalWorkers whose employment requires approval3 66.4 . . . .Professionals4 5.3 . . . . SwitzerlandReciprocal employment4, 5 5.6 . . . . Seasonal workersWorkers with significant benefits for Canada4 4.6 . . . . Trainees

Seasonal workers 11.1 . . . . TotalTotal 92.9 . . . .

(230.4) . . . . United KingdomFrance Highly skilled workers (long-term permits)

Highly skilled workers Short term permit holdersEmployees on secondment6 0.9 0.8 1.0 Working Holiday MakersResearchers6 0.9 1.2 1.1 Trainees

Seasonal workers 13.6 8.8 8.2 TotalTotal 15.4 10.8 10.3

(42.3) (11.5) (11.0) United States8

Germany Highly skilled workersWorkers employed under a contract for services 115.1 47.3 42.1 Specialists (visa H-1B)Seasonal workers 212.4 220.9 226.0 Specialists (NAFTA, visa TN)9

Trainees 5.1 4.3 3.2 Workers of distinguished abilities (visa Total 332.6 272.5 271.2 Seasonal workers (visa H-2A)

(408.9) (262.5) (285.4) Industrial trainees (visa H-3)Total

Note: The categories of temporary workers differ from one country to another. Only the principal categories of temporay workers are presented in this table. The figures in b1. The data cover the fiscal year (from July to June of the indicated year) and include accompanying persons.2. The figures are for the number of work permits issued. The data are likely to be over-estimates in as far as one person might obtain a number of permits in the course 3. The list of eligible jobs excludes unskilled jobs, those restricted to Canadian citizens and those with a high rate of unemployment.4. These workers do not require approval by the Government employment service.5. This category concerns in particular academics and researchers admitted within the framework of bilateral agreements as well as certain specialists.6. Beneficiaries of provisional work permits (APT).7. Long-term permits (one year and over) are mostly accorded to specialists and senior managers.8. The data cover the fiscal year (October to September of the indicated year). A person is counted as many times as he enters the country over the course of the same ye9. The figures include family members.Sources: Australia: Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (DIEA); Canada: Citizenship and Immigration Canada; France: Office des migrations internationales, Annuaire

of Justice; Korea: Ministry of Justice; Switzerland: Office federal des etrangers; United Kingdom: Department of Employment; United States: United States Department oService.

Tre

nd

s in In

tern

atio

na

l Mig

ratio

n

26

OE

CD

1999

entioned in Table I.1.

tions

ibility Possibilityamily reunification for changing status2

Yes

Yes

No (with a few exceptions)

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Table I.2. Conditions for the recruitment and residence of the categories of temporary foreign workers m

Preliminary recruitment conditions Residence condi

Categories of workersby country Availability of domestic workers Authorised length of stay Poss

Admission conditions as grounds for refusal Quotas (possibility for renewal) Restrictions on activity1 for f

Australia

Skilled temporary residents Nominated (generally Yes No – 2 years (renewable once) Yes Yesby the employer) except Labour Market Testing – 4 years (renewable)for a stay shorter than (LMT) for the category3 months ‘‘Education’’

– Between 3 monthsand 4 years for holdersof a TBE visa

Working Holiday Makers – Bilateral agreements No Yes (since 1995/1996 fiscal Up to one year (not Yes No(WHM) – Age limit (generally year) renewable)

between 18 and 25)

Canada

Workers whose employment Preliminary authorisation Yes No 3 years maximum Yes Yesrequires approval (renewable)

Workers who do not require Bilateral agreements No No 9 months maximum No Yesapproval Medical exam (renewable)

Seasonal workers Agreements with certain Yes No 3 years maximum Yes Yescountries (renewable)

France

Workers on secondment The employer must carry Yes, except for workers No 9 months (renewable once, Yes Noout the process earning more than and in exceptional casesof obtaining the work 21 000 FF per month twice)permit

Seasonal workers – Recruitment procedure Yes In the framework of certain – The activity must not Yes, the permit is only valid Noinitiated by the employer bilateral agreements exceed 6 months in any for the requested

– Age limit (between (Morocco and Tunisia 12 consecutive month occupation,17 and 50) for an for example) period (8 months in a pre-determinedanonymous contract for certain activities) geographic zone for a single

– The worker must hold – Minimum duration employera temporary residence of 4 months for seasonalpermit valid for the workers from distantperiod of employment countries (Morocco

and Tunisia)

Germany

Workers employed under – Bilateral agreements No Yes 2 years maximum (3 years Yes Noa contract for services (seconded by the in exceptional cases)

employer in the countryof origin)

– Holding a work permit

Seasonal workers – Bilateral agreements Yes No, but placement 3 months each year Yes No– The request must is limited to certain sectors

be made by the employer– Minimum age: 18 years

Guest workers (Gastarbeiter) – Bilateral agreements No Yes (by country) 12 to 18 months Yes No– Age limit (between

18 and 40)

Ma

in T

ren

ds in

Inte

rna

tion

al M

igra

tion

OE

CD

199

Table I.2. Conditions for the recruitment and residence of the categories of temporary foreign workers mentioned in Table I.1. (cont.)

Preliminary recruitment conditions Residence conditions

Categories of workers

Possibility Possibilityfor family reunification for changing status2

Yes, but they cannot work No

– –

– –

No Yes (after a certain durationof work)

t No Non

loyer Yes, if financial ressources Yes, after 4 years workingme and housing are acceptable in the United Kingdom

Yes, providing spouse Noqualifies in own rightand any child is less than5 years old

27

9 by country Availability of domestic workers Authorised length of stayAdmission conditions as grounds for refusal Quotas (possibility for renewal) Restrictions on activity1

Japan

Highly skilled workers Obtaining an authorisation – No Depends on the contract Yesfrom the Ministry of Justice (renewal possible if they(very strict concerning still have the sameskills) employment)

Korea

Highly skilled workers Very strict conditions – No No ceiling since 1997 Yesimposed on skills

Trainees Most of them are recruited Yes – 3 years maximum –by the Korean Federationon small businesses (KFSB)

Switzerland

Seasonal workers – Bilateral agreements Yes Yes, at local level (Canton) Variable according to sector Yesof activity– Request made9 months maximumby the employerper yearRenewable under certainconditions

Trainees – Bilateral agreements No Yes 1 year (6 months extension Traineeship carried ousigned with 25 countries in special cases) in the same occupatio

as previous studies– Proof of trainingor diploma

– Age limit (between18 and 30)

United Kingdom

Persons who need a work – A work permit Yes, except for some No Up to 4 years Yes, a change of emppermit for a specific person must specific activities, Renewals possible, subject is possible only in so

be requested i.e. intra-company to the same conditions specific conditionsby the future employer. transferees ‘‘Keyworkers’’ will not

normally exceed 36 months– Restricted to highlyskilled persons(‘‘Keyworkers’’).

– Adequate commandof English

Working Holiday Makers – Being a Commonwealth No No 2 years (no renewals) Nonational

– Age restriction (between17 and 27 years)

– Unmarried

– Intention to takeemployment is incidentalto holiday

– Sufficient financialresources for return

– No need for a workpermit

Tre

nd

s in In

tern

atio

na

l Mig

ratio

n

28

OE

CD

1999

ioned in Table I.1. (cont.)

tions

ibility Possibilityamily reunification for changing status2

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

seldom applied. However some applicants are obliged to engage

Table I.2. Conditions for the recruitment and residence of the categories of temporary foreign workers ment

Preliminary recruitment conditions Residence condi

Categories of workersby country Availability of domestic workers Authorised length of stay Poss

Admission conditions as grounds for refusal Quotas (possibility for renewal) Restrictions on activity1 for f

TraineesProfessional or specialist Sufficient level of education No No Restricted to the training Yes Yesqualification training and adequate command period (up to 3 months)

of English Extension dependson the results obtained

Work experience – Sufficient level No No 12 months Yes Yesof education Extension possibleand adequate command for up to 12 monthsof English

– Person must notbe filling a genuinevacancy

United States

H-1B (Specialty occupation) – Prevailing wages required No Yes Initial admission for 3 years Yes, related to a specific Yes– Minimum of Bachelor (can be renewed once) activity

degree (4 years degree)+ practice in theoccupation

O (Extraordinary ability) Requires consultation No No Up to 10 years Must continue to work Yeswith peers Depends upon activity in the field of expertise

H-2A (agricultural activities) – Temporary labour Yes No Initial admission for 1 year Yes, specific activity Yescertification required Extensions up to 3 years and location

– Employers must respect increments of 12 monthscertain conditions eachon wages

H-3 (Industrial trainees) – Must justify why cannot No No Generally 2 years maximum Yes, specific activity Yesbe trained in his country Consistent with the training and location

– A foreign residence must programmebe maintained

1. In the United Kingdom, there is no limitation to the geographical mobility of temporary workers. Therefore, comments on this column are only related to professional mobility. In the United States, limitations are in employment related to their visa.

2. In the United States, except some J-1 visitors, most non-immigrants can adjust to other temporary or permanent categories, if they are qualified. If not, they are obliged to leave the country.


29

20

15

10

5

0

-5

20

15

10

5

0

-5

20

15

10

5

0

-5

20

15

10

5

0

-5

20

15

10

5

0

-5

20

15

10

5

0

-5

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. Components of total population growth in the European Unionand in selected OECD countries, 1960-1997

Per 1 000 inhabitants at the beginning of the year

Natural increase rate Net migration rate1

European Union (15 members2)Per 1 000 France Per 1 000

GermanyPer 1 000 Spain Per 1 000

SwedenPer 1 000 United Kingdom Per 1 000

20

15

10

5

0

-5

20

15

10

5

0

-5

20

15

10

5

0

-5

20

15

10

5

0

-5

20

15

10

5

0

-5

20

15

10

5

0

-5

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







20

15

10

5

0

-5

20

15

10

5

0

-5

20

15

10

5

0

-5

20

15

10

5

0

-5

20

15

10

5

0

-5

20

15

10

5

0

-5

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







OECD 1999


30

25

15

10

5

0

-10

25

15

10

5

0

-10

20

-5

20

-5

25

15

10

5

0

-10

20

-5

25

15

10

5

0

-10

20

-5

25

15

10

5

0

-10

20

-5

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. Components of total population growth in the European Unionand in selected OECD countries, 1960-1997 (cont.)



AustraliaPer 1 000 Japan Per 1 000

PolandPer 1 000 Turkey Per 1 000

United StatesPer 1 000

1. The net migration figures are calculated residually using annual populationestimates and data on births and deaths.

2. Excluding Austria, Italy and Ireland from 1996 on and Greece in 1997.Source: Labour Force Statistics, OECD, 1997.

25

15

10

5

0

-10

25

15

10

5

0

-10

20

-5

20

-5

25

15

10

5

0

-10

20

-5

25

15

10

5

0

-10

20

-5

25

15

10

5

0

-10

20

-5

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









25

15

10

5

0

-10

25

15

10

5

0

-10

20

-5

20

-5

25

15

10

5

0

-10

20

-5

25

15

10

5

0

-10

20

-5

25

15

10

5

0

-10

20

-5

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









OECD 1999


31

In the United States (and also in Canada), the nat-ural increase in the population is the principal compo-nent of total population growth. The contribution ofnet migration has hardly changed over the periodstudied except between 1979 and 1981 and between1992 and 1993. The natural increase fell sharplybetween 1961 and 1973 and remained, on average,at the level of 7.5 per 1 000 inhabitants through to 1990at which point it began to decline. In the United Statesand Canada, the natural increase in the population hassteadily declined over the past three decades butit still remains the principal component of total popu-lation growth. This was also the case in Australia butonly till the end of the 1970s. Since, the contributionof net migration, which varies greatly, has sometimesexceeded or equalled the contribution of naturalincrease in population growth.

In the countries of the European Union, the situ-ation is more contrasted. At the beginning of the1960s, the relative share of the natural increase intotal population growth was larger than that of netmigration (except in France due to the massive inflowsof repatriates from Algeria). From 1967 onwards, netmigration grew while the natural increase continuouslydeclined. Between 1987 and 1991, the relative contri-bution of net migration grew rapidly following anacceleration in immigration flows. The trend was thenreversed. However, over the whole of the EuropeanUnion (notably in Germany, in Spain and in Sweden,see Chart 1.5), the relative contribution of net migra-tion remains more important than that of the naturalincrease, in contrast to the situation prevailing in theUnited States, Turkey, Japan and Poland.

Turkey is experiencing a relatively high naturalrate of population growth, approximately 16 per thou-sand in 1997, a sharp reduction, however, on the 1970sfigure of 24 per thousand. Moreover, due to the returnof former emigrants, net migration in Turkey is slightlypositive, in contrast to the situation in Poland.

A more detailed analysis by country for 1997(see Chart I.6) reveals that Iceland, Poland and Japanhave registered negative net migration; in the casesof the two latter countries this has been combinedwith a relatively low rate of natural increase. Germany,Italy and the Czech Republic have in common anegative natural increase rate and positive netmigration. In Sweden as in Greece, it is due to netmigration that the population increased in 1997. InNew Zealand, Luxembourg and Canada, populationgrowth is being driven more by the positive netmigration than by the natural increase, itself rela-tively high. In the United States, and to a less marked

degree in Australia, the natural increase remains theprincipal component of population growth. This com-ponent is the most important in Mexico and Turkey(at 28 and 16 per thousand respectively). Turkey has,however, recorded slightly positive net migrationindicating that return movements of Turkish expatri-ates outweigh the emigration flows. By contrast, dueto the sizeable volume of emigration flows, Mexicohas been recording high negative net migration.

Population growth in other European OECD coun-tries has in general been rather weak. In theNetherlands, Norway, France, Switzerland, the UnitedKingdom and Finland it has been driven largely by thenatural increase whereas in Denmark, Austria, Greece,Portugal and Spain the contribution of net migrationhas predominated.

This analysis points to the conclusion that over along period (be it by region or by country, 1960-97)and by cross section (by country, in 1997), naturalincrease is more important than net migration in totalpopulation growth in OECD countries. This is true notonly in countries which have experienced large emi-gration flows, such as Ireland, Turkey and Mexico, butalso in settlement countries such as the UnitedStates. This is also the case in other European coun-tries (France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom)where immigrants have tended to prolong their stayand settle and where entries have been running atlower levels than in previous decades. The settle-ment of immigrants and members of their familieshas contributed, by means of foreign births or thoseof foreign origin, to the increase in the dominant roleof the natural increase’s contribution to populationgrowth (see below).

The acceleration of migration movements hasplayed a non-negligible role in population growth incertain of the OECD Member countries. This is nota-bly the case in Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Italy,Portugal and Spain. The trend is all the more markedin those countries where fertility rates are low(Germany, Italy, Greece, Switzerland and Portugal).In the settlement countries, such as Canada, theUnited States and Australia, which continue toreceive substantial numbers of new immigrants eachyear, it may well be that the predominance of family-linked immigration among total inflows and theyounger age structure of the new arrivals exerts overthe short and medium term a marked effect on thenatural rate of increase in the population.

The analysis of the changes in the componentsof population growth in OECD countries also reveals

OECD 1999


32

that migration movements fluctuate significantly involume. In this regard, the situation observed in 1997or in 1998 (depending on the country) has been oneof significant change in comparison to 1996. Indeed,the relative importance of the migration componentis very much dependent on developments in thepolitical and economic situation in certain regions ofthe world (in so far as they affect the movements ofasylum seekers and refugees) and in migration policyin each country. The fluctuational nature of migrationmovement volumes explains why it would be difficultto rely on the contribution of net migration to reduceor stem the marked demographic decline occurringin many of the OECD countries (see below).

b) Foreign births: a brake on demographic ageing

In several European OECD countries, births toforeign nationals and to persons of foreign originaccount for a sizeable percentage of total births; thispercentage is often higher than that of foreigners inthe total population. Foreign births contribute to thenatural increase in the population and can thereforeact as a brake on demographic ageing. However, thisis not an inevitable result and depends essentiallyon a continuing succession of migration waves. A sus-

tained halt to new immigration could eventually leadto a marked reduction in these beneficial effectsinsofar as the fertility rate of foreign women tends toconverge with that of nationals.

Measuring foreign births

It is difficult to obtain comparable data on for-eign births as the term “foreign” may apply to thechild or to the parents. When reference to the par-ents is made in the definition, the number of foreignbirths will vary according to whether the criterionadopted is the nationality of both parents, of thefather or of the mother. Generally, since fertility is stud-ied in relation to women, the nationality of referencechosen is that of the mother. In Belgium, Germany,Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland foreignbirths are those of children possessing foreign nation-ality. In France and Sweden, for example, foreignbirths are those born to female foreign nationals, inJapan those where both parents are foreign nationals,and in the United Kingdom they are those to mothersborn outside the country. Data based solely on birthsto foreign mothers do not adequately reflect the con-tribution to total births linked to the presence of theforeign population or that of foreign origin. Moreover,

0 1 2 3 4

3

2

1

0

3

2

1

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

-5

-10

10

5

0

-5

-10

Chart I.6. Natural increase in total population and net migration in OECD countries,1 19972

Per 1 000 inhabitants as of 1 January 1997

Net

mig

ratio

n (p

er 1

000

)

Luxembourg

Natural increase (per 1 000)

CanadaNew Zealand

Australia

United States

Sweden

Italy

Germany

CzechRep.

Poland JapanIreland Iceland

Turkey

Mexico

Note: The net migration figures are calculatedresidually using annual populationestimates and data on births and deaths.

1. The data for Korea and Hungary are notavailable.

2. 1996 for Spain, France, the UnitedKingdom, Iceland, Sweden and theNetherlands; 1994 for Ireland, Italy andAustria; 1995 for Canada; 1990 for Mexico.

Source: Labour Force Statistics, OECD, 1997.

Denmark


GreeceNetherlands

Norway

AustriaPortugal

Spain FinlandFrance

United Kingdom Switzerland

Belgium

Net m

igra

tion

(per

1 0

00)

0 1 2 3 4

3

2

1

0

3

2

1

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

-5

-10

10

5

0

-5

-10



Net

mig

ratio

n (p

er 1

000

)

Luxembourg


CanadaNew Zealand

Australia

United States

Sweden

Italy

Germany

CzechRep.


Turkey

Mexico





Denmark


GreeceNetherlands

Norway

AustriaPortugal

Spain FinlandFrance


Belgium

Net m

igra

tion

(per

1 0

00)

0 1 2 3 4

3

2

1

0

3

2

1

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

-5

-10

10

5

0

-5

-10



Net

mig

ratio

n (p

er 1

000

)

Luxembourg


CanadaNew Zealand

Australia

United States

Sweden

Italy

Germany

CzechRep.


Turkey

Mexico





Denmark


GreeceNetherlands

Norway

AustriaPortugal

Spain FinlandFrance


Belgium

Net m

igra

tion

(per

1 0

00)

OECD 1999


33

in general, the degree to which the legislation on nat-uralisations is more or less liberal can either speedup or slow down the process of absorption of foreign-ers into the national population and thereby reduceor increase the number of foreign births.

Foreign births as a proportion of total births compared to the proportion of foreigners in the total population

The share of foreign births is, in some Membercountries, very high (see Chart I.7). This is the case, forexample, in Luxembourg (over 43%) and Switzerland(over 22%) in 1997. In France, the United Kingdom(England and Wales only), Germany and Sweden, for-eign births accounted for between 10 and 13% of allbirths in 1997. In Sweden, France, Switzerland and

Japan the proportion of births to foreigners as com-pared with the proportion of foreigners in the total pop-ulation was greater in 1997 than in 1980; the reverse wastrue for Belgium and the Netherlands.

Except in Belgium and Japan, in 1997 the propor-tion of births to foreigners was in every case higher thanthe proportion of foreign nationals in the total popula-tion (more than twice in Sweden, more than one and ahalf times in France and the United Kingdom and onlyslightly less in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germanyand Luxembourg, see Chart I.7). A number of explana-tions can be put forward to account for the variationsobserved between 1980 and 1997, the relative impor-tance of which depend on the country concerned:higher or lower levels of net migration; differences in

1980 1997

0 1 2

0 1 2

10.213.0

10.29.6

15.322.2

0.60.9

13.312.8

10.913.2

7.56.1

37.143.2

15.58.0

Chart I.7. Share of foreign births1 in total births relative to the share of foreignersin the total population in selected OECD countries, 1980 and 1997

Sweden

France

Switzerland

Japan

United Kingdom2

Germany3

Netherlands

Luxembourg

Belgium4

Share of foreign birthsin total births (%)

Incr

ease

Dec

reas

e

1. Foreign births are those of children of foreign nationality for Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland. For France and Sweden,foreign births are births to a foreign mother, for Japan, to foreign parents. For England and Wales, foreign births refer to those to mothers born outsidethe United Kingdom. The data for Japan and Germany refer to 1989 and 1991 respectively instead of 1980. The data for Sweden refer to 1993, forFrance, Japan and the United Kingdom to 1996 instead of 1997.

2. Data refer to England and Wales. The share of foreign births is relative to the share of the foreign-born in the total population.3. Data cover Germany as a whole in 1991 and 1997.4. Between 1980 and 1997, the fall 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 registers; data on population are from population registers for all countries except for France (1982 census and 1996

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

1980 1997

0 1 2

0 1 2

10.213.0

10.29.6

15.322.2

0.60.9

13.312.8

10.913.2

7.56.1

37.143.2

15.58.0


Sweden

France

Switzerland

Japan

United Kingdom2

Germany3

Netherlands

Luxembourg

Belgium4


Incr

ease

Dec

reas

e




1980 1997

0 1 2

0 1 2

10.213.0

10.29.6

15.322.2

0.60.9

13.312.8

10.913.2

7.56.1

37.143.2

15.58.0


Sweden

France

Switzerland

Japan

United Kingdom2

Germany3

Netherlands

Luxembourg

Belgium4


Incr

ease

Dec

reas

e




OECD 1999


34

fertility rates between nationals and foreigners; dif-ferences in distribution by age and by sex of the for-eign and national populations; and changes to lawsconcerning the acquisition of nationality.

c) Ageing populations and migration

In spring 1998 the OECD published a report onageing populations, Maintaining Prosperity in an AgeingSociety. The report highlights the prospect of risingshares of elderly in the population and falling sharesof the population in employment to support pensionand health systems. The report suggests that therange of possible demographic outcomes over thenext three decades is fairly limited with migrationand fertility capable only of partially alleviating theproblem. The analysis underlying this thesis andlikewise the practical and political issues involved inthe implementation of an effective demographic cumlabour market orientated immigration policy werepresented in the 1998 edition of this report (see Trendsin International Migration, OECD, 1998).

Ageing populations are caused by declining fertil-ity and by reduced rates of mortality amongst theelderly population. Declining fertility shifts the compo-sition of the population towards older cohorts; reducedmortality rates tend to extend the life expectancy of theelderly populations. Whilst these processes have beengoing on for some time in many countries, OECD mem-ber countries have reached a particularly advancedstage. The proportions of the elderly in the total popu-lation, which are already at high levels, are set toincrease further, particularly after around 2010 when thefirst of the baby-boom generations begins to retire.

Table I.3 presents the distribution of the worldpopulation by principal region in 1999 and the pro-jected distribution in 2025. It is clear that the relativeshare of the 29 OECD Member countries in the totalworld population will show a decline in 2025 (ceterisparibus, around 16% as against 19% in 1999). Among theMember countries, only a few (Mexico, Turkey,Canada, the United States and Australia) will experi-ence significant population growth (i.e. equal to orslightly above the world average). The European con-tinent as a whole will witness a population declineover the period (with a more important decrease inEastern Europe and in Russia) whereas the populationof Africa will increase by two-thirds and those of Asiaand America by more than one-third.

A “Youthfulness” indicator by principal regionand for some OECD Member countries is presentedin Table I.4, based on calculations carried out by

INED (Institut national d’études démographiques, Paris).This indicator is obtained by substracting the pro-portion of those aged over 64 years from the propor-tion of those aged below 15 years. The higher theindicator, the younger the population. Among theOECD Member countries, only Mexico and Turkeyare ranked above the world average, whereas inSpain, Italy and Japan, the share of those aged over64 years exceeds the share of those aged below15 years. France, the United Kingdom, Sweden andGermany are experiencing situations similar to thethree latter countries.

The demographic situation described in thesetwo tables shows that population ageing is clearlymore significant in European countries and Japan. It isin these countries that global labour shortages will bethe strongest at the approach of 2010, even if duringthe transition period, improved productivity and theuse of surplus labour force temporarily ease labourdemand. This demographic challenge should be metwith medium-term and long-term strategies. It is withthis in mind that policies aiming to enhance the fertil-ity rate and policies calling for increased immigrationare the most often referred to (for “fertility” policies,see the 1998 edition of Trends in International Migration).

Regarding immigration, there exist a number ofpractical and political constraints in formulating animmigration policy aimed at achieving demographicchange. A number of these difficulties were outlined inMigration; The Demographic Aspects (OECD, 1991). How-ever, increased immigration possesses the advantageof having an immediate and relatively strong impacton the working age population due to the young agestructure of net migration. In addition, fertility ratesamongst immigrant women are often relatively highwhich can help to boost fertility and hence long-termpopulation growth.

Migration policies based on convergent strate-gic interests are possible between countries deeplyaffected by demographic decline and those experi-encing high population growth, if the motivation forsuch policies is strong enough. At present, there is apreference for mechanisms which cater for temporarylabour migration to increase labour supply ratherthan policies calling for permanent immigration.However, the ease with which countries may shift thefocus of immigration policy towards demographicobjectives varies widely. Some countries alreadyhave a comprehensive and co-ordinated approachtowards immigration (notably Canada and Australia)including age-related selection criteria for some cat-egories of immigrant. Other countries may find that

OECD 1999


35

new immigration programmes and a change inapproach to immigration policy are required.

d) Changes in the foreign or immigrant populationin OECD countries

For the European OECD countries and likewisefor Korea and Japan, the most detailed statistics onthe foreign population refer to residents’ nationality(see Tables A.I.6 and B.I.6 of the Statistical Annex).

Thus people born in the country may be countedamong foreigners, while others born abroad (and whoare therefore immigrants) may have acquired thenationality of the host country and are no longercounted as members of the foreign population. InAustralia, Canada and the United States, the criterionis not that of nationality but of country of birth. Adistinction is made between those born abroad(“foreign-born”) and those born in the country(“native-born”). This approach enables the number

Table I.3. Distribution of the world’s population by principal region in 1999 and the projected distribution in 2025Millions and percentages

Population 1999 Projection 2025

Millions % Millions %

Asia 3 637 61 4 923 61Western Asia 186 3 303 4Central-southern Asia 1 451 24 2 101 26South-east Asia 520 9 722 9East Asia 1 481 25 1 798 22

America 815 14 1 083 13North America 303 5 374 5Central America 135 2 200 2Caribbean 37 1 46 1South America 339 6 463 6

Africa 771 13 1 290 16North Africa 170 3 249 3West Africa 223 4 408 5East Africa 235 4 387 5Central Africa 94 2 188 2Southern Africa 49 1 57 1

Europe (non including the Russian Fed.) 582 10 580 7Northern Europe 95 2 99 1Western Europe 183 3 188 2Eastern Europe 159 3 150 2Southern Europe 145 2 143 2

Russian Federation 147 2 138 2

Oceania 30 1 41 1

World 5 982 100 8 054 100of which: OECD 1 112 19 1 257 16

of which:United States 273 5 335 4Japan 127 2 121 2Mexico 100 2 141 2Germany 82 1 80 1Turkey 66 1 88 1United Kingdom 59 1 63 1France 59 1 64 1Italy 58 1 55 1Spain 39 1 39 –Poland 39 1 41 1Canada 31 1 39 –Australia 19 – 23 –Sweden 9 – 9 –

Source: 1999 World Population Data Sheet, Population Reference Bureau in Populations et societes, No. 348, July-August 1999, Institut national d’etudesdemographiques.

OECD 1999


36

of immigrants residing in the country to be calcu-lated, whatever their nationality. Certain Europeancountries such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Norwayand Sweden have begun to publish statistics on thenumber of people born abroad by country of birth(see Statistical Annex, Tables A.1.5 and B.1.5).

Variations over time in the number of immigrantsor foreigners do not follow a uniform pattern across

countries. Such variations are dependent, inter alia, onmigration policy, on entries and departures, on thedemographics of the foreign population and on thenumber of naturalisations (which correspondinglyreduces the stock of foreigners). Nonetheless, innearly all of the OECD countries the foreign or immi-grant population continues to increase. It is also clearthat the extension of the geographical sphere of refer-ence of international migration, a consequence of the

Table I.4. ‘‘Youthfulness’’ indicator1 by principal regions in 1999Percentages

Proportion ProportionYouthfulness1 indicator

aged below 15 years aged over 64 years

Africa 43 3 40North Africa 38 4 34West Africa 45 3 42East Africa 46 3 43Central Africa 47 3 44Southern Africa 35 5 30

Asia 32 6 26Western Asia 37 4 33Central-southern Asia 37 4 33South-east Asia 34 4 30East Asia 25 8 17of which: China 26 7 19

America 29 8 21North America 21 13 8Central America 36 4 32Caribbean 31 7 24South America 32 6 26

Oceania 26 10 16

Russian Federation 20 13 7

Europe (not including the Russian Federation) 18 15 3Northern Europe 19 15 4Western Europe 17 15 2Eastern Europe 20 13 7Southern Europe 17 16 1

World 31 7 24

OECD 21 13 8of which:

Mexico 35 5 30Turkey 31 5 26Australia 21 12 9United States 21 13 8Poland 21 12 9Canada 20 12 8France 19 16 3United Kingdom 19 16 3Sweden 19 17 2Germany 16 16 –Spain 15 16 –1Italy 15 17 –2Japan 15 16 –1

1. Proportion aged below 15 years (%) minus the proportion aged over 64 years (%).Source: Calculations by INED (Institut national d’etudes demographiques) from Population Reference Bureau data.

OECD 1999


37

political and economic changes which have takenplace over the last decade, is reflected in the diversi-fication of the composition by nationality of foreignpopulations and in the greater dispersion of immi-grants of the same origin across host countries.

The foreign or foreign-born population is increasing…

Compared with the situation which prevailed inthe mid-1980s, the proportion of foreigners andforeign-born in the total population has increased inthe majority of OECD countries, the exceptions beingBelgium and France (due in part to considerablenumbers of naturalisations).

In Australia and Canada, immigrants accountedfor a high percentage of the resident population in1996 at close to 25% and over 17% respectively. In theUnited States the figure was 9% (see Table I.5). In thislatter country the immigrant population increased byalmost 6 million between the last two censuses (1980and 1990), as compared to a little over one million inCanada and just under 700 000 in Australia over theintercensal period 1986-96.

The foreign presence in the total population var-ies widely across the European OECD countries (seeTable I.5). It is relatively high in Luxembourg andSwitzerland – 33% and 19% respectively in 1995. Inthe other traditional immigration countries, the pro-portion of foreigners in the total population variesbetween 3.6% (the United Kingdom) and 9% (Belgium).In the new immigration countries such as Spain, Italy,Portugal and Finland, the proportion of foreignersremains small (between 1 and 2%), the large increasein entries over the last decade notwithstanding.

The foreign population has grown considerably inGermany (an increase in excess of 60% over the period1987-97) due principally to a marked acceleration from1989 onwards in the immigration flows from the coun-tries of Central and Eastern Europe. The foreign popu-lation has also increased in the United Kingdom,Switzerland, Sweden and Austria. In Japan, although theforeign population increased by approximately 60%between 1985 and 1996, the percentage of foreigners inthe total population remains low (just over 1%). Simi-larly, although the number of foreigners resident inKorea has more than tripled over the course of the lastten years, the percentage of foreigners remains (at 0.3%)one of the lowest of the OECD Member countries.

… and is becoming more diversified

In general, the composition by nationality of theforeign or immigrant population (see Statistical Annex,

Tables B.1.5 and B.1.6) varies across host countriesdepending on migration traditions, the extent andnature of existing networks established by previouslyinstalled migrant communities, employment opportu-nities and the geographical proximity of the respectiveorigin countries.

The political and economic developments of thelast decade, notably the liberalisation of populationmovements in Central and Eastern Europe, haveextended the geographical sphere of reference of inter-national migration (see the later sections devoted todevelopments in Asia and in Central and EasternEurope). In particular, they have led to the emergenceof new flows and an increase in the diversity of origincountries. As a result, both the composition by nation-ality of the foreign population within host countries andthe dispersion of migrants of the same origin across dif-ferent host countries have modified.

In the countries of the European Union, theproportion of foreigners who have come from non-EU countries has increased. As part of this overalltrend, certain origin countries have emerged as beingimportant or seen their importance increase relativeto others of longer standing in the region. In Germany,for example, this observation applies to nationals ofthe countries of Central and Eastern Europe and theformer Soviet Union, in France to Moroccans andSenegalese, and in the Netherlands to nationals of theformer Yugoslavia. As for the Nordic countries, the pro-portion of foreigners who have come from neighbour-ing countries has diminished in Finland, in Norwayand in Sweden as newer foreign communities haveincreased in size: Asians (Pakistanis, Vietnamese,Iranians and Sri Lankans and Turks) in Norway andSweden; and nationals of the former Yugoslavia inFinland, Norway and Sweden. These transformationsreflect not only the changes in the origins of the flowsbut also the changes in their nature (an increase in thenumber of asylum seekers).

Regarding immigration in the countries of South-ern Europe, two characteristics stand out: there exists asizeable group of immigrants from the developingcountries of Africa and Asia, and another of foreign resi-dents from Europe, North America and Latin America.These flows differ markedly in nature: the former, partlyclandestine, is essentially (unskilled) labour migration;the latter is linked to multinational firms and to foreigndirect investment together with flows of retired per-sons. In Portugal, for example, the largest foreign com-munity is African, originating from Portugal’s formercolonies and from other countries of Portuguese lan-guage and culture such as Cape Verde and Angola. The

OECD 1999


38

Table I.5. Foreign or foreign-born population and labour force in selected OECD countriesThousands and percentages

Foreign population and labour force

Foreign population1 Foreign labour force2

% of total % of totalThousands Thousands

population labour force

19873 19974 1987 1997 19875 19976 1987 1997

Austria 326 733 4.3 9.1 158 326 5.4 9.9Belgium 863 903 8.7 8.9 270 333 6.8 7.9Denmark 136 250 2.7 4.7 63 88 2.1 3.1Finland 18 81 0.4 1.6 . . 19 . . 0.8France 3 714 3 597 6.8 6.3 1 525 1 570 6.3 6.1Germany 4 241 7 366 6.9 9.0 1 866 2 522 6.9 9.1Ireland 77 114 2.2 3.1 33 52 2.5 3.4Italy 572 1 241 1.0 2.2 285 332 1.3 1.7Japan 884 1 483 0.7 1.2 . . 6607 . . 1.0Luxembourg 103 148 26.8 34.9 648 1258 37.6 55.1Netherlands 592 678 4.0 4.4 176 208 3.0 2.9Norway 124 158 2.9 3.6 499 609 2.3 2.8Portugal 95 175 1.0 1.8 46 88 1.0 1.8Spain 335 610 0.9 1.5 58 176 0.4 1.1Sweden 401 522 4.8 6.0 215 220 4.9 5.2Switzerland 979 1 341 14.9 19.0 58810 69310 16.6 17.5United Kingdom 1 839 2 066 3.2 3.6 815 949 3.3 3.6

Foreign-born population and labour force (Census data)

Foreign-born population11 Foreign-born labour force11

% of total % of totalThousands Thousands

population labour force

198612 1996 1986 1996 198612 199613 1986 1996

Australia 3 247 3 908 20.8 21.1 1 901 2 239 25.4 24.6Canada 3 908 4 971 15.4 17.4 2 359 2 681 18.5 18.5United States 14 080 24 600 6.2 9.3 7 077 14 300 6.7 10.8

1. Data are from population registers except for France (Census), Ireland and the United Kingdom (Labour Force Survey), Japan and Switzerland (register offoreigners) and Italy, Portugal and Spain (residence permits).

2. Data include the unemployed except for Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom. Data for Austria, Germany andLuxembourg are from Social Security registers, for Denmark and Norway from the register of population and the register of employees respectively. Datafor Italy, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland are from residence or work permits. Figures for Japan and the Netherlands are estimates from national StatisticalOffices. For the other countries, data are from Labour Force Surveys.

3. 1982 for France; 1988 for Portugal.4. 1990 for France; 1996 for Denmark.5. 1988 for Norway, Portugal and Spain; 1991 for Italy; 1986 for Belgium.6. 1995 for Italy; 1996 for Denmark.7. Data are estimates and include those of Japanese descent, students and illegal workers.8. Including cross-border workers.9. Excluding the self-employed.

10. Number of foreigners with an annual residence permit or a settlement permit who engage in gainful activity. Seasonal and cross-border workers areexcluded.

11. Data are from censuses except for the United States in 1996 (estimates from the Current Population Survey).12. 1980 for the United States.13. 1991 for Canada.Sources: National Statistical Institutes.

OECD 1999


39

second largest group is comprised of European Unionand United States nationals.

Regarding the European countries of the OECD(see Chart I.8), the highest percentages of EU (at15 members) nationals, as a proportion respectivelyof their total foreign population and of their foreignlabour force, were to be found in 1997, in decreasingorder of importance, in Luxembourg (90 and 94%),Ireland (85 and 87%), Belgium (68 and 75%) andSwitzerland (61 and 67%). At the opposite end of thescale, with the corresponding percentages of 18 and12, Austria had the lowest proportions in both.

In Australia, Canada and the United States, theproportion of European residents has declined infavour of immigrants from the developing coun-tries (see Statistical Annex, Tables B.1.5). In the

United States, the number of European residents hasfallen while that of immigrants from Asia (see the latersection on Asian migration in Section B) and from theAmerican continent have increased. Between 1980and 1990 the number of Mexican, Vietnamese andChinese nationals almost doubled; those from Indiaand the Dominican Republic more than doubled.

In Canada, the number of Europeans (notablynationals from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands,Germany and Italy) fell sharply between 1986 and1996 while the immigrant population of Asianprovenance doubled. The same phenomenon hasbeen observed in Australia: conspicuous growth inimmigration flows from Asia, New Zealand and Africa,while those of European provenance remainedstable.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

(34.5)(40.6)

(19.0)(17.5)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Chart I.8. Foreigners in total population and labour forceand European Union citizens in total foreign population and labour force

European OECD countries, 1997

Share of foreignersin total population (%)

Share of foreign labour forcein total labour force (%)

Luxembourg

Austria

Germany

France

Sweden

Greece

Portugal

Spain

Italy

Switzerland1

Belgium

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Ireland

Denmark

Finland

Luxembourg

Ireland

Belgium

Switzerland1

United Kingdom

France

Netherlands

Sweden

Denmark

Germany

Spain

Portugal

Finland

Austria

Italy

Greece

Foreign residents and labour force,all nationalities

European Unioncitizens

Note: In both charts, the host countries have been split into two according to whether the proportion of foreigners (or Community citizens) in the labourforce is higher or lower than their proportion in the total population (or in the total foreign population).

1. The data are from registers of foreigners. Figures for the labour force do not include seasonal and cross-border workers.Sources: Labour Force Survey, Eurostat, 1997; Office fédéral des étrangers (Switzerland).

Share of EU citizensin total foreign population (%)

Share of EU labour forcein total foreign labour force (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

(34.5)(40.6)

(19.0)(17.5)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90





Luxembourg

Austria

Germany

France

Sweden

Greece

Portugal

Spain

Italy

Switzerland1

Belgium

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Ireland

Denmark

Finland

Luxembourg

Ireland

Belgium

Switzerland1

United Kingdom

France

Netherlands

Sweden

Denmark

Germany

Spain

Portugal

Finland

Austria

Italy

Greece







0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

(34.5)(40.6)

(19.0)(17.5)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90





Luxembourg

Austria

Germany

France

Sweden

Greece

Portugal

Spain

Italy

Switzerland1

Belgium

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Ireland

Denmark

Finland

Luxembourg

Ireland

Belgium

Switzerland1

United Kingdom

France

Netherlands

Sweden

Denmark

Germany

Spain

Portugal

Finland

Austria

Italy

Greece







OECD 1999


40

The distribution of immigrants of the same origin acrossthe range of host countries

Certain immigrant communities have tended toincrease in countries where they were not stronglyrepresented previously. The following section willfocus on immigrants from certain countries of theSouthern and Eastern shores of the MediterraneanBasin (this aspect of migration flows from the coun-

tries of Asia and of Central and Eastern Europe isexamined in Section B).

The distribution in Europe of nationals from thethree Maghrebian countries (Algeria, Morocco andTunisia), Turkey and the former Yugoslavia has changedover the past 15 years. Although France remained in1997 the principal host country for Maghrebians (intotal, close to 1.4 million residents, see Table I.6) and

Table I.6. Maghrebian, Turkish and former Yugoslavian residents in selected European OECD countries,total population and labour force, 1997

Thousands and percentages

Foreign population1

of which:Total

foreign FormerAlgeria % Morocco % Tunisia % Turkey % %population Yugoslavia

Belgium 903.2 8.9 1.0 132.8 14.7 4.7 0.5 73.8 8.2 8.1 0.9Denmark 249.6 . . . . 3.6 1.4 . . . . 37.5 15.0 33.9 13.6France 3 596.6 614.2 17.1 572.7 15.9 206.3 5.7 197.7 5.5 52.5 1.5Germany 7 365.8 17.5 0.2 83.9 1.1 25.4 0.3 2 107.4 28.6 1 209.02 16.4Italy 1 240.7 . . . . 131.4 10.6 48.9 3.9 . . . . 85.0 6.9Netherlands 678.1 1.1 0.2 135.7 20.0 1.5 0.2 114.7 16.9 28.4 4.2Norway 158.0 . . . . 1.2 0.8 . . . . 3.4 2.2 17.3 10.9Spain 609.8 . . . . 111.1 18.2 . . . . . . . . . . . .Sweden 522.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4 3.5 33.6 6.4Switzerland 1 340.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.6 5.9 313.5 23.4United Kingdom 2 066 . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 2.7 . . . .

Foreign labour force3

of which:Total

foreign Formerlabour force Algeria % Morocco % Tunisia % Turkey % %Yugoslavia

Austria4 247.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.1 20.3 136.8 55.3Belgium 333.0 3.0 0.9 38.5 11.6 1.2 0.4 19.1 5.7 . . . .Denmark 88.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.6 15.5 7.3 8.3France 1 569.8 246.1 15.7 205.0 13.1 85.0 5.4 65.8 4.2 23.2 1.5Germany5 2 521.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . 745.2 29.5 348.06 13.8Netherlands 208 . . . . 35 16.8 . . . . 29 13.9 . . . .Spain7 176.0 3.7 2.1 67.7 38.5 . . . . . . . . . . . .Sweden8 220 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2 31 14.1Switzerland9 692.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.1 4.8 138.2 19.9United Kingdom 949.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.0 2.4 . . . .

1. Data are from population registers for all countries except for France (Census), Italy and Spain (residence permits) and the United Kingdom (Labour ForceSurvey). Data for Denmark are for 1996.

2. Data are for Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia.3. Figures include unemployed except for Austria and the Netherlands. Data for Belgium, France, Sweden and the United Kingdom are from the Labour

Force Survey; for the other countries, see the notes at the end of the Statistical Annex. 1996 for Denmark.4. Annual average of valid work permits. Unemployed and self-employed are not included.5. Data (as of 30 September) refer to salaried workers only. Figures cover only western Germany.6. Data are for Serbia and Montenegro.7. Valid work permits. Workers from the European Union are not included in total.8. Annual average. Data are from the annual Labour Force Survey.9. Data are counts of the number of foreigners with an annual residence permit or a settlement permit (permanent permit) who engage in gainful activity.Sources: Labour Force Survey, Eurostat and National Statistical Institutes.

OECD 1999


41

indeed Algerian emigration remains concentratedalmost entirely there, Moroccan and Tunisian migrantshave been going in greater numbers to other host coun-tries. Already present in Belgium and the Netherlands(140 000 persons in each country), Moroccans have wid-ened the range of their destinations and now form size-able communities in Italy, Germany, and Spain. In 1997,far behind France, it was in Italy, followed by Germany,that the largest Tunisian communities were located.

With the extension of the conflict in the Balkanregion, most recently to Kosovo, migrants from theformer Yugoslavia have increasingly gone to new hostcountries. Although in 1997 Germany remained, bysome distance, the country with the greatest numberof immigrants from the former Yugoslavia (over750 000 nationals of Serbia and Montenegro andapproximately 550 000 Croatians and Bosnians), Italywas by then the forth host country after Switzerlandand Austria. The Nordic countries (principally Swedenand Norway) also feature among the new host coun-tries along with Greece, Hungary and Bulgaria.

Turkish immigrants, the largest number of whomare to be found in Germany, have also settled in otherEuropean OECD countries, notably, in decreasing orderof importance, in France, the Netherlands, Belgium,Switzerland, Austria and Denmark. Numbering justover 2.1 million, the Turkish community in Germanyaccounts for almost 30% of the resident foreign popu-lation in that country. Although Turks are far lessnumerous in the Netherlands than in France theyaccount for approximately 17% of the total foreign pop-ulation there; the corresponding percentage in Franceis less than 6%. In Switzerland the figure is also 6%, inBelgium 9% and in Denmark 16%. In Austria, one in fivesalaried foreign workers is of Turkish origin.

Foreigners or immigrants from OECD Member or non-member countries residing in the OECD area

Among foreign or foreign-born residents inOECD countries, some are from non-Member coun-tries while others are nationals of Member countries.In most analyses of migration, focus is rarely placedon the latter group even though their numbers arerelatively high. The recent admission of several newcountries to the OECD has boosted this trend. In1997, Turks headed the rankings by nationality of for-eigners residing in the European Members of theOECD. The Italians and the Portuguese were respec-tively third and fourth (behind nationals of the formerYugoslavia). The Korean predominance in Japan mer-

its highlighting, as does that of the Mexicans in theUnited States.

3. Immigrants and the labour market

The net annual change in the foreign labour forceis not simply identical to the net change in foreigners’migration flows: changes in the foreigners’ labour forceparticipation rate, alterations in their demographicprofile and modifications to naturalisation policies arepotentially no less important. Over the course of thepast fifteen years, changing economic conditions com-bined with the upward trend in migration movementsand the entry onto the labour market of family mem-bers of immigrants already settled in the host countryhave had significant repercussions on the employ-ment of foreigners. The foreign labour force has grownin almost all the OECD countries and its characteristicshave changed, in ways which vary from country tocountry.

The heterogeneous character both of the foreignpresence in the various economic sectors and of theirshare of total employment is the product of a numberof factors the importance of which vary from countryto country, the most significant generally being thecountry’s migration history. Other factors include,most notably, the functioning of the productive appa-ratus, the legislation governing the access of foreign-ers to the labour market, and the working conditionsand wages on offer in each sector. Despite the con-trasts which exist among the sectors, it is clear thatforeign workers have penetrated all sectors, thusshowing the same general evolution as total employ-ment over the past decade.

a) The proportion of foreigners in the labour force

Over the last decade, the proportion of foreignersor the foreign-born in the total labour force hasincreased in several OECD countries, notably inLuxembourg, Austria, Belgium, Germany, and theUnited States (see Table I.5). By contrast, throughoutthe period the proportion has declined slightly inFrance and Australia. Classified by the size of the for-eign or foreign-born proportion of total employment,three groups of countries could be distinguished in1997: a first group comprised of (in descendingorder) Luxembourg, Australia, Canada and Switzer-land, with proportions between 55 and 18%; a sec-ond group, comprised of the United States, Austria,Germany, Belgium, France and Sweden where theproportion was at a much lower level, between 10and 5%; and a third group comprised of Norway, the

OECD 1999


42

Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Den-mark, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Japan with foreignproportions of total employment at less than 5%.

b) Participation rates of foreigners by sex and place of birth

In the 1998 edition of Trends in International Migra-tion, a study devoted to female labour immigrationrevealed that over the past 15 years this category hada tendency to increase in some OECD Member coun-tries. In this edition, special attention is given to theparticipation and unemployment rates of foreignersby sex, place of birth and nationality in some OECDcountries. It appears, in 1997 (see Chart I.9), that theparticipation rate of female nationals is generallyhigher than that of foreign females, with the exceptionsof Italy (a new immigration country) and Luxembourgwhere labour immigration is largely predominant.Excluding Austria and Sweden, the participation rateof foreign-born females is, on the whole, higher thanthat of foreign females. The same type of comparisongives the same results for men, except in Italy,Luxembourg and Austria, i.e. the participation rates ofmale nationals are higher than that of foreign males.The difference is however less marked for males thanfor females. The participation rates of foreign-bornmales are higher than those of foreign males and insome cases of nationals, for example, in France, Italy,Luxembourg and Austria. It is important to bear inmind that a cross-section analysis (1997) does not takeinto account the fact that participation rates alsodepend on the length of stay. Indeed, the differencesaccording to place of birth and nationality tend toreduce considerably beyond a period of stay greaterthan ten years.

c) Recent developments in the employment of foreigners and the increasing presence of foreign labour in the service sector

In the 1997 edition of Trends in International Migra-tion, an analysis of the distribution of foreign labour byeconomic sector revealed concentrations in certainsectors, the sectors concerned varying from country tocountry (for example, mining and quarrying and man-ufacturing in Germany, manufacturing in Australia andCanada, construction in France and in Luxembourg,and a few service sectors in the United Kingdom). Itwas underlined that the degrees of concentration sim-ilarly display country-dependent variability. In theoverwhelming majority of the countries examined,public administration (posts which are generally open

only to nationals) employs the lowest proportion of for-eigners (the exceptions being agriculture in Australiaand the United Kingdom and mining and quarrying inCanada and the United States).

In the 1998 edition of the same publication, thefocus was placed on changes in total employment andthe employment of foreigners between 1993 and 1997,a period during which the European countries exam-ined (excepting Germany) experienced employmentgrowth. The study demonstrated that for all workers,nationals and foreigners considered together, reduc-tions in employment in the industrial sector havebeen more than offset by increases in the tertiarysector. Although the employment of foreigners fol-lowed the broad overall tendency, employment cre-ation in the tertiary sector had not been sufficient tooutweigh the massive job losses in the industrial sec-tor in Belgium, France and Germany. A more detailedsectoral analysis clearly revealed the fragility of for-eigners’ employment, which was particularly high inthe construction sector in Belgium, and to a lesserextent in France and the United Kingdom. This fragil-ity also concerns mining and quarrying activities and/or manufacturing in Germany, Luxembourg, Franceand the Netherlands. The degree of fragility is corre-spondingly more significant the greater is the con-centration of foreign labour.

The study also showed that the situation in the ser-vice sector is similarly contrasted. In certain branchesforeigners have benefited relatively more than nation-als from employment creation, for example, in the hoteland restaurant sector of all the economies consid-ered except those of France and Holland. Except inthe Netherlands, this is also the case in the busi-ness services sector and real estate. Turning to thetransport sector, the employment of foreigners hasincreased at a faster rate than that of nationals in theUnited Kingdom, Luxembourg and France; in theNetherlands, foreigners have been less affected thannationals by the decrease in the total numberemployed; in Germany although the total numberemployed has also diminished, the number of for-eigners employed has actually increased; in Belgium,the overall decline has had the opposite result. Inthe other service activities the results differ accord-ing to the country. The employment situation in thebanking sector has been unfavourable to foreignersin Germany and the United Kingdom, likewise hasthat prevailing in the retail sector in Germany, Franceand the Netherlands, and in the health and socialservices sector in Belgium, the United Kingdom,Germany and France. In conclusion, over the course

OECD 1999


43

30

40 50 60 70 80 90 40 50 60 70 80 90

40 50 60 70 80 90 40 50 60 70 80 90

40 50 60 70 80 90 40 50 60 70 80 90

25

20

15

10

5

0

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Chart I.9. Participation rate and unemployment rate by sex,place of birth and nationality in some OECD countries, 1997

Sweden

Foreign-born

Unemployment rate (%) Unemployment rate (%)Women

1. Women (or men) born in the country of residence.Sources: Labour Force Survey, Eurostat, 1997; Labour Force Survey 1998 (Australia); 1991 Census data (Canada).

Men

Foreigners

Unemployment rate (%) Unemployment rate (%)Women Men

Nationals


Participation rate (%)Participation rate (%)



Belgium France

Italy

CanadaNetherlands

United Kingdom

Denmark

Luxembourg

AustriaAustralia

Sweden

Belgium France

Italy

CanadaNetherlandsUnited Kingdom

Denmark

Luxembourg

AustriaAustralia

Sweden

Belgium

France

Italy

NetherlandsUnited Kingdom

Denmark

Luxembourg

Austria

Germany

Sweden

Belgium

France

Italy

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Denmark

Luxembourg

Austria

Germany

Sweden

Belgium

France

Italy

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Denmark

LuxembourgAustria

Germany Canada1

Australia1

Sweden

Belgium

FranceItaly

Netherlands

UnitedKingdom

Denmark

Luxembourg

Austria

Germany

Canada1

Australia1

30

40 50 60 70 80 90 40 50 60 70 80 90

40 50 60 70 80 90 40 50 60 70 80 90

40 50 60 70 80 90 40 50 60 70 80 90

25

20

15

10

5

0

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

30

25

20

15

10

5

0


Sweden

Foreign-born



Men

Foreigners


Nationals





Belgium France

Italy

CanadaNetherlands

United Kingdom

Denmark

Luxembourg

AustriaAustralia

Sweden

Belgium France

Italy


Denmark

Luxembourg

AustriaAustralia

Sweden

Belgium

France

Italy


Denmark

Luxembourg

Austria

Germany

Sweden

Belgium

France

Italy

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Denmark

Luxembourg

Austria

Germany

Sweden

Belgium

France

Italy

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Denmark

LuxembourgAustria

Germany Canada1

Australia1

Sweden

Belgium

FranceItaly

Netherlands

UnitedKingdom

Denmark

Luxembourg

Austria

Germany

Canada1

Australia1

30

40 50 60 70 80 90 40 50 60 70 80 90

40 50 60 70 80 90 40 50 60 70 80 90

40 50 60 70 80 90 40 50 60 70 80 90

25

20

15

10

5

0

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

30

25

20

15

10

5

0


Sweden

Foreign-born



Men

Foreigners


Nationals





Belgium France

Italy

CanadaNetherlands

United Kingdom

Denmark

Luxembourg

AustriaAustralia

Sweden

Belgium France

Italy


Denmark

Luxembourg

AustriaAustralia

Sweden

Belgium

France

Italy


Denmark

Luxembourg

Austria

Germany

Sweden

Belgium

France

Italy

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Denmark

Luxembourg

Austria

Germany

Sweden

Belgium

France

Italy

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Denmark

LuxembourgAustria

Germany Canada1

Australia1

Sweden

Belgium

FranceItaly

Netherlands

UnitedKingdom

Denmark

Luxembourg

Austria

Germany

Canada1

Australia1

OECD 1999


44

of the period 1993-97, in certain sectors, the employ-ment of foreigners grew faster than that of nationals,in others the opposite was true. The trend of increas-ingly widespread use of foreign labour across thevarious sectors of the economy has continued.

In this edition, we have sought to compare devel-opments in foreigners’ employment with those in totalemployment over a period of eight years, equallyspread across the indicated year corresponding to thestart of an economic upturn (see Chart I.10). The refer-ence year, (trough index = 100) differs only slightlyacross the countries examined (see Box). Overall, oneobserves that foreigners’ employment fluctuates moremarkedly than total employment. The upturns inPortugal, Austria, Italy, Norway and in Ireland wereaccompanied by comparatively stronger growth in for-eigners’ employment. In the cases of Italy, Portugaland Ireland, which have recently become immigrationcountries, the growth in foreigners’ employment pre-dated the year of the upturn and concerned relativelysmall numbers of people who were probably concen-trated in a limited number of sectors.

In France, Germany and the Netherlands, upturnsin economic activity appear to have been lessfavourable to foreigners. That said, in the latter twocountries foreigners’ employment grew morestrongly than total employment during the periodimmediately preceding the upturn, whereas in thecase of France the number of foreign workersdeclined throughout the period with the exceptionof one year (1995). In Australia, the trend in foreign-ers’ employment has followed that of the economiccycle. This was also the case in Norway and the UnitedKingdom, although foreigners’ employment did risemore strongly during the upturn.

d) Foreigners are more vulnerable to unemployment than nationals

In general, foreigners are more vulnerable tounemployment than nationals. The causes of thisgreater vulnerability are multiple. In almost all of theEuropean Member countries of the OECD, the for-eign-born population’s relative exposure to unem-ployment is greater than the proportion of the labourforce for which they account. According to the mostrecently available data, presented in Chart I.11, it isin Denmark and the Netherlands that this discrep-ancy is the greatest, on average three times more.The situation is also critical in Belgium and Sweden.The rate of unemployment among foreign women is,in general, higher than that of their male counterparts

(see Chart I.9); the exceptions are Austria, Denmark,the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. On the otherhand, the differential between the unemploymentrates of foreign men and their native counterparts isgreater than that between foreign and native women. Ingeneral, foreign-born men and women have, regardlessof whether or not they are nationals, a lower rate ofunemployment than their foreign counterparts. Thisphenomenon could be explained, in the cases of theNetherlands, the United Kingdom, France and Belgium,by the high percentage of those born abroad possess-ing the nationality of one of these countries.

In the settlement countries (Australia, Canadaand the United States), this over-representation ismuch less marked and, in general, the discrepancybetween the unemployment rates of those borninside and those born outside the country is consid-erably lower than that observed between foreignersand nationals in Europe.

The differences between the unemploymentrates of foreigners and nationals and the fact that inany particular country, foreign nationals from differentcountries are typically not affected to the samedegree, are due to a series of factors. These factorsinclude, most notably, changes in economic perfor-mance and the nature of the posts occupied by the dif-ferent ethnic groups, the demographic structure andthe order of the various waves of migration into thehost country. The profile of the immigrants has animportant bearing on their degree of employability:variables such as age, gender, nationality, level of edu-cation, training and experience, mastery of the hostcountry’s language and the length of stay in the hostcountry play a non-negligible role among the factorswhich explain the degree of vulnerability to unem-ployment.

In many countries, foreign male labour is concen-trated in sectors which are in decline or undergoingmajor restructuring (notably mining and manufactur-ing) or in activities particularly susceptible to swings inthe business cycle (such as construction and publicworks). The foreign workers made redundant, oftenapproaching retirement age and having undertakenover the course of their working lives a series of low-skilled manual jobs in precarious sectors, have littlelikelihood of finding new employment.

The recent arrival of large numbers of immi-grants has also contributed to the swelling of foreign-ers’ unemployment, especially since labour marketconditions are far from favourable in many OECDcountries, particularly for unskilled workers. Those

OECD 1999


45

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

110

100

90

80

70

60

110

100

90

80

70

60

110

105

100

95

90

85

110

105

100

95

90

110

105

100

95

90

110

105

100

95

90

85

150

140

130

120

110

100

90

80

150

140

130

120

110

100

90

80

Note: Data on foreign employment for the Netherlands are estimated by the CBS. These data are derived from work permit issues for Germany, Italy,Portugal and Spain, from Social Security registers for Austria, from population registers for Norway and from the Labour Force Survey for all othercountries. Data on total employment are from OECD (OECD Economic Outlook, No. 65, June 1999).

1. The troughs in activity correspond to the greatest disparity between actual and potential GDP (output gap), according to OECD estimates (OECDEconomic Outlook, No. 65, June 1999).

2. Data on foreign employment are from the Labour Force Survey. Fluctuations from one year to the other can be due to sampling errors.Sources: National Statistical Institutes and OECD Economic Outlook, No. 65, June 1999.

Chart I.10. Changes in employment of foreigners and in total employment during economic recoveries1

Index: trough = 100

Employment of foreigners Total employment

Austria SpainPortugal

Germany NetherlandsFrance

Australia United Kingdom2Italy

IrelandNorway Current recoveryTrough

Australia 1992Austria 1993France 1993Germany 1996Ireland 1993Italy 1993Netherlands 1993Norway 1991Portugal 1994Spain 1996United Kingdom 1993

Years from trough Years from trough Years from trough



Years from trough Years from trough

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

110

100

90

80

70

60

110

100

90

80

70

60

110

105

100

95

90

85

110

105

100

95

90

110

105

100

95

90

110

105

100

95

90

85

150

140

130

120

110

100

90

80

150

140

130

120

110

100

90

80





Index: trough = 100











-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

110

100

90

80

70

60

110

100

90

80

70

60

110

105

100

95

90

85

110

105

100

95

90

110

105

100

95

90

110

105

100

95

90

85

150

140

130

120

110

100

90

80

150

140

130

120

110

100

90

80





Index: trough = 100











OECD 1999


46

who have entered as refugees or as asylum seekershave, when they are permitted to work, considerabledifficulties (notably linguistic) in some host countriesin finding employment during the first years of theirstay. This would explain the foreigners’ high rates ofunemployment in Sweden, Denmark and Norway,countries in which the annual flows of refugees andasylum seekers are relatively high compared withother categories of entrants. Indeed, in general newarrivals frequently need to go through a period ofadaptation prior to their successful entry into thehost country’s labour market, be it due to the need toattain a mastery of the language, understand theadministrative formalities, become sufficiently awareof the particular modes of entry into the labour mar-ket (acquire fresh job search techniques) or adapt tonew working conditions. All of these factors play adecisive role in finding and retaining a job.

B. Recent developments in Asia and Central and Eastern Europe

In the three most recent editions of Trends inInternational Migration (OECD, 1995, 1997, 1998), partic-ular attention was accorded to the widening overrecent years of the area of reference to be consideredin analyses of migration movements and policies.Two regions in particular have contributed to this

extension: Asia and Central and Eastern Europe.Characterised by a diversification of the nationalitiesinvolved and the growing importance of flowsbetween neighbouring countries sharing commonhistorical, economic and cultural traditions, bothregions are exemplars of the globalisation andregionalisation of migration movements – not onlyare Asia and Central and Eastern Europe zones ofemigration, notably towards the countries of theOECD, they are also experiencing extensive intra-regional migration.

In the case of Asia, regional migration had untilvery recently been taking place within a context char-acterised by strong economic growth, increasing tradeand capital flows, and a strong momentum towards fur-ther regional economic integration. East and South-east Asia’s 1997-98 financial crises have affected coun-tries simultaneously concerned with both immigrationand emigration. In this report we present first a briefreview of the immigration flows of Asian provenanceinto the OECD area. Particular attention is thenaccorded to the initial impacts of the recent financialcrises on migration flows within the region (includingundocumented flows) as well as to the changes inmigration policies recently effected there.

In Central and Eastern Europe, the recent eco-nomic and political changes reinforced by social and

3

2

1

0

3

2

1

0

Canad

a

Chart I.11. Share of foreigners or the foreign-born in total unemploymentrelative to their share in the labour force in 19971

1. August 1998 for Australia, 1991 for Canada and1990 for the United States. For these threecountries, data refer to the foreign-born. In allother countries, data refer to the foreignpopulation.

Sources: For European Union countries: LabourForce Survey, Eurostat; Australia: Labour ForceSurvey, Australian Bureau of Statistics; Canada:1991 Census data, Statistics Canada; UnitedStates: 1990 Census data, US Department ofCommerce, Census Bureau.

Austra

lia

United

Sta

tes

Luxe

mbo

urg

United

King

dom

Germ

any

Franc

e

Austri

a

Finlan

d

Belgium

Sweden

Nethe

rland

s

Denm

ark

3

2

1

0

3

2

1

0

Canad

a




Austra

lia

United

Sta

tes

Luxe

mbo

urg

United

King

dom

Germ

any

Franc

e

Austri

a

Finlan

d

Belgium

Sweden

Nethe

rland

s

Denm

ark

3

2

1

0

3

2

1

0

Canad

a




Austra

lia

United

Sta

tes

Luxe

mbo

urg

United

King

dom

Germ

any

Franc

e

Austri

a

Finlan

d

Belgium

Sweden

Nethe

rland

s

Denm

ark

OECD 1999


47

ethnic tensions have been the principal determinantfactors behind population movements. Allied tothese factors, the economic imbalances within theCentral and Eastern European countries (CEECs)(and likewise in the countries on their eastern bor-ders) have played a non-negligible underlying role inthe recent trends in migration movements within theregion. Following a presentation of these trends, asecond sub-section will be devoted to an examina-tion the CEECs’ role as a regional migration pole. Ananalysis of the contents of the association agree-ments concluded between the European Union andseveral of the CEECs will be developed further inSection C of this synthesis.

1. Migration flows of Asian origin to OECD countries and the impact of the financial crisis in Asia on migration movements between Asian countries

Although counting among its number many immi-gration countries, Asia is presently one of the principalsending regions (both for settlement and labourmigration) as well as being one of the chief origins ofrefugees and displaced persons. Over recent years,Asian migration to OECD countries has been display-ing a broad tendency of mutually reinforcing increasesboth in volumes and in the degree of diversification.

a) Asian migration to OECD countries continues to increase and diversify

Several OECD countries, in particular theUnited States, Canada, Australia, France and theUnited Kingdom, have for many years receivedflows of immigrants or refugees from Asia. Since theearly 1960s, such flows to the United States, Canadaand Australia have registered steady increases andin so doing have gradually supplanted those fromEurope. Recent Asian migration to OECD countrieshas been characterised by two clear trends both ofwhich correspond to the standard evolution of themigration process: on the one hand, a strengtheningof previously formed ties, and on the other, a widen-ing of the range of immigrant nationalities, destina-tion countries and entry categories involved.

Immigration flows from Asia surpass those from Europe

From the early 1980s onwards, flows from Asia tothe United States, Canada, Australia and severalEuropean countries have intensified. In North Americaand in Australia, the increase in these flows has gonehand in hand with the reduction in the numbers of

those coming from Europe. In Australia, residents bornin Asia accounted for less than 6% of the total foreign-born population in 1971; the corresponding figure forthose born in Europe was 85%. Over the last fifteenyears, the foreign population of Asian provenance(including the Middle East) has more than doubled,passing from close to 400 000 in 1981 to reach a figureof nearly one million in 1996. Although as a proportionof the foreign population those of European originremain in the majority, accounting for almost twothirds, those of Asian origin now account for just over aquarter of the total (see Table I.7).

The increase in Asia’s importance as a region of ori-gin is brought into sharp relief by an examination of thecomposition of the inflows. Whereas in 1982/83, approx-imately 30% of the immigrants authorised to settle inAustralia were Asian, by 1991/92 that figure had reached50%. Since then, however, this upward trend has beenslightly moderated by increased flows from Central andEastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Neverthe-less, in 1997 there remained six Asian countries amongthe ten most important sending countries for new per-manent entrants (see Chart I.3).

Immigration from Asia has also increased inCanada. In 1981, the number of immigrants born inAsia (including the Middle East) stood at close to540 000, i.e., 14% of the total immigrant population. In1996, they accounted for almost a third of the total.Since 1993, more than half of immigrant entries havebeen from Asian countries; eight feature in the topten source countries for new immigrants (in descend-ing order of importance, Hong Kong (China), India,China, Chinese Taipei, Pakistan, the Philippines, Iranand Sri Lanka) (see Chart I.3). This progression in therankings accompanied fallbacks in the flows fromEurope and the United States.

The same phenomenon – a decline in Europeanmigration and an increase in flows from Asia – isclearly in evidence in the United States. Immi-grants of Asian origin (including the Middle East)numbered 5 million in 1990, twice the figure of 1980. In1997, four Asian countries (in decreasing order of impor-tance, the Philippines, China, Vietnam and India) wereamong the top ten source countries for permanentimmigrants.

The intensification of traditional flows from Asiais also apparent in the United Kingdom and France.In the latter country, the proportion of Asian resi-dents increased between the censuses of 1982 and1990 from 4 to 6% of the total foreign population.Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos are the principal send-

OECD 1999


48

Table I.7.A. Stock of Asian nationals1 in selected OECD countries in 1997


Japan2 Denmark France Germany Italy Korea

Thousands % Thousands % Thousands % Thousands % Thousands % Thousands %

Total foreigners 1 482.7 100.0 249.6 100.0 3 596.6 100.0 7 365.8 100.0 1 240.7 100.0 176.9 100.0

Asia3 1 086.4 73.3 53.2 21.3 227.0 6.3 . . . . 225.5 18.2 . . . .of which:

Bangladesh 6.1 0.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9 4.5China 252.2 17.0 2.1 0.8 14.1 0.4 36.7 0.5 37.8 3.0 35.4 20.0India 7.5 0.5 1.1 0.4 4.6 0.1 35.6 0.5 22.6 1.8 . . . .Indonesia 11.9 0.8 . . . . 1.3 – . . . . . . . . 13.6 7.7Korea 645.4 43.5 . . . . 4.3 0.1 21.9 0.3 . . . . – –Pakistan 5.6 0.4 6.9 2.8 9.8 0.3 . . . . . . . . 1.7 0.9Philippines 93.3 6.3 2.1 0.8 1.9 0.1 . . . . 61.3 4.9 13.1 7.4Sri Lanka . . . . 5.4 2.2 10.3 0.3 60.3 0.8 28.2 2.3 3.7 2.1Vietnam 11.9 0.8 5.2 2.1 33.7 0.9 87.9 1.2 . . . . 13.5 7.6

Total for the abovenine countries 1 033.8 69.7 22.9 9.2 80.0 2.2 242.5 3.3 149.9 12.1 88.8 50.2

Netherlands Norway Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom

Thousands % Thousands % Thousands % Thousands % Thousands % Thousands %

Total foreigners 678.1 100.0 158.0 100.0 609.8 100.0 522.0 100.0 1 243.6 100.0 2 066 100.0

Asia3 69.0 10.2 31.5 19.9 49.1 8.1 90.3 17.3 . . . . 490 23.7of which:

Bangladesh 0.5 0.1 . . . . . . . . 1.0 0.2 0.3 – 63 3.0China 7.3 1.1 1.8 1.2 15.8 2.6 3.7 0.7 3.4 0.3 21 1.0India 2.8 0.4 2.2 1.4 6.8 1.1 1.7 0.3 4.4 0.4 110 5.3Indonesia 8.0 1.2 . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.1 . . . .Korea . . . . 0.2 0.1 . . . . 0.5 0.1 0.8 0.1 . . . .Pakistan 3.2 0.5 7.5 4.7 . . . . 0.9 0.2 1.2 0.1 68 3.3Philippines 2.4 0.4 1.6 1.0 11.4 1.9 2.0 0.4 3.0 0.2 15 0.7Sri Lanka 2.4 0.4 3.8 2.4 . . . . 1.0 0.2 7.0 0.6 26 1.3Vietnam 2.0 0.3 3.5 2.2 . . . . 2.8 0.5 7.4 0.6 . . . .

Total for the abovenine countries 28.5 4.2 20.7 13.1 33.9 5.6 14.1 2.7 28.4 2.3 303 14.7

B. Stock of immigrants born in an Asian country4 in Australia, Canada and the United StatesThousands and percentages

Australia (1996) Canada (1996) United States(1990)

Thousands % Thousands % Thousands %

Total foreign-born 3 908.3 100.0 4 971.1 100.0 19 767.3 100.0

Asia3 922.4 23.6 1 562.8 31.4 4 979.0 25.2of which:

China 111.0 2.8 231.1 4.6 529.8 2.7Chinese Taipei . . . . 49.3 1.0 244.1 1.2Hong Kong (China) 68.4 1.8 241.1 4.8 147.1 0.7India 77.5 2.0 235.9 4.7 450.4 2.3Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . .Japan . . . . . . . . 290.1 1.5Korea . . . . . . . . 568.4 2.9Malaysia 76.2 1.9 . . . . . . . .Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . .Philippines 92.9 2.4 184.6 3.7 912.7 4.6Sri Lanka 47.0 1.2 . . . . . . . .Vietnam 151.1 3.9 139.3 2.8 543.3 2.7

Total for the abovetwelve countries 624.1 16.0 1 081.2 21.8 3 685.9 18.6

1. Data are from population registers (or registers of foreigners) except for France (census), Italy and Spain (residence permits) and the United Kingdom (Labour ForceSurvey). Figures are for 1990 for France, 1992 for Switzerland.

2. Data for China include Chinese Taipei.3. Including the Middle East.4. Census data.Sources: National Statistical Institutes.

OECD 1999


49

ing countries. Over the same period, the number ofAsians possessing French nationality doubled. As forthe inflows by nationality, in 1993 only Vietnam fea-tured in the top ten countries of origin; by 1995 Japanwas also present, and China since 1997. In the UnitedKingdom, despite the stabilisation indeed thedecrease in flows from South Asia, Indians continueto constitute the second largest foreign communityafter the Irish (see Table I.7). The Bangladeshi andPakistani communities remain sizeable. In 1997, India,Japan, Pakistan and the Philippines featured among thetop ten sending countries for new immigrants.

The diversification of Asian migration flows

Alongside the intensification of traditional flows,the trend of the origin countries’ increasing diversifi-cation is confirming itself and likewise the enlarge-ment of the range of receiving countries.

In the United States during the 1980s, immigrantflows from Cambodia and Laos declined, while thosefrom Thailand, Indonesia and Chinese Taipei stabi-lised. Those from Malaysia, Hong Kong (China),Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka increased, albeitto levels of a few thousand from each country. InCanada, in 1997, Sri Lanka and Chinese Taipei were inthe top ten immigrant source countries (see Chart I.3).In Australia, from the beginning of the 1980s the num-bers of immigrants of Vietnamese and Indian originhave continuously increased. This diversification hasalso concerned other Asian countries: the number ofresidents of Chinese origin more than tripled between1986 and 1996 to reach over 111 000, those of Filipinoorigin now number 93 000. Over the same period, thenumber of immigrants of Malaysian origin increasedby just under 60% (to 76 000); those from Hong Kong(China) and Sri Lanka have more than doubled. Muchlower down the scale are Indonesia, Japan, Korea,Thailand, Chinese Taipei, Cambodia and Laos.

Increased diversity in the means of entry alsocharacterises the evolution of recent Asian migrationto the United States, Canada and Australia. The desireon the part of these three host countries to increasethe number of qualified and highly qualified entrants,manifested by offering entry opportunities other thanfamily reunion (such as employment-related perma-nent immigration as well as entry for temporary workor study) has contributed to this diversification.

The diversification in migration flows of Asian prov-enance is also illustrated by the broadening of therange of destination countries. These now include awider range of European countries (southern as well as

northern) and Japan. Whereas intra-European migra-tion, notably from Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal, hasdeclined since the 1970s, flows from Asia haveincreased. Thus, Germany receives a high number ofrefugees from Indo-China (though lower than Franceand the United Kingdom). In 1997, of the 7.3 million for-eigners resident in Germany, 88 000 were from Vietnam,60 000 from Sri Lanka, 37 000 from China and roughlythe same number from India (see Table I.7). During the1980s, the number of immigrants of Pakistani andSri Lankan origin received by the Netherlands sim-ilarly increased. In 1997, the Indonesians (despite thefact that most of them possess Dutch nationality)remained the largest Asian community, followed by theChinese and the Pakistanis.

Asian migration to the Nordic countries, almostnegligible until the 1970s, increased considerablyduring the second half of the 1980s, largely throughrequests for asylum. In Denmark, this immigration isprimarily from Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Vietnam; inFinland, from Malaysia, India, Vietnam, China andBangladesh. Immigration from Pakistan, Vietnamand Sri Lanka has also developed in Norway. InSweden, immigration from Asia involves above allthe Vietnamese, the Chinese, Indians and Filipinos(see Table I.7).

In Southern Europe, Asian immigration is mainlyfrom the Philippines and China. In Italy and Spain,these migration flows, essentially of females, arelinked to the development of the domestic serviceand health-care sectors. In 1986, Italy had65 000 foreign residents of Asian origin (including theMiddle East). By 1997 this number had more than tri-pled. The most numerous national groups, in decreas-ing order of size, were Filipinos (61 000), Chinese(38 000), Sri Lankans (28 000) and Indians (23 000). InSpain, the Chinese comprise the largest Asian commu-nity, followed by Filipinos and Indians.

Since the beginning of the 1980s, migration toJapan has increased significantly. Although non-Asianimmigration has also grown in importance, migrationmovements to Japan are principally regional in char-acter, involving in the main neighbouring countries.In 1980, the large majority (80%) of foreigners settledin Japan were Korean. In 1997, Koreans still formedthe largest group of foreigners, but other foreigncommunities had also developed, in particular ofChinese, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Indonesians andIndians. In addition, illegal immigration to Japan,estimated on the basis of the number of foreignnationals who have not left the territory upon theexpiration of their visa or work permit, is mostly from

OECD 1999


50

Asia (Korea, Thailand, China, the Philippines andMalaysia). Japan now appears to be becoming aregional migration pole. Indeed, an analysis of its1997 immigration figures reveals that of the ten lead-ing countries of origin, five were Asian. In Korea, thenumber of registered foreign nationals has consider-ably increased since 1991, a development largelyattributable to the normalisation of diplomatic rela-tions with China. They still accounted for less than 1%of the total population in 1997, composed principallyof Chinese, Taipei Chinese, Japanese, Filipino andVietnamese nationals.

b) The impact of the recent financial crises in Asia on migration movements within the region11

From the 1960s onwards the economies of Eastand South-east Asia began to experience strong and,with the exception of Indonesia and the Philippines,sustained economic growth. As the region was and,indeed, remains characterised by substantial inter-and intra-national economic and demographic imbal-ances, advancement in the process of structuralchange in the region’s labour markets and increases inthe extent of regional integration stimulated rapidgrowth in migration flows.

Migration flows between the countries of Eastand South-east Asia – if one excludes the move-ments of refugees, notably to Thailand – are essen-tially composed of temporary workers. These intra-regional flows are largely a development of the 1980sand have since then continued to grow. In so doingthey have overtaken the magnitude of those to theoil-producing economies of the Middle East. In fact,the experience gained from contract-related migra-tion to the Middle East since the early 1970s canexplain in part why Asian migrants and public andprivate recruiting agencies were able to take advan-tage of employment opportunities in the fast-growing Asian economies.

Data on labour migration in Asia are scarce and notalways reliable. International comparisons are there-fore difficult to draw. Moreover, in several countries theestimated number of illegal immigrants far exceeds offi-cial count of those in possession of a valid residence orwork permit. In the more developed countries of theregion this situation is in large part a reflection of theshortages of unskilled workers: since these countriesrestrict the entry of unskilled workers, the number of

illegal foreign workers, for the most part staying afterthe expiry of their permits, is growing. Several coun-tries, including Korea, Malaysia and Singapore andThailand, have recently effected regularisation pro-grammes for these workers.

Another characteristic feature of Asian migration, inaddition to its temporary nature and the fact that familymigration is not encouraged, is the important role ofrecruitment agencies, be they governmental or private,of which there are large numbers in the labour sendingcountries. They recruit and select migrants, arrangetheir transportation and look after the administrativeformalities associated with employment contracts.

The adverse effects of the financial crisis whichbegan in Thailand in July 1997 as a result of a success-ful speculative attack on the country’s peg to theUnited States dollar, rendered vulnerable throughexcessive short-term overseas borrowing denomi-nated in foreign currencies, quickly spread to otherAsian countries due to the exposure of similar under-lying weaknesses and/or the effects of their signifi-cant trade linkages.

In respect of the crises’ impacts on economicgrowth and employment, the countries of the regioncan be classified into three groups. The first group,those most affected by the crises, comprises Indone-sia, Thailand, Malaysia and Korea. The situation inIndonesia, whose economy has been the hardest hitby the regional crises, is a source of particular concerngiven the severe poverty, the political instability andits population size estimated at just over 200 million.Confidence in the other countries in this group,Thailand, Malaysia and Korea, both domestically andfrom foreign investors, saw some signs of recoverytowards the end of 1998, pointing to a modest upturnin 1999. The second group, rather less affected by thecrises, comprises Hong Kong (China), Singapore andthe Philippines. China and Japan are in a group apart.The former, although it has not succumbed to thefinancial crisis contagion, has suffered an indirectimpact due to the importance of the Asian exportmarket slowing its growth to a rate even further belowthat required to create net employment growth. Therecession in Japan has deepened, for reasons largelyunconnected with the financial crises affecting themajority of the region’s economies. Deflationarypressures in goods, labour and asset markets havefound themselves renewed.

1. This sub-section was drafted by John Simpson, Consultant to the OECD, on the basis of the national reports delivered at thetwo most recent workshops on “Migration and the Labour Market in Asia” organised by the Japan Institute of Labour, theJapan Ministry of Labour, in collaboration with the ILO and the OECD and held in Tokyo in January 1998 and January 1999.

OECD 1999


51

• Regional impact on labour markets and on the employment of foreign workers

In the crisis-affected economies, official esti-mates of unemployment have, at the median, almosttripled (see Table I.8). Of these economies onlyKorea provides laid-off workers with any unemploy-ment benefits at all, and even there the coveragedoes not extend beyond certain categories ofemployees. Family networks notwithstanding, acrossthe region there is limited scope for avoiding direpoverty if one is not employed. This would indicate,then, that there have taken place substantial trans-fers of labour from the formal to the informal econ-omy.

Whilst there is some consensus that the majorityof the crisis-affected economies will have begun toexperience modest growth by the end of 1999, thereexists similar agreement that their labour markets areset to deteriorate further as sectoral contractions con-tinue and large scale restructuring proceeds. Signifi-cant net employment creation within the formal sectoris not expected in any of them before the end of 2000.

Macroeconomic data on the extent of sectoralcontractions in the crisis-affected economies indi-cate that these have been disproportionately deeperin those sectors, inter alia construction and manufac-turing, employing the greatest weight of foreignlabour. Although in the region’s more prosperouseconomies the demand for foreign workers to per-form household services and to fill other low statusand disagreeable jobs had proved resilient, theoverall tendency had been for registered unskilledforeign workers to bear the brunt of retrenchments.There is, by contrast, strong evidence that theemployment of illegal immigrants, the overwhelmingmajority of whom also unskilled, has held up sup-ported by an increasingly cut-throat environment

requiring employers to redouble their efforts to holddown costs.

• National labour markets and the employment of documented workers

Singapore

The impact of the crisis on employment inSingapore has been slight. This must be attributed toa significant degree to the government’s policy driveto reduce wage costs. The government has taken alead in cutting the wages of its own employees andhas reduced employers’ social security contribu-tions. It has also sent out a clear message thatretrenchment decisions should be based primarilyon productivity rather than nationality. Against thisbackground, although evidence from sending coun-tries points to a decline in new hires at the lower endof the skills range, the number of foreigners working inSingapore is at the level predicted in 1996 on the basisof the medium term trend observed at that time. Atthe end of 1998, the more than 450 000 work permitholders, the bulk of whom unskilled, and the approxi-mately 80 000 Employment Pass holders, possessingtertiary or professional qualifications and receiving asalary in excess of S$2 000 (US$1 175), accounted forclose to one quarter of the total workforce.

Hong Kong (China)

Foreign workers comprise approximately 1% ofthe total labour force. Accounting for around halfthe total, domestic helpers have for some yearsconstituted the largest category of foreign nation-als admitted for employment; they numbered171 000 in 1997. Approximately 85% are from thePhilippines. Surprisingly, the onset of the recessionhas not had a negative impact on their inflow.

Table I.8. Unemployment rates in some Asian countries, 1997 and 1999As a percentage of total labour force

19971 19992

Hong Kong (China) 2.4 5.8Indonesia 4.9 15.0Korea 2.3 8.5Malaysia 2.6 5.2Singapore 1.8 4.5Thailand 2.2 6.0

1. End of 1997 except for Indonesia (August 1997), Thailand (February 1997) and Korea (October 1997).2. Estimate at September 1998 for Singapore, December 1998 for Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand and at January 1999 for Korea and Hong Kong (China).Sources: Government sources.

OECD 1999


52

Indeed, the growth in the inflow over the firstseven months of 1998 exceeded that for the wholeof the preceding year. Although contract termina-tions have been rising, they represent less than 2%of the total stock, and, given that the stock hasbeen rising more swiftly in 1998 than 1997, it wouldappear that those who have lost their post are facinglittle difficulty in finding a new one. The issue oftheir terms and conditions and the current policytowards established schemes to bring in construc-tion workers, technicians, craftsmen and other expe-rienced operatives are examined below (see thesection on Recent migration policy developments).

Japan

The Japanese labour market began to slacken mark-edly from the beginning of 1997; recent data indicatingthat redundancies are increasingly being made amongstthose in the 35-54 age group would indicate that thelabour market has entered a new phase of deterioration.The decline in total employment notwithstanding, theestimated number of foreigners (not including perma-nent residents but including visa overstayers) working inJapan increased by 5% in 1997 to approximately 660 000.They account for less than 1% of the total labour force.Three quarters of the rise is attributable to the increasein the number of ethnic Japanese (who have no restric-tion placed on their employment), the inflow of whomgrew by 11% in 1997 to now account for over one third ofthe total stock. Entries of individuals with restricted per-mission to work, all of whom are classified as skilled,totalled 94 000, an increase of almost 20% on the previ-ous year. The increase was broadly spread acrossemployment categories. Reflecting their rapid turnover,at the end of 1997 the total number of those withrestricted permission to work was just over 107 000, anincrease of slightly under 9% on 1996.

Entries of trainees, who for administrative purposesare not considered as workers, numbered almost 50 000in 1997, an increase of 9% on 1996. China accounted for43%, only slightly less than the combined figure for thefive next most important countries (Indonesia, Korea,Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand). Since the startof the trainee programme slightly less than 60% of thoseaccepted have come from China and just under 30% fromIndonesia. Official stock data are unavailable. A recentestimate has put the figure at 115 000.

Korea

Accounting for less than 1% of the total workforceprior to the crisis, the total stock of foreign workers

(including the undocumented) fell by 30% over theperiod 1997-98. Disaggregated by employment sta-tus, the declines were negatively correlated with skilllevel and degree of employment protection. Thenumber of skilled foreign workers, small prior to thecrisis, fell by almost a quarter to just over 11 000. Thenumber of trainees declined by just under 30% to64 000.

Malaysia

In January 1998, the foreign labour force was esti-mated at two million, accounting for just under onequarter of the total labour force. Of the 1 240 000 regis-tered workers almost 95% possessed temporary per-mits to be renewed annually, the remaining 70 000were highly skilled, the majority from India (17.5%) fol-lowed by Japan (15%) and United States (10 per cent).With the exception of India, most of the origin coun-tries for highly skilled workers are major investors inMalaysia. By the end of 1998, as a result of the variousmeasures taken to reduce dependency on foreignlabour (outlined below in the section on recent migra-tion policy developments), the number of registeredforeign workers had fallen by 30%. Of the approxi-mately 860 000 remaining registered workers, themajority were employed in factories, plantations andconstruction sites. Almost two thirds were Indonesian.

In spite of the rather high degree of dependencyon foreign labour, a large number of Malaysians (mostlynon-indigenous, in particular those of Chinese ances-try) were working abroad at the onset of the financial cri-ses, most notably in Singapore. An up to date thoroughestimate is not available: the most recent, that of 1992,put the figure at around 200 000; it is likely to haveincreased substantially through to 1997.

Thailand

In Thailand, where the total labour force wasestimated to fluctuate seasonally prior to the crisis atbetween 30 and 32 million, reliable data on the totalnumber of registered foreign workers are not avail-able. It is known however that fewer than 90 000 ofthe 270 000 illegal migrant workers who were grantedwork permits under a 1996 scheme allowing thosewho had entered Thailand before 25 June of that yearto apply for work permits valid for one year andrenewable for a second chose to renew. The decisionnot to renew was presumably motivated by fear ofrepatriation should the labour market deterioratefurther. The majority of those that did renew were

OECD 1999


53

concentrated in agriculture, construction and marinefisheries.

In 1997 an estimated 115 000 Thais left to takeup documented employment elsewhere in Asia,with Chinese Taipei taking almost 90%. An estimateof their stock is not available. (The stock of undocu-mented Thais working in Asia was estimated at justover 110 000 at the beginning of 1997, with Japanand Malaysia each accounting for approximately40 000 and Singapore 20 000.) For both documentedand undocumented workers post-crisis figures arenot available.

Philippines

Prior to the crisis there were an estimated600-650 000 land-based Filipinos working abroad inAsia (along with an approximately equal number of ille-gal workers). In the first nine months of 1998 the outflowof newly hired Filipino workers declined by 10 per centon the corresponding period in 1997 to 175 000. Thefalls to all Asian countries except Japan just offset theincreases to America, Africa and Europe. The downturnhas been most significant in Korea and Malaysia wherefresh hires were down by over 50% and almost 95%respectively. In the crisis affected economies contractrenewals have also fallen significantly, by 19%, whichsubstantial increases in Brunei and Chinese Taipei nar-rowly failed to offset. Male workers, the market forwhose services is largely in activities which have beenbadly hit by the financial crises such as production, con-struction and small-scale manufacturing, have beenmore greatly affected than female workers the demandfor whom has remained buoyant in such areas asdomestic assistance in Hong Kong (China), office clean-ing and caretaking in Chinese Taipei, and entertain-ment work in Japan.

Indonesia

From the early 1990s onwards, stimulated by sig-nificant wage differentials against a background ofreligious, cultural, racial and geographical proximity,documented emigration flows to Malaysia andSingapore increased substantially. The flow to Malaysia,having averaged approximately 7 500 in the second halfof the 1980s, was around 40 000 in 1995. The figures forSingapore were approximately 2 000 and 15 000respectively. Behind Saudi Arabia, these two coun-tries became the principal destinations for Indonesianlabour migrants. (In the case of Malaysia certainlythese documented flows were dwarfed by illegalflows: in 1996 the stock was estimated at between

500 000 and one million. A considerable numberwere subsequently regularised such that at the endof 1998, a year during which, as was noted above, thenumber of registered foreign workers fell by 30%,documented Indonesian workers were estimated tonumber 560 000. The importance of past illegal flowsto Malaysia is further evidenced by the fact that of the190 000 who left the country voluntarily during the1998 amnesty period almost 90% were Indonesian.)

In common with the Philippines, the lingeringeffects of the droughts caused by the El Niño phe-nomenon have rendered the agricultural sectorunable to absorb surplus labour as had initially beenhoped. Given the lack of opportunities in Indonesia,other countries in the region, Malaysia and Thailandin particular, have increased their efforts to counterillegal immigration.

Although the ethnic Chinese accounted at theonset of the economic crisis for only about 4% ofIndonesia’s population, they controlled the majorityof companies. Accused of attempting to profit fromcommodity shortages, their properties and personswere the subject of attack during the riots of May1998 prompting an estimated 40 000 to flee. A signif-icant part of the distribution system was therebydestroyed. Following other riots, as well as the con-tinuous rumours of further large street movements,the ethnic Chinese have been reluctant to resumetheir activities. Indeed further large numbers areunderstood to have fled the country taking with themtheir commercial know-how and crucial networks oftrading contacts.

China

Since 1992 the number of foreign skilled profes-sionals working in China has been on the increase,reaching 82 000 in 1997. These inflows are stronglylinked to those of foreign direct investment. Theseinflows of professionals are believed to be more thanoutweighed by undocumented inflows from neigh-bouring countries, comprised in the main of theunskilled. It is understood that they are largelybased in the border provinces.

A total of 334 000 Chinese were working abroadin 1997 under contracts overseen by the Chineseauthorities, the sole legal form of labour export.Given that over recent years approximately 70% ofChina’s labour export has gone to other Asian coun-tries, frequently for large-scale construction projects,the figure can be expected to have fallen in 1998 andcontinue to do so this year also. That it did not

OECD 1999


54

decline in 1997 reflects in all probability the honour-ing of previously arranged contracts.

Unemployment and underemployment werealready rising prior to the regional downturn. Contin-ued insufficiency of demand coupled with labourshedding accompanying the continued reform ofstate owned enterprises (which Chinese experts esti-mate to increase by 40% over 1999 and 2000) are setto bring the effective unemployment rate (registeredplus laid-off) up to 9% in 1999. Increased unemploy-ment, in addition to representing a severe threat tosocial stability within China is also feared as a sourceof increased illegal migration flows to its neighbours.Japan, in particular, is reviewing its controls and leg-islation to take better account of this threat.

• Recent trends in undocumented migration

Although due to their geographical situation(and in the case of Korea, military situation) they arewell placed to resist clandestine immigration, theproblem of those who enter the country legally andoverstay their visa is a significant problem for Korea,Japan and, to a lesser extent, Hong Kong (China) andSingapore.

In Korea, the raising in 1998 of the penalties onthe employers of illegal immigrants, on privaterecruitment agencies (these have long since beenprohibited from dealing with migrant workers) andon illegal migrants, complemented by the imple-mentation of an amnesty programme, have not led toas sharp a fall in the number of undocumented work-ers as had been expected (see the section on Recentmigration policy developments below). Their num-ber fell by one third during 1998 (only marginallygreater than that of legally registered workers and oftrainees) to slightly less than 100 000; they accountfor almost 60% of the foreign labour force. It wouldappear that in spite of the high level of official unem-ployment and the generally weak insurance coveragethere remains unsatisfied demand for low-wageworkers prepared to perform the more disagreeablejobs.

In Japan, due in large part to the implementationduring the mid-1990s of a range of measures to limitillegal labour migration, the number of undocu-mented foreign workers has been declining slowlysince 1993. They number at present 277 000, account-ing for just over 40% of the foreign labour force.Although the growth in the number of foreign train-ees is satisfying the otherwise unmet demand for lowcost labour it would appear that, as in Korea, there

exists a floor on their number due to the existence offirmly embedded social networks.

In both Singapore and Hong Kong (China), thenumber of undocumented foreigners caught in 1998was sharply up on 1997. In both cases, it was consid-ered difficult to discern whether this was due toincreased illegal migration or was the fruit of theincreased efforts to detect them.

Malaysia, which over recent years has been thedestination for considerable numbers of undocu-mented Indonesians, stepped up its border patrols(particularly sea) in February 1998. The exercise,which involved the use of the security forces, wasjudged a success and was therefore ended the fol-lowing month. In spite of this success in preventingfurther clandestine inflows and the increased atten-tion paid to those aiding and abetting illegal entryand employment, the estimated number of illegalworkers is believed to have fallen by less than 10% in1998, to approximately 700 000 (as compared withthe 30% fall in the number of registered foreignworkers to 860 000). This is despite the voluntaryrepatriation of 190 000, almost 90% of whom wereIndonesian. It would appear that a sizeable propor-tion of the 380 000 temporary permit holders affectedby the freeze on permit renewals between Januaryand August 1998 opted to stay and work withoutpapers; employers are doubtless keen to hire themin order to hold down costs in the face of increasedcompetitive pressure. Confronted with this situation,measures to locate and expel those who remainedhave been intensified (see the section on Recentmigration policy developments below).

Thailand’s extensive land frontiers represent animportant obstacle to effective border control. A sur-vey conducted in October 1997 by the Department ofEmployment in co-operation with private agencies ineach province found that the number of illegal work-ers had increased to approximately 935 000 from theestimated 480 000 at the end of the 1996 regularisa-tion programme. The most recent survey conductedby the same agencies in June 1998 put the figure atjust under 990 000, the overwhelming majority ofwhom are from the bordering countries of Burma,Laos, and Cambodia. The authorities repatriated justunder 290 000 up to November 1998, and presumethat there has been an additional net outflow ofapproximately 90 000, bringing the current estimateto 610 000. Given the porosity of Thailand’s bordersthere exists considerable doubt as to whether thosewho have left will not return.

OECD 1999


55

• Recent migration policy developments

Singapore

In line with its position that retrenchment deci-sions should be based primarily on productivityrather than nationality, the Singapore governmenthas announced that it has no plans to reduce thenumber of foreign workers. The view taken is that for-eigners fill gaps at the higher end of the skills rangeas well as the unsatisfied demand left by the unwill-ingness of the local workforce to accept the moreonerous and low status jobs and that companiesneed to dispose of the maximum possible flexibilityin their hiring decisions in order to maintain theircompetitiveness.

Within the framework of a package of short-termmeasures to lower the cost of doing business inSingapore, thereby preventing job losses throughrelocation to cheaper sites and shut-downs, the for-eign worker levy, payable by employers for each for-eign worker they hire, was reduced for certainworkers and sectors with effect from 1 January 1999.The levy on foreign domestic maids remainedunchanged, however, as it does not contribute tobusiness costs. The levy for workers in the construc-tion sector will also remain unchanged as the govern-ment would like this sector, which has been sufferinglow and declining productivity, to upgrade.

Government support to attract and retain skilledforeign workers continues. To this end, companiescan now claim twice the rate of corporation tax fortheir relocation and recruitment expenses. Further, aSingapore Talent and Recruitment (STAR) committeehas been formed, headed by two government minis-ters. It has been tasked with making Singapore a hubfor international talent whilst retaining its socialcohesion, and has been mandated to study specificrecommendations made by public and privategroups regarding the recruitment of foreign talentand the nurturing of the local skills base.

While Singapore continues to maintain an openpolicy towards foreign recruitment, the penalties forillegal immigration and employment were raisedconsiderably in 1998. Moreover, company chiefs arenow held personally liable for the employment ofillegal immigrants.

Hong Kong (China)

Stimulated by the rising level of unemploymentaccompanying the economy’s restructuring (it shouldbe borne in mind that in common with all the econo-

mies of the region with the exceptions of Japan andKorea unemployment insurance does not exist) andthe granting during the latter years of colonial gov-ernment of an institutional status to organised labourand a public venue for the expression of their griev-ances, the issue of the employment of foreigners hasbecome increasingly politicised. With the economy’smove into contraction in October 1997, the issue offoreigners’ access to the labour market, particularlythe unskilled section which has been the mostseverely affected by the downturn, came to the fore.Attention has focussed on foreign domestic helpersand on the continued use of established schemes tobring in construction workers, technicians, craftsmenand other experienced operatives.

Foreign domestic helpers have a minimum allow-able wage which is adjusted from time to time. It hasstood at HK$ 3 860 per month (about US$ 500) since1996. A number of politicians proposed during 1998that their pay be reduced by 20% to share the burdenof the economic crisis. Their leader additionally pro-posed that employers be allowed to require maids tobe on duty for 16 hours a day. Comparisons were madewith the US$ 225 minimum in Singapore. In addition toencountering strong opposition from the Filipinoworkers it also provoked diplomatic intervention bythe Philippine President. The Hong Kong governmenthas since promised to complete a review of the mini-mum allowable wage by the end of 1999. In conductingthe review, it will be constrained by its signature to theInternational Labour Convention requiring it to ensurethat the conditions of employment offered to foreignworkers are comparable to those of local employees.

In September 1998, the authorities confirmedthat despite rising unemployment the SpecialLabour Importation Scheme (which allows contrac-tors involved in large scale infrastructure projects tobring in construction workers from overseas) wouldcontinue. The following month they announced that areview of the Supplementary Labour Scheme (whichconcerns the importation of those at technician,craftsman, supervisory and experienced operativelevels) had concluded that it should continue tooperate as is, pending an annual review. In view ofthe steadily rising unemployment rate, trade unionshave been threatening to use their position on thebody which vets requests to block applications toboth schemes. The government points to the exist-ence of labour shortages in some industries. The tex-tile and garment industries in particular havelobbied for the expansion of labour importation inorder that the sector remain competitive.

OECD 1999


56

Japan

Recent policy initiatives in Japan have sought, onthe one hand, to facilitate inflows of highly skilled per-sonnel and, on the other, to combat illegal labourimmigration. Measures implemented in the mid-1990s such as tightened visa control, improvements inco-operation between agencies, the imposition ofsevere penalties on those found to have organised orabetted the smuggling of aliens as well as a publicitycampaign dissuading employers from hiring illegalworkers have already had some success in dealingwith those elements of the problem of illegal immigra-tion susceptible to influence from the Japanese side.

In January 1998, the maximum period of stay forintra-company transferees (hitherto 5 years) wasabolished: transferees may now apply for an exten-sion of their permit. During the 1998 fiscal year, theMinistry of Labour launched a drive to render poten-tial migrants from Asia and South America moreaware of the labour market situation in Japan and themanner in which they might legally obtain employ-ment, for example, through Japan’s job placementsystem. It is hoped that this will both increase theproportion of technical and highly skilled workers inthe inflows and discourage migration flows directedat illegal employment

Although the overwhelming majority of illegalforeign workers enter the country legally, the prob-lem of clandestine entry, particularly by boat, isarousing increasing concern. Almost 90% of thosecaught in attempting to enter in this manner in 1997were from China. In view of the likelihood of furtherincreases in unemployment in China as a result of therestructuring of State enterprises the Japaneseauthorities are considering introducing additionalamendments to the Immigration Act in order to fur-ther counter the criminal organisations involved inclandestine immigration.

Korea

As the economy moved into deep recessiontowards the end of 1997 the social and political pres-sure to clamp down on the illegal employment of for-eigners, the overwhelming majority of whomoverstayers, increased. The Ministry of Justice, hav-ing taken the view that the success of any direct mea-sures implemented would be limited by thedisincentive presented by the immigration fines theywould incur if caught attempting to leave the country,a considerable risk given the uncommonly tight bor-der controls, announced in December 1997 that until

the end of March 1998 they would be allowed toleave the country without having to face this penalty.This amnesty period was subsequently extendedthrough to the end of July. In August 1998 the numberof overstayers had fallen to 92 000 from the esti-mated 148 000 present at the beginning of the year.

The direct measures implemented aimed on theone hand to facilitate their substitution for legal work-ers and on the other to render their continuedemployment more costly. Financial support for thepurchase of new machinery was made available tosmall and medium sized companies in the hope thatincreased capital investment would render employ-ment in the companies less disagreeable to nationals.Thus far this policy has met with scant success. Fewcompanies have taken up the funding, dissuaded, itwould appear, by previous difficulties in retainingnationals. In those that have, the number of foreignworkers replaced has been extremely modest.

The penalties on the employers of illegal migrants,on private recruitment agencies (these have long sincebeen prohibited from dealing with migrant workers)and on illegal migrants themselves were raised. Thegovernment also appointed labour officers to investi-gate migration-related issues. This too would appear tohave had scant impact. By April 1999 the number ofoverstayers had risen to 111 000. In response to the newfigures the government announced that a secondamnesty would take place during May 1999.

Aware of the importance, vis-à-vis attracting for-eign direct investment, of providing easy access forforeign skilled workers and limiting the restrictionson the duration of their stay, the government simpli-fied in 1997 the administrative procedures governingthe issuing of their visas and revised the Immigrationand Emigration Law to abolish the ceiling on theirperiod of residence. Their inflows can therefore beexpected to pick up quite rapidly.

Malaysia

Since the crisis Malaysia has made significantalterations in its policy towards both labour emigra-tion and immigration; in the latter case these changeshave been numerous. Prior to the onset of the finan-cial crisis in mid 1997, the authorities took a toughstand against Malaysians apprehended for abroadfor overstaying their visa. On their return their pass-ports were impounded by the immigration authori-ties. Mirroring the scant co-operation it has receivedregarding the repatriation of undocumented foreignworkers, this ruling has been withdrawn. In addition,

OECD 1999


57

Malaysians studying abroad on government scholar-ships are no longer compelled to come home toserve the government as required by their contracts.

Developments in its policy towards to foreignworkers and the measures implemented in theirregard have focused on the semi-skilled or unskilled,the new recruitment of whom had been frozen(except for those in critical sectors, i.e. export relatedor likely stimulate economic growth) in the first half of1997 with the aim of encouraging the economy’smove away from labour intensive production andtowards high technology activities. The initial post-crisis line taken was simply to maintain this freeze.An extension to domestic helpers in August 1997 waslifted within a month following strong oppositionfrom certain sections of the public. At the same time,the ban on use of foreign labour in island holidayresorts was relaxed.

In an environment of increasing redundanciesand mounting pressure from trade unions, renewalsof temporary work passes in the service, manufacturingand construction sectors were frozen in January 1998.Those affected by the freeze had the choice of eitherreturning to their country of origin or accepting rede-ployment in the agricultural sector. At the same time,the government announced an increase in the leviesto be paid by foreign workers. Those for domestichelpers and agricultural workers rose by 20%; themuch higher levies on those in construction, manu-facturing and services rose by between 25 and 110%.Moreover, the household income requirement forprospective employers wishing to recruit foreigndomestic helpers was almost doubled. (This incomerequirement is over three times higher for thoseseeking to hire a Filipina maid as opposed to onefrom Thailand, Indonesia or Kampuchea.)

The freeze was directed at the 380 000 foreignworkers who were due to have their temporary workpermits renewed by 15 August 1998. At the end August,when the freeze was lifted (accompanied by the issue ofa directive that if retrenchment is unavoidable, foreignworkers should be laid-off first), the Ministry of HomeAffairs announced that just over 115 000 had chosen toleave. Response to the redeployment offer, however,was dismal: only 115 took it up. The remainder wereassumed to have remained in Malaysia workingillegally. This prompted the government to launch anamnesty programme on 31 August.

Illegal workers were to surrender to the authori-ties bringing with them a one way ticket to their homecountry before they were given the necessary papers

to leave. They were spared the stiff fines and/or jailsentence usually imposed. Originally planned to lastfor two months from 1 September to 31 October 1998,the amnesty had to be extended by two weeks dueto transport shortages, in particular of ships, to carrythe returnees home. As previously noted, of the190 000 repatriated almost 90% were Indonesian.

At the end of the amnesty period measures tolocate and expel those who remained were intensi-fied. Those apprehended are to be sent to one of theeight immigration detention centres, kept there untilthey are identified by their respective country’sembassy or consulate and then deported. Thus faronly the Philippine government, in early 1999, hasagreed to a call by the Malaysian authorities to sharethe cost of repatriation.

Although by the second half of 1998 recordedunemployment among nationals had almost dou-bled from the 2.6% level of 1997, there was a consid-erable mismatch between the aspirations of jobseekers and the vacancies available. Throughout theperiod during which work permits were not renewedthere remained unmet demand for workers to per-form the more demanding and disagreeable jobs inthe plantation, construction and services sectors. Theneed for foreign labour became increasingly press-ing. This led the government to backtrack on its pre-vious policy.

In October 1998, the exemption on new recruit-ment was extended to the plantations and touristrelated services. The ceiling on the proportion of for-eign workers in any one factory was increased from30% to 50. A total quota on these new workers wasfixed at 120 000 with exceptions to be granted toemployers who could provide proof that theirattempts to recruit local workers had failed. Theseworkers were to be recruited directly from their coun-tries of origin and without recourse to the use of pri-vate sector recruitment agencies, the establishmentof which had been encouraged in the early 1980s tototal 160 by 1997, but are now banned except for therecruitment of domestic helpers. Nationals of Indo-nesia and Thailand were accorded preference in thePeninsula and nationals of Indonesia and the Philip-pines in Sarawak.

The aforementioned measures were followed inJanuary 1999 by a cut the in levies to be paid by work-ers in services, construction, and manufacturing tobring them to levels broadly corresponding to thosebefore the increases of January 1998.

OECD 1999


58

Thailand

Faced with the apparent failure of its 1996 tem-porary regularisation programme, increasing inflowsof illegal workers and declines in employment inboth the industrial and agricultural sectors (the bur-den of which was falling almost entirely on women),the government embarked on a more restrictive pol-icy towards migrant workers in 1998. It was decided,inter alia, that: no more work permits would begranted to illegal workers; those in possession ofwork permits would be monitored and would not beallowed to work in factories; border controls wouldbe tightened and the Immigration Law would bestrictly implemented; an advertisement campaignwould be conducted in an attempt to dissuadeemployers from hiring illegal workers; and, all illegalworkers apprehended would be repatriated (in thosecases where this would not be possible they mightbe allowed to work in the provinces borderingBurma, Laos and Cambodia). Firms experiencinglabour shortages would, however, be allowed to hireforeign labour but only directly from abroad andthrough official channels.

Faced with strong pressure from influentialemployers and employers’ organisations, however,the government decided in May 1998 to grant workpermits to employers reporting demand for illegalworkers. Employers were given three weeks to sub-mit their application forms indicating their desire tohire illegal workers. The Department of Employmentwould then try to find Thai workers to fill the vacancy.Permits would be granted for the positions thatremained open on 6 October 1998. The responsefrom employers was disappointing. They onlyrequested permits for 10% of the estimated 900 000illegal workers.

Thailand too is encouraging its nationals to seekemployment abroad. A government agency, in co-operation with commercial banks, is providing lowinterest loans to this end. This policy is quite differ-ent from the pre-crisis situation when the govern-ment did not interfere in the market. The Ministry ofLabour and Social Welfare sought co-operation fromseveral countries to send at least 215 000 Thai work-ers overseas by the end of 1998. In the first sixmonths of 1998 just under 95 000 had been so placed.

Philippines

The recent declines in both the outflow ofmigrant workers and in the renewal of existing con-tracts as well as the increased feminisation of the

migrant workforce have brought up two key policyissues: the need to maximise and better channelremittances, and the need to further promote the useof Filipino labour by overseas companies whilstensuring that they are not exploited.

During the first ten months of 1998 the volumeof remittances to the Philippines fell by over 12% onthe corresponding period of 1997. In order toincrease and better channel them the PhilippineCentral Bank announced at the end of 1998 the issueof US$1.3 billion of tax exempt bonds and treasurybills aimed at overseas workers the proceeds ofwhich will be used for agricultural developmentprojects.

The government has implemented measures tofacilitate the reintegration of displaced workers intothe Philippine labour market. Recognising, however,that the economy’s capacity to absorb them is verylimited it is taking steps to encourage job retentionand is identifying market niches where the overseasFilipino workers have an edge. It is also facilitatingthe obtention of jobs with better working conditions.

• Foreign workers’ rights and social integration

Concern has been expressed by NGOs and ori-gin countries regarding, inter alia: the lack of equaltreatment accorded to foreigners in their conditionsof employment; their lack of or limited entitlement tosocial security benefits, education and training andaccess to employment services; and, the restrictionsplaced on family reunion. Concern over such issues isnot confined to the countries of East and South-eastAsia.

In this regard a clear distinction is to be drawnbetween de facto and de jure integration. In Malaysia forexample, the government has, since 1992, adopted apolicy of according legally recruited foreign workersrights to almost equal to those enjoyed by local work-ers, with the exception of the right to unionise. Thispolicy has been less than fully implemented. Interms of pay, for example, a number of studies haverevealed that legally recruited workers are paid atlower rates than nationals. Furthermore, there existsdiscrimination in this regard between differentnationalities of foreign worker. For example, Indonesianand Cambodian domestic helpers are paid over 30%less than the minimum accorded to Filipinas. Foreignworkers are supposed to be entitled to work-placeaccident insurance cover, housing and medical coverpaid for by the employer. However, these benefitsare either difficult to access or, if provided, tend to be

OECD 1999


59

grossly inadequate. In February 1998 it was esti-mated that the employers of almost 60% of registeredworkers had failed to take out insurance cover forthem. Housing provided for manufacturing workers,for example, is often in the form of a crowded four-bedroom housing unit for occupation by between 20and 30 workers. For the majority of foreign workerswho are paid on a daily basis, sick leave is unpaid.

In certain destination countries, significantprogress has been made over recent years instrengthening foreign workers’ employment rightsand in providing them with access to medical care,language and vocational training, and some socialsecurity benefits. Exemplars of current best practiceinclude, most notably, Japan, Korea and Singapore.In Japan for example, a variety of social integrationprograms for foreign workers and their families havebeen reinforced and developed. These include theestablishment of Employment Service Centres forforeign workers as well the provision of education forthe children of foreign nationals on equal terms asnative Japanese. In Korea, legally registered foreignworkers are entitled to the same social protectionrights as nationals. Trainees, though they do not ben-efit from the same degree of protection, are pro-tected, however, by eight selected articles of theLabour Standard Law, the Industrial Safety Law andthe Minimum Wage Law and are covered by statemedical insurance. Since 1994, they have been eligi-ble, moreover, as are illegal workers, to state-runindustrial accident insurance coverage on equalterms with nationals. Singapore’s labour laws do notdiscriminate between local and foreign workers. For-eign workers are entitled to non-statutory non-wagerelated benefits such as annual leave and sick leaveand are compensated in the same manner as localworkers if they are injured at work. They are alsoallowed to join trade unions. They have access to allsocial amenities which are available to Singaporeans,including medical, transport and recreational facili-ties. In addition, employers generally provide medi-cal benefits such as paid hospitalisation and paidmedical leave.

Even in the aforementioned countries, however,family reunion is generally only permitted to skilledor technical foreign workers receiving salaries abovea certain minimum.

Whilst the widespread phenomenon of clandes-tine employment does, of its nature, limit the suc-cess that efforts to improve social integration mighthave, there exists considerable scope for the use ofinstruments under governments’ direct control such

as the nature of work and residence permits. InSingapore, for example, although skilled workers,professionals and entrepreneurs are encouraged totake up permanent residence and citizenship,unskilled foreign workers are permitted to work onlyfor a maximum of two years after which time, unlessthey upgrade themselves and acquire new skills, theyare expected to return home. In Malaysia, although nolimit is placed on the duration of employment allowedfor maids, unskilled foreign workers can not stay inMalaysia for longer than seven years and skilled work-ers receiving salaries above a certain minimum canwork for a maximum of ten years.

In certain countries there is an inconsistency ofattitude with respect to the rights which are consid-ered due to their nationals working abroad and thosewhich are considered due to foreigners working intheir country. In the specific case of Indonesia, whichhas expressed concern about the security of its over-seas workers, in particular of females who are espe-cially vulnerable to abuse by employers and brokers,the view that immigrant workers come of their ownvolition and are free to leave if unhappy with theirconditions of employment and lack of social protec-tion has been forcefully proclaimed.

Shortly after the outbreak of the crises it hadbeen predicted that demands by sending countrieson receiving countries to enhance the rights accordedto their foreign workers would in all likelihood dimin-ish. Moreover, tightened internal political constraintswould render more difficult moves by host govern-ments along this path. Subsequent events have bornethese predictions out. Indeed, efforts to protect theposition of national workers in the labour market dur-ing the financial crises have led in some countries tothe violation of migrant workers’ basic rights, espe-cially those of the undocumented.

Given the increased need for remittances the sit-uation remains ripe for exploitation and abuse. Thewelfare and protection issues are especially crucial forfemale workers, the demand for whom has remainedbuoyant in such vulnerable areas as domestic assis-tance and entertainment work in contrast to males, themarket for whose services is largely in activities whichhave been badly hit by the financial crises such as pro-duction, construction and small-scale manufacturing.At present, of the crisis affected economies only HongKong (China) has signed the ILO Convention requiringit to ensure that the conditions of employment offeredto foreign workers are comparable to those of localemployees.

OECD 1999


60

2. Recent migration trends in Central and Eastern Europe

Recent migration developments in Central andEastern Europe display two clear trends, namely, areversal in the net migration balance in certain coun-tries such as the Czech Republic and Hungary, (or ifnot, at least the beginnings of foreign immigration)and the increasing importance of intra-regional move-ments. An important part of these movements con-cerns the migration of ethnic minorities. Such flows,already quite sizeable in the case of Germany, grewduring the 1980s. These movements largely involveethnic Germans (in Poland, Hungary, Romania and theformer Soviet Union), Hungarians (in Romania and theSlovak Republic), Poles (in Ukraine, Kazakhstan andSiberia), Russians (in the Baltic States), Finns (inRussia and Estonia), Greeks (in Albania and thePontian region of the former Soviet Union), and finally,Turks (in Bulgaria). An other segment of the migrationmovements in the region derives from the ethnic con-flicts and wars which have taken place in the formerYugoslavia and which have led to sizeable displace-ments of the resident populations, in particular inBosnia Herzegovina and Kosovo.

Another trend is that of transit migration towardswestern European countries. These flows are essen-tially comprised of migrants either from other CEECsor other eastern European, Asian or African countrieswho, in the majority of cases, enter one of the CEECslegally in the hope of rapidly (illegally) reaching awestern European country. This phenomenon isincreasingly obliging the CEECs to implement poli-cies to control the flows, most often in the context ofinternational co-operation at the regional level,which frequently involves OECD Member countries(see Section C below).

Since 1989, Central and Eastern Europe has con-stituted a new migration area. Due to the importanceof flows between neighbouring countries sharingcommon historical, cultural and economic traditions,reinforced by the sizeable population movementsprovoked by social and ethnic tensions, the regional-isation of movements now predominates. Contrary tocertain alarmist forecasts, the opening of nationalborders in Central and Eastern Europe following thepolitical changes of the late 1980s have, as yet, notresulted in massive population movements towardsOECD countries. It is certainly the case that emigrationtowards these countries (in particular to Germany) isfar from negligible, however, these flows havedeclined markedly since 1993 despite the fact that

migration flows of temporary labour have beenincreasing and that free circulation is being facili-tated by the majority of the OECD Member countrieswhich do not require entry visas for nationals ofCEECs wishing to stay less than three months.

a) Sizeable inflows and outflows since the opening of the borders

The changes which have taken place in Centraland Eastern Europe have led to an increase in migra-tion movements not only from East to West but alsobetween the various countries of the region. Two otheraspects of recent East-West migration flows merithighlighting: these new flows are occurring in the con-text of the migration trends already observed in thepast (Polish emigrants, followed by those fromRomania, constitute the largest groups in these flows);Germany remains the principal receiving country formigrants from Central and Eastern Europe.

The traditions of westward emigration are notidentical for all the CEECs. In the past, the Poles andthe Romanians were the most numerous to emigrateto certain OECD countries. The location of the estab-lished expatriate communities explain, in part, thedirection, nature and magnitude of the post-1989East-West flows. Other East-West migration flows,notably those of seasonal and border workers, devel-oped after 1989; they largely correspond to a processof regional integration limited to border regionswithin the framework of bilateral agreements (forexample, those between Germany as a recipient oflabour from Poland and the Czech Republic, and like-wise those between Austria as a recipient of labourfrom Hungary and the Slovak Republic).

In 1997 or for the most recent year for which dataare available (see Table I.9), nearly all of the OECDcountries counted immigrants from the CEECs intheir populations. In Australia, Canada and theUnited States, available statistics refer to the foreign-born. Nationals of the former Yugoslavia, followed bythe Poles, were the most numerous in Australia. Inthe United States, the Poles were again the secondmost numerous preceded by nationals of the formerSoviet Union. In Canada, these latter outnumber thePoles by almost two to one.

The majority of the European OECD countriescount foreigners in their populations according totheir nationality. In 1997, Germany was the principalreceiving country for nationals of the CEECs and theformer Soviet Union. Austria receives mainly Roma-nians and Poles, followed by nationals from the

OECD 1999


61

former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and thenHungarians. The recent inflows notwithstanding, inthe case of Germany and likewise that of Austria,nationals of the former Yugoslavia outstrip nationalsof the CEECs by a wide margin, both in terms as aproportion of the total population and of the labourforce (see Table I.9). By far the greatest number of

former Yugoslavia nationals live in Germany, fol-lowed by Switzerland and Austria.

In France, of the foreign residents originally fromEastern Europe those from the former Yugoslavia andPoland (respectively 53 000 and 47 000 according tothe 1990 Census) are the most numerous. In Italy,Albanians predominate followed by nationals of the

Table I.9.A. Foreign residents who are nationals of central and eastern European countries

in selected European OECD countries, latest available yearThousands

CzechAustria Belgium Denmark Finland France

Republic1991 1997 1997 1997 1997 1990

Bulgaria 3.6 0.8 6.6 . . . . 0.8Former CSFR1 11.3 0.8 52.2 . . . . 2.0Hungary 10.6 1.0 . . . . 0.5 2.9Poland 18.3 6.0 25.0 5.5 0.7 46.3Romania 18.5 2.2 2.4 1.1 . . 5.7Former USSR 2.1 2.9 . . 3.0 19.0 4.3Former Yugoslavia 197.9 1.3 . . 33.9 4.2 52.5

Total foreigners 517.7 903.2 209.8 249.6 80.6 3 596.6

Countries mentioned above(as a % of total foreigners) 50.7 1.7 41.1 17.4 30.2 3.2

Germany Hungary Italy Netherlands Sweden Switzerland1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997

Bulgaria 34.5 1.7 . . 0.5 . . . .Former CSFR1 27.0 3.7 . . 0.5 . . 4.6Hungary 52.0 – . . 1.3 2.9 3.5Poland 283.3 4.5 31.3 5.7 15.8 4.1Romania 95.2 57.4 38.1 1.1 3.2 . .Former USSR 50.4 17.0 3.7 5.2 . . . .Former Yugoslavia 1 209.0 16.0 44.4 28.4 33.6 313.5

Total foreigners 7 365.8 143.8 1 240.7 678.1 522.0 1 340.8

Countries mentioned above(as a % of total foreigners) 23.8 69.7 9.5 6.3 10.6 24.3

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

Thousands

Australia Canada Denmark Netherlands Sweden United States1996 1996 1996 1997 1997 1990

Former CSFR . . 41.2 . . 3.9 . . 87.0Hungary . . 54.2 1.4 4.9 14.5 110.3Poland 65.1 193.4 9.8 13.6 39.6 388.3Romania . . . . 1.4 3.1 . . 91.1Former USSR2 49.8 106.4 3.6 8.4 . . 389.9Former Yugoslavia 118.5 122.0 27.6 46.7 119.2 141.5

Total of foreign-born 3 908.3 4 971.1 259.2 1 549.0 954.2 19 767.3

Countries mentioned above(as a % of total foreign-born) 6.0 10.4 16.9 5.2 18.2 6.1

1. This refers to the citizens of the Slovak Republic for the Czech Republic and Hungary.2. Including Baltic States for Australia.Sources: Census for Austria, France, Australia, Canada and the United States, residence permits for Italy and population registers for the other countries.

OECD 1999


62

former Yugoslavia, Romanians and Poles. In Swedenand the Netherlands, after nationals of the formerYugoslavia it is the Poles. In Finland, where nationalsof the former Soviet Union predominate, the num-bers of those originating from the CEECs and theformer Yugoslavia are very low. Excepting those inthe United States, the largest Polish and Romanianexpatriate communities are located in Germany(283 000 and 100 000 persons respectively).

Of the European OECD countries, Germanyreceives the largest number of foreign workers fromthe CEECs. The work permits issued in 1997 weremainly to Poles (23 000 contract workers and morethan 200 000 seasonal workers). In Austria, foreignworkers from the former Yugoslavia predominate andrepresent over half of the total foreign labour force. In1997 in Austria, Polish foreign workers (close to 9 000)only just outnumbered the Hungarians and Romanians(see Statistical Annex, Tables B2.2).

b) From permanent to temporary migration

After having developed rapidly from 1989, theemigration flows of CEEC nationals to western coun-tries have slowed down. For example, as a propor-tion of total inflows, entries of Polish immigrantshave decreased since 1991 in Denmark, France, theUnited Kingdom, the Netherlands and Sweden. InGermany, since 1993 the net migration flow ofRomanian nationals has been negative. The emigra-tion flow of Bulgarians of Turkish origin to Turkey hasalso decreased since 1993. Nevertheless, the exist-ence of a wide range of ethnic minorities in theCEECs presents the potential for significant migra-tion inflows to certain of the OECD countries.

The number of refugees and asylum seekersoriginating from the CEECs has also declined.Indeed, the OECD Member countries now considerall of the CEECs as “safe” countries, the citizens ofwhich are not eligible, in principle, to lodge asylumrequests. Moreover, the introduction in severalEuropean OECD countries from 1992 onwards of visaregimes for the citizens of the former Yugoslavia ledto a reduction in the number of people obtaining ref-ugee status originating from that region. It should benoted, however, that this reduction was offset tosome extent by an increase in the number of thosegranted temporary resident status on humanitariangrounds, notably from Kosovo in 1997 and 1998.

Whereas permanent emigration to OECD coun-tries is declining, the temporary migration of workersis developing both from East to West and between theCEECs themselves. On the providers’ side, the Polesare the most involved, working principally in Germanyand Austria, but also in France, the Czech Republicand Sweden. In Germany, in 1997, the majority ofPoles in temporary employment did so under inter-governmental agreements for seasonal work and sub-contracted employment. In Austria, in the same year,nationals of the former Czech and Slovak FederalRepublic were the most numerous of the holders ofshort term or limited duration (two year) permits, fol-lowed by Poles, Romanians and Hungarians. CEECnationals there account for approximately one in fiveof the foreign nationals in possession of a short-termwork permit, but barely one in ten of those with a per-manent permit.

c) Central and Eastern Europe: a regional migration pole

The political changes which have taken place inCentral and Eastern Europe since 1989 have led tothe dismantling of controls on the movement of per-sons (abolishment of exit visas, removal of restric-tions on the issuance of passports) in the majority ofthese countries. These countries have also modifiedtheir nationality laws, in particular to allow expatri-ates who had been deprived of their citizenship torecover it. A second set of changes has concerned theestablishment of programmes to encourage tempo-rary labour migration to Western countries with theobject of developing the participants’ professionalexperience and language skills; the introduction ofshort and long-term residence permits for foreigners;the abolition of visa requirements for the nationals ofmost OECD countries; and, the ratification of theGeneva Convention on refugees.

Immigration flows are increasing. Indeed, in someof the CEECs and likewise in the Russian Federation,immigration flows probably exceed those of emigra-tion. Unfortunately, the official data available do notpermit the accurate measurement of the magnitude ofimmigration flows.2 On the basis of partial informationconcerning the numbers of foreigners in the CEECs, itwould appear that Hungary was host in 1997 to morethan 13 000 foreigners. In the Czech Republic and inPoland, entries (including returning nationals) num-

2. The present state of the CEECs’ migration statistics is such that they adequately cover neither migration movements, thenumber of foreigners in the population nor the number of foreign workers. For a detailed discussion of the concepts usedand the available data on migration in the CEECs, see the Statistical Annex to this publication.

OECD 1999


63

bered in 1997 approximately 12 900 and 8 400 respec-tively (see Tables II.17, II.10 and II.31). In Hungary andthe Czech Republic, countries where detailed statis-tics on permanent and long-term foreign residents areavailable, the number of persons entering under thesecategories has increased over the last four years, risingfrom 138 000 in 1994 to 144 000 in Hungary in 1997 andfrom 104 000 to 210 000 in the Czech Republic over thesame period. In addition, data on the initial registra-tions for short-term permits and the renewals thereofpoint to the sizeable volume of the temporary migra-tion flows to these countries.

In the Czech Republic in 1997, approximately154 000 foreigners held a residence permit valid for aduration of less than one year. The majority were fromthe former Soviet Union (essentially Ukraine), theSlovak Republic, Vietnam and Poland. In the sameyear, Hungary issued over 32 000 short-term permits,mostly for long visits, asylum claims or employment;nationals of Romania, the former Yugoslavia and theformer Soviet Union were the most numerous. The netmigration balance of the Czech Republic, which wasnegative in 1989 and 1990, became positive in 1991and has since 1995 stabilised at approximately 12 000.

The available statistics in the Czech Republic onforeign workers show that in addition to the Slovakianworkers who benefit from free access to the labourmarket, a number of Ukrainians and Poles are alsorecorded. A total of 61 000 foreigners held work per-mits in 1997 and approximately 70 000 Slovaks wereemployed there. In Hungary, Romanian workersaccount for just under half of those in possession of avalid working permit (the total in 1997 was 20 400).

The economic imbalances which exist at the heartof the CEECs and, in certain cases, the presence ofethnic minorities explain the migration movementsbetween these countries and the predominance in theCzech Republic’s inflows of Slovak Republic nationalsand similarly Romanian nationals in Hungary’sinflows. In addition, the opening of national borders,the economic changes linked to the transitiontowards a market economy and the collapse of theSoviet Union and Yugoslavia have also been impor-tant driving forces behind the growth in regionalmigration. Certain countries are now both sending andreceiving countries. The main sending regions are theformer Soviet Union (notably Ukraine and Belarus),Romania, Poland, and Bulgaria, to which should beadded the former Yugoslavia and the Baltic States.Geopolitical factors, particularly wars or ethnic con-flicts in areas such as the former Yugoslavia, also con-

tribute to explaining migration flow patterns. Thenumber of refugees from the former Yugoslavia in theCEECs, notably Bosnians and Kosovars, is relativelyhigh.

The CEECs also constitute a zone of temporarystop-over points for potential immigrants hoping toreach Western Europe or North America. The majorityof these migrants possess documentation authorisingtheir stay, having typically entered either as tourists,business persons, or students. Many others illegallyprolong their stay having entered in the same manner.The countries most affected are Poland and theCzech Republic due to their common borders withGermany. Bulgaria and Hungary also receive transitmigrants seeking to reach Greece and Austria, respec-tively. Regarding the latter, following the tightening ofborder controls at the Austro-Hungarian border, manytransit migrants have elected to change itineraryattempting instead to reach Germany via the morepermeable borders of the Slovak Republic. Transitmigration also concerns the Baltic States: nationals ofthe former Soviet Union (Russians, Ukrainians, andBelarussians) and Middle Eastern countries use thisroute as a means of reaching the Nordic countries,principally Sweden.

Transit migration has given rise to the develop-ment of illegal immigration and employment in severalCEECs. The transit migrants come from neighbouringcountries such as Turkey, Albania and the formerYugoslavia, as well as from Bangladesh, India and Iran.The more flourishing is a country’s informal economy,the greater the pace at which the employment of immi-grants in an irregular situation develops.

Far from all transit migrants succeed in emigrat-ing to the West (mainly to Germany, Austria, theScandinavian countries and, to a lesser extent,Switzerland and Italy): many remain in the countryof transit or return to their country of origin. Althoughthis circular migration contributes to the developmentof clandestine migration and illegal employment it alsostimulates commercial activity and intra-regional trade.The CEECs, confronted with immigration in all its forms,are increasingly examining with a view to implementa-tion policies which might better control the flows. Vari-ous forms of co-operation have been established withOECD countries in order to develop such policies. Atthe same time, the CEECs have also begun to co-operate among themselves and co-ordinate theiractions in order to better define the regulations govern-ing the movement of persons within an enlargedEuropean migration space.

OECD 1999


64

Four conclusions emerge from this overview ofrecent migration trends in the countries of Centraland Eastern Europe. First, East-West migration flowsare continuing and reveal the predominance of cer-tain nationalities and the relative importance of cer-tain host countries. One notices next that these flowsare currently at levels lower than those registeredbetween 1989 and 1992; this illustrates the desire onthe part of OECD countries to control East-West flowswithout totally closing their borders to all immigra-tion from the CEECs. Third, the changes which haveoccurred in Central and Eastern Europe have led tosome degree of growth in regional migration move-ments between the CEECs and to much strongergrowth between them and their neighbours to theEast and South (the NIS and the former Yugoslavia).Finally, immigration flows to the CEECs, consideredin their entirety, are growing.

C. AN OVERVIEW OF MIGRATION POLICIES

Migration policies in OECD countries can begrouped into three broad areas. The first consists ofmeasures adopted at national and international levelto strengthen the control of flows (including those ofasylum-seekers) and to more effectively fight againstirregular migration and illegal employment of for-eigners. The second covers all measures that aim toensure a better integration of migrants in the hostcountry. The third concerns the links between migra-tion and co-operation for regional economic devel-opment.3

1. Policies for regulating and controlling flows

a) The regulation of flows and the implementation ofnew legislation

The concern of OECD Member countries with thecontrol of flows manifests itself not only in nationalpolicies, including frequent changes to immigrationlaws and the enactment of new laws, but also in inter-national co-operation between Member countriesand between Member countries and non-membercountries. International co-operation in the sphere ofmigration is not yet highly developed, but is, never-theless, the focus of some interest.

National policies

Several Member countries modified their legis-lation in 1997-98 and implemented new provisions

governing the entry, residence and employment offoreigners. While some reforms have led to improve-ments in the status of those already settled in hostcountries, most have been aimed at tightening bor-der controls and the conditions for entry, residenceand employment.

• Tightening border checks and entry requirements

The Australian government implemented a seriesof measures in 1997-98 aimed at tightening both poli-cies and practices pertaining to the entry of foreignersand border controls. The number of personnel dealingwith border control has been increased, particularlythose dealing with foreigners from so-called “high risk”countries and at Australian airports, in order toimprove the effectiveness of identity checks uponentry. Certain of the detention centres for foreignersawaiting expulsion have been developed andadapted. A draft bill (the “Character Bill”) aims to pre-vent the entry of undesirable foreigners, in otherwords criminals who may pose a threat to publicsafety. In order to prevent procedural abuses, whichhave enabled undesirable applicants to extend theirstay in Australia, the right to appeal against a denial ofa residence permit has been limited to applicants whocan prove their good faith.

In Italy, the issue of immigration was hotlydebated in 1997 and 1998, because of both the peri-odic arrival of undocumented foreigners on Italianshores and the passage of a new law governing theconditions of foreigners’ entry and residence. TheImmigration Act of March 1998 separated issuesrelating to immigration from those relating to asylum.Asylum was dealt with in an earlier law. The Immigra-tion Act has three main objectives: to regulate theadmission of foreigners via the setting of annual quo-tas; to deal more severely with illegal immigrationand migrant trafficking; and, to improve the integra-tion of foreigners residing legally in Italy. Albanians,Moroccans and Tunisians have priority in the obten-tion of residence permits. This is because of both thepresence of large numbers of immigrants from thosecountries and the bilateral negotiations which areunderway with their governments. The conditionsrequire that immigrants prove that they were alreadyresiding in Italy before the law came into force andthat they have employment. The law includes anexpulsion measure which was the subject of somecontroversy during its debate in parliament. Foreign-

3. Section C has been drafted by the Secretariat with the co-operation of Lucile Barros, Consultant to the OECD.

OECD 1999


65

ers may be expelled if they enter the country ille-gally, if a residence permit is denied, if there is a lackof social integration or if they threaten public order ornational security. Individuals awaiting expulsion maybe held in special detention centres for 20 to 30 days.

In the Netherlands, amendments to the Act onForeigners, planned for 1999, will make it possible tointroduce restrictive measures relating to immigra-tion. The new provisions of the Act will essentiallyapply to asylum seekers (see below), although a tem-porary residence authorisation was re-implementedin December 1998 which is required of foreignersfrom most non-OECD countries before they mayapply for a residence permit. This authorisation hasto be obtained in the country of origin, before the for-eigner arrives in the Netherlands. This is the secondtime that this authorisation has been re-introducedby the authorities.

Pursuant to the Immigration Act of 1997, the Polishgovernment implemented a new approach to thecontrol of its eastern border on 1 January 1998. Thisreplaced the previous system for admitting foreign-ers which had been considered as too liberal. Anentry visa is now required for citizens of all neigh-bouring countries that have not signed a readmissionagreement with Poland. This measure specificallyaffects nationals of Belarus and Russia. Nationals ofmost other countries are now subject to new entryrequirements, and border checks have been tight-ened. In addition to regulating the flow of foreigners,this policy has resulted in a slow decline in businessat markets in border regions and in Warsaw, as well asin petty trade along the border.

Switzerland has reviewed its admission policy,and replaced its three-circle model with a binarymodel. This model distinguishes between citizens ofEU/EFTA countries and those of all other countries.Citizens of EU/EFTA countries will gradually beallowed to circulate more freely, whereas citizens ofother countries will be subject to a strict quota system.

In Belgium, the Vande Lanotte Act of July 1996has tightened up the conditions for the entry and res-idence of foreigners and access to refugee status. Inresponse to numerous criticisms of this law, the Sen-ate Committee for the Interior adopted a series ofrecommendations in June 1998, aimed at makingenforcement of the law more flexible. Of particularnote, the Committee recommended that the waitingperiod for obtaining a visa be reduced to one month,that reasons be given for all denials, that the regula-tions governing the sponsoring of a visitor by private

individuals and humanitarian organisations berelaxed, that the penalties for giving humanitarianaid to undocumented foreigners be rescinded andthat the number of cases in which unaccompaniedforeign minors can be detained be restricted.

In July 1998, the United Kingdom Home Officepublished a White Paper on immigration and asylum(Fairer, Faster and Firmer – a Modern Approach to Immigra-tion and Asylum), which should result in proposals forlegislation during the 1998-99 parliamentary session.While suggesting an integrated approach to the sys-tem controlling immigration and asylum, the WhitePaper does not deal with the economic dimension ofimmigration. It sets out a range of measures aimed attightening and improving border checks. It recom-mends that the number of personnel handlingchecks, notably at airports, be increased, and thatthe immigration law be modernised in order to facil-itate verification of legitimate travellers and betteridentify potential abuses. A system requiring thatvisitors wishing to enter the United Kingdom post abond may also be considered. In March 1998, theauthorities announced that pre-boarding control offoreigners arriving by boat was proving ineffective,and that it will be replaced by a system based onpartnerships between the authorities, transport com-panies and port authorities. In addition, in April 1998,the application of carriers’ liability was extended tothe Eurostar link between Brussels and London, fol-lowing complaints about the arrival of foreignerswithout papers on that train.

In Portugal, as in the more traditional immigra-tion countries, one part of immigration policy aims tobetter control the entry of foreigners into the countrythrough improved border surveillance, strengthen-ing the police force and the systematic detection offorged documents. The Act of 8 August 1998 on theentry, residence, departure and expulsion of foreign-ers reforms the previous Act of March 1993. The newlaw not only aims to bring national legislation intoline with the need to effectively control external bor-ders as required by the Schengen Agreement(signed by Portugal on 25 June 1991) and other agree-ments it has signed, but also confirms its desire tointegrate immigrant populations. For example, theAct of August 1998 confirms the right to familyreunion, and evidences a commitment to adaptingimmigration to the needs of the labour market, whilegiving priority to foreign workers already residinglegally in the country.

Bulgaria passed three laws in 1997 and 1998 gov-erning the status of foreigners, citizenship and the

OECD 1999


66

rights of refugees. These provide a legal and institu-tional framework for its migration policy. The new lawon foreigners replaces the Act of 1973. It governs theentry and residence of foreigners and stateless per-sons. The law provides for several types of visa andresidence permit, including short-stay (up to90 days) and long-stay (one year) visas. The lawrequires transport operators to check the identitydocuments of their passengers and increases thepenalties on those who transport passengers lackingthe necessary documentation. Short-stay visas mayonly rarely be extended, and in these cases only forfamily or health reasons. The long-stay visa is onlygranted in certain cases: to individuals holding awork permit or wanting to start a business, spouses ofBulgarian nationals, directors of foreign investmentcompanies, family members of permanent residentswith sufficient funds, and for health and educationalreasons. The law sets out the criteria for denying anextension of a residence permit. It requires all for-eigners entering Bulgaria to provide an address anda reason for their stay, and substantially increasespenalties against foreigners who do not obey the law.

To ensure that in terms of migration it is nolonger considered by the European Union as a “high-risk country” and is removed from the list of countrieswhose citizens require a visa, Romania has imple-mented several measures aimed at tightening checksat its borders. Citizens of 85 countries now need avisa to enter Romania. The number of personnelworking at eastern border posts has been increased,and the equipment used for checks has beenimproved. Fines levied against undocumented for-eigners have been increased substantially and addi-tional funds have been budgeted to facilitateexpulsions. In addition, two draft bills on the status offoreigners and citizenship are currently beingreviewed by the Romanian parliament.

• Selection based on qualifications

For several years now, some countries havebeen applying a competency criterion in examiningforeigners’ applications for entry and employment.This criterion has led countries to increasingly acceptonly highly skilled workers.

In Australia, the 1997-98 Migration Programmefocused on the migration of highly skilled individualsand the economic benefits that would accrue to thecountry through attracting such workers. A revision ofthe points system for independent migrants andqualified migrants with family members in Australia

(Skilled Australian-Linked, SAL) took effect in June1998. Its aim is to determine whether the testsapplied to these two categories of migrants are effec-tive in selecting immigrants capable of finding workquickly and making a positive contribution to theAustralian economy, both in the short and the longterm. The Australian government has also imple-mented measures aimed at increasing the participa-tion of the States and Regional Governments in theselection of qualified immigrants, and encouraging amore balanced distribution of these migrantsthroughout the country.

The working party set up in October 1997 by theCanadian government is continuing its work ondeveloping new selection criteria for immigrantsentering the country for economic reasons. Since May1997, Canada has allowed as part of a special pro-gramme the entry and temporary residence of for-eigners with high level qualifications in the softwarefield. Its main objective is to compensate for labourshortages in this field in the short term; the perma-nent residence of those foreigners recruited is notbeing specifically encouraged. To further facilitatethe recruitment of highly qualified temporary work-ers, Canada has set up a pilot project which uses asimplified procedure for granting work permits to thespouses of these workers.

In the United States, the question of whether it isnecessary to recruit highly qualified immigrant work-ers in the advanced technology sectors has been thesubject of much controversy. The maximum annualissue of H-1B temporary visas has been increased: theannual quota has been set at 115 000 for 1999 and 2000,with a decrease thereafter (107 500 for 2001 and 65 000for 2002). Having recently discovered abuses in thegranting of H-1B visas, the Labor Department proposeda number of reforms, which were implemented in 1998.This will make it possible to fulfil the needs of compa-nies for temporary, specialised, qualified personnel,while requiring consideration of conditions on thedomestic labour market (Labor Condition Application).These reforms are aimed at requiring that employerssubmitting applications involving this type of visa pro-vide proof that they have not laid off any US workersfrom those jobs for which they are recruiting foreignstaff. They also need to prove that they had first tried tohire US workers.

In light of growing demand for unqualified for-eign labour, Korea decided in 1997 to formalise theimmigration of unqualified foreign workers by settingquotas for trainees from 14 countries. The pro-gramme enables trainees to receive training in Korea

OECD 1999


67

in exchange for a salary and minimal social securitycoverage. However, the financial crisis in Asia led thegovernment to freeze their quota. In fact, this mea-sure proved to be unnecessary: in 1998 the demandfor trainees fell by 30% from the previous year and sofor the first time the quota was not reached. TheKorean government has decided to facilitate andpromote the entry and employment of skilled for-eigners. A recent overhaul of the Immigration andEmigration Act abolished the limit on the length ofstay previously applicable to these workers and sim-plified the administrative procedures governing theissuance of their visas.

In Norway, work permits are mainly issued tohighly qualified workers, or those with specific skills.In addition, they may only be recruited if the job can-not be filled by a national or foreign resident, as pro-vided for by the priority rule applied in most OECDMember countries. The Norwegian law provides forrestrictive measures aimed at limiting the entry ofunqualified workers. Nevertheless, a 15 June 1997amendment introduces a more liberal approach tothe citizens of certain non-EEA countries, particularlythose of Central and Eastern Europe.

• Different policies concerning family reunion

Two trends characterise the policies of OECDMember countries on family reunion. Some Membercountries tend to have a liberal approach to theadmission of the family members of foreign residentsbecause they accept the principle of long-term immi-gration and consider that family reunion constitutesa right of long-term foreign residents. Other coun-tries, on the other hand, make the process of familyreunion of foreigners more difficult by means ofrestrictive criteria, notably financial, to ensure thatthe arrival and settlement of families do not consti-tute a burden on society.

A new law in Austria on the residence and settle-ment of foreigners came into force in 1997. It aims toprovide greater stability to long-term foreign resi-dents. In particular, it aims to grant foreign residents’family members who arrived in the country before1992 the right to take up employment.

An analysis of the regularisation programmeimplemented in Spain in 1996, and a review of thenumbers of foreign residents at the end of 1997showed the continued long-term presence of fami-lies living in precarious conditions. As a result, newbills presented in 1997-98 embodied the principle ofthe lasting settlement of foreigners and their fami-

lies, and stressed the necessity of facilitating theirintegration.

In France, the Act of 11 May 1998 introduced sev-eral significant changes in the family reunion process:the duration of legal residence required for applyingfor reunion was reduced from two years to one; thecriteria for refusing family reunion were modified,notably the financial resources criteria; and, the pro-cedure has been extended to minor children of a pre-vious marriage of one of the spouses, provided thatthe parents can prove that they have been grantedcustody and that the child’s other parent allows thechild to live in France. In addition, the new law abol-ished the “family member” temporary residence cardand introduced a new temporary residence card,namely the “family and private life” card. Obtentionof this card secures the right to take up employmentand makes it possible to obtain a residence cardafter five years’ uninterrupted legal residence. It maybe issued to eleven categories of foreigner, includingthe spouses of French citizens immediately followingtheir marriage, the spouses of foreigners holding a“scientific” temporary residence card, or foreignerswho do not qualify for family reunion, but have per-sonal and family ties in France that would make therefusal of a residence permit an unjustified infringe-ment on their right to a normal life.

In Belgium, a 1998 circular extended the notionof “family” and recognised the rights of residence ofnot only spouses, as previously provided for, but alsoof foreigners’ long-term cohabitants. The residencepermit may be renewed and may become perma-nent after three and a half years of co-habitation inBelgium.

In Greece, a January 1998 presidential decreeallows workers who have held a residence permit formore than seven years or hold a permanent resi-dence permit to be joined by their family members(spouse and children under the age of 18). Thisauthorisation is, however, subject to four conditions:these individuals must have lived with the migrantworker before his arrival in Greece and have beendependent on him; all family members should pro-duce a certificate proving their good health; adultsmust not have a criminal record; and, finally, theimmigrant who sponsors them must prove that hehas the means to support them.

Pursuant to the Act of 6 March 1998, Italy autho-rises family reunion, but it is subject to a minimummonthly income criterion.

OECD 1999


68

Australia enacted several new measures in April1998 aimed mainly at ensuring that the sponsors offamily members can meet their financial obligationsand that they make the right choice between theirdesire to reunite their family and their financialmeans. Since November 1998, elderly parents stilleconomically active have no longer been able toobtain for themselves visas for permanently residentparents, but have had to opt for another type of visasuch as a short or long-stay visitor’s visa or a retiredperson’s visa. The required amount of insurance tobe taken out for the dependent parent has also beenincreased, and the policyholder must prove that he/she has the financial means to continue to pay for it.

In Canada, a new regulation pertaining todependent families took effect in April 1997. Like theAustralian regulation, it aims to ensure that sponsorshave the necessary financial means and therebyreduce the impact on the government and Canadiantaxpayers of sponsors defaulting on their obligations.

International co-operation measures

With the exception of European Union countries,international co-operation in the sphere of regulatingand controlling flows is not highly developedbetween OECD Member countries. Certain types ofbilateral and multi-lateral co-operation are, never-theless, in place in the spheres of visas issuance, ofborder controls and the exchange of workers. OECDMember countries are gradually becoming aware ofthe benefits of a joint approach to the problem ofcontrolling migration flows.

In November 1997, Canada and the United Statesdecided to set up a long-term bilateral system ofco-operation aimed at better controlling their com-mon border (Strategic Vision for Canada-US BorderCo-operation). It is hoped that such co-operation willlead over the long-term to a level of control that wouldfacilitate legitimate border movements while makingit difficult for undesirable persons to circulate. Bothcountries recognise that attaining this objectivedepends mainly on effective co-operation andinformation exchange between their authorities.

Under NAFTA, Mexico applies special conditionsto the entry of businessmen from Canada and theUnited States (see the section on Mexico in Part II).Mexico is also involved in a bilateral Commissionwith the United States, focusing on migrationbetween the two countries. Thus far, discussionshave focused on law enforcement and defending therights of migrants. However, Mexico would like to

extend its scope and open discussions on such issuesas development, economic integration and the labourmarket processes in both countries. Mexico and theUnited States also recently set up a joint researchand co-operation programme on the subject ofmigration. As part of the “Tuxtlan Dialogue” and the“Discussion Mechanism”, Mexico committed itself, ina joint Declaration of 17 July 1998, to promote thegradual simplification of procedures for migration inorder to ensure the free movement of persons and tofacilitate the entry of nationals of other Central andLatin American countries.

In 1997, Japan entered into agreements on theissuance of visas with several countries, both to pro-mote the movement of persons and to deal withproblems relating to illegal immigration.

The Czech Republic, like other Central and EasternEuropean countries, has entered into agreements withmost member countries of the European Union to abol-ish visa requirements. The Czech Republic also allowsCanadian and American nationals, as well as nationalsof Israel, Malaysia and Japan to enter its territorywithout a visa. However, it initiated a visa system inOctober 1998 for all nationals of the ex-YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia.

Several OECD Member countries have enteredinto bilateral agreements, amongst themselves orwith non-member countries, regarding the employ-ment and the exchange of foreign workers, with theaim of regulating the employment of foreigners ontheir territory. Thus, in 1998, the Czech Republicsigned agreements with Germany, Poland, Russia,the Slovak Republic, Ukraine and Vietnam. It alsosigned a bilateral agreement to exchange trainees withSwitzerland in 1997, and with Hungary and Lithuania in1998. It is planning more such agreements with severalMember countries of the European Union. It has alsostarted negotiations with Mongolia, Belarus, Bulgariaand Austria that may lead to bilateral agreements forthe implementation of a quota system for the employ-ment of nationals of those countries.

Since 1993, Lithuania has signed a number ofbilateral agreements relating to the employmentof foreigners and social security. The first suchagreements were signed with Germany in 1993,Sweden in 1994, and then with Poland and Ukraine.Similar agreements are currently being negotiatedwith Belarus and Russia. The Minister of SocialAffairs and Social Security aims to sign bilateraland multi-lateral agreements on employment and

OECD 1999


69

workers’ rights, particularly with European Unionmember countries and the other Baltic States.

Since 1992, Bulgaria has signed bilateral agree-ments on the employment of its nationals abroad,notably with Germany and Switzerland. An agree-ment with Greece is currently under negotiation.Bulgaria has, however, found itself unable to con-clude any new agreements and found that the scopeof existing agreements is diminishing. In addition,these agreements do not appear to be having anymarked effect on labour market conditions, sincethey deal with the exchange of workers in limitedareas only, such as construction and services.

• Co-operation between European Union member countries in the sphere of regulating and controlling migration flows

The countries of Western Europe have tradition-ally applied unilateral, sovereign policies in control-ling immigration taking into account their owneconomic, cultural and historical interests, as well asongoing links with certain countries and former colo-nies. Nevertheless, the diversification and continua-tion of immigration flows on the one hand, and theeconomic and political integration of Europe and itsprospects for expansion, on the other, have led thesecountries to gradually accept the idea of co-operationin the sphere of regulating and controlling migrationflows.

This willingness to co-operate was initially man-ifested by five Member countries (Germany,Belgium, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands),who signed the Schengen Agreement in June 1985,and the Convention implementing the SchengenAgreement in June 1990. This body of provisions,commonly known as the “Schengen Agreements” isessentially aimed at ensuring the free movementof all persons inside the Schengen Area, whileimplementing compensatory measures needed toensure the area’s internal security. These compensa-tory measures consist notably in reinforcing controlsat the outside borders of the Schengen Area, imple-menting co-operative measures in legal, police andcustoms matters and setting up a Schengen Infor-mation System accessible to the competentauthorities of the Schengen States. These Agree-ments also provide for the drawing up of a joint listof third countries whose nationals are subject tovisa requirements, as well as a joint procedure fordetermining which country is responsible for anygiven application for asylum.

Italy signed the Agreements in November 1990,Spain and Portugal in June 1991, Greece in Novem-ber 1992, Austria in April 1995 and Denmark, Swedenand Finland in December 1996. The founder coun-tries, together with Spain and Portugal, began imple-menting the Agreements in March 1995. Italy joinedthis group in October 1997, and Austria and Greece inDecember 1997. Italy, Greece and Austria had tomodify their legislation on immigration and asylum,or implement new regulations in areas which had notpreviously been addressed by domestic laws, as theother Schengen States had done before. An exampleof this is the issue of protecting personal information,previously absent from Italian legislation.

The Maastricht Treaty of 7 February 1992, whichmodified the Treaty of Rome and established theEuropean Union, provides a basis for co-operationbetween member countries in the spheres of law andinternal affairs. In the Third Pillar of the MaastrichtTreaty, Member countries recognised as “matters ofcommon interest” “asylum policy, rules governingthe crossing by persons of the external borders of theMember States, immigration policy and policiesregarding nationals of third countries (entry, move-ment and residence), judicial, customs and policeco-operation". New decision-making procedureswere implemented in this regard, such as jointactions and common positions. At the same time, theMaastricht Treaty gave the European Communityjurisdiction over the matter of determining whichthird countries’ nationals would be subject to visarequirements. A Community regulation was thusissued in 1995, establishing a joint list of these coun-tries. In fact, however, few legally binding decisionshave been made under the Third Pillar of theMaastricht Treaty. The decision-making process, thecomplexity and sensitive nature of the issuesinvolved and the simultaneous implementation ofthe Schengen Agreements have gradually broughtthe system to a halt. A number of conventions havebeen developed, however, such as the EurodacConvention, setting up a joint fingerprint database ofasylum seekers and the Europol Convention onEuropean police co-operation, which took effect inOctober 1998.

The Treaty of Amsterdam of 2 October 1997,which modified the Maastricht Treaty, came into forceon 1 May 1999. It places issues relating to immigrationand asylum under the jurisdiction of the EuropeanCommunity with the aim of creating an area of free-dom, security and justice in the member countries. Italso incorporates the Schengen Agreements into the

OECD 1999


70

European Union Treaty. The United Kingdom, Irelandand Denmark received authorisation to not immedi-ately accept these new measures relating to immi-gration, asylum and the movement of persons.Nevertheless, the United Kingdom and Irelandrecently expressed their willingness to participatein existing Schengen measures relating to theenforcement of laws and legal co-operation in crim-inal matters, including the Schengen InformationSystem.

Those countries wishing to become members ofthe European Union are obliged to consider thesemeasures as forming part of existing European regu-lations, and must therefore include them in their owndomestic legislation. Several Central and EasternEuropean countries, such as the Czech Republic,Hungary and Poland, which are in the pre-member-ship phase, have adopted the required measures.They have, in particular, signed a series of readmis-sion agreements to combat illegal immigration. InHungary, these changes fall into two main categories:guaranteeing that persons would enjoy free move-ment in the European Union and ensuring that exte-rior border controls are tightened. Specific measuresare also being developed to adapt Hungarian legisla-tion to the European partnership agreement concludedwith the European Community. These measures nota-bly include preferential treatment for European Unioncitizens. Other measures adopted more recently relateto the status of key corporate personnel. Norway andIceland signed an agreement in 1999 which enablesthem to participate in the application and develop-ment of the current Schengen regulations.

b) Procedures for admitting asylum seekers and refugees

The status of refugees is regulated by theGeneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the New YorkProtocol of 31 January 1967, which are applied by allOECD Member countries. The number of applica-tions for asylum has increased considerably since theearly 1990s. New types of requests for protectionhave developed, which are not in line with the defi-nition of a “refugee” as set out in the Geneva Conven-tion. Most OECD countries consider these newasylum seekers to be “economic refugees” fleeingpoverty and economic depression in their countriesof origin, and therefore as seeking to abuse the refu-gee status applications process. As a result, thesecountries have decided to tighten up their laws andaccelerate the processing of applications andappeals in order to limit the stay of asylum seekers

on their territory. In addition, they have applied newprinciples to the processing of applications (the def-inition of "manifestly unfounded" applications, theprinciple of "safe countries"), and have limited theright of asylum applicants to take up employment.These measures are all aimed at, and have resultedin, limiting entries to these countries.

Nevertheless, some OECD countries havegranted territorial asylum to individuals affected byserious political crises in their countries of origin(mainly nationals of Algeria and the formerYugoslavia). This type of asylum accords a temporaryright of residence, without granting refugee status.Other countries have expanded the rights of statu-tory refugees, and taken steps aimed at facilitatingtheir integration (see below the section on the inte-gration of foreigners). European Union countries, fortheir part, have set up co-operative measures in thesphere of asylum aimed, over the long term, at har-monising their asylum policies.

Passing or modifying domestic laws relating to asylum

In order to deal with new types of requests forasylum, several OECD Member countries have intro-duced measures into their legislation that enablethem to provide new forms of protection. In a regula-tion issued in May 1997, Canada set up two new cat-egories of refugees (Country of Asylum Class, SourceCountry Class), in order to assist individuals affectedby various types of humanitarian crisis. The “SourceCountry” category is based on a list of countries,updated annually and expanded recently, whichincludes Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, Columbia,Croatia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Liberia and Sudan.

The French law of 11 May 1998 made provisionfor two new forms of protection. “Constitutional” asy-lum makes it possible to grant refugee status to indi-viduals persecuted because of their actions topromote freedom, as defined in the French Constitu-tion. “Territorial” asylum may be granted to foreign-ers who can prove that their lives or freedom arebeing threatened in their country of origin, or thatthey face inhuman or degrading treatment. The terri-torial asylum procedure makes it possible to applyfor temporary asylum, without permanently breakingoff ties with one’s country of origin. It confers only theright to reside in France, along with the right to socialsecurity services and social aid. This procedure iscurrently being used by many Algerian nationalsbecause of the situation in their country.

OECD 1999


71

In January 1998, the Norwegian governmentdecided that victims of gender-based persecution orpersecution by non-governmental groups may be eli-gible for refugee status. In Sweden, an amendment tothe law on foreigners, which came into force in Janu-ary 1997, broadens the definition of refugee status:refugees are foreigners outside their country of citi-zenship who risk persecution in that countrybecause of their race, national origin, membershipof a social or religious group, or their political opin-ions. This definition applies regardless of whetherpersecution is at the hands of the government or ofa non-governmental group.

In Hungary, a new law on refugees took effect in1998. It constitutes the final piece of recent Hungar-ian legislation on migration, following laws regulatingthe entry and residence of foreigners and citizenship,which took effect in 1993/94. The most controversialaspect of previous legislation regarding refugees,namely the question of ruling out certain countries assources of bona fide asylum seekers, was droppedfrom the new law.

Over the past few years, several OECD Membercountries have implemented various procedures forprocessing “manifestly unfounded applications”,sometimes including a definition of this concept.These new procedures enable authorities to acceler-ate the assessment of applications, and to grantfewer legal rights to asylum seekers. In 1998, Irelandand the United Kingdom clarified the proceduresthat should be used in dealing with manifestlyunfounded applications. Ireland implemented newadministrative procedures in early 1998 to deal withcontinued flows of asylum seekers. One of thesemeasures makes it possible, whilst at the same timeestablishing an appeals system, to speed up the pro-cessing of manifestly unfounded applications. In theUnited Kingdom, the White Paper on immigrationand asylum proposes that the existing distinctionbetween countries of origin be dropped, but that theaccelerated appeals procedure be maintained formanifestly unfounded applications, regardless of thecountry of origin.

Prompted by the continuing increase in asylumapplications, all OECD countries share a desire toaccelerate the assessment of applications and theprocessing of appeals against negative decisions. Insome cases, this has led to the creation of specialassessment and appeals bodies, as is the case in Ire-land. Norway and the Netherlands, for their part,have clearly defined and extended the powers of theassessment and appeals authorities.

In Belgium, the National Commissioner for Refu-gees and Stateless Persons has accelerated the proce-dures for processing asylum applications. Theconditions for granting asylum have been madestricter by the Vande Lanotte Act of July 1996 on theentry and residence of foreigners. Amongst otherthings, the law introduced the requirement that aplace of residence be designated for asylum seekerswhere they must reside during the first phase of theirapplication’s assessment, or else forfeit social bene-fits. The Senate Committee for the Interior has madeseveral recommendations to increase the flexibility ofthe manner in which the law is applied. In particular, itsuggests that civil servants responsible for interview-ing asylum applicants should receive better training,that a temporary asylum status be created in order togive applicants access to the job market and socialbenefits, and that the maximum duration of adminis-trative custody for those whose applications havebeen denied be reduced from eight to five months. Itis also recommended that emergency medical aid,food aid and, possibly, housing subsidies be grantedto those whose applications have been denied.

Applying the principles of “safe country of ori-gin” and “safe third country” has also made it possi-ble to simplify and accelerate procedures. MostOECD countries, particularly European countries,have legally recognised and implemented theseprinciples. The Czech Republic, which is preparing arevision of its law on refugees, wants to introducethese principles in the new law. In France, the Act of11 May 1998 denied the right of asylum applicantsfrom safe third countries to enter French territory.

Accelerating the assessment and appeals proce-dures not only enables countries to deal with thelarge number of applications for asylum, but also tolimit applicants’ length of stay in the host country. Aspart of this approach, some OECD Member countrieshave improved the efficiency of their administrativeprocedures for the expulsion of asylum seekerswhose applications have been denied, or haveimplemented policies aimed at returning them totheir country of origin. The Netherlands, which haveimplemented such policies, have noted howeverthat they are not very effective, particularly in deal-ing with Ethiopian, Angolan and Somali nationals.

Other countries sometimes refuse asylum seek-ers the right to work while awaiting the outcome oftheir application, or, while giving them this right, sub-ject it to such strict conditions that it can easily beforfeited. In Greece, a Presidential Decree of 25 June1998 sets out the conditions for the employment of

OECD 1999


72

statutory refugees, foreigners with humanitarian sta-tus and asylum applicants. New legislation to accel-erate the recognition procedure, facilitate familyreunion and improve social coverage for refugeesand asylum applicants is currently under discussion.The implementation of this new law, in line withEuropean Union and UNHCR regulations, should, it ishoped, improve the status of migrants, asylum appli-cants and refugees, especially if it is accompanied byrenewed growth in the Greek economy. In an amend-ment enacted on 1 July 1997, Australia restricted theright of asylum applicants to take up employmentand refused some of them this right, depending on thelength of stay preceding their application. Canadaaccords asylum applicants the right to take upemployment, provided that their asylum applicationis credible. In Ireland, the question of asylum seek-ers’ right to take up employment is controversial.Heretofore the government has taken the view thatgranting asylum applicants early access to employ-ment would act as a “pull factor”, and would therebyencourage abuses of the system. Romania accordsasylum seekers the right to take up employment, butwork permits are very difficult to obtain.

Measures for harmonising asylum policies in the European Union

Since the early 1990s, European Union membercountries have treated asylum policy and immigra-tion policy as matters of common interest. Under theSchengen Agreements, member countries decidedto implement a joint system for determining whichmember country is responsible for any given asylumapplication. The Dublin Convention, signed by allMember countries of the European Community on15 June 1990, also deals with this issue. The provi-sions of these two conventions are quite similar. Theentry into force of the Dublin Convention on1 September 1997 replaced the equivalent provi-sions of the Schengen Agreements, as planned bythe countries which signed both conventions. TheDublin Convention lays down the principle that anyapplication for asylum submitted to a Member coun-try should be assessed by one member country andone member country only, the attribution to which isdetermined according to jointly established criteria.It aims to prevent asylum seekers from submittingapplications to several countries, but also to guaran-tee that all applications are considered.

Title VI of the European Union Treaty considers“asylum policy” as a matter of joint interest. On thisbasis, the Council of the European Union passed sev-

eral resolutions and conclusions in 1992, particularlyregarding the definition of a “manifestly unfoundedasylum application”, a “harmonised approach toquestions regarding host third countries” and identi-fication of “countries where there is no serious risk ofpersecution”. These three principles have beenincluded in Member countries’ legislation (seeabove). Greece, Ireland and Luxembourg effected thisadaptation in 1998. Central and Eastern Europeancountries wanting to join the European Union havealso decided to apply these principles. Implementa-tion of the PHARE Programme in the spheres of immi-gration and asylum has guided legislative reforms inthis regard. Following Poland and Hungary, Bulgariaand the Czech Republic have recently implementedthe necessary measures. Implementing these princi-ples makes it possible for the competent authoritiesto determine that an application is manifestlyunfounded if it is submitted by a person from a coun-try where there is no serious risk of persecution (safecountry of origin), or a person who transited througha third country where he/she may have obtained pro-tection (safe third country).

The Treaty of Amsterdam of 2 October 1997 placesthe matter of asylum and immigration policy under thejurisdiction of the European Community. A supplemen-tary protocol provides that, under normal circum-stances, “no asylum application from a national of aMember country may be considered by another Mem-ber country”.

c) Combating illegal immigration

OECD Member countries, both traditional hostcountries and new immigration countries, are having todeal with a continuing rise in illegal immigration. Theyare also experiencing the need to combat the growth intrafficking of illegal migrants, which is now considered aform of organised crime similar to drug smuggling andprostitution rings. Several measures aimed at combat-ing illegal immigration, organised or not, have beentaken by Member countries. Tightening border controlsplays an essential role. Member countries have alsointroduced or increased the severity of criminal andadministrative sanctions against undocumented for-eigners, smugglers and employers. Several Membercountries have launched programmes to regulariseundocumented foreigners, usually those already livingin the country, with family ties and jobs. Combatingillegal immigration is essentially a matter of unilat-eral domestic policy, although increasing bilateralco-operation between countries is taking place onthe readmission of illegal immigrants.

OECD 1999


73

Domestic policies to tighten controls and increase sanctions

Measures aimed at tightening border controlshave a twin objective: regulating and controlling flows(see above) and combating illegal immigration. MostOECD Member countries have implemented such mea-sures, although in different forms. Germany checksidentity papers extremely carefully when a foreignerapplies for a visa in his/her country of origin. Personneldealing with these applications are trained to recogn-ise forged documents. In 1997, 88 000 people weredenied entry to Germany because they lacked thenecessary documents. Australia and Lithuania haveincreased the number of personnel controlling theirborders or, in the case of Australia, their overseas mis-sions responsible for issuing visas. Lithuania madethe decision to restructure its border police in January1997, and to draw up plans to tighten border controls.Implementation of this plan should be completed bythe end of 1999. The United Kingdom aims to increasethe number of air liaison officers soon, in order toreduce the number of passengers without documentsor with forged documents. It is also planning to extendthe powers of immigration officers to enable moreenforcement operations to be carried out without theneed of a police presence. In May 1999, Japan intro-duced a new penalty against undocumented foreign-ers, and extended to five years the ban on re-enteringthe territory after being expelled.

Lithuania, Italy, Portugal and Spain either set upor expanded detention centres at their borders. InLithuania, a registration centre for foreigners was setup in Pabrad in January 1997. On the basis of the newItalian law, reception centres have been built toaccommodate migrants for the period during whichtheir cases are being assessed or the expulsion proce-dure is underway. The law provides that migrants maynot be kept in these centres for longer than 30 days.The centres are aimed mainly at housing foreignerswho arrive on Italian shores without proper docu-mentation, and to prevent their dispersion through-out the country. In March and April 1997, almost17 000 Albanians arrived in Italy. The authoritiesestimate that 20 000 people arrived between Januaryand October 1998, mainly from Kosovo, Turkey, Iraqand North Africa. Spain has increased the number ofpersonnel working in its detention centres in Melilla,as well as building a new one. Portugal is planning toset up temporary housing centres for foreigners whotry to enter the territory without permission.

Turkey is a transit country for many illegal immi-grants, mainly those from Asia and northern Iraq, but

has thus far refused to sign readmission agreementswith European Union Member countries, citing con-stitutional considerations. Its position makes sys-tematic border controls particularly difficult. Turkeyhas nevertheless recently introduced a new passportsystem conforming to the standards of the Interna-tional Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), and pass-port checks using an optical scanner.

In order to prevent the growth of migrant traffick-ing, Member countries have increased the severity ofsentences against smugglers. The Lithuanian parlia-ment reviewed its penal Code and set the sentencefor smugglers at 15 years imprisonment, with confisca-tion of their property. In May 1997, Japanese immigra-tion law was amended to implement a new criminalsanction against those who organise or assist illegalimmigration. Bilateral technical co-operation agree-ments have recently been signed by the Japanesemaritime security agency and the Korean maritimepolice as well as between local police agencies inJapan and China in order to facilitate the exchange ofinformation regarding migrant trafficking. In Norway,modifications to the immigration law, effective since10 January 1997, increased from two to five years themaximum sentence for any organised activity aimedat facilitating the illegal entry of foreigners. Swedenhas increased from two to four years the maximumsentence for organised illegal immigration. In France,the Act of 11 May 1998 on the entry and residence offoreigners and the right to asylum increased theseverity of penalties facing intermediaries “aidingillegal immigration” and for violations committed inorganised groups.

Several OECD Member countries haveimproved the co-operation between various gov-ernment agencies in order to combat illegal immi-gration. In Australia, the Department of Immigration(DIMA), the Social Security Department and the taxauthorities compare and exchange data. In France,new bodies to combat illegal immigration andemployment have recently been set up and theirpowers harmonised and extended.

Checks of and sanctions against illegal foreignworkers and their employers have also beenstrengthened in several OECD Member countries.In Austria, a draft bill on combating illegal employ-ment is being debated in parliament. This draft billis aimed mainly at increasing checks of employersand improving the effectiveness of the administra-tive authorities involved, specifically by promotingco-operation and the exchange of information.

OECD 1999


74

In the United States, the Immigration and Natu-ralization Service (INS) formulated in January 1999,with the aim of reducing the number of foreign resi-dents in an irregular situation, a new strategy to com-bat their employment. The strategy is based onidentifying and expelling foreigners who are in viola-tion of the law, deterring and clamping down onmigrant trafficking, reducing the benefits to begained from fraud, and preventing employers fromusing illegal foreign labour.

The Czech Republic aims to introduce moresevere sanctions against those who employ undocu-mented foreigners. Random checks by the Ministry ofSocial Affairs and the Ministry of the Interior haveshown that a growing number of foreigners are work-ing without valid papers. Korea recently increasedthe severity of sentences against the employers ofundocumented foreigners, private recruitment agen-cies and illegal workers themselves. Data available inGermany show that problems are still being experi-enced with the illegal provision of temporary labour,the employment of foreigners without checking theirpapers, and abuses concerning unemployment ben-efits. In 1998, Japan implemented an information dis-semination programme aimed at ensuring that theproper employment channels are followed. This pro-gramme, initially implemented in Thailand, aims toprevent illegal labour migration and facilitate theentry of highly skilled foreigners into Japan.

In Hungary, sanctions against employers havebecome stricter in recent years, even though theworker still faces greater risks than the employer. If aforeigner is caught working without a permit, a fine islevied on the employer totalling five times the mini-mum wage for the period worked. A worker withoutpapers may be banned from re-entering Hungary fora period of between one and five years.

As part of its complete overhaul of the federallaw on the residence and settlement of foreigners,Switzerland plans to implement new measures aimedat preventing the employment of undocumented for-eigners. The law will increase existing sanctions, punishsmugglers and extend sanctions to direct employersand principal contractors, as well as holding employersresponsible for the cost of supporting and returningillegal employees to their country of origin.

Finally, the OECD Member countries haveattempted to improve the mechanisms for the expul-sion of illegal immigrants. Measures have been imple-mented at the national level, but also throughinternational co-operation in this sphere. Most notably,

bilateral readmission agreements have been signedwith origin countries or with host third countries.

Since March 1997, the Canadian authorities havebeen implementing measures aimed at improving thehandling of expulsions paid for by airline companies,particularly with regard to police escorts, stop-oversen route and standing orders. In 1997/98, Canadasigned bilateral agreements with Poland, Portugal,Lebanon and Yugoslavia. These agreements, aimed atfacilitating expulsions, complement those alreadysigned with the United States, Vietnam, Jamaica,Hong Kong (China), the Czech Republic and Slovenia.Almost 8 000 people were expelled from Canadain 1997.

During the first few months of 1998, Romaniabudgeted additional funds for the expulsion ofthree groups of foreigners to their countries of origin(Bangladesh, Somalia and Pakistan).

The German government is negotiating readmis-sion agreements with the countries of origin of asy-lum seekers and all neighbouring countries. Theseagreements oblige these countries to readmit theirnationals who lack a valid passport, provided thattheir national origin has been or can be proved. TheCzech Republic regards readmission agreements asone of the factors which have contributed to the fallin illegal immigration and thereby curbed its unde-sirable consequences. Since 1991, it has signed suchagreements with its neighbours and several othercountries, notably France in 1997, and Bulgaria andSlovenia in 1998. According to the Austrian InteriorMinister, readmission agreements signed by Austriawith the Czech Republic and Hungary appear to beproving effective. Implementation of the agreementssigned with the Slovak Republic and Slovenia hasmet with some difficulties.

Italy signed an agreement at the end of October1998 with Albania which will facilitate the applicationof effective measures designed to prevent the illegaltransport of migrants from that country. By means ofa readmission agreement, the Spanish authoritieshave strengthened their collaboration with theMoroccan authorities to return foreigners inter-cepted at the border. In 1996, Spain also signed read-mission agreements with Bulgaria and Romania. Inthe United Kingdom, the July 1998 White Paper onimmigration and asylum suggests that a study be car-ried out to evaluate the potential for increasing thenumber of foreigners returned by the use of readmis-sion agreements and voluntary return programmes.

OECD 1999


75

Lithuania wishes to sign readmission agreementswith migrants’ countries of origin, since it believes thiswould be one way of preventing illegal immigration. Ithas already signed several agreements of this type,notably with Estonia, Latvia, Bulgaria, Finland, Italy,Poland and Ukraine. Such agreements are also undernegotiation with Belarus and Russia. Provisions regard-ing the readmission of foreigners without proper docu-mentation have been included in agreements toabolish visa requirements signed by Lithuania withMalta, Cyprus, Norway and Denmark. Between October1997 and January 1998, Lithuania implemented a volun-tary return programme in co-operation with the Interna-tional Organisation for Migration and the United States.Charter flights were organised to India, Pakistan,Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Similar return programmeswill be carried out in 1999. The programme exemptsthose foreigners lacking proper documentation able topay the cost of their return from criminal and adminis-trative sanctions. Following these return operations,only around 100 foreigners lacking proper documenta-tion remained in the Pabrad detention centre, half ofwhom were asylum applicants.

Regularisation of undocumented foreigners

In 1997 and 1998, France and Greece imple-mented regularisation programmes for undocu-mented foreigners residing on their territories (seeTable I.10). Italy (see the section on Italy in Part II),which had already implemented a regularisation pro-gramme in 1996, decided on a new programme to beimplemented in 1998 and early 1999. Korea, for itspart, granted an amnesty to foreigners illegally resid-ing in the country to enable them to leave withoutrisking sanctions. The amnesty operated fromDecember 1997 to July 1998. By early April 1998, thisprocedure had involved almost 45 000 people. A sec-ond amnesty operation was implemented inMay 1999, the result of the first having been judgedinsufficient.

In 1997, Nicaraguan and Cuban nationals who hadresided in the United States for more than two years’were made eligible for regularisation (NicaraguanAdjustment and Central American Relief Act). Nation-als of El Salvador, Guatemala, the former USSR and afew Eastern European countries were able to apply forthe suspension of expulsion orders made against them,in line with the more liberal law applicable before theAct of 1996 was passed (Illegal Immigration Reform andImmigrant Responsibility Act). Haitian nationals did notqualify for these programmes. However, in 1998, almost50 000 Haitians residing in the United States before

December 1995, and who had submitted an asylumapplication or held a residence permit valid up to thatdate, were made eligible for regularisation (Haitian Ref-ugee Immigration Fairness Act).

In 1997, Romania extended the temporary resi-dence visas of more than 30 000 foreigners in anirregular situation who could justify their continuedpresence in the country. This extension included atoken fine, however, the amount of which has sincebeen increased by the government.

France decided to implement a regularisationprogramme applicable to certain categories of for-eigner in an irregular situation. The programmeended in May 1998. The regularisation programmewas initially aimed at regularising the unlawful status(with regard to entry or residence) of individuals mar-ried to French citizens, foreigners who had enteredFrance legally but without using the family reunionprocedure, spouses of individuals with refugee sta-tus, and well-established foreign families. It alsoapplied to certain categories of children who hadentered France in some way other than through afamily reunion procedure and, under certain circum-stances, to other clearly specified categories of for-eigners (foreigners with no dependants, foreignerswho were seriously ill, students attending highereducation institutions, and those denied asylum).Provisional records show that 143 000 applicationswere received and almost 80 000 residence permitsgranted. Most of these permits (85%) were granted forfamily-related reasons.

In Greece, a regularisation programme wasimplemented on 1 January 1998. The programme wasdue to end in July 1998. However, the deadline wasextended to April 1999, due to the large number ofapplications received and the insufficient time givento applicants to obtain the information requested.The programme comprised two phases. The firstphase (up to May 1998) enabled workers withoutpapers to submit an application for regularisationand obtain a temporary residence permit (whitecard) if their application was considered eligible.During the second phase, extended until April 1999,a “green card” was issued to workers holding a tem-porary permit who could prove that they had workedfor at least 40 days between January and July 1998.The cards are valid initially for between 1 and3 years. Subsequent renewals for two year periodswill be possible. Special provisions exist for thegranting of 5 year permits. By April 1999, 374 000 peo-ple had received the white card, of whom 220 000 hadsubmitted the documentation necessary to apply for

OECD 1999

Tre

nd

s in In

tern

atio

na

l Mig

ratio

n

76

OE

CD

1999

ntries, by nationality

(1996)3

49.9 Morocco 23.025.5 Albania 20.217.0 Philippines 18.611.3 China 8.9

8.7 Peru 8.88.3 Romania 5.9

97.1 Other 62.4

217.7 Total 147.9

United States

86)5 (1997-1998)6

2 008.6 El Salvador/Guatemala 300.0152.3 Haiti 50.0110.5 Nicaragua 40.064.0 Eastern Europe 10.030.3 Cuba 5.025.7

293.5

2 684.9 Total 405.0

process.cluded, a total of 227 300 permits were granted. In 1998,re among the main nationalities.

ta are broken down by country of birth. Data are estimates.

Table I.10. Main regularisation programmes of immigrants in an irregular situation in selected OECD couThousands

France Greece2 Italy

(1981-1982)1 (1997-1998) (1997-1998) (1987-1988) (1990)

Tunisia 17.3 Algeria 12.5 Albania 26.8 Morocco 21.7 MoroccoMorocco 16.7 Morocco 9.2 Egypt 3.1 Sri Lanka 10.7 TunisiaAfrican countries 15.0 China 7.6 Bulgaria 3.0 Philippines 10.7 SenegalPortugal 12.7 Democratic Rep. of Congo 6.3 Pakistan 3.0 Tunisia 10.0 Former YugoslaviaAlgeria 11.7 Tunisia 4.1 Romania 2.2 Senegal 8.4 PhilippinesTurkey 8.6 Poland 1.6 Former Yugoslavia 7.1 ChinaOther 39.1 Other 38.1 Other 11.3 Other 50.1 Other

Total 121.1 Total 77.8 Total 51.0 Total 118.7 Total

Portugal Spain

(1992-1993) (1996) (1985-1986)4 (1991) (1996) (19

Angola 12.5 Angola 6.8 Morocco 7.9 Morocco 49.2 Morocco 7.0 MexicoGuinea-Bissau 6.9 Cape Verde 5.0 Portugal 3.8 Argentina 7.5 Peru 1.9 El SalvadorCape Verde 6.8 Guinea-Bissau 4.0 Senegal 3.6 Peru 5.7 China 1.4 CaribbeanBrazil 5.3 Sao Tome and Principe 2.0 Argentina 2.9 Dominican Rep. 5.5 Argentina 1.3 GuatemalaSao Tome and Principe 1.4 Brazil 0.3 United Kingdom 2.6 China 4.2 Poland 1.1 ColombiaSenegal 1.4 Philippines 1.9 Poland 3.3 Dominican Rep. 0.8 PhilippinesOther 4.8 Other 3.7 Other 21.1 Other 34.7 Other 7.8 Other

Total 39.2 Total 21.8 Total 43.8 Total 110.1 Total 21.3 Total

1. Excluding seasonal workers (6 681 persons) and around 1 200 small traders not broken down by nationality.2. A total of 374 000 people had been granted a white card (first stage of the regularisation). The 51 000 people mentioned in the table is a sample out of the total of the requests in 3. A total of 258 761 applications were received but the provisional results, broken down by nationality, cover only permits granted for reasons of work. If spouses and minor children were in

another programme has been held. A total of 350 000 applications were received. Details by nationality are not available. Morocco, Albania, Philippines, Tunisia, former Yugoslavia a4. Number of applications received.5. Data refer to all persons granted a permanent residence permit (excluding their dependents) during the period 1989-1996 following the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act. Da6. Foreigners who benefited from the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (November 1997) and from the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (October 1998).Sources : France: Office des migrations internationales. Greece: National Employment Observatory. Italy, Portugal and Spain: Ministry of the Interior. United States: INS.


77

a green card. Since the government refused toextend the deadline of 30 April 1999 for green cardapplications, the remaining 43% of applicants whoregistered with the Employment and ManpowerOrganisation (OAED) but had been unable to fulfilthe requirements for obtaining a green card, in par-ticular, prove that they had stable employment, arenow considered as illegal immigrants.

In Italy, a fourth regularisation programme forundocumented foreigners is underway, followingthose of 1986, 1990 and 1996. The new regularisationprogramme was initially planned to involve no morethan 38 000 people – an arbitrary quota set by theItalian authorities. Applicants needed to provideproof that they had been residing in Italy before28 March 1998 and had employment. Because of thelarge number of applicants fulfilling these criteria,the quota was increased to 300 000 by a Decree of13 April 1999. A circular issued on 13 May 1999 by theMinistry of the Interior relaxed the regularisation cri-teria thereby enabling a larger group of individuals toqualify. The most important issue dealt with in theministerial circular is the granting of an additionalextension, until 20 October 1999, to those individualswho are unable to submit a complete application. Inaddition, in order to help the self-employed, the cir-cular stipulates that individuals who are not able toprove that their annual income is at least equivalentto the minimum income requirement in Italy will beallowed to submit their application while undertak-ing to provide the necessary documents concerningtheir income at the time of their permit’s renewal inone year’s time. Finally, the circular includes a widerrange of acceptable “proofs” that can be presentedby immigrants to show that they were present in Italybefore 28 March 1998. Albanians, Romanians, Moroc-cans and Tunisians were the first to benefit from thisregularisation programme.

2. Policies aimed at integrating immigrants

While governments of OECD Member countrieshave focused on controlling migration flows, theyhave not neglected the issue of integrating foreignerswho are already present as well as those who plan toreside in the host country for an extended period.However, assessing the level of integration achievedby foreign populations and immigrants remainsproblematic. The conception of foreigners’ integra-tion is rapidly changing in several OECD Membercountries: some want to further improve the integra-tion policies already in place while others are onlynow beginning to recognise the permanent nature of

the presence of foreigners in their countries. Integra-tion involves complex social relationships; differ-ences in the performance of nationals versusimmigrants, based on a few indicators, do not there-fore necessarily reflect inequalities between the twogroups. Similarly, a convergence of behavioural pat-terns is not a sure indication of successful integra-tion. Several Member countries have focused theirefforts on naturalisation policy, integration by meansof schooling children and training adults, and specificintegration measures aimed at asylum seekers andrefugees, as well as combating racism and discrimi-nation, especially in the workplace.

a) Changes in the conception of foreigners’ integration

For many years, changes in the nature of themigration process and in the societies of host coun-tries have altered the conditions for the integrationof foreign and immigrant populations. In some hostcountries, this has led to changes in the very concep-tion of integration itself. Although traditional integra-tion models have not been called into question, theyhave had to be adapted due to the effect of a numberof factors: immigrants are extending their stays inhost countries, and a second, and even a third gener-ation of immigrants have settled in those countries;the geographic origin of migrants and the prevailingmodes of entry have become more diverse; and, theeconomic recession and the persistence of highunemployment have exacerbated the problemsencountered in integrating certain groups of foreign-ers and have rendered young people’s access to thelabour market more difficult.

The Danish parliament passed in June 1998 itsfirst law dealing exclusively with the question of inte-grating foreigners. This new approach has incorpo-rated the lessons learned from the weaknesses andshortcomings of previous integration measures. It isbased on the fact that the unemployment rate ismuch higher amongst foreigners than amongst Dan-ish nationals. The aim of the new law, which came intoforce in early 1999, is to promote the integration ofrefugees and immigrants so that they can becomefully-fledged members of Danish society. It also aimsto promote new arrivals’ (both refugees and immi-grants) chances of finding work, either through directaccess to the job market, or with the help of aid andtraining programmes.

Italy and Spain, which only recently becameimmigration countries, have both recently found thatthe presence of foreigners in their countries is

OECD 1999


78

becoming a structural phenomenon. In Italy, thistrend manifests itself both in the entry of foreignersinto the job market and in their social and culturalintegration based on family formation and the expan-sion of social networks. The Act of 6 March 1998 aimsto promote and improve the integration of foreignersliving in Italy. A permanent residence card may beissued to those who have lived in the country legallyfor at least five years. Family reunion will be allowedon proof of having a minimum monthly income(480 000 lire for sponsoring one family member).Subject to annual quotas and based on waiting listsat consulates, foreigners will be able to go to Italy tolook for work, without requiring an invitation from anemployer. The law also provides for medical assis-tance to be granted to both minor and adult foreign-ers, regardless of their status, as well as socialsecurity coverage, mandatory education of minorsand training courses for adults. The growing numberof foreign minors, family reunions and the number ofresidence permits issued for family-related reasons,together with the increase in the naturalisation rateand the number of mixed marriages are other indica-tors of foreigners’ permanent settlement.

Luxembourg re-examined its conception ofintegration in a policy paper on the schooling offoreign children, presented in 1998. It points outthat Luxembourg has a particularly high immigra-tion rate, a growing number of cross-border work-ers and a working population of which foreignnationals account for more than 50%. As a result,the Luxembourg government has felt the need toconsider the future of Luxembourg society, its con-ception of integration, future ways of interacting,shared languages for communicating, as well as thepurposes and management of child education.This on-going review encompasses a number ofdifferent aspects of the problem, including the cul-tural, economic and educational aspects.

Two trends are confirmed by an analysis of thepolicies aimed at integrating foreigners which havebeen implemented in OECD Member countries.First, in some Member countries integration mea-sures aimed at refugees are becoming an increas-ingly important part of overall integration policy. Thisis the case in Canada and Australia, whose refugeeaid programmes are particularly well-developed,and in Germany which due to the political situation inCentral and Eastern Europe has to deal withrepeated waves of large numbers of refugees. It isalso the case in those countries which recentlybecame immigration countries and are accepting

increasing numbers of refugees, such as the CzechRepublic, Greece, Italy, Mexico and Norway.

Second, several OECD Member countries, suchas Denmark, the Netherlands and Switzerland havedelegated to local authorities certain tasks related tothe implementation of integration policies. Thistrend, which is relatively new, demonstrates thatthese countries recognise the need to pay attentionto the local level, both in terms of better targeting theefforts made and giving full consideration to the localsituation. It may also be seen as a way of sharing thefinancial costs involved in implementing integrationpolicies.

In Belgium, new integration policies have beenimplemented in both the Brussels and Flemishregions. The Brussels region’s new integration policyis a policy of social integration for the mostdepressed neighbourhoods. It is no longer a policybased on targeting specific national or ethnic catego-ries but rather one framed within an overall policy ofintegration. The Flemish policy towards “ethnic andcultural minorities” was modified by a Decree of April1998. It provides for the implementation of a singlesupport structure and integrated action to assistimmigrants, refugees and travelling people (mainlyGypsies).

In Austria, an integration committee was set upin February 1998. Its main purpose is to advise theMinister of the Interior on how to promote the inte-gration of foreigners and to make recommendationson the possibility of granting humanitarian status toforeigners in an irregular situation.

b) Naturalisation and foreigners’ social integration

Acquiring the citizenship of a host country reflectsa process of gradual economic and social integration,and indeed may facilitate it. The number of naturalisa-tions depends essentially on the magnitude and timeof migration waves, and how liberal the legislationconcerning citizenship is. It is also linked to how muchimportance foreigners place upon acquiring thecitizenship of the host country and the consequencesof the possible loss of their original citizenship.

The basis on which countries determine how cit-izenship can be acquired and granted, be it birth-place, duration of residence or kinship (for the firsttwo the principle is jus soli, for the latter jus sanguini),plays a fundamental role in how the integration of for-eigners into the host country is conceived and in thedistinctions drawn between foreign and national pop-ulations. Changes in naturalisation procedures do

OECD 1999


79

occur, either to liberalise laws that have been toorestrictive, or vice-versa (for a more detailed discus-sion, refer to the special chapter on the acquisition ofcitizenship in Trends in International Migration, OECD,1995). These modifications may impact on the natural-isation rate and the extent of the foreign population inthe host country, particularly when they aim to facili-tate the naturalisation of immigrants’ descendants.

In Germany, the new administration formed fol-lowing the Bundestag elections of 27 September 1998announced a reform of the law governing citizenship.This law had already been liberalised in 1993 with theintroduction of measures facilitating the acquisition ofGerman citizenship. Nevertheless, the principle ofkinship (jus sanguini) was upheld. In May 1999, the draftbill reforming the Citizenship Code in force since 1913was finally passed by parliament. The new reform pro-vides under certain circumstances for the granting ofcitizenship based on the principle of jus soli. Theperiod of residence that must precede naturalisationhas been shortened. Adult foreigners qualify aftereight years’ legal residence (instead of the 15 yearsunder the previous law). More than 4 million foreign-ers (out of a total of 7.4 million) fulfil this requirement.Children born in Germany to foreign parents, at leastone of whom was born in Germany or settled therebefore the age of 14, automatically qualify for citizen-ship. Other children born to foreign parents qualify fordual citizenship until the age of 23. They must decidebetween the ages of 18 and 23 which citizenship theywish to adopt. The new government therefore consid-ers this law to favour the integration of those foreign-ers and their families who are long-term residents ofGermany.

In France, the Act of 16 March 1998 fully rein-stated the principle of jus soli for the acquisition of cit-izenship, as it existed in the Citizenship Codebetween 1945 and 1993. Two requirements have tobe met: foreigners must have established their resi-dence in France, and have habitually resided inFrance for a period of at least five years. In addition,the law now fully applies the rule of dual jus soli tochildren born in France to at least one parent born inAlgeria before independence (July 1962). No resi-dence requirements need to be met by this parent.The law also reduces from two years to one year thetime period required for a foreigner married to aFrench citizen to obtain French citizenship by formaldeclaration. Finally, it provides that any minor bornin France of foreign parents holding residencepapers will be granted a republican identity docu-ment "titre d’identité républicain". This constitutes legal

proof of identity and enables the child to be readmit-ted into France without a visa and to move freely inthe Schengen Area.

Several other countries have recently modifiedtheir laws on citizenship. In Greece, a new law whichcame into force on 30 May 1999 states that applica-tions for naturalisation by the foreign spouses ofGreek nationals must be processed immediately,provided that they reside in Greece and have givenbirth to a child (after the date on which the law waspublished). As well as facilitating access to Greek cit-izenship, these measures are also in line with thecountry’s demographic policy to compensate for theGreeks’ low birth-rate.

Australia and the United Kingdom have notmodified the conditions for granting citizenship, buthave implemented or plan to implement measuresto simplify procedures or better inform foreignerswho qualify for citizenship. In Australia, a brochuresetting out the rights and obligations of citizens andthe procedure to be followed to obtain citizenshiphas been distributed to all those qualifying for natu-ralisation. In addition, an Internet web page has beenset up to facilitate classroom discussion of the subjectof Australian citizenship. The Council for AustralianCitizenship, set up in August 1998, has been giventhe task of advising the government on all mattersrelating to citizenship and Australia’s policy and leg-islation in this regard. In the United Kingdom, theWhite Paper of July 1998 on immigration and asylumpolicies points to the need to implement effectiveways to accelerate the processing of applications,and to develop a more flexible approach to the con-ditions for residence set out in the law. In addition,the government has already implemented measuresrequiring that in every case the reasons for any denialof a naturalisation application be explained in detailby the relevant authorities.

In Latvia, following an initial round of modifica-tions in 1995, measures easing the provisions of theCitizenship Act were implemented in 1998. Thesenew measures remove the conditions of birthplaceand age from the criteria to be fulfilled to obtainLatvian citizenship. In addition, all children born inLatvia after 1991 automatically acquire citizenship.Up to 1998, around 18 000 children had not been ableto obtain citizenship. This will result in an increase inthe number of Latvian citizens in the months tocome.

In Bulgaria, a law setting out the conditions foracquiring citizenship and allowing the possibility of

OECD 1999


80

dual citizenship for Bulgarian nationals was recentlypassed. The law introduced for the first time specificcriteria for naturalisation, including a period of resi-dence of at least five years, having an income andemployment, and mastering the language. Marriageto a Bulgarian national automatically qualifies for-eigners for Bulgarian citizenship. In the granting ofcitizenship, administrative priority is given to refu-gees, foreigners born in Bulgaria, and the spousesand children of Bulgarian nationals.

The naturalisation rate, in other words the per-centage of the total foreign population that acquiresthe citizenship of the host country in a given year,and the number of naturalisations are good indica-tors of foreigners’ integration. In 1997, both theseindicators remained relatively stable in most OECDMember countries. In others, variations in these indi-cators were brought about by recent legislativechanges (see Statistical Annex, Table A.1.7).

For example, in Belgium, the number of natural-isations rose sharply in 1997, following modificationof the citizenship law in 1995, which introduced moreliberal measures. A slight decrease was, however,recorded in 1996. In the United States, the imple-mentation in 1996 of a new programme to replaceresidence cards, discontinue certain social servicesfor immigrants and simplify the means of acquiringcitizenship, motivated foreigners to become US citi-zens. This resulted in an exceptional increase in thenumber of naturalisations. In 1997, the number ofnaturalisations (600 000) was almost 50% down on thepreceding year.

In the Netherlands, a significant fall was noted in1997, resulting from the more restrictive measurespassed by parliament to compensate for the sharpincrease recorded after changes in the law in 1992. InGermany, the reforms of 1993 had resulted in a largeincrease in the number of naturalisations in 1994 and1995. From 1996, however, the number fell back. Thenew law passed in March 1999 will probably result innew fluctuations in the number of naturalisations.

In other OECD countries, changes in the numberof naturalisations in 1997 and 1998 have not been sig-nificant. They have been characterised either by aslight decline, as in the case of Australia, or by a slightincrease, such as in Italy and Japan. France, Spainand Finland have experienced slightly largerincreases in the number of naturalisations. In Francethe number has been increasing since 1995, and canbe expected to persist as a result of the new law ofMarch 1998. Spain, for its part, saw a 22% increase in

the number of naturalisations in 1997. In Sweden,after having fallen steadily from 1993 to 1996, thenumber of naturalisations rose in 1997.

The highest rate of naturalisation in average dur-ing the last decade (see Chart I.12) was registered inthe Netherlands followed by Sweden, Norway andGermany, due essentially to the high number of nat-uralisations registered since 1993. In the UK and inFinland the highest naturalisation rates wererecorded during the previous period (1988-92).

In several OECD countries, marrying a citizen isstill the most common way for foreigners to acquirecitizenship. In the United Kingdom, mixed marriagesaccount for 28% of all naturalisations; their numberdeclined by 4 000 in 1997 from 14 300 in 1996. InFrance, the number of mixed marriages has beenincreasing since 1994, with almost 24 000 mixed mar-riages in 1996. In Belgium, the number of mixed mar-riages has stabilised since 1992, accounting for 12% ofall marriages in 1996. This percentage exceeds 27% inSwitzerland (see Chart I.13) whereas the share of for-eigners in the total population is below 20%. In somecountries such as Norway, Hungary, Japan and Sweden,the number of mixed marriages as a percentage oftotal marriages is on average three time higher thanthe share of foreigners in the total population. Thenumber of mixed marriages as a percentage of totalmarriages may be seen as an indicator of the level ofintegration of immigrant groups into society, in thesense that these marriages are an expression of andcreate permanent ties to the host country. However,an analysis of the demographic structure of the foreignor foreign-born population is necessary to explain therelative importance of mixed marriages in OECD coun-tries and their links with the integration of immigrantsin the host country.

c) The schooling of immigrant children and integration

Education is of vital importance for the integra-tion of immigrants’ children. Both the level of educa-tion attained and the qualifications obtained aredetermining factors of their success in the labourmarket and their integration into the host country’ssociety. In 1998, the Luxembourg Ministry of Educa-tion drafted a document entitled “Towards an Inte-grated School Integration – Findings, Questions andPerspectives” (“Pour une école d’intégration – constats,questions, perspectives”) (see above). This policy paperconcerns the schooling of foreign children, and seesthe school’s mission as offering an equal standard of

OECD 1999


81

education to pupils characterised by both commonpoints and differences in their history, socio-culturalorigin, behaviour and motivation.

The issue of providing instruction conducted inthe parents’ mother tongue is sometimes raised inthe context of education and integration into theschool system. In some countries, such as Germany,Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Norway,foreign children have the option of attending classesin their family’s mother tongue, either at school or inclasses given outside of school. In Luxembourg,classes in Portuguese and in Italian were introducedin 1993 into the curricula of schools in the largesttowns, and are still continuing. More than1 000 pupils, divided into 200 classes, attendedthese courses during 1993/1994. Attendance levels atsuch classes continue to grow.

All governments insist on the need to learn thelanguage of the host country. What is more, a goodknowledge of the language of the host country is oneof the criteria for obtaining citizenship in most OECDMember countries. Whatever the conceptions ofintegration and the role of the school, assistance andsupport structures aimed at foreign pupils have beenimplemented, particularly for new arrivals who can-

not immediately attend ordinary classes. This type ofeducation and assistance takes the form of introduc-tory classes, extra lessons and informal coaching,usually offered by institutional bodies or relatedstructures. Because of the fact that very few immi-grant children attend day care centres and pre-schools because of their cost and limited availability,the Norwegian government has implemented athree-year programme to enable foreign childrenfrom underprivileged areas in Oslo to attend day-care centres free of charge. This measure and thegranting of subsidies for employing bilingual assis-tants at day-care centres are aimed at making it eas-ier for children to learn Norwegian during their pre-school years.

The Greek government recently announced thesetting up of six new “inter-cultural schools” for theeducation of the children of migrants of Greek andforeign origin. More than 1 700 pupils of diverse ori-gins are attending the first 13 schools of this type.Most of them (three quarters) are of Greek origin, bethey born of immigrants who have returned toGreece, of parents of Greek origin from Albania or theCIS countries, or of parents who are members of theMuslim minority in Athens. Most children of foreignmigrants have their origins in Albania, the CIS coun-

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Netherlands

Sweden

Norway

Finland

Germany

United Kingdom

Belgium2

Denmark

France

United States

Austria

Spain

Switzerland

Korea3

Japan

Italy

Luxembourg

Chart I.12. Naturalisation rate in some OECD countries10-year average (1988-1997)1

Per 100 foreigners at the beginning of the year

Note: The naturalisation rate indicates the number ofpersons acquiring the nationality of the countryas a percentage of the stock of the foreignpopulation at the beginning of the year.

1. For France and the United States, calculationswere possible only for 1991 (on the basis of 1990Census population data). For the United States,the number of naturalisations in 1991 has beendivided by the number of foreign-born residentswho did not obtain American citizenship in 1990.

2. 1991-1997 average.3. 1988-1996 average.Sources: Austria: Osterreichisches Statistisches

Zentralamt; Belgium: National Statistical Officeand Ministry of Justice; Denmark: DanmarksStatistiks; Finland: Central Statistical Office;France: Ministère de l'Emploi et de la Solidarité;Allemagne: Statistisches Bundesamt; Italy:Ministry of the Interior; Japan: Ministry of Justice,Civil Affairs Bureau; Korea: Ministry of Justice;Luxembourg: Ministry of Justice; Netherlands:Central Statistical Office; Norway: StatisticsNorway; Spain: Ministry of Justice and Ministryof the Interior; Sweden: Statistics Sweden;Switzerland: Office fédéral des étrangers; UnitedKingdom: Home Office; United States: USDepartment of Justice.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Netherlands

Sweden

Norway

Finland

Germany

United Kingdom

Belgium2

Denmark

France

United States

Austria

Spain

Switzerland

Korea3

Japan

Italy

Luxembourg







0 1 2 3 4 5 6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Netherlands

Sweden

Norway

Finland

Germany

United Kingdom

Belgium2

Denmark

France

United States

Austria

Spain

Switzerland

Korea3

Japan

Italy

Luxembourg







OECD 1999


82

tries, the Philippines, and other Asian as well as Afri-can countries.

In Luxembourg, the Ministry of Education putforward in May 1998 an early learning project whichwould become mandatory in all towns as from 2001.The project is aimed at familiarising foreign childrenwith Luxembourg language and culture. Implementa-tion of this project in 1998/1999 was optional; it wasrun as a pilot study in certain towns under the super-vision of the Ministry of Education.

In Belgium, the Centre for Equal Opportunitiesand the Fight Against Racism found that educationremains a problem area due to the institutionaliseddiscrimination pupils and students are subjected to,even though it is one of the main determinants of theintegration of immigrant populations. Its seems clearthat the type of education chosen for young immi-grants and the often improper channelling of thesechildren into special education at primary level andvocational education at secondary level are quitelikely to be due to institutionalised discrimination.Measures have been implemented to facilitate theenrolment of children of undocumented foreigners,to improve their support, both educational andfinancial, and to designate “language adaptation

teachers” to assist first-time arrivals in integratinginto the school system. Two decrees, relating to “themission of the school” and the implementation of a“positive discrimination” policy have been issued toguarantee that all pupils are treated fairly, and to co-ordinate schools’ access to available resources.

d) Integration policies and foreigners’ social integration

Integration policies vary according to the coun-try depending on the nature of the integration prob-lems encountered and the integration models used.Integration policies may thus either be designed forall immigrants, or targeted at particular groups. Theymay be aimed at new arrivals, or at foreigners alreadysettled in the host country. Of foremost concern tothe governments of all host countries is that immi-grants quickly master the language. This is viewed asa precondition for integration. Many language trainingprogrammes have been implemented by OECD Mem-ber countries, aimed both at children, via the schoolsystem, or at adults, by means of specific training. Inseveral traditional host countries, changes wererecently made in the modalities of financing measuresaimed at the integration of foreigners. The German,

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

19.0

21.1

6.0

3.6

9.0

9.0

6.3

1.4

1.2

1.6

1.8

Chart I.13. Share of mixed marriages1 in total marriages in some OECD countries,last available year2

Switzerland

Australia

Sweden

Norway

Germany

Belgium

France

Hungary

Japan

Italy

Portugal

1. A mixed marriage is one between aforeigner and a national of the country inwhich he/she is residing (in the case ofAustralia, between a person born abroadand a person born in the country).

2. 1997 except for Australia, Belgium, France,Hungary, Sweden (1996) and Italy (1994).

3. 1997 except for Australia, Belgium,Hungary, Sweden (1996), France (1990)and Italy (1994). For Australia, proportionof the foreign-born in total population.

Sources: Australia : ABS; Belgium: NationalStatistical Office; France: INSEE; Germany:Statistisches Bundesamt; Hungary: Civilregisters; Italy: ISTAT; Japan: Ministry ofHealth; Norway: Statistics Norway;Portugal: National Statistical Office;Sweden: Statistics Sweden; Switzerland:Office fédéral des étrangers.

Share of foreignersin total population3

(%)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

19.0

21.1

6.0

3.6

9.0

9.0

6.3

1.4

1.2

1.6

1.8


Switzerland

Australia

Sweden

Norway

Germany

Belgium

France

Hungary

Japan

Italy

Portugal






(%)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

19.0

21.1

6.0

3.6

9.0

9.0

6.3

1.4

1.2

1.6

1.8


Switzerland

Australia

Sweden

Norway

Germany

Belgium

France

Hungary

Japan

Italy

Portugal






(%)

OECD 1999


83

Australian and United States governments, for exam-ple, as well as those of Denmark and Switzerland, havedecided to let private organisations, local associa-tions, local authorities or the federated states financeand implement integration policies and manage pub-lic financing earmarked for this purpose, as opposedto having national or federal bodies bear full financialresponsibility for these policies.

Assistance to new arrivals

In Canada and Australia, support to immigrantsis provided immediately upon their arrival in thecountry. Such support takes the form of assistancewith administrative procedures and formalities andfinancial and language assistance. In Australia, sev-eral government programmes are aimed directly atnew immigrants, particularly those teaching Englishto children (Youth ESL) and adults. In the case ofadults, the government implemented in 1997-98 aneducational system based on teaching in the homeor in small groups (ESL Home Tutor Scheme). The1997-98 programme to assist ethnic communities(Community Programs) gave preference to foreignerswith humanitarian status, new arrivals, women andsenior citizens, and those living in isolated ruralareas. The National Integrated Settlement Strategy isa more general government programme to facilitatethe integration of all foreigners and to co-ordinatethe programmes of several ministries.

The Canadian government has implemented sev-eral programmes aimed at facilitating the integrationof immigrants. The most important of these are: the“Language Program for New Immigrants to Canada”;the “Resettlement Assistance Program” which pro-vides assistance, notably in the form of temporaryaccommodation and interpretation services, to indi-viduals admitted to Canada as part of the annual ref-ugee plan; the “Introduction Program”; and, the“Program for the Settlement and Integration of Immi-grants” which provides funds to community-basedorganisations involved in the integration of new arriv-als (offering interpretation and employment-relatedservices, and cultural awareness programmes).

In Europe, integration policies focus on theschooling of children, vocational training, learningthe language of the host country, and assistance inobtaining accommodation and access to health care.One of the priorities of the Norwegian government isto give new arrivals the means to become indepen-dent as soon as possible, and thus reduce unem-ployment amongst them. In Germany, projects aimed

at the integration of foreigners implemented by theLabour and Social Affairs Ministry focus on languageteaching, the social and professional integration ofyoung people and women, and on improving every-day relations between Germans and foreigners.

In Denmark, the new Integration Act of 26 June1998, which became effective in January 1999,requires local authorities to implement an introduc-tion programme aimed at new foreign arrivals overthe age of 18. This three-year programme includescourses in Danish language and culture, as well astraining on how to obtain employment. During theintroduction period, a special allowance is granted torefugees and immigrants in need of financial assis-tance. The Integration Act also provides for the set-ting up of Integration Councils in towns where morethan 50 people request it. These Councils may issuepublic assessments of integration initiatives under-taken by the municipality and of introduction pro-grammes implemented by local authorities.

Several OECD Member countries, such as Greeceand the Czech Republic, have recently implementedspecific programmes aimed at facilitating the returnand reintegration of their nationals. Since April 1998,the Greek authorities have issued a “special identitycard” to Albanians of Greek extraction giving them theright to accommodation and the guarantee of equaltreatment in the labour market. The spouses, childrenand grandchildren of card-holders qualify for the samecard, provided that official documents proving theirkinship are submitted; this card is valid for three yearsand may be renewed. Since 1994, the Ministry of theInterior of the Czech Republic has run an assistanceprogramme aimed at helping Czech nationals return-ing from abroad settle in isolated or unstable regions.This programme provides accommodation andemployment to Czech nationals and their families whowish to settle in the Czech Republic on a permanentbasis.

Special assistance for refugees and asylum seekers

Several OECD Member countries have beenfaced with significantly growing numbers of asylumseekers and refugees over the past few years, andhave adapted their integration policies and/or imple-mented special programmes to assist these two cat-egories of foreigner. In Canada, several programmesaim to facilitate the introduction and integration ofrefugees and individuals with humanitarian status,such as the “Private Sponsorship of Refugees Pro-gram”, the “Refugee Resettlement Model” imple-

OECD 1999


84

mented in 1998 and the “Resettlement AssistanceProgram” which replaced the Adaptation AssistanceProgram in April 1998. Most of these programmes arerun jointly by Citizenship and Immigration Canada(CIC) and private organisations. They aim to providefinancial and material assistance to refugees andindividuals admitted for humanitarian reasons, aswell as to help them gain access to basic services.

The Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republicsigned agreements with several mayors in 1997 onthe basis of the Integration of Refugees AssistanceProgramme, implemented in 1994. Mayors who agreeto accommodate around 60 refugees in their townreceive a subsidy from the State. They must alsoundertake to provide refugees with assistance infinding work, schooling their children and obtainingsocial security coverage.

In Mexico, the category assimilated immigrant(asimilado) has been created, enabling Guatemalansto settle and work in Mexico. In August 1996, a pro-gramme designed to promote the settlement ofmigrants was implemented to facilitate the integra-tion of Guatemalan refugees in the states ofCampeche, Quintana Roo and Chiapas. This pro-gramme made it possible to issue official documentsto all refugees, allowing them to travel freely withinMexico, take up employment or engage in businessand, possibly, settle in another state. The pro-gramme also allows them to apply for Mexicannationality.

The new Danish law on integration, passed inJune 1998, transfers the responsibilities of theNational Council for Refugees regarding integrationto local authorities. An accommodation programmein towns, based on a quota system, requires thatlocal authorities assist refugees in finding accommo-dation suited to their personal circumstances.

Foreigners’ integration into the labour market

Vocational training and facilitating young peopleand the unemployed’s access to the labour marketare other fundamental elements of OECD Membercountries’ integration policies. In many OECD coun-tries, foreigners have higher unemployment ratesthan nationals, and it has proved difficult to integratethem into the labour market. Numerous programmeshave been implemented at both the national andlocal level. Generally aimed at those groups with thehighest unemployment (the long-term unemployedand older unemployed people, women with fewqualifications and young people leaving the educa-

tional system without qualifications), they provideeither training or vocational experience contracts orjobs sponsored by the State, both in the public andprivate sectors. New initiatives aimed at combatingracism and discrimination in the workplace attemptto address the problems associated with the integra-tion of the recent waves of immigrants, particularly inthose countries that had not previously experienceda foreign population influx.

In Belgium, agreements signed on 8 June 1998on the “Commitments of the Flemish governmentand the Flemish social partners concerning theemployment of immigrants” has the objective ofobtaining a balanced presence of immigrants at alllevels of both the public and private sectors. The1997-98 affirmative action plan for immigrants aims toimprove access to the labour market and increasethe vertical mobility of certain target groups in sev-enty-five companies and government institutions,without lowering qualification criteria. It does not,however, provide for positive discrimination or man-datory quotas. The plan also provides for an analysisof selection and recruitment procedures, and checksfor the existence of discrimination in hiring.

In Denmark, the new Integration Act of June 1998provides for assistance and financial support mea-sures to aid new arrivals in their search for work, sothat they can be integrated into the labour market assoon as possible. In France, attempts to facilitateimmigrants’ integration into the labour market formpart of wider efforts concerning the provision of voca-tional training and promoting young people and theunemployed’s access to the labour market.

In the Netherlands, in 1997 the unemploymentrate amongst minority populations was five timeshigher than among nationals. Both general and spe-cific measures are in place to facilitate the integrationof foreigners into the labour market. The general lawon recruiting job-seekers came into force on1 January 1998. It requires that municipalities imple-ment measures to facilitate the integration of foreign-ers into the labour market, specifically by means oflinguistic and vocational training. Young job-seekersand the long-term unemployed who find it hard tofind work may be placed by municipalities in subsi-dised positions in public or private companies. Inthe spring of 1998, a working party on minorities andthe labour market was set up by the Ministries of theInterior and Social Affairs. Composed of representa-tives of the social partners, private organisations andminority groups, it has been given the task of improv-

OECD 1999


85

ing the balance between the supply of and demandfor jobs for minority groups.

In Norway, the public employment service hasimplemented a system of personalised action plansto assist foreigners in finding work. In order to reduceunemployment, the government has set up varioustypes of training programmes on how to find workand courses leading to qualifications, which areattended by many foreigners. Without going as far asto establish quotas it also encourages the recruit-ment of qualified foreigners in the public sector.

Measures implemented to facilitate the integra-tion of foreigners into the labour market are aimednot only at providing access to employment, but alsoat combating racism and discrimination in the work-place. Several OECD Member countries have passedlegislation or implemented programmes of this type.In Norway, the Minister for Local Authorities andRegional Development, in co-operation with otherministers, reviewed the action plan against racismand ethnic discrimination in June 1998. One of theaims of this plan is to expand the legal assistanceafforded to the victims of racial discrimination, and toraise awareness of the problem. It also aims toimprove the training of civil servants who deal with amulti-cultural population.

In October 1997, the Czech government publisheda report on the gypsy community, which pointed tothe need for urgent measures, particularly withregard to employment and education. In Germany, aproject on developing strategies aimed at dealingwith xenophobia amongst Germans and foreignerswas implemented in the Ruhr region in early 1998.This programme aims to resolve inter-cultural con-flicts which may arise in the workplace or in everydayrelations, and to develop strategies to prevent theisolation of immigrants. In Belgium, a new mandatorycollective bargaining agreement, signed in July 1998,requires that employers may not when recruiting dis-criminate between candidates on the basis of theirage, sex, marital status, medical history, race, skincolour, national or ethnic origin, political or religiousbeliefs, or membership in a union or any other organ-isation. This agreement enables any victim of dis-crimination to bring the matter before the LabourCourt.

In France, a round-table discussion on racial dis-crimination in the workplace was held between thegovernment and the other social partners in May1999. Several approaches were proposed and dis-cussed. These included how to: broaden knowledge

and understanding of discriminatory practices;improve the training of all those in the public and pri-vate spheres involved in combating discrimination;develop sponsorship of young job-seekers; and,include clauses on combating racism in contractssigned with municipalities. Proposals to modify leg-islation in order to increase the effectiveness of mea-sures against racial discrimination were alsodiscussed. A working group on discrimination (Grouped’étude des discriminations, GED), which will act as moni-toring body, was set up on 15 April 1999. It willpresent papers and run awareness-raising campaignsaimed at broadening knowledge and understandingof racial discrimination. Its scope will encompass allaspects of society, notably employment, accommo-dation, contact with public services, culture andeducation.

3. Migration and international co-operation to promote economic development

Thus far, international co-operation to controlflows has proved to be only a partial response to theincreasing range and volume of migration move-ments. It is for this reason that the idea of sustainabledevelopment as a means of eventually reducing theincentives to emigrate in those countries with highemigration potential is gaining ground among OECDcountries. The originality of this approach lies not inthe association of migration with development butrather in suggesting to policy makers that they needto take greater account of the impact on migration ofmeasures adopted in the context of internationaleconomic relations. Among the more important ofthese measures are those relating to trade liberalisa-tion and the acceleration of regional integration.They are accompanying, notably, increased foreigndirect investment by OECD countries not only in thelabour-intensive sectors of developing-country econ-omies but also in their social infrastructure (particu-larly health care and education) and technologicallyadvanced sectors.

The OECD, following on from the proposalsdebated at the Conference on Migration and Interna-tional Co-operation held in Madrid in March 1993 atthe initiative of the Canadian and Spanish govern-ments (Migration and Development: New Partnerships forCo-operation, OECD, 1994), organised from 1996 to1998 three regional seminars on migration, free tradeand regional integration, in respectively Centraland Eastern Europe (Vienna, March 1996, with thesupport of the Austrian Federal Chancellery andthe WIFO), in the Mediterranean Basin (Athens,

OECD 1999


86

October 1996, in co-operation with the Greek author-ities) and in North America (Mexico, January 1998, withthe support of the Mexican, Canadian and UnitedStates authorities). With the Japanese authorities andin collaboration with the ILO, the Secretariat has alsoorganised since 1995 annual workshops on migrationand the labour market in the context of regional eco-nomic integration in Asia. The principal conclusions ofthese regional seminars and workshops were pre-sented in the two previous editions of Trends in Interna-tional Migration (OECD, 1997 and 1998).4 In order to drawthe political lessons from these regional analyses andto debate them with policy makers and experts, theOECD organised with the support of the Portugueseauthorities an international conference on "Globalisa-tion, Migration and Development" in Lisbon on 2 and3 November 1998. The principal conclusions of thisConference are summarised below. They are fol-lowed by a review of the association agreementsrecently signed by the European Community withthe countries of Central and Eastern Europe, withTurkey and with the countries of the Maghreb.

a) Migration and development: the principal conclusions of the Lisbon Conference

The Lisbon Conference comprised three ses-sions. The first session presented, with the aid ofeconomic indicators, the relative state of advance-ment of the processes of regionalisation and globali-sation in the four large regions considered. Thesecond session analysed the different policies forregional economic integration and their impact ondirect investment, employment and migration. Thisanalysis was completed by an assessment of theattempts using different economic models to takeinto account the impact of free-trade and economicintegration on direct investment, employment andmigration flows. The third session consisted of tworound tables. The first round table highlighted theeconomic measures and trade strategies whichwould help remove the remaining obstacles to anacceleration of the regional integration processespresently underway. The second round table aimedto further clarify the role that migration flows couldplay in strengthening regional integration and todefine the new directions which employment and

migration policies should take in order to attain thisobjective. The regional seminars and the interna-tional conference in Lisbon have highlighted the fac-tors likely to play a key role in a successful strategy.Proposals were formulated to accelerate economicconvergence and over the longer term reduce incen-tives to emigrate in those countries of high migrationpotential.

The key factors for successful economic integration

The integration of the developing countries intoindustrialised regional groupings can have beneficialeffects for the former only if integration is accompa-nied by sufficient funding to build up their human andphysical capital. Along with market size and the inter-nal dynamic of the investments, these are two key fac-tors in attracting foreign direct investment. Theexperience of countries like Ireland and Portugal overthe past twenty years shows that trade liberalisationand regional integration can produce dynamic effectsof convergence towards mean European per capitaincome only if structural and institutional reformsaccompany the process. These include credible mac-roeconomic policies, a fairer distribution of the fruitsof growth and greater enhancement and use of humanresources. Among the other frequently stressed keyfactors are political stability, the quality of investment(including the best way to use structural funds andremittances), and the existence of basic infrastructure.Concern for protecting the human and social dimen-sion, in a context of liberalisation, also plays an essen-tial part in ensuring that the inevitable adjustmentsare better accepted at the political level, both domes-tically and internationally. States have here an impor-tant regulatory role to play as regards both social andlabour standards.

The different forms of regional integration involvea wide variety of participants: governments, nationaland multinational enterprises and the labour force ingeneral. Co-ordinated assistance and multinationalaction are needed to alleviate the effects on the econ-omy, in particular on employment, of the structuraladjustments necessitated by trade liberalisation andintegration in the world economy. Dissemination ofinnovation and technological progress, the implemen-

4. The proceedings of these regional seminars and workshops were published under the following titles: Migrations, libre-échange et intégration régionale dans le Bassin méditerranéen, OCDE, 1998

Migration, Free Trade and Regional Integration in North America, OECD, 1998Migration and Regional Economic Integration in Asia, OECD, 1998Migration, Free Trade and Regional Integration in Central and Eastern Europe, OECD-WIFO, 1997Migration and the Labour Market in Asia. Prospects to the Year 2000, OECD, 1996.

OECD 1999


87

tation of policies for modernising business manage-ment methods, and the promotion of employment,stability and social equity are what determine thedegree of success of the trade liberalisation processand the integration of the newly developing countriesinto international trade.

The place of international migration in the globali-sation process was the subject of much discussion dur-ing the Conference. Liberalisation of goods and capitalflows has advanced considerably compared with theliberalisation of labour migration, especially in the caseof North-South relations. It is therefore impossible totalk of a globalisation of migration. Yet the increasingdiversity of migrants’ nationalities and the migrationchannels used as well as the growing proportion ofmovements of temporary and skilled workers in totalmigration flows, does show that migration is an impor-tant element in the globalisation process.

The growing interdependence of origin and hostcountries was frequently stressed. In the source coun-tries, the debate on migration has become insepara-ble from those on human rights, political organisationand economic development issues. In host countries,the integration of immigrants is one of the key priori-ties of migration policy. These countries are faced withthe problem of ageing populations; in the mediumterm it is quite possible that migration might form partof or influence the solutions currently being sought formaintaining or reforming the welfare state.

Over the past ten years, we have witnessed anincrease in the energies devoted to regional integra-tion strategies. The acceleration of economic conver-gence depends on the level of integration chosen. Theprospect of certain Central and Eastern Europeancountries joining the European Union has been ofcrucial importance in attracting foreign capital andfavouring these countries’ transition towards a mar-ket economy. In the case of Ireland and Portugal,often mentioned during the Conference, the judi-cious use of the European Community’s structuralfunds which they received on joining made it possi-ble for them to modernise their infrastructure andincrease investment in human capital. Together,these two factors enabled them to attract foreign cap-ital. Their economic and technological catch-up hasbeen accompanied by a reversal in migration flows.

Proposals to accelerate economic convergence

Among the measures proposed at the Confer-ence to accelerate economic convergence, partici-pants stressed the need for efficient public and

financial institutions, the implementation of voca-tional training programmes and measures to attractforeign capital (including investments by emigrantsin their home countries) that would ensure sustain-able development.

In a context of increasing economic conver-gence, migration policy could play a fundamentalrole. One objective of migration policy is to combatillegal immigration by better controlling flows withinthe regionally integrated area and granting legalimmigrants and their families the same status asnationals. Another objective is to encourage theexchange of skilled labour and facilitate the freemovement of persons (business executives andemployees). The current discussions in the WTO onthe GATS, dealing with the international movementof persons in connection with the provision of ser-vices, are deadlocked; the developing countries arethe more heavily penalised in this regard. Bilateral ormultilateral agreements in this sphere are possible,however, as is an increased use of service contractspermitting labour movements and the adoption ofmeasures facilitating the establishment of self-employed workers. Finally, the enhancement ofhuman resources should form an important elementof migration policy.

The present context of increasing globalisationand accelerating regional integration would seem tofavour migrants’ productive return home. Whereregional integration is successful, brain drain shouldtaper off and the emigration countries will benefitmore fully from the skills acquired by those whoreturn.

During the Lisbon Conference, as during theprevious regional seminars, policymakers wereinvited to integrate migration into the broader con-text of international economic and political relations.The effort to place this subject in its geopolitical set-ting shows that the issue of the relationship betweenglobalisation, migration and development deservesto be further investigated and revisited when currentexperiences of regional integration have reachedmore advanced stages.

b) European Community association and co-operationagreements

Association Agreements between the European Community and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe

From 1991 to 1996, the European Communityconcluded with the Central and Eastern European

OECD 1999


88

countries (CEECs) a series of association agreementsof a new kind known as “Europe Agreements”. Theseagreements replaced existing co-operation agree-ments. The first countries to sign these agreementswere the four Visegrad countries (Poland, Hungary,the Czech Republic, and the Slovak Republic), fol-lowed by Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltic States, andSlovenia. In the cases of Poland and Hungary theseagreements came into force on 1 February 1994, inthe cases of Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republicand the Slovak Republic on 1 February 1995 and inthe case of Slovenia 1 February 1999; the agreementwith the three Baltic States has yet to come into force.The Europe Agreements established a bilateral asso-ciation between the European Community and eachCEEC, covering both intergovernmental and purelyCommunity spheres: political dialogue, movement ofgoods and workers, establishment and provision ofservices, payments and capital, competition andgovernment subsidies, harmonisation of laws, andeconomic, financial, and cultural co-operation.

While free movement is enjoyed by nationals ofthe European Economic Area, the Europe Agree-ments remain cautious in their approach to this issue.The provisions relevant to movement are even lessgenerous than those made for nationals of Turkeyand the countries of the Maghreb as part of theirAssociation Agreements signed with the EuropeanCommunity.

The Europe Agreements are part of an overall“pre-accession strategy”, which was adopted in prin-ciple at the Copenhagen meeting of the EuropeanCouncil in June 1993. The Commission opened acces-sion talks in March 1998 with five CEECs (Poland,Hungary, the Czech Republic, Estonia, and Slovenia),as well as with Cyprus. At the same time, it decidedto annually assess the preparedness of each of thefive countries that were not included within this firstgroup of prospective members (the Slovak Republic,Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, and Lithuania). The CEECsare currently in an intermediary and uncertain phase,between a closer association with the EuropeanUnion and a differentiated accession process thatwill probably entail a long transition period. In thiscontext, the movement of persons is an importantand sensitive issue.

The European Community has also concluded aseries of partnership and co-operation agreementswith member countries of the Commonwealth ofIndependent States (CIS), notably with the RussianFederation (which came into force on 1 December1997), Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Kazakhstan,

Kirghistan and Belarus, as well as with Georgia,Armenia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.A similar agreement has been negotiated withTajikistan. These agreements aim essentially to facil-itate trade between the European Community andthe co-signatories. They do not contain provisionsrelating to the co-signatories’ nationals’ access toemployment or residence. Rather, they set out sim-ple objectives the attainment of which is left toappraisal to each individual State itself.

• Rules on movement and employment in the European Union at present applicable to CEEC nationals

Right of entry and right to a short visit

In principle, nationals of Poland, Hungary, theCzech Republic, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia arenot required to obtain a visa to enter the EuropeanUnion and/or the Schengen Area for a short visit (lessthan three months) or for transit. “Nevertheless, itremains possible according Community Law for anEU member state to maintain or re-establish the visarequirement. Recently, the United Kingdom re-established the requirement of a visa for Slovaknationals, and may do so with regard to Czech nation-als”. Once the three-month period has elapsed, how-ever, CEEC nationals who have not obtained a long-stay visa are considered as illegal immigrants and aresubject to expulsion. To make it easier to expel ille-gal immigrants, the countries of the Schengen areamay sign bilateral re-entry agreements with thirdcountries. Poland, for example, has committed toreadmitting foreigners who used Poland as a transitcountry when illegally crossing into the Schengenarea.

While most CEEC nationals are not required tohold a visa for a short visit to the European Union,long-term visas remain a matter for each MemberState to administer, under both Community law andthe Schengen Agreements. The right to take up paidemployment is also governed by each MemberState’s own legislation; the Europe Agreements donot alter that.

Provisions of the Europe Agreements regarding the movement of workers, the right of establishmentand the provision of services

The provisions on workers and the self-employedthat are contained in each of the Europe Agreementsconcern the movements of workers, the establishment

OECD 1999


89

of businesses, and the provision of services. However,these agreements make no reference to the Treaty ofRome’s provisions on the free movement of personsand do not recognise an automatic right of access tothe labour market or freedom to reside in EU MemberStates. The measures on the establishment of busi-nesses and the provision of services are a little moreliberal.

During the ten-year transition period, which isdivided into two five-year stages, CEEC nationals inan EU Member State remain subject to the country’slegislation on entry and residence. The Agreementscontain an article encouraging Member States to pre-serve and improve existing possibilities of access toemployment accorded under bilateral agreements,and to conclude similar agreements. The Commu-nity/CEEC Association Council will, during the sec-ond stage of the transition period, examine furtherways of facilitating the movement of workers, takinginto consideration the economic circumstances of theCEECs and the employment situation in the Commu-nity, and proceed to make recommendations toMember States. These are policy provisions only,and are not legally binding or in any way automatic.

As in the association agreements with the coun-tries of the Maghreb, Article 37 of the Europe Agree-ments provides for equality of treatment in workingconditions, remuneration, and dismissal for workerslegally employed in an EU Member State. It also laysdown that the legally residing spouse and children ofa worker legally employed in a Member State haveaccess to the labour market of that State during theworker’s authorised period of residence. However,unlike the Maghreb Agreements, it does not grantequality of treatment with respect to social protection.

The Europe Agreement with Poland contains aspecial provision that does not appear in the otherEurope Agreements: Article 41 paragraph 3 providesthat “the Member States will examine the possibilityof granting work permits to Polish nationals alreadyhaving a residence permit in the Member State con-cerned with the exception of those Polish nationalswho have been admitted as tourists or visitors”.Depending on a country’s legislation, this provisionmight be applied to students and au pairs, amongothers. This paragraph is, however, in no way bindingon Member States.

As regards establishment, Article 44 of theEurope Agreements lays down that each MemberState must grant CEEC companies and nationalstreatment no less favourable than that accorded its

own companies and nationals. Some activities, inparticular financial services, real estate agencies, andparticipation in privatisation operations, will not beliberalised until 2004. Others, including farming andthe legal profession, are altogether excluded. Arequest to have Article 44 of the Europe Agreementconcluded with Poland interpreted was recentlymade to the European Community Court of Justice. Inparticular, the submission requested whether or notthis article is directly applicable in the judicial ordersof the Member States. An affirmative response wouldconfer certain rights to Polish nationals regardingtheir right to settle in member countries of theEuropean Union.

Under Article 52, CEEC enterprises that freelyestablish themselves in a Community Member Stateare entitled to employ or have employed by one oftheir subsidiaries both Community nationals andnationals of their own State, provided that theseemployees are key personnel and are employedexclusively by the companies that enjoy the right offree establishment. This measure grants an “indirectright” of movement to CEEC workers and constitutesan exception to the chapter on workers of the EuropeAgreements.

Under Article 55 of the Agreements, the free pro-vision of services only concerns CEEC nationalsestablished in their State of origin who wish to pro-vide a service in a Member State of the Community.It does not apply to a CEEC national established in aMember State who wishes to provide a service inanother Member State.

• Recent developments in the co-operation between the European Union and the CEECs in the sphere of migration

The Amsterdam Treaty brings into the purview ofthe Union certain areas relevant to co-operation inmatters of justice and internal affairs. Moreover, it inte-grates the Schengen Agreements into the EuropeanUnion Treaty. Henceforth, all countries that are candi-dates for accession must adhere to Community deci-sions and respect the Schengen Agreements. Theyare therefore required to secure their external bor-ders and respect international norms for asylum, theissuance of visas, and immigration. Certain candidatecountries have already undertaken substantialreforms: new legislation concerning the right to asy-lum and foreigners’ rights, institutional reform,improvement of administrative co-operation and thestrengthening of external border control. They are

OECD 1999


90

supported in these measures by technical assistanceprovided by the European Union within the frame-work of the PHARE programme. This programmeemphasises inter-regional co-operation and multi-country activities, notably in matters relating to train-ing and exchange programmes in the areas of bordercontrol, asylum and immigration, police co-operationand the law. In the same vein, a programme to mod-ernise customs control has been in operation since1995 and a programme to better manage the easternborders of the Baltic States was initiated in 1997.

The question of refugees and of the right to asy-lum raises particular challenges: candidate countrieswhich were once merely transit countries for asylumseekers wishing to enter the European Union are nowbecoming destination countries. They have, for themost part, ratified the Geneva Convention of 1951 onrefugee status as well as the international treatiesconcerning Human Rights. They must also adopt anymeasures bringing the asylum procedures of Mem-ber countries in closer alignment. This will involveendorsing the Dublin Convention of 1990 on thedetermination of the state responsible for examiningasylum requests, which is now in force among Mem-ber countries of the European Union. Furthermore,the absence of visa requirements within anexpanded European Union, which will mean newresponsibilities for future Member countries withregard to managing external border controls, willrequire them to direct particular attention to thesematters and to allocate substantial resources to them.

The agreements with Turkey and the countries of the Maghreb

• The association agreement with Turkey

In virtue of the association Agreement concludedin 1963 between the European Community andTurkey, the signatories have agreed to draw on theprovisions of the Treaty of Rome in order to graduallyeffect the free movement of workers, the freedom ofestablishment and the free provision of services, aswell as the adoption of the measures necessary in theareas of social protection for Turkish workers taking upemployment within the Community. Three decisionsof the EC-Turkey Association Council have related tothe conditions for renewing Turkish nationals’ workand residence permits and the co-ordination of socialsecurity regimes for Turkish workers and their families.Although complete freedom of movement for Turkishworkers within the European Community has not yetbeen granted, numerous rulings of the EuropeanUnion Court of Justice have specified the legal scope

of the provisions of the Association Agreement andthe decisions of the Association Council. Progres-sively, the Court has recognised a direct effect of manyof these provisions, thereby conferring rights andguarantees to Turkish workers and their families resid-ing in Member States of the Community. Very recently,in the Surul decision of 4 May 1999, the Court recogn-ised the direct effect of an article of decision 3/80 ofthe Association Council of 19 September 1980 whichset down the principle of equality of treatment withrespect to social security.

• Co-operation Agreements with Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria

The agreements signed by the Community,Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco in 1976 simply providefor the non-discriminatory treatment of workers fromthese countries with respect to working conditions,wages and social benefits. Recent judgements of theEuropean Community Court of Justice confirm thedesire to provide enhanced protection at the Com-munity level for immigrant workers from countries ofthe Maghreb. The El Yassini decision of 2 March 1999recognises notably the direct effect of paragraph 1 ofarticle 40 of the EC-Morocco agreement, which setdown the principle of equality of treatment forMoroccan workers and their families regarding theirpay and conditions of employment. Moroccan work-ers can now take direct advantage of this principle.Nevertheless, the Court has refused to allow, by anal-ogy with the principles of jurisprudence drawn fromthe EC-Turkey Agreement, that Moroccan workershave the right to reside in a Member State of theCommunity once they have been granted the right towork in that same State. The Court has in fact takenthe view that “the free movement of workers is notthe objective of EC-Morocco Agreement”.

Three new Association Agreements based on auniform model have been established in place of theco-operation agreements of 1976. The Agreementsigned with Tunisia on 17 April 1995 came into forceon 1 March 1998. That signed with Morocco at thesame time came into force on 10 November 1995.Negotiations on an Agreement with Algeria continue.The measures for workers remain largely similar tothose of the earlier agreements, with the addition ofthe principle of non-discrimination for dismissal fromemployment. The agreements specify in a commonstatement that the granting, renewal, and refusal ofresidence permits is regulated solely by the legisla-tion of member States and the bilateral agreementsbetween these States and each country. The initia-

OECD 1999


91

tion of a social dialogue is planned, addressing nota-bly “all the problems relating to the quality of lifeand work of migrant communities, migration move-ments, illegal immigration, and policies and pro-grammes favouring the equal treatment between the

nationals of third Mediterranean countries and EUcountries”. In addition, the re-integration of nationalsfound to be in an irregular situation who have beenrepatriated to their country of origin is considered apriority issue.

OECD 1999

93

Part II

RECENT CHANGES IN MIGRATION MOVEMENTS AND POLICIES(COUNTRY NOTES)

Introduction

Numerous changes in Australia’s migration policy have recently been implemented. The points test sys-tem, valid for certain economic categories of immigrant, has been revised so that the selection criteria for immi-grant workers more closely match the requirements of the Australian labour market. Other initiatives are aimedat promoting the country’s economic development. In this connection, measures having been taken, inter alia, tofacilitate the procedures for recruiting immigrant personnel and to ease the formalities that immigrants have togo through when starting a business.

A series of measures have been taken to reduce the volume of new immigrants in certain categories or exertgreater control over their access to the labour market. Thus, the financial conditions to be met by residents wish-ing to bring members of their family into the country have been made more stringent, while students now haveto have begun their studies before they can take up an occupation. As had been planned, fewer visas weregranted in the 1997/98 fiscal year and a larger proportion were set aside for skilled immigrants. Efforts were alsomade to counter forged visas.

The Australian economy grew at a rate of 4% in 1997/98, fuelled mainly by strong domestic demand. Unem-ployment was down and should remain at 8% in 1998/99 (compared with 8.7% in 1996/97). Employment shouldcontinue to rise briskly during the period. Australia has had to contend with a number of specific difficulties thathave affected the region, such as the impact of the Asian financial crisis and the El Niño phenomenon. In 1997/98 itprovided assistance for Papua New Guinea and Indonesia in particular, which were the countries most seriouslyaffected, while at the same time keeping up its traditional aid to other Asian and African countries.

Migration and settlement

The number of permanent entries was down to 77 300 in 1997/98, a fall of almost 10% on the previous year,which was largely attributable to government decisions concerning the reduction in the number of visas thatcould be granted. Definitive departures numbered around 32 000 in 1997/98, a rise of 7% on the previous year.Net permanent movements remained positive at more than 45 300 entries, although this did represent a 19%decline on the previous year.

In 1997/98, net long-term movements (12 months or more) totalled 33 800 (see Chart II.1). The increasein the entries of this kind was due mainly to the efforts to promote foreign students’ enrolment in Australia’shigher education system. Next come those in search of employment, business people and tourists. In 1997/98,some 74 900 long-stay foreign residents left Australia; these numbers have been increasing steadily for overtwenty years.

AUSTRALIA

OECD 1999


94

Short-stay entries (including tourists) were put at 4.2 million in 1997/98 (this compares with 3 million depar-tures). The main countries of origin are Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States andSingapore. In this category, the main reasons for entry are tourism and private visits, followed by business tripsand studies.

In 1997/98, almost 112 400 people acquired Australian nationality, an increase of 4 000 on the previous year.In August 1998, the government set up the Australian Nationality Council which is responsible in particular forquestions relating to nationality law and the formulation of policy proposals in this area.

Refugees and asylum seekers

In 1997/98, more than 12 000 visas were granted under the Humanitarian Programme, of which some 10 500were granted off-shore and the remainder on-shore. Most of the candidates were nationals of the formerYugoslavia, followed by the Middle East and Africa. Women, the majority of whom come from the above threeregions, account for 13.5% of people granted visas off-shore. A programme of similar scope is planned for 1998/99and the same priority will be given to the above three countries or regions.

160

60

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

1983

50

40

30

20

10

0

85 87 89 91 93 95 97

1983 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 1983 85 87 89 91 93 95 97

Chart II.1. Flows of permanent and long-term residents,1 AustraliaFiscal years 1982/83-1997/98

Thousands

A. Net migration gain

Permanent and long-term flowsPermanent flows

B. Inflows of permanent residents by entry class

FamilyHumanitarian2 Total3

Skill2

1. The classification into permanent, long and short term, is based on thepurpose of travel as stated by the traveller on arrival to or departurefrom Australia. Permanent movement consists of persons arriving withthe stated intention to settle permanently in Australia and of Australianresidents departing with the stated intention to reside abroad permanently.Long-term movement consists of the arrival and the departure of personswith the stated intention to stay (in Australia or abroad, respectively) for12 months or more. The net effect of persons whose travel intentionschange (category jumping) is not included.

2. Including accompanying dependents.3. Including non-visaed entry class (mainly New Zealand citizens).4. China, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong (China), India, Philippines, Malaysia

and Sri Lanka.Source: Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs.

C. Inflows of permanent residentsby main country or region of origin

United KingdomAsia4New Zealand

Long-term flows160

60

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

1983

50

40

30

20

10

0

85 87 89 91 93 95 97

1983 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 1983 85 87 89 91 93 95 97


Thousands





Skill2






Long-term flows160

60

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

1983

50

40

30

20

10

0

85 87 89 91 93 95 97

1983 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 1983 85 87 89 91 93 95 97


Thousands





Skill2






Long-term flows

OECD 1999

Australia

95

The number of asylum applications came to some 8 000 in 1997/98, which was down on 1996/97. Applica-tions from Indonesia, the Philippines and China accounted for 40% of the total. Administrative changes intro-duced in 1997/98 were aimed at making procedures shorter and discouraging spurious applications. Nearly1 600 protection visas were granted to asylum seekers in 1997/98. Following changes in the legislation, asylumseekers’ entitlement to work has been made conditional on their having been in Australia for a certain periodof time.

Temporary migration

Since 1992/93, Australia’s temporary entry residence programme (which excludes students) has issuedan increasing number of temporary visas; 98 000 were issued in 1997/98 (see Table II.1). This increase isaccounted for by the rise in the number of skilled temporary workers and in entries under the WorkingHoliday Maker (WHM) Programme, under which 55 600 visas were granted. There has, however, been a capon the number of WHM visas since 1994/95; that for 1997/98 was set at 57 000 (including 1 500 granted inAustralia).

Table II.1. Permanent and temporary migration programme outcomes, 1995-19981

and 1999 planning levels for permanent settlers, by category, AustraliaThousands

Actual Planned

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Migration Programme2 (excluding the Humanitarian Programme) 76.5 82.5 73.9 67.1 68.0Family 44.5 56.7 44.6 40.8 38.7

Preferential family 36.8 48.7 37.2 31.3 30.5Concessional family 7.7 8.0 7.3 9.5 8.2

Skill 30.4 24.1 27.5 25.1 26.8Employer nomination/labour agreements 3.3 4.6 5.6 6.0 5.6Business skills 2.4 4.9 5.8 5.4 5.0Special talents 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1Independents 15.0 10.6 15.0 13.3 14.7Other 9.6 3.8 1.0 0.4 1.3

Special eligibility 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.1 2.5

Humanitarian Programme2 13.3 15.1 12.0 12.0 12.0Refugees and special humanitarian 7.7 8.2 5.9 8.6 8.3Special assistance 5.6 6.9 3.7 1.8 1.8Other – – 2.4 1.5 2.0

Temporary Resident Programme3 (excluding students) 77.4 83.0 90.6 98.0 –Skilled temporary resident programme4 14.3 15.4 12.5 14.8 –

Independent executive 0.2 0.4 . . . . –Executive 3.7 4.3 . . . . –Specialist 8.5 8.5 . . . . –University teacher 1.1 1.1 1.8 1.9 –Medical practitioner 0.8 1.1 1.8 1.9 –

Social/cultural programme 18.3 16.9 15.3 15.1 –

International relations programme 44.6 50.7 62.8 68.2 –of which: Working Holiday Maker (WHM) 35.4 40.3 50.0 55.6 –

Other 0.2 – – – –

Student Programme 51.4 63.1 68.6 63.6 –

1. Data refer to fiscal years (July to June of the given year).2. Figures include persons who change status (temporary to permanent).3. Including Long Stay Temporary Business Programme from 1995/1996.4. Accompanying dependents are included.Source: Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs.

OECD 1999


96

The programme for skilled workers covers entries of business people (holders of Temporary Business EntryLong-Stay visas or visitors on business), people in the medical profession and academics. The number ofTemporary Business Entry Long-Stay visas granted rose by 32% in 1997/98 (33 600 visas) as a result, in the main,of the increased mobility of skilled temporary workers and the need for Australian companies to adapt andbecome more competitive. One third of these visas are accorded to managers and administrators. BusinessVisitor visas (218 000 in 1997/98) were, however, down on 1996/97 as a result of new criteria for their issue beingintroduced in 1997 and also because of the Asian crisis.

Also granted were 5 400 Business Skills visas on the basis of the Business Skills Migration programme, theaim of which is to attract managers, entrepreneurs and investors and to provide assistance for business peoplewho have started up companies in Australia. Such entrepreneurs typically make large investments during thefirst three years following their arrival. A revision of the conditions under which visas are issued to business peo-ple began in 1998 and is set to be completed in 1999, the object being to adjust policies in such a way as toimprove results.

A little over 63 500 student visas were granted, which was 7% down on 1996/97. The main countries of originare Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia and Singapore. The new legislation covering the entry of immigrant stu-dents has been in force since 1 December 1998, the aim being to exercise greater control over the growth in thenumber of visas awarded every year.

Illegal immigration

The bulk of illegal immigration is made up of visitors, temporary residents and students who entered thecountry legally and then remained after the date allowed by their visa (“overstayers”). Their number was esti-mated at 51 000 at the end of December 1997 (i.e. 6 000 more than in June 1996). The rise could be due, first, tothe increase in the number of temporary visas granted and, second, to the adoption of a better way of calculat-ing the number of foreigners staying in the country illegally. Detailed information is available concerning immi-grants who have unduly extended their stay. Nearly 60% of them are believed to have been in the country forover four years.

Because of the “universal” visa system and the fact that Australia has no land borders, in theory very fewpeople can enter Australia without identity papers. Nevertheless, the number of people refused entry for thatvery reason has continued to increase – from 485 in 1994/95 to over 1 500 three years later.

The results from inspections indicate that 16% of immigrants were working without a valid residence permit(compared with 21% in 1996/97). A campaign was launched to inform employers and encourage them to checkthe validity of their employees’ residence permits. In 1997/98, the authorities identified 12 700 foreigners in anirregular situation. The government has introduced additional measures to tighten up border controls, theseinclude increases in the number of staff in international airports and in sensitive countries.

Employment of foreigners

In August 1998, overseas-born workers accounted for a quarter of the total labour force; almost 60% camefrom non-English-speaking countries (see Table II.2). The participation rate of those born outside Australia is58% (54% for nationals of non-English speaking countries and 65% for nationals of English-speaking countries),compared to 66% for persons born in Australia.

For a wide variety of reasons, such as knowledge of English, age, skills, the type of migration and the lengthof residence in Australia, unemployment among foreigners tends to be higher than among Australian nationals.In August 1998, the overall unemployment rate was 8%: 8.4% for those born abroad and 7.7% for those born inAustralia. Unemployment is lower among nationals of English-speaking countries (6.9%) than among those ofother countries (9.6%).

Policy developments

There have been a number of changes to Australia’s migration policy. In order to better meet Australia’seconomic requirements, the Migration Programme is now more focused on attracting skilled migrants with

OECD 1999

Austria

97

experience. All told, 67 100 people obtained visas under the Migration Programme in 1997/98, which was 6 800fewer than the previous year. Skilled labour accounted for 52% of the Programme (as against 47% in 1996/97), andfamily members for 47% (instead of 50% in 1996/97). In 1998/99, 68 000 visas are scheduled to be issued underthe Programme, of which 30 500 for family members (Preferential family migration), 35 000 for skilled migrantsand 2 500 for special cases (see Table II.1).

A number of measures have been taken with the object of strengthening entry and border control pol-icies and practices. In particular, new requirements have been introduced regarding entry into Australia.Efforts are also being made to curtail fraud connected with visa applications and to reduce the number ofdisputes relating to humanitarian decisions and the granting of refugee status. At the same time, entry hasbeen made simpler for business people and tourists, while additional funds have been made available tohelp migrants settle in the country, in particular under the Humanitarian Programme.

A change in the points test system for independent migrants and skilled migrants with family ties in Australia(SAL or Skilled Australian-Linked) came into force in June 1998. The key objective is to render the tests used for thesetwo categories of migrant more suited to the purpose of selecting migrants capable of finding employment quicklyand contributing positively to the Australian economy in the short and long term.

In April 1998 the government announced a series of reforms concerning the entry and support for parentsand elderly people who have family ties with a person resident in Australia. With effect from 1 November 1998,elderly parents still economically active could no longer obtain for themselves visas for permanently residentparents, but had to opt for another type of visa such as a short or long-stay visitor’s visa or a retired person’svisa. The financial cost to the person assuming responsibility for a dependent parent will increase (Assuranceof Support Bond) and the person will have to prove that he/she has the means to provide adequately for thedependent parent.

Lastly, the government has introduced measures designed to enable territorial states and governments toplay a fuller part in selecting skilled migrants and to foster a more balanced distribution of such migrants acrossthe country.

Introduction

In 1998 economic growth reached 3.1%, as compared with 2.5% in 1997 and 1.6% in 1996. This growth, result-ing mainly from strong export performance, had a favourable effect on the labour market. Nevertheless, therewas a decrease in the number of foreign workers from non-European Union countries. The decline was due inpart to an increase in the number of naturalisations of non-EU nationals, but is also attributable to restrictions

AUSTRIA

Table II.2. Australia’s labour force by birthplace, August 1998All figures in thousands, unless otherwise indicated

Total Employed Unemployed Unemployment rates (%)

Labour force, total 9 263.8 8 535.9 728.0 8.0Australian-born 6 969.9 6 435.3 534.7 7.7Overseas-born 2 293.9 2 100.6 193.3 8.4of which:

Main English Speaking Countries 988.9 920.4 68.1 6.9Non English Speaking Countries 1 305.4 1 180.1 125.3 9.6

Source: Federal Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs.

OECD 1999

Tre

nd

s in In

tern

atio

na

l Mig

ratio

n

98

OE

CD

1999

1994 1995 1996 1997

291.0 300.3 300.4 298.848.9 49.2 49.3 49.318.6 18.2 17.8 17.76.3 7.0 7.8 8.3

26.2 25.6 25.0 24.6) 9.5 9.8 9.9 9.8

268.8 269.7 257.2 247.378.4 58.8 43.7 36.697.9 109.1 92.3 67.392.6 101.9 121.2 143.4

143.8 131.7 127.5 119.575.9 56.1 51.9 52.758.2 48.6 35.8 24.3

9.7 27.0 39.8 42.5

6.5 6.6 7.0 7.18.0 7.7 8.4 8.4

y 88.7 83.6 79.4 74.814.9 14.4 13.7 12.8

142.4 134.7 134.0 80.74.1 3.9 3.5 4.8

11.2 12.7 12.9 13.315.5 17.9 22.0 18.9

173.2 169.2 172.4 117.7

ime, seasonal workers, those who are changing jobs orof permits are also included.

Table II.3. Current figures on the components of total population change,on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Austria

All figures in thousands unless otherwise indicated

1994 1995 1996 1997

Components of population change1 Stocks of foreign workers, by nationality2

Total population Former Yugoslavia (%)Population (annual average) 8 029.7 8 046.5 8 059.4 8 072.2 Turkey (%)Population increase from beginning to end of year 24.8 14.9 13.0 7.6 EU (%)of which: Other (%)

Natural increase 11.7 7.5 8.0 4.6 Share of foreign employment in total employment (%Net migration 13.1 7.4 5.0 3.0

Total of employed workers, by category of permit3

Austrians Short-term work permitsPopulation (annual average) 7 316.2 7 323.1 7 331.2 7 339.5 Work entitlementsPopulation increase from beginning to end of year 10.3 9.5 8.4 4.1 Permanent permitsof which:

Natural increase 1.0 –2.8 –2.2 –4.7 Work permits issued to foreigners, by categoryNet migration –6.0 –2.0 –5.0 –7.0 Initial permits issuedNaturalisations 15.3 14.4 15.6 15.8 Extensions issued

Permanent licences issuedForeigners

Population (annual average) 713.5 723.5 728.2 732.7 Unemployment rate, total4

Population increase from beginning to end of year 14.6 5.4 4.6 3.5 Unemployment rate, foreignersof which:

Natural increase 10.7 10.3 10.2 9.3 Employment of Austrians abroad5

Net migration 19.1 9.4 10.0 10.0 Austrian employees in Federal Republic of GermanNaturalisations –15.3 –14.4 –15.6 –15.8 Austrian employees in Switzerland

Asylum seekers and refugees Legal measures taken against foreignersAsylum seekers 5.1 5.9 7.0 6.7 Total rejections at borderOutflows of refugees 1.8 1.2 1.3 1.3 Removals to home country

Refusals of residenceExpulsions from AustriaTotal

1. Calculations are based on the 1991 census. The naturalisations refer to persons residing in Austria.2. Annual average. Employment of foreigners based on social security data records.3. Data given as an annual average. The data exclude the unemployed and self-employed and citizens of the European Economic Area (EEA). Several types of permits are issued:

– Short term permits: granted to an enterprise for a maximum duration of one year (renewable) and for a specific activity. Data include persons entering the labour market for the first ttaking up activity after a period of unemployment of at least six months and holders of provisional permits (when the application process takes more than four weeks). Extensions

– Work entitlements: granted for a maximum duration of two years (renewable). May be obtained after one year of work in Austria.– Permanent licences: granted after five years of work and valid for five years (renewable).

4. Data are based on the unemployment register.5. Data as of June for Germany, August for Switzerland.Sources: Central Alien Register; Central Statistical Office; Ministry of the Interior; Federal Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs; Social Security database on labour force.

Austria

99

on labour market access for this category of worker.With an unemployment rate of 8.4% (against thenational average of 7.1%), these workers haveproved to be more vulnerable to unemploymentthan nationals.

Population and migration flows

In 1997, Austria’s population numbered nearly8.1 million, of whom 733 000 were foreigners (9.1%).Net migration of foreigners remained stable at10 000, whereas net migration of Austrians rose to –7 000, up from –5 000 in 1996 (see Table II.3 andChart II.2).

The total number of births declined by 5.4% in1997, reflecting decreases of 4.8% for Austrian moth-ers and 8.9% for foreign mothers.

In the same year, approximately 16 300 peoplereceived Austrian citizenship. One-third of thosenaturalised were of Turkish origin, approximatelyone quarter from the former Yugoslavia and 18%from Central and Eastern Europe. The naturalisationrate was 2.2%. Between 1991 and 1997, Austrian citi-zenship was granted to a total of almost110 000 persons. A new Citizenship Law which cameinto force on 1 January 1999 provides for the grantingof Austrian citizenship to foreign nationals once theyhave legally resided in the country for over tenyears. The right to citizenship is automatic for thoseforeigners who have held both a work permit and along-term residence permit for over 15 years.

Immigration

In Austria, detailed analyses of migration flows,be they of workers, family members, asylum seekersand refugees are possible only for certain groups ofmigrants, mainly non-EU nationals. The governors ofthe federal states, the Minister of Domestic Affairsand the Minister of Labour jointly establish anannual quota for residence permits for non-EUnationals.

Several types of work permits can be issued tocitizens of non-EU countries who wish to work inAustria (see Chart II.3). European Economic Area orEU nationals have not required work permits since1994, but may obtain a renewable five-year resi-dence permit if they furnish proof of employment.

Initial “first entry” (Erstantrag) and “re-entry”(Neuantrag) permits, which are issued to employers,provide useful information on the flow of foreignworkers and trends in the employment of foreign

100

80

60

40

20

0

-20

1983 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

100

80

60

40

20

0

-20

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

1983 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

Chart II.2. Components of population change,11983-1997, Austria

Thousands

A. Net migration and total changein population

Net migration (Austrians)

Total change (Austrians)

Net migration (foreigners)

Total change (foreigners)

1. Components of national and foreign population change are: naturalincrease, net migration and naturalisations.

Source: Austrian Central Statistical Office.

B. Natural increase and naturalisations

Acquisition of Austrian nationality

Natural increase (foreigners)

Natural increase (Austrians)

100

80

60

40

20

0

-20

1983 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

100

80

60

40

20

0

-20

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

1983 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97


Thousands












100

80

60

40

20

0

-20

1983 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

100

80

60

40

20

0

-20

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

1983 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97


Thousands












OECD 1999


100

labour. In 1997 a total of 52 700 initial permits were issued, an increase of 1.7% on 1996 (see Table II.3). Morethan 62% of these permits were granted to men. Compared to 1996, the number of first entries to the labour mar-ket was down, at 15 200 permits, while re-entry after loss of employment rose by 5.4% to reach approximately37 600 permits in 1997. Nevertheless, compared to the overall growth in employment this increase is slight,which seems mostly attributable to the priority given to unemployed Austrian workers in the labour market.Since 1990 there has been a strong correlation between the issue of first entry permits and the evolution of for-eign labour employment. The issuance of first entry permits increases only when there exists strong demand forforeign workers.

The extension of work permits (Beschäftigungsbewilligung) reveals the cyclical and structural nature of foreignlabour demand over the medium and long term. In 1997, 24 300 extensions were granted, amounting to adecrease of nearly one third compared to 1996. The extension or conversion of foreigners’ work permits isdesigned to facilitate the integration of certain categories of foreign nationals, particularly those who haveworked in Austria for more than two and a half years, who are married to an Austrian national or who are relatedto a foreigner already settled in Austria. When a permanent work permit (Befreiungsschein, issued after five yearsof employment) is granted to a foreigner, he may work anywhere in Austria and not simply within the borders ofthe Land in which he was first employed.

In 1997, the total number of short-term work permits issued declined by 16% on 1996, to 36 600. This is theresult of a restrictive policy regarding foreign workers, limiting newcomers’ access to the labour market. Of thenon-EU nationals who requested a work permit, almost 20% were from Central and Eastern Europe, in particularthe Slovak Republic, Hungary, Poland and Romania. The remainder were mostly from Turkey, the formerYugoslavia and Bosnia.

In 1997, 143 400 permanent work permits were issued to foreign workers – a fall of 18% on 1996. The propor-tion of Central and Eastern European nationals, including those from the former Yugoslavia and Turkey, hasbeen growing steadily (from 5.4% in 1995 to 9.4% in 1996 and 13.2% in 1997). The issue of one-year work entitle-

300

198081 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

250

200

150

100

50

0

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

198081 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

Chart II.3. Stocks of foreigners holding a work permit1 in Austria, 1980-1997Thousands

Initial permits issued Extensions issuedPermanent licences Work entitlements

Total foreign employment2

1. Data on work permits are given as an annual average (except for short-term permits which relate to the number of permits issued in the given year).Figures exclude the self-employed and from 1994 on, citizens of the European Economic Area.

2. Figures are given as an annual average and are based on Social Security records.Sources: Ministry of Labour; Social Security Department; Labour Market Service.

300

198081 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

250

200

150

100

50

0

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

198081 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97






300

198081 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

250

200

150

100

50

0

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

198081 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97






OECD 1999

Austria

101

ments (Arbeitserlaubnis), which are also granted to foreign workers rather than employers, was down 27% on the1996 figure, to 67 300. The majority of these entitlements were granted to citizens of the former Yugoslavia andBosnia, as well as to Croatians and Turks.

In all, the number of short- and long-term permits granted in 1997 was 251 700, a decline of 2.5% on the 1996figure.


Having been in decline since 1991, the number of requests for asylum rose sharply in 1998:13 800 applications were received, as compared to 6 700 the previous year.

In 1997, one quarter of the applications were from nationals of Central and Eastern European countries. Theothers were from Iraq (22%), the former Yugoslavia (16%), Afghanistan (11%) and Iran (7%). The recognition ratein 1997 was low (10%), below the average for the period 1992-97 (13%).

In addition to asylum seekers, Austria has also allowed a substantial number of “de facto refugees”, whowere fleeing the war zones in Bosnia-Herzegovina, to enter its territory. Of the 100 000 refugees who arrivedbetween 1992 and 1995, approximately 5 800 remained financially dependant on the federal government andthe federated states in December 1997.

The growing extent of Bosnians’ integration and financial independence is evidenced by their increasingactivity in the Austrian labour market, as measured by the number of who have obtained a work permit (38 000as of June 1998 – twice the 1994 figure, see Table II.4). The majority of Bosnians have long-term work entitle-ments, 35% of which are permanent work entitlements. By July 1998 nearly 69 000 Bosnians had received resi-dence permits, of whom 25% were granted the right to stay in Austria for more than two years and a further 21%were granted permanent residence.

Family reunion

The register of foreigners kept by the Ministry of Domestic Affairs counts only non-EU nationals who requireresidence permits. From mid-1997 to mid-1998, 242 000 residence permits were issued: 32% to people underthe age of 20 and nearly 50% to persons aged 20 to 40. Half of them are quota admissions, and most of these arefamily members of foreigners already settled in Austria (around two-thirds of all quota admissions). Neverthe-less, the maximum number of persons authorised entry to Austria on family reunion grounds is relatively smallcompared to the number of requests.

The status of the family members changes as their stay in Austria continues. A growing number of people whoarrived under the family reunion clause, without the right to work, have now obtained that right. In July 1998, of atotal of 437 900 non-EU nationals, only 50 000 were explicitly denied the right to work.

Table II.4. Bosnians in employment in Austria by type of permits,1 1995-1998All figures in thousands

1995 1996 1997 1998

Employment of Bosnians, total2 25.5 29.2 35.8 38.0of which:

Short term work permit holders 11.7 9.4 7.5 5.6Work entitlement holders 12.1 15.8 19.8 19.1Permanent licence holders 1.5 4.0 8.4 13.3Other work permit holders 0.1 0.1 0.1 –

1. For details on definition of permits, please refer to note 3 in Table II.3.2. End of June.Source: Federal Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs.

OECD 1999


102

Emigration

At the end of 1997, the number of Austrians working in Switzerland was down 4.6% from 1996, at approxi-mately 27 100. The figure has been in steady decline since 1991, largely accounted for by falls in the numbersof seasonal and border workers. The majority of Austrians working in Switzerland have permanent resident sta-tus.

Nearly 75 000 Austrians were working in Germany in 1997, a decrease of 5.7% on 1996. The decline can beexplained by the fact that Germany has a surplus of labour, especially highly skilled labour from the newGerman Länder. Furthermore, because of the structural problems that have affected the labour market sincereunification, government measures systematically favour the integration of unemployed Germans.

Position of foreign workers in the labour market

According to social security data, 298 800 foreign workers took up new employment in Austria in 1997 (a fig-ure which includes parents finishing their parental leave). This was a decrease of 0.5% on 1996. In 1997, the aver-age share of foreigners (including EU/EFTA nationals) in total employment was 9.8%. In 1998, this proportiondeclined further.

Information from the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare indicate a significant fall in the employment ofnon-EU nationals in 1997. This reduction can be explained both by naturalisations during the year and by thelimited access that new entrants have to the labour market. Based on this information, citizens from non-EUcountries account for 8% of the total employed.

The structure of the foreign workforce by nationality is slowly changing. The percentage of EU nationals hasrisen from 6.3% in 1994 to 8.3% in 1997. The share of nationals of the former Yugoslavia and Turkey is falling off,whilst the proportion of those of Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia is growing. It should be noted that each year aconsiderable number of Turks and Serbs obtain Austrian citizenship.

Women account for almost 38% of non-EU foreign nationals working in Austria. The highest participationrates are for women from Serbia, followed by those from Bosnia and Croatia. It seems that Austria’s applicationof the EC-Turkey Association Agreement did not particularly promote the participation of Turkish women in1997.

The concentration of foreign workers in particular sectors of the economy began to ease in the mid-1990s.But some sectors drew on foreign labour to remain competitive in 1997-98. This was notably the case in the foodproduction and tobacco and beverage sectors, and in the textile, clothing and leather industries. By contrast,there were fewer foreign workers in tourism, where Austrians are preferred, and in the construction industry. Therelatively large percentage of foreign workers in the business services sector is a result of the rather specialisedstructure of foreign labour, who offer services ranging from cleaning to highly skilled consulting and computerexpertise.

In 1997, the number of unemployed workers continued to grow, reaching its highest level since the secondworld war: 233 300 registered jobless. Unemployment can be expected to continue to rise in 1998. Foreign workersaccounted for 11.8% of all unemployed in 1997 – roughly the same as the 1996 figure. Contrary to expectations, theJuly 1996 decision of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, which obliged the Austrian authorities torestore the right to unemployment benefit to foreigners unemployed for over a year, did not result in an increasein the number of unemployed foreign nationals on the register.

The unemployment rate for foreign nationals was 8.4% in 1997, compared to an aggregate unemploymentrate of 7.1%. The share of women in total unemployment figures increased in 1997 to 32%. The unemploymentrate for foreign women in 1997 was 7.3%, as compared with 9% for men. Turkish nationals are the most vulnerableto unemployment, with an unemployment rate of 11%.

Policy developments

In August 1997, new legislation regarding the residence, settlement and employment of non-EU foreignnationals was implemented (Fremdengesetz, 1997). The goal of this legislation is to provide more guarantees toforeigners who have lived in Austria for a long time. In particular, family members of persons who have lived in

OECD 1999

The Baltic States

103

Austria for at least four years can now take up employment. The effects of this measure have been negligible,owing mostly to the fact that the quota governing labour market access to foreign workers has stayed the same.

The labour administration has also looked at various forms of illegal labour. At present, a company seekingto obtain a work permit for a foreigner entering the labour market for the first time must demonstrate that itcould not hire an unemployed worker or a foreigner with job placement priority. This measure is undoubtedlya relatively effective barrier to the recruitment of foreigners seeking to enter the labour market for the first time.Policy pertaining to the inflow of foreign workers is still very restrictive and is likely to contribute to a decreasein the number of foreign workers in Austria in 1999.

Border controls have taken on a new dimension now that Austria is implementing the Schengen Agreement(since December 1997). Refusal of entry because of a lack of passport or visa, as well as forced departure anddenial of residence because of illegal work, engagement in immigrant smuggling or the lack of financial means,have become frequent. In 1997, approximately 12 000 people were forced to leave Austria (as compared with14 700 in 1996) and there were 5 600 arrests related to immigrant smuggling.

Introduction

The available migration statistics presented and analysed below are of recorded migration flows. Theserelate solely to long term (or permanent) movements. It is understood that unreported exits, clandestineentries and the overstaying of visas are very high. However, judicious estimates of their extent are not available.

The influence of migration on population changes in the Baltic States has declined significantly. Immigra-tion flows, having begun to decline in the late 1980s fell sharply in the early 1990s since which time they havestabilised at a low level. In 1997, almost 3 000 immigrants registered in Latvia, just over 2 500 in Lithuania, andalmost 1 600 in Estonia. Emigration flows peaked in 1992. Data for 1997 indicate the continuation of the down-ward trend. Just under 9 700 left Latvia, just over 4 000 Estonia and just under 2 500 Lithuania. Net migration,after more than 30 years of being positive became negative for all three countries the first time in 1990 (seeChart II.4). It was increasingly so in Latvia and Lithuania until 1993 and in Estonia until 1994. The migration bal-ance remains negative in Latvia (–6 800) and in Estonia (–2 800). In 1997, Lithuania’s migration balance becamepositive once more (+79).

Immigration and return migration

Immigration policy, which to a considerable extend promotes or blocks the arrival of certain categories ofmigrants has the effect of shaping the ethnic structure of migration flows. Immigration to all three Baltic Statesis essentially limited to three categories of person: returning nationals (i.e. those of Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanianethnic affiliation – the inflows of whom are not subject to any limitation), family reunion (limited, but has prior-ity) and business-linked migration (which is still not numerous). Immigration flows are therefore dominated bypeople of titular nationalities and/or relatives of past-migrants, who had already settled in the Baltic States,most notably Russians, Belarussians and Ukrainians. Although they have not increased in absolute numbers,immigration flows of ethnic Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians to their corresponding countries have increasedin proportion over the 1990s. Migrants from Western countries are still few in number. The majority of thesecome from Germany, the United States and, in the case of Estonia, Finland.

Return migration can be divided into two categories: the return of voluntary emigrants and/or their descen-dants and the return from exile or deportation of individuals and/or their descendants. Repatriation of the lattergroup, which is mainly formed of people deported during Soviet period, is supported by the Governments ofBaltic States. To this end, special programmes were elaborated to promote their return which have since beencomplemented with special integration programmes. In Lithuania the support programme provides, inter alia,

THE BALTIC STATES

OECD 1999


104

assistance to cover travel expenses for returning deportees, special language training courses (many descen-dants of Lithuanian deportees do not speak Lithuanian), financial assistance to start small businesses and finan-cial support for the creation of jobs for returnees. In addition, a special housing fund has been establishedunder the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour, from which returning deportees and their families can be offeredfree accommodation. Assistance to other categories of immigrants (with the exception of refugees) is not pro-vided. On the contrary, they must provide proof of their ability to support themselves.

Emigration and return migration

The return migration of the so called “Russian speaking population” – Russians, Belarussians, Ukrainians –though diminishing, remains the dominant component of emigration flows from the Baltic States. Theyaccounted for almost 80% from Estonia in 1996 and Latvia in 1997 and for almost 60% from Lithuania in 1997.

Emigration flows to the West, although they are not increasing in absolute terms are increasing in propor-tion. In 1990 they accounted for 11% of the total from Estonia, 14% from Latvia and 12% from Lithuania. By 1997their share had increased to 22%, 21% and 32% respectively. With the exception of Poland, which used to be a

50

20

1989

40302010

0-10-20-30-40-50

50403020100-10-20-30-40-50

1510

50

-5-10-15-20-25-30

20151050-5-10-15-20-25-30

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 1989 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 1989 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

1989 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 971989 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 971989 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

Chart II.4. Migratory flows1 in the Baltic States, 1989-1997Thousands and per 1 000 inhabitants

Net migrationInflows

EstoniaThousands Thousands

Latvia Lithuania

1. Data on immigration refer to the flows of migrants who hold a residence permit and who had been registered during the year. Emigrants are countedif they declare their departure to a country where they wish to settle.

Sources: Demographic Yearbooks of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, 1998.

Per 1 000 inhabitants Per 1 000 inhabitants

50

20

1989

40302010

0-10-20-30-40-50

50403020100-10-20-30-40-50

1510

50

-5-10-15-20-25-30

20151050-5-10-15-20-25-30

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 1989 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 1989 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

1989 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 971989 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 971989 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97




Latvia Lithuania




50

20

1989

40302010

0-10-20-30-40-50

50403020100-10-20-30-40-50

1510

50

-5-10-15-20-25-30

20151050-5-10-15-20-25-30

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 1989 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 1989 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

1989 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 971989 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 971989 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97




Latvia Lithuania




OECD 1999

The Baltic States

105

major destination for emigrants from Lithuania, the main destination countries remain unchanged: Germany,the United States and Finland for Estonia; Germany, the United States and Israel for Latvia and Lithuania.

Changing population structure

The changing structure of emigration/immigration flows is modifying the ethnic structure of the residentpopulation. During the Soviet period, the proportion of Russians, Belarussians and Ukrainians steadilyincreased in all three Baltic States; following the reversal in migration flows in early 1990s it has been diminish-ing (see Table II.5).

Foreigners (including stateless persons) account for less than 2% of Lithuania’s total adult population. Bycontrast, in Latvia and Estonia up to 30% of permanent residents are foreigners or stateless persons. This differ-ence will in all likelihood persist in the future since, according to various sociological surveys, over 50% ofRussians non-citizens do not intend to apply for local citizenship. Quantitative differences in the sizes of theforeign populations have led to certain qualitative differences in the manner in which their residence status hasbeen resolved. Whilst Lithuania could afford to use traditional methods (i.e. the way those problems are solvedin most European countries), Estonia and Latvia had to seek a new solution. Therefore, special laws specificallygoverning the rights, obligations and legal status of aliens (former USSR citizens) were adopted.

Table II.5. National composition of population in the Baltic States based on the declared ethnic originCensus results of 19451, 1959, 1970, 1979, 1989, 1997

Percentages

Estonia

1945 1959 1970 1979 1989 1997

Estonians 97.3 74.6 68.2 64.7 61.5 65.0Russians – 20.1 24.7 27.9 30.3 28.2Ukrainians – 1.3 2.1 2.5 3.1 2.5Belarussians 2.7 0.9 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.5Finish – 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.9Jews – 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2Others – 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.7

Latvia

1935 1959 1970 1979 1989 1997

Latvians 77.0 62.0 56.8 53.7 52.0 55.3Russians 8.8 26.6 29.8 32.8 34.0 32.5Belarussians 1.4 2.9 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0Ukrainians 0.1 1.4 2.3 2.7 3.5 2.9Polish 2.5 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.2Jews 4.9 1.7 1.6 1.1 0.9 0.4Germans 3.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 –Others 2.0 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.7

Lithuania

1923 1959 1970 1979 1989 1997

Lithuanians 69.2 79.3 80.1 80.0 79.6 81.6Russians 2.5 8.5 8.6 8.9 9.4 8.2Polish 15.3 8.5 7.7 7.3 7.0 6.9Belarussians 0.4 1.1 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.5Ukrainians – 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.0Jews 8.3 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1Germans 3.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 –Others 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.7

1. 1923 for Lithuania and 1935 for Latvia.Sources: Census data.

OECD 1999


106

Illegal migration and migrant trafficking

The emergence of illegal (transit) migration and migrant trafficking in the Baltic States and its gradual increasecan be understood only in the context of its development in a broader area, mainly the former Soviet Union. Dur-ing the Soviet period any kind of illegal foreign migration (immigration, emigration, transit migration) within andwithout the Baltic States as well as all over the former Soviet Union was practically impossible. With soldiers asborder guards, and pursuing a closed door immigration/emigration policy, the Soviet Union (and the Baltic Statesas part of it) was not an easily accessible (and attractive) country for migrants. Such a migration policy had a lot ofnegative consequences, but it also resulted in practically non-existent illegal migration. Following the collapse ofthe Soviet Union the situation changed.

The phenomenon of illegal migration and illegal transit migration in the Baltic States first manifested itselfin Estonia and then in Latvia. Since the mid-1990s it has mainly concerned Lithuania; in Latvia illegal migrationflows are much lower and in Estonia it is already almost non-existent. The main routes for illegal transit migrantspass via Lithuania.

In Lithuania, the majority of illegal transit migrants come from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan andSri Lanka, i.e. rather distant countries, with which Lithuania has never had any close economic or cultural rela-tions. This implies that no specific environment (e.g. the presence of compatriots, some common interestsbetween the countries, a well developed transportation system, etc.) is required for this business. The onlyimportant conditions seem to be weak border control and the possibility of obtaining the necessary traffickingservices (which almost 80% are understood to use according to an IOM investigation carried out in Lithuania in1997). According to the same source, the majority of transit migrants are aiming for Western Europe and NorthAmerica. Over 60% of those surveyed were seeking to reach Germany, over 15% the United States and just over5% Scandinavia. One in eight declared themselves to be indifferent as to their final destination so long as theycould apply for asylum and obtain good living conditions.

Lithuania has signed readmission agreements with Estonia, Latvia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Iceland, Italy(though not yet in force), Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and Ukraine. Readmission clauses wereincluded in the visa-free agreements with Cyprus, Denmark, Malta and Norway.


By the middle of 1997 all three Baltic States had passed special laws on refugees and asylum seekers andhad ratified the relevant Geneva Convention and Protocol. Nevertheless, real implementation of these laws, i.e.consideration of claims for refugee status could start no earlier than the establishment of refugee reception cen-tres and the introduction of a computerised system for data collection, processing and transmission. Therefore,until mid-1998 only that part of these laws which is related to the creation of the infrastructure for accepting ref-ugees was in force. With very limited support from the governments of the three Baltic States, this work is mainlydependent on outside financial contributions (from the UNHCR, the IOM and the Nordic countries). By the endof 1998 Lithuania (which was the first of three to pass a law on refugees and to open a refugee reception centre)had granted asylum to 30 people and had granted temporary protection to a further 200. In Latvia only 1 personhad been granted asylum by the end of 1998.

The majority of claimants are from Asia – Afghanistan, Iraq and Sri Lanka – and Somalia. According toexperts evaluations, most of them (probably around 90%) will not be granted asylum: their claims are ground-less. Nevertheless, the number of applicants in Lithuania is increasing, most of them have no means of subsis-tence and are also in need of social assistance.

Policy developments

In all three Baltic States, the general approach towards migration related policy was established in the early1990s. The various changes in migration policy introduced since then have for the most part been made in con-formity with the established approach or with the object of adjusting local laws to European Union standards.EU requirements are now becoming the main factor influencing migration policy modification, this is notably thecase of the actions undertaken in 1997 and 1998.

OECD 1999

The Baltic States

107

As the main migration issues are becoming less homogenous across the Baltic States, the principal currentdevelopments in migration policy are also becoming increasingly different. The main concerns of Latvia andEstonia have been to frame laws regulating the legal status of foreigners and resolving citizenship problems. InLithuania the fight against illegal migration is the principal concern.

The legal framework for immigration policy started to be formed in the early 1990s. The main attitude, whichhas hitherto remained the same, is restrictive towards arrivals (for permanent settlement). Currently, accordingto the laws passed in all three states, immigration is limited to essentially three categories: family reunion, busi-ness migration and repatriation of ethnic Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians to their homeland. It is expectedthat the volume of immigration flows from the East will remain rather low. The limitation on immigration is insti-tutionalised in the form of a quota, which has been set at less than 0.1% of the resident population in Lithuaniaand Estonia. In practice, following debates in the parliaments, which set annual immigration quotas, the targetlevel of immigration is always adjusted downwards: 1 500 persons in Lithuania (1998), and only 500 in Estonia(1997). In Latvia no immigration quota is envisioned and only people who are deemed to “merit” entry or areneeded to fill skills shortages will be allowed to enter. Obtaining authorisation for permanent residency is par-ticularly difficult.

In contrast to the present situation whereby the possibility of entering from one of the countries of theCommonwealth of Independent States has become much more limited than it was during the Soviet period, thevisa requirements on nationals of other foreign countries have become less strict. Nationals of an increasingnumber of countries can enter visa free or are exempt from the necessity of having an official invitation. In thecase of Lithuania, citizens of 42 countries do not need a visa and the citizens of a further 43 countries can obtaina visa without first obtaining an official invitation.

Citizenship policy and naturalisation rules

Policies towards recent immigrants already residing in the Baltic States (e.g. regulations governing theacquisition of citizenship, the law on the legal status of foreigners) are heavily influenced by the outcome of pastmigration patterns; not all past migrants are supposed to become citizens automatically, especially in Latviaand Estonia. Although citizenship laws and naturalisation procedures differ from country to country, some sim-ilarities can be identified, notably as regards the former citizens or former permanent residents of a Baltic coun-try.

According to the citizenship laws adopted in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the right to retain citizenship orthe right to obtain it automatically is granted to:

– Persons who held the citizenship of one of these countries up to 1940 (Estonia 16 June 1940; Latvia17 June 1940; Lithuania 15 June 1940).

– Descendants of the above if they did not obtain another citizenship.

– Persons who held permanent residence in these countries during 1918-1940 and who now live there andare not citizens of any other country.

– Persons of Estonian, Lithuanian or Latvian origin (for the corresponding country).

In Lithuania automatic citizenship is also possible for a much larger group of recent immigrants. It has themost liberal citizenship law (adopted in December 1991), the so-called “zero option”. According to this law, cit-izenship can be granted to any person who was a legally registered resident (this includes recent immigrantsfrom the republics of the former Soviet Union) and who had lived in Lithuania before 3 November 1989 (date ofthe first citizenship law) and who opted for Lithuanian citizenship. These rules do not apply to military person-nel of the Soviet Union, interior troops, security or other “repressive structures” unlawfully located in Lithuaniaafter 15 June 1940 because they cannot be considered as foreigners legally resident or employed in Lithuania.With these exceptions, all permanent residents of Lithuania were granted identical and equal rights to apply forcitizenship regardless of their nationalities, regardless whether they are native-born or immigrants. At present,99.1% of the Lithuanian population aged 16 years and over are Lithuanian citizens. The proportion of foreignersand stateless persons continues to decline. Although foreigners from other countries are increasing in number,citizens of the Commonwealth of Independent States still comprise the majority of the foreign population.

OECD 1999


108

In Estonia, the regulations are almost the same for long-time residents as for newcomers. According tothe Law on Citizenship, which came into force in 1995, Estonian citizenship is acquired by birth or receivedthrough naturalisation. A foreigner who wishes to receive Estonian citizenship must, inter alia, have lived inEstonia on the basis of a permanent residence permit for no less than five years prior to the date on which anapplication for citizenship is submitted (uninterrupted stay counting from 30 March 1990) and for one year fromthe date following the registration of the application. (The requirement for residence on the basis of a perma-nent residence permit is not applied to people who have been living in Estonia since 1990 if they continue tostay in Estonia permanently under the conditions established in the Law on Aliens.) Thus, nearly all foreignerswho migrated to Estonia after 1940 remain foreigners until they apply and fulfil the naturalisation requirements.By the end of 1997 residence permit holders numbered 353 000 (about 25%) of the Estonian population.

Similar, stricter, rules are provided for in the Latvian citizenship law mainly because of the extraordinarydecline in the proportion of Latvian nationals during the Soviet period. At the beginning of the 1990s itapproached 50%. Moreover, quite a large proportion of earlier immigration was of foreign military personnel.Therefore, in order to guarantee Latvia’s independent statehood and to provide clear perspectives for the non-citizen component of the Latvian population, some novel solutions had to be sought. Two laws, the Law on Citi-zenship and the Law on the Status of Former USSR Citizens who are not Citizens of Latvia or any other State were framed onthis basis.

The Law on Citizenship was liberalised through amendments adopted by Parliament on in May 1995. Theseamendments enabled certain categories of persons to acquire citizenship automatically. Still further liberalisationwas undertaken in 1998 (in response to the requirements of the OSCE, the European Union and Russia) throughamendments to the Law (in June) and through a referendum (in October). According to these amendments, allpeople, irrespective of their place of birth and age can apply for Latvian citizenship. These amendments also pro-vide for the automatic granting of citizenship for all children born in Latvia after 1991. Until 1998 about 18 000 chil-dren had not been able to take Latvian citizenship. Therefore the number of citizens will soon increase. In 1998about a quarter of Latvian residents were foreign.

Introduction

In 1998, GDP continued to increase at an annual rate of approximately 3%. After peaking at over 13% in 1994,unemployment has since gradually fallen and was less than 12% in 1998.

Migration flows and foreign population

Net migration (of foreigners and of Belgian nationals combined) was positive in 1997, having risen over theprevious year to 26 000. The increase was due to the change in net flows of foreigners (see Chart II.5), stemmingmore from a decline in outflows than from a rise in inflows. In 1997 outflows fell to fewer than 24 000, havingremained relatively stable since the 1980s and having stood at 32 000 in 1996. Inflows of foreigners, after havingincreased significantly at the end of the 1980s, have been stable since the beginning of the 1990s and stood atsome 49 000 in 1997.

Since 1992 the rise in the emigration of Belgian nationals has been accompanied by a decline in the numberof returns. Net migration of Belgian nationals, which has been negative for over 20 years, became more sothrough to 1995 and seems to have stabilised since then at approximately –6 500 per year (see Table II.6).

As of 1 January 1998, slightly over 903 000 foreigners were on the national population register, accountingfor some 9% of the total population (see Chart II.5). The foreign population has been diminishing since 1995,because of naturalisations and despite the positive net migration. European Union nationals accounted formore than 60% of the foreign population. Among non-EU nationals, Moroccans made up the largest group, fol-

BELGIUM

OECD 1999

Belgium

109

lowed by Turks, but their numbers are falling, mainlydue to naturalisations; in recent years some 60% ofthose naturalised were of Moroccan or Turkish origin.

After a period of steep decline, the number ofmixed marriages has been stable since 1992. As thetotal number of marriages in Belgium is falling, theproportion of mixed marriages (about 12% in 1996)has been increasing since 1989 (see Table II.6).

There is still a fertility differential between for-eign women and Belgian women. In 1992, foreignwomen had an average of 2.2 children, comparedwith 1.6 for Belgian women. Even though this gapseems considerable, the fertility rate of foreigners isonly just enough for replacement, which is no longerthe case for Belgian women. What is more, the gap isnarrowing every year. In the Walloon region, whichhas a long history of immigration, the fertility rate forforeign women is very close to that of Belgianwomen. In Flanders, on the other hand, where immi-gration is more recent, the fertility differential is stillsubstantially higher.

Naturalisations

In 1997, some 32 000 people acquired Belgiannationality (7 000 more than during the previousyear). Since the beginning of the 1980s, a number oflegislative changes have caused the number ofnationalisations to fluctuate sharply. In 1985, forexample, the implementation of legislation allowingthe second- and third-generation descendants ofimmigrants to acquire Belgian nationality broughtabout a significant increase in the number of natural-isations. The following year, the average number ofnaturalisations had returned to its usual level ofaround 8 500. Measures taken in 1992 liberalisingthe conditions for acquiring Belgian nationality, fol-lowed by a law simplifying the naturalisation proce-dure in 1995, explain the increases in naturalisationsduring the 1990s.

The most recent modification to the NationalityLaw, passed by Parliament at the end of 1998, sim-plifies once more the acquisition of citizenship. Itdoes so without in any way altering the constitu-tional conditions which the applicants must fulfil.This modification pursues three objectives: to clarifythe criteria permitting the request for citizenship, torender uniform the manner in which tribunals treatthese requests and to increase the transparency ofthe procedures. A mechanism styled “one stop” hasbeen introduced for all citizenship applications.

70

30

1983

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

1983 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

Chart II.5. Components of foreign and Belgianpopulations change, 1983-1997, Belgium

A. Naturalisations and total change in populationBelgians and foreigners

Acquisitions of Belgian nationality1

Total change2 (Belgians)


Thousands Thousands

Note: Data are from population registers.1. Peaks in 1985 and 1992 can be explain by changes in nationality

laws.2. Peak in 1988 can be explained by changes in calculation

methods.3. Figures include some asylum seekers up to 1995.Source: Population registers, Institut national de la statistique.

B. Natural increase and net migrationBelgians and foreigners

Natural increase (Belgians)


Net migration (Belgians)

Thousands Thousands

Net migration3 (foreigners)

70

30

1983

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

1983 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97






Thousands Thousands








Thousands Thousands


70

30

1983

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

1983 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97






Thousands Thousands








Thousands Thousands


OECD 1999

Tre

nd

s in In

tern

atio

na

l Mig

ratio

n

110

OE

CD

1999

1994 1995 1996 1997

lity2 13.2 8.5 4.6 5.24.1 3.0 2.2 2.50.7 0.5 0.3 0.80.7 0.6 0.7 0.61.4 0.9 0.7 0.61.2 0.9 0.5 0.4

– – 0.1 0.1– – – –

9.1 5.5 2.5 2.74.5 2.5 0.7 0.90.4 0.3 0.3 0.53.1 1.6 0.4 0.20.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

– – – –0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

tination15.7 15.7 17.3 . .11.0 11.0 12.0 . .4.3 4.2 4.8 . .

44.9 44.7 45.9 . .16.2 17.2 18.3 . .14.0 13.3 13.5 . .6.4 5.8 5.9 . .

496.5 490.3 465.0 . .419.1 413.1 390.2 . .

44.9 44.5 42.0 . .25.3 25.1 23.8 . .15.3 15.5 15.4 . .10.7 10.7 10.8 . .6.6 6.6 6.6 . .

Table II.6. Current figures on the components of total population change,on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Belgium


1994 1995 1996 1997

Components of population change Initial work permits by kind of permits and by group of nationaTotal population Permits with immigration

Population (on 31 December) 10 130.6 10 143.0 10 170.2 10 192.3 EuropePopulation increase from beginning to end of year 29.9 12.5 27.2 22.1 Americaof which: Asia

Natural increase 11.8 9.6 11.1 12.1 AfricaNet migration 17.6 13.4 12.7 6.0 OceaniaStatistical adjustment 0.5 –10.5 3.4 4.0 Region not specified

Permits without immigrationNationals Africa

Population (on 31 December) 9 208.2 9 233.3 9 258.3 9 289.1 EuropePopulation increase from beginning to end of year 28.2 25.0 25.0 30.8 Asiaof which: America

Natural increase 6.8 5.4 7.2 8.2 OceaniaNet migration –4.2 –6.6 –6.7 –8.6 Region not specifiedAcquisitions of nationality 25.8 26.1 24.6 31.6Statistical adjustment –0.1 0.1 – –0.2 Migration flows of cross-border workers by country of origin/des

Inflows by country of originForeigners France

Population (on 31 December)1 922.3 909.8 911.9 903.2 NetherlandsPopulation increase from beginning to end of year 1.7 –12.6 2.2 –8.8 Outflows by country of destinationof which: Luxembourg

Natural increase 5.0 4.2 3.9 3.9 NetherlandsNet migration 21.9 20.0 19.5 14.7 FranceAcquisitions of nationality –25.8 –26.1 –24.6 –31.6Statistical adjustment 0.6 –10.7 3.4 4.1 Recipients of unemployment benefits by nationality3

BelgiumInflows of foreigners by group of nationality 56.0 53.1 51.9 49.2 Other EU countries

EU 27.0 26.6 28.7 27.6 of which: ItalyOther European countries 4.1 6.9 3.4 5.2 MoroccoAfrica 10.9 7.4 7.7 7.1 TurkeyAmerica 4.8 4.9 4.9 5.0 OtherAsia 8.4 6.6 6.7 4.0Oceania 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3Region not specified 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.1

Asylum seekers 14.3 11.4 12.4 11.7

Mixed marriages 6.3 6.3 6.2 . .% of total marriages 12.0 12.2 12.3 . .Marriages with an EU foreigner (thousands) 3.5 3.4 3.3 . .

Note: Figures on European Union include the 15 member countries of the Union.1. The decrease in 1995 can be explained by the removal from the register of almost 11 000 asylum seekers awaiting a decision.2. Work permits are issued either for unlimited periods (A permits) or for limited periods (B permits). EU citizens do not need a work permit.3. Data refer to the number of recipients of unemployment benefits on the 30 June of the years indicated.Sources: Institut national de la statistique and Registre national de la population; Ministry of Employment and Labour; Office des etrangers; Census (March 1991).

Belgium

111

The labour force and work permits

The data available on the foreign workforce come, essentially, from two sources: the national census andthe annual Labour Force Survey. At the last census (March 1991), the foreign labour force numbered 327 000, ofwhom 80 000 were unemployed. The Labour Force Survey indicates that although the number of economicallyactive foreigners has risen considerably from the beginning of the 1990s, the rate of increase has been decliningsince 1993. The foreign labour force stood at just under 263 000 in 1997, including 209 000 EU nationals (seeTable II.7). Although it has been rising since 1992, the activity rate of non-EU nationals remains lower than thatof EU nationals.

The marked increase in unemployment from the beginning of the 1990s has affected all nationalities butespecially those from outside the EU. According to the National Employment Office (Onem), at 31 December 1998the number of insured full-time workers who were unemployed was 412 000. This figure excludes those seekingpart-time work, those aged over 55 and those engaged in reinsertion programmes.

With the exception of nationals of the European Economic Area, all foreigners wishing to work in Belgiumrequire a work permit. Two types of permits are issued: one to new immigrants entering the labour market (per-mit with immigration); the other to foreigners already living in Belgium who are entering the labour market forthe first time (permit without immigration). The number of both types of permits has been falling sharply duringthe 1990s, although there was a slight increase between 1996 and 1997. A total of some 5 200 permits wereissued in 1997.

In 1997, the annual number of permits issued to new immigrants stood at 2 500, compared with 4 600 in1991. The largest number of permits for new immigrants was issued to nationals of the United States, followedby Japanese nationals and Moroccans. The decline in the number of permits issued to new immigrants between1995 and 1996 affected all the main nationalities represented in Belgium, except citizens of the United States.The work permits issued to new immigrants from the United States and Japan were essentially temporary, whilethose issued to Moroccans were generally permanent.

The number of work permits issued to resident immigrants (permits without immigration) has fallen con-siderably since 1993, when there were around 9 000, to some 2 700 in 1997. In 1996, the main recipients of thesepermits were refugees and stateless persons, followed by Moroccans, Turks and nationals of the Democratic

Table II.7. Employment and unemployment in Belgium by nationality and sex, 1995-1997In thousands unless otherwise indicated

Men Women Total

1995 1996 1997 1995 1996 1997 1995 1996 1997

Total employment 2 260 2 253 2 264 1 510 1 514 1 555 3 769 3 767 3 819Belgians 2 079 2 064 2 084 1 440 1 436 1 472 3 519 3 500 3 556Foreigners 180 189 179 70 78 83 250 267 262

EU 132 143 140 54 64 69 186 207 209Non-EU 49 46 40 16 14 14 65 60 54

Total unemployment 179 181 174 211 215 204 390 396 377Belgians 135 140 133 179 183 175 313 323 308Foreigners 45 41 41 32 32 28 77 73 69

EU 22 24 20 17 23 20 39 47 40Non-EU 23 17 21 15 10 9 38 27 29

Participation rates (%) 72.3 72.2 72.2 51.7 52.0 52.9 62.1 62.2 62.6Belgians 72.6 72.6 72.5 53.0 53.2 54.1 62.8 62.9 63.4Foreigners 68.7 68.8 69.0 38.0 39.3 39.3 54.8 55.4 55.0

EU 75.9 73.3 73.7 45.6 47.7 48.6 62.7 62.0 62.2Non-EU 57.0 59.1 59.0 27.4 24.0 22.5 43.0 42.2 40.8

Note: Population aged 15 to 64.Source: Labour Force Survey.

OECD 1999


112

Republic of Congo (former Zaire). Most of the permits issued to resident nationals of these three countries wereof a permanent nature.

Belgium does not count cross-border workers by nationality, but by country of residence or country ofemployment, since not all cross-border workers are necessarily nationals of the country in which they live. Non-residents who cross the border to work in Belgium are counted by their country of residence, while Belgian res-idents who work abroad are counted by their country of employment. Since 1970 the net flow of cross-borderworkers has always been negative and was estimated at – 28 600 for 1996. Cross-border workers come mainlyfrom France. Luxembourg is now the main country of destination for workers living in Belgium and working in aneighbouring country; in the past the main destinations were France (until the mid-1980s) and the Netherlands(until 1990).


Having averaged 12 000 between 1995 and 1997, asylum requests numbered 22 000 in 1998. This increasedwas due largely to the deterioration in the political situation in Kosovo, from where over a quarter of the 1998applicants came. In 1998, European nationals accounted for 60% of the applications.

The recognition rate (the ratio of successful applications for asylum to the total number of decisions madeeach year), having been nearly 40% in 1988 and 1989 fell to under 10% during the period 1993 to 1995. Thisdecline was largely due to legislative amendments made in 1993 that tightened the conditions governing for-eigners’ rights of entry, residence and settlement in Belgium, in particular those of asylum seekers.

Any candidate for refugee status who wishes to settle in Belgium must find a place to live and apply to theOffice for Foreign Nationals. A refugee whose application is judged by the Office to be ineligible is entitled toappeal to the General Board for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRA), which also decides whether or not eli-gible applicants are granted refugee status. If the CGRA rejects the appeal, a further appeal may be made tothe Standing Refugee Appeals Commission, or even to the Conseil d’État. Anyone refused asylum is ordered toleave Belgium. It appears, however, that a considerable number of such people try to avoid deportation by stay-ing on clandestinely.

Since 1 March 1999, an accelerated procedure for processing applications by nationals of certain Centraland Eastern European countries has been in operation. Under this procedure, applications filed by nationalsof the Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria and the Slovak Republic must be processed in less than one month,including any appeal procedure. In addition, the authorities will investigate to ensure that persons who havebeen refused asylum have actually left Belgium. In 1998, asylum applications filed by the nationals of these fourcountries totalled 3 300, of which half were by Romanians.

Policy developments

The Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight Against Racism has put forward since 1993 a series of rec-ommendations regarding foreigners’ residence and settlement and their protection against forced departure,some of which have been taken up and applied. The Centre has proposed, most notably, that the proceduresfor issuing visas and provisional residence permits be rendered more transparent and the decisions made moreswift and more clearly justified. It has also proposed that the right to reside be granted to certain categories offoreigner currently residing illegally (notably asylum applicants who have been waiting for a decision for overthree years, those born in Belgium to parents who have lived in the country for over 10 years, rejected asylumapplicants the decision on whom included a clause that they should not be escorted to the border and the par-ents of children who have been accorded Belgian citizenship during their minority). Regarding development co-operation and assistance for returnees, the Centre has proposed that the residence permits of graduates beprolonged should they wish to engage in the elaboration of a development-linked project. Having thereby beenallowed to complete the design element of their project and undertake the initial feasibility studies in Belgium,the graduates could be expected both to extract greater benefit from their training upon their return to theirorigin country than would otherwise have been the case and to further economic development in their homeregion.

OECD 1999

Belgium

113

In parallel with the tightening of eligibility criteria for asylum applications, the CGRA has accelerated theirprocessing. Under the July 1996 Act governing the entry, residence, settlement and forced departure of foreign-ers (known as the Vande Lanotte Act), asylum seekers are assigned to specific areas where they must remainduring the initial stage of their application. If they fail to comply with this, they are not entitled to receive socialbenefits.

On 23 June 1998, in response to criticism of the Act, the Senate’s Committee for the Interior adopted thefollowing recommendations:

– That the time necessary to issue an entry visa be reduced to approximately one month and that a reasonbe given for any refusal to grant a visa.

– That the legislation be amended so as to enable private persons and humanitarian organisations to assistvisitors more freely.

– That the legislation concerning the persons subject to sanctions for helping undocumented immigrantsbe clarified in such a manner to clearly exclude persons providing humanitarian aid.

– That a special division in the Office of Foreign Nationals be created and made responsible for makingdecisions on regularisation applications on the basis of clear criteria.

– That the civil servants responsible for interviewing asylum seekers be better trained.

– That a temporary asylum status be created with a view to enabling temporary asylum seekers to enterthe labour market and receive social benefits.

– That emergency medical assistance, food and if necessary housing aid be made available to asylum seek-ers whose application has been denied in order to ensure that their human dignity is respected.

– That the maximum time allowable for the administrative detention of undocumented immigrants andasylum seekers whose application has been refused be reduced (five months instead of eight).

– That special provisions be introduced concerning the guardianship of unaccompanied foreign minors,who should be detained only in exceptional circumstances and then for the shortest time possible.

In principle, since 1 January 1999 Croatian nationals coming to Belgium (as to the Netherlands and Luxembourg)no longer require a visa.

An administrative circular issued in 1998 enlarged the concept of “family” and recognised the right of alllong-term cohabitants of foreigners (rather than only their spouses) to reside. Residence permits can berenewed and become definitive after three and a half years of cohabitation.

An Act passed on 30 April 1999 regarding the occupations of foreign workers simplified the work permit sys-tem, providing now for only two types of permit (categories A and B), according to whether the foreign workerhas one or has many employers. This Act also harmonised the issuance of residence and work permits andremoved from refugees wishing to work the obligation to obtain a permit.

Integration policies

The Brussels region’s new integration policy is a policy of social integration for the most depressed neigh-bourhoods. It is no longer a policy based on targeting specific national or ethnic categories but rather oneframed within an overall policy of integration. The view has been taken that the effectiveness of a regional strat-egy in the fight against social exclusion is dependent on close collaboration between the region and the localauthorities, including the cofinancing of the actions undertaken. The Walloon region’s development of a recep-tion and integration policy is jointly organised by the local public authorities and local associations.

The Flemish policy towards “ethnic and cultural minorities” was modified by a Decree of April 1998. It pro-vides for the implementation of a single support structure and integrated action to assist immigrants, refugeesand travelling people (mainly gypsies). The aim is facilitate the taking by individuals’ of a full place in societyand their association as much as possible in the policies adopted. The agreement concluded on 8 June 1998 inFlanders on the “Commitments of the Flemish government and the Flemish social partners concerning theemployment of immigrants” has the objective of obtaining a balanced presence of immigrants at all levels ofboth the public and private sectors.

OECD 1999


114

The three areas of intervention selected to augment the integration possibilities of the targeted popula-tions were:

– The extension of employment possibilities for immigrants by pro-active measures in companies andpublic authorities.

– The elimination of discrimination through training and education (such as non-discrimination training formediators).

– The improvement in immigrants’ employability through training and work experience (such as workplacetraining undertaken in Dutch).

The 1997-98 action plan for immigrants had the objective of launching in 75 companies and public bodiesmeasures to improve employment access and to promote the vertical mobility of certain target groups, withoutin any way lowering the required standards. Equally, this plan has not used positive discrimination or obligatoryquotas. The plan has also provided for an analysis of recruitment procedures and the verification that theredoes not exist discrimination in this regard.

Introduction

In 1997 and early 1998, migration movements were largely influenced by internal factors. After the economicand political crisis experienced by Bulgaria in 1996 and early 1997, there has been relative political stability inthe country since the elections of May 1997. Nevertheless, economic growth has remained negative with a highrate of unemployment (some 13%).

Because of their low level, migration flows, which have stabilised, do not present any major political diffi-culty. But the government, wishing to bring Bulgarian legislation into line with European Union law, has revisedthe legislative framework for migration policy.

Emigration

The National Statistical Institute estimates that emigration has stabilised at around 35 000 to40 000 persons a year in recent years. Bulgaria has not experienced any new wave of emigration since the mas-sive outflow of the years 1989-90. Since 1996, and more particularly in 1997 and early 1998, emigration has beenmainly towards central European countries, notably the Czech Republic and Hungary. Emigration to Turkey hasbecome somewhat dependent on Turkish migration policy. Recently, the Turkish Parliament decided to prolongthe validity of temporary passports for foreign citizens of Turkish origin; this could improve the status of a largenumber of migrants from Bulgaria.

The existence of free-trade areas has an important effect on emigration. The data available show a slightincrease in labour migration due to implementation in the Member States of the Central European Free TradeArea (CEFTA), since economic co-operation between countries in transition favours such migration. As a result,outflows of Bulgarian nationals have increased by 40% to Hungary, 20% to Romania and have tripled to the CzechRepublic. At the same time, flows to Greece fell by 15% due to the introduction of the “Schengen visa”.

Emigration of Bulgarian nationals to the countries of Western Europe continues to fall, with the exceptionof flows to Austria which remains one of Bulgaria’s most important economic and commercial partners. Outflowsto the countries of the European Union, the United States and Canada are essentially for tourism, family or edu-cational reasons. According to National Statistical Institute data, only some 630 Bulgarians obtained a workpermit in the countries of the European Union, the United States and Canada in 1997, while just under20 500 Bulgarians made short business trips to these countries. The nature of emigration seems to be changing,most of it now being for short and frequent trips.

BULGARIA

OECD 1999

Bulgaria

115

Immigration

Apart from the five-year censuses, the National Statistical Institute does not collect data on foreigners livingin Bulgaria. Inflows are therefore estimated on the basis of the number of “visits”, work permits granted and ref-ugees and asylum-seekers. There were some 7.5 million visits in 1997, a 10% increase on 1996. This was due inpart to visits from European Union nationals on tourist or business trips. This applies, for example, to 90% of theUnited Kingdom nationals and more than 80% of the Germans who came to Bulgaria in 1997. Flows from Russiaand the Ukraine, essentially for business purposes, increased slightly. It seems that in 1997, a total of some189 000 foreigners entered Bulgaria for these reasons. Inflows from Turkey were twice as high in 1997 as in 1996,this mainly for family reasons and the return of Bulgarian nationals.

In principle, immigrants wishing to stay in Bulgaria for more than three months must apply for a permit. In1997, a little over 14 100 persons were granted a long term residence permit (between three months and oneyear) and nearly 39 000 persons were granted a permanent residence permit.

Bulgaria’s central geographic location makes it an important staging post for immigrants to the West. Twomain flows can be identified: one from the Middle East towards Germany and Austria via Romania and Hungary,another from the CIS and Romania towards Greece.

According to Interior Ministry estimates for 1997, the number of undocumented immigrants was down by over20% on 1996 at just over 22 000. This could be due to the strengthening of border controls and stricter rules for grant-ing visas. Following the imposition in 1993 of restrictions on the entry of citizens from 79 countries from Asia, Africaand the former Soviet Union (with the exception of the Baltic States), new restrictions on the entry of citizens fromCIS countries were adopted in October 1997. While in 1990-92, illegal immigration was essentially due to unlawfulentries into Bulgaria, in 1997 and 1998 it consisted rather of foreigners remaining in the country after the expiry of theirvisa or who considered Bulgaria as a transit country.


Inflows of asylum seekers fluctuate, depending largely on regional conflicts. Applicants came from 56 coun-tries, but most of them are from Asia and the Middle East.

The regulations require that those seeking asylum submit their application within 48 hours of their entryinto the country. It is also possible to apply for asylum at Bulgarian diplomatic and consular missions abroad. Inmost cases, asylum seekers approach the authorities after their entry visa has expired or a request for renewalhas been rejected. The procedure generally takes from three months to one year although provisions exist forthe implementation of an accelerated procedure for manifestly unfounded applications.

The recent progress in establishing a system of procedures for the granting of refugee status and the imple-mentation of social integration programmes for recognised refugees have led to an increase in applicationswhich, nevertheless, remain few in number. At 31 October 1998, some 640 applications had been submitted, 20%up on the same period in 1997. This increase was due essentially to applications from Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.

In 1998, the total number of those with refugee status amounted to a little under 2 350, of whom 600 wereof Afghan origin. Refugee status was granted to 435 persons in 1998, while 145 applications were refused. Whilethe number of applications is low, the percentage in which refugee status is granted is very high compared toother OECD countries. Approximately half of the refugees from the former Yugoslavia have left the country, butno measures have been taken to ensure the return of those remaining.

Persons granted refugee status have the same rights as Bulgarian citizens except the right to vote, to beappointed to certain civil service posts, to join the Bulgarian army and to acquire ownership of land and forest.Refugees are entitled to travel documents and may be joined in Bulgaria by their immediate families. Familymembers are accorded the same rights and obligations as the refugee. Upon completion of three years of refu-gee status, individuals may apply for Bulgarian citizenship. Training refugees is an important part of integrationpolicies, and the government has also introduced apprenticeship and loan programmes enabling refugees tocreate enterprises. The financial burden of helping refugees is shared between the Bulgarian Government andthe United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

OECD 1999


116

In 1998, two transit centres for asylum seekers were to be created with the help of the European PHAREProgramme.

Naturalisations

Bulgarian nationality was granted to a little over 2 300 foreigners in 1997, and has been granted to12 500 persons since 1989. The number of naturalisation applications increased at the beginning of the transi-tion period, reflecting the growth in the number of applications made by ethnic Bulgarians returning fromUkraine, Greece, Turkey and Moldova. In recent years, applications have been mostly from the foreign spousesof Bulgarian nationals.


Very few foreigners are employed in Bulgaria, and they account for less than 1% of the active population.Most of them work in multinational enterprises or SMEs, or else are self-employed, mainly in the service andtrade sectors. All foreigners wishing to work in Bulgaria must obtain a work permit, the procedures for which arevery restrictive. There are two categories of permit: one for newly-arrived foreign workers and the other for for-eigners already residing in Bulgaria.

Since 1996, the number of permits granted to new immigrants has been falling, whereas that of extendedpermits has been rising. Between 1994 and 1997, the greatest number of work permits were granted to nation-als of the United States (270) followed by the Ukraine (125), Macedonia (90), the United Kingdom (75), Russia(65), Greece (55) and Germany (50). Most permits granted to OECD nationals are for jobs in management, con-sultancy and teaching. Foreigners from the countries in transition of Central Europe tend rather to be engi-neers and technicians, or in some cases, sportsmen. Between September 1994 and November 1997, a littleover 1 100 work permits were granted. In 1997, some 215 work permits were issued to foreigners, of which 115were new; the remainder corresponded to the extension of an existing permit.

Bilateral labour agreements

In 1991 and 1992, Bulgaria concluded with Germany several bilateral agreements relating to the employ-ment of Bulgarian nationals (essentially workers seconded from Bulgarian enterprises or workers in the hoteland catering sector), and to their vocational and linguistic training. Fewer than 2 000 Bulgarian workers bene-fited from these agreements in 1997 and 1998, and the number of those taking advantage of them is constantlyfalling.

In 1995, Bulgaria concluded with Switzerland a bilateral agreement relating to the exchange of apprentices,but only 11 Bulgarian apprentices have so far benefited. Bilateral agreements on the exchange of experts havebeen under negotiation for several years with France, Greece and Italy, in particular. The ratification and entryinto force of the bilateral agreement recently signed with Greece to facilitate the seasonal employment ofBulgarian workers should lead to a normalisation of emigration flows towards Greece. Work has been going onsince 1994 on drafting a treaty between Bulgaria and the Czech Republic for the exchange of workers. It deals inparticular with social benefits, travel expenses and the legal and professional conditions which candidates haveto meet. The conclusion of such an agreement would help regulate migration flows and reduce illegal migration.

Policy developments

Three new laws on immigration, asylum and nationality, respectively, were adopted in 1997 and 1998, notonly in order to repeal regulations dating from the previous regime but also to establish a legislative systemfully compatible with European Union norms with a view to Bulgaria’s accession to the Union. The Refugee Actlays down a coherent series of measures covering the whole process of granting refugee status and strengthen-ing the conditions for the entry, residence and settlement of asylum seekers. This Act has three main objectives:to create a Refugee Agency, establish procedures for granting refugee status, and accelerate the examination ofapplications.

The Act on Bulgarian Nationality replaces the 1968 Act. For the first time, it establishes comprehensive andsimple criteria for naturalisation, including length of residence (over five years), income and employment, and

OECD 1999

Canada

117

commmand of the Bulgarian language. The Act authorises for the first time Bulgarian citizens to possess morethan one nationality and lays down the principles of an integration policy for Bulgarians living abroad aimed atfacilitating their economic and social links with Bulgaria. Like that of 1968, the new Act automatically grantsBulgarian nationality to the foreign spouse of a Bulgarian national, but introduces restrictive measures designedto combat marriages for fraudulent purposes. Preferential treatment is given to refugees, to foreigners born inBulgaria and to the spouses and children of Bulgarian citizens. The Act lays down simple and transparent pro-cedures for granting nationality, the purpose of which is to prevent fraud. Lastly, the Act abolished the principleunder which Bulgarian emigrants lost their nationality when leaving the country, and made it possible forBulgaria to sign, in January 1998, the European Convention on Nationality.

The Foreigners Act replaced the 1973 Act on the Residence of Foreigners. It regulates the entry and resi-dence of foreigners and stateless persons, and provides for several types of permit or visa: transit visa(restricted to an airport, for example), short term residence permits (up to 90 days) and long term permits(12 months). These latter are granted on very specific grounds such as the possession of a work permit, man-agement of an enterprise, the pursuit of studies, marriage to a Bulgarian national, relationship with a foreignpermanent resident, or reasons of health. The Act obliges carriers to check the travel documents of their pas-sengers and penalises them if they carry foreigners not in possession of the proper papers. Lastly, the Act laysdown precise criteria for refusing to extend a residence permit, and stiffens the sanctions applicable to foreign-ers not in possession of the proper papers.

In 1997, a specialised border control service (“frontier police”) was created within the Interior Ministry.Since March 1997, visas have no longer been required for nationals of European Union countries, Iceland,Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, who are granted a thirty-day right of stay.

Introduction

The generally downward trend in permanent immigration to Canada continued in 1997. The current immi-gration system is a highly developed one in which applications for landed immigrant status (see box below) arejudged on the basis of skills or family ties or on humanitarian grounds. Recent policy developments include thetightening of family sponsorship regulations and the introduction of special provisions for undocumented refu-gees. Inflows from Asia are tending to diminish, in particular from Hong Kong, China, which is the first-rankingsending country, while inflows from China are on the rise.

Permanent immigration

The total number granted permanent resident status in 1997 was 216 000 (see Chart II.6 and Table II.8), indi-cating a continuation of the broadly downward trend in immigration in recent years. There is a continuing shift inthe composition of permanent immigration, most notably a shift away from entries under family reunion towardseconomic categories. One of the effects of this shift has been the increase in the proportion of immigrants withdegree-level qualifications, which rose from 25 to 29% between 1995 and 1997.

In 1997 the composition of the new immigrant population was as follows: skilled workers (and dependants),approximately 50%; business persons (and dependants), 9%; family members, 28%; and refugees, 11% (seeTable II.8). However, the family class does not cover all dependants, since they are registered in the same classas the principal applicant. Principal applicants admitted in economic categories in 1997 accounted for only 23% oftotal entries. But 78% of refugees above the age of 15 and 53% of family members intended to work. As for thedependants of principal applicants admitted in economic categories (skilled workers and business persons), 43 and18% respectively also intended to work.

CANADA

OECD 1999


118

Although the number of skilled workers arriving increased by 7% in 1997 compared to the previous year, thesharpest increase in fact occurred between 1995 and 1996 (21%). Hong Kong, China, remains the top sendingcountry of skilled workers, with 5 400 principal applicants accepted in 1997, but this was down significantly from1996. China still ranked second, with the inflow of skilled workers doubling since 1995, when an immigrationoffice was opened in Beijing. Between 1996 and 1997 the number of skilled workers from Iran, Pakistan, India,the Philippines and Chinese Taipei rose significantly (see Table II.8).

140

80

83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 1980 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97

95 97 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 9783 85 87 89 91 93

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1980

1980

1980

Chart II.6. Inflows of permanent settlers by entry class and region of origin,Canada, 1980-1997

Thousands

A. Main entry classes

Economic

Family1 Humanitarian

B. Main regions of origin

Africa and the Middle East

Asia and the Pacific Europe

America

Note: Except for the family class, counts include both principal applicants and their accompanying dependents, if any. Figures include backlogclearance.

1. Immigrants sponsored by Canadian residents (spouses, dependent children, parents and persons in their charge).2. Immigrants able to pass a selection test based on economic criteria.3. Family members in the broad sense (primarily siblings of Canadian residents and independent children), subject as well to a selection test based on

economic criteria.4. Entrepreneurs, self-employed and investors.Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

C. Economic permanent settlersMain economic classes

Assisted relatives3

Independents2 Business classes4

D. Permanent settlers from Asia and the PacificMain countries of origin

China

Hong Kong (China) India

Other

140

80

83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 1980 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97

95 97 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 9783 85 87 89 91 93

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1980

1980

1980


Thousands


Economic





America





Assisted relatives3



China


Other

140

80

83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 1980 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97

95 97 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 9783 85 87 89 91 93

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1980

1980

1980


Thousands


Economic





America





Assisted relatives3



China


Other

OECD 1999

Canada

119

The sizeable drop in inflows for family reunion that began in 1995 (–12% between 1995 and 1996) continuedin 1997, with some 60 000 entries recorded. India remains the largest source of family immigration (seeTable II.9). China was the only one of the main sending countries for which numbers increased in 1997. Familyimmigration from India fell by 17% between 1996 and 1997; that from Hong Kong, China fell by more than aquarter.

The number of refugees arriving decreased by 15% between 1996 and 1997, dropping from 28 400 to 24 200.This decline affected all categories of refugees (see box 1). Refugees from Bosnia-Herzegovina accounted for15% of total refugees, followed by Sri Lankans (although their numbers dropped by 26 and 29% respectivelycompared to 1996) while the number of Croatian refugees increased by 75%.

The Interim Immigrant Investor Programme is currently being revised. This programme, which wasextended until 31 December 1998, will be redefined so as to ensure than business immigrants generate benefitsfor Canada, and new selection criteria will be established. In 1997, nearly two-third of business persons camefrom one of these four countries: Hong Kong, China, Chinese Taipei, Korea or China. The number of businessimmigrants arriving from Hong Kong, China, and Chinese Taipei declined (by 20 and 17% respectively between1996 and 1997), while numbers from China rose by 38%.

Table II.8. Immigrant landings1 by type, 1994-1997, CanadaThousands

1994 1995 1996 1997

Family 93.7 77.1 68.3 60.0

Skilled workers2 69.1 81.4 97.8 105.6Principal applicants 28.6 34.5 42.1 44.9Accompanying dependents 40.5 46.9 55.7 60.7

Business 27.4 19.4 22.5 19.9Principal applicants 7.0 5.3 6.2 5.6Accompanying dependents 20.3 14.1 16.3 14.3

Refugees 19.7 27.7 28.4 24.1Government assisted3 7.6 8.1 7.9 7.7Privately sponsored3 2.8 3.2 3.1 2.6Recognised refugees4 9.3 16.4 17.4 13.8

Live-in-Caregiver5 5.0 5.4 4.8 2.7Principal applicants 4.7 4.7 3.8 2.3Accompanying dependents 0.2 0.8 0.9 0.5

Retirees 7.4 0.3 0.1 –

Other6 – 0.4 3.9 3.4

Backlog Clearance7 1.6 0.7 0.2 0.3

Immigrant landings, total1 223.9 212.5 226.1 216.0of which, by nationality:

Hong Kong, China 44.2 31.8 30.0 22.1India 17.2 16.3 21.3 19.6China 12.5 13.3 17.5 18.5Chinese Taipei 7.4 7.7 13.2 13.3

1. A landing corresponds to a person obtaining the right of permanent residence, either within Canada or from abroad. Including accompanying dependentsfor economic and humanitarian categories.

2. Figures include the Independent class and the Assisted Relatives class. Selection criteria are only applied to the principal applicants.3. Including persons in ‘‘designated classes’’, who do not strictly satisfy the United Nations convention on refugees criteria but are resettled for

humanitarian reasons.4. Asylum seekers who have been granted the refugee status.5. Program for child care workers and assistants for elderly people in private households.6. Mainly the Deferred Removal Order Class.7. The aim of this programme is to process the backlog of asylum requests that built up between 1986 and 1988. This backlog forms part of the total of

95 000 asylum seekers who entered Canada during that period. The programme started in January 1989 and ended in June 1993.Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

OECD 1999


120

The Asia-Pacific region continues to be the dominant sending region. Over the past three years, more thanhalf of total entries were from this region. Although Hong Kong, China, is still the top sending country, the inflowfell by a quarter between 1996 and 1997. Arrivals from Pakistan have increased by nearly threefold since 1995,inflows from China have risen by 40% while entries from the Philippines have declined by one-third since thesame year (see Table II.8). In 1997 there were some 22 600 immigrants to Canada from OECD countries, whichwas 13% fewer than the previous year.

In 1997, the age structure of new immigrants was similar to that of 1996, three quarters being in the econom-ically active age group. This proportion was identical for men and women. In recent years, slightly more womenhave been arriving in Canada than men, and this also held true in 1997, although the gap is narrowing. In 1997there were 103 new women immigrants for every 100 men (as opposed to 109 in 1995).

Temporary migration of workers

Since 1995, the number of persons holding an employment authorisation on 1 June has averaged around100 000 (see box). At 1 June 1998 some 98 300 persons held employment authorisations, including some29 000 asylum seekers/refugee status claimants.

Table II.9. Immigrant landings1 by type, 1993 and 1997, CanadaTop ten countries of origin in 1997

Thousands

Skilled workers BusinessPrincipal applicants Principal applicants

1993 1997 1993 1997

Thousands Rank Thousands Rank Thousands Rank Thousands Rank

Total 34.0 44.9 Total 8.3 5.6Hong Kong, China 3.0 2 5.4 1 Hong Kong, China 3.5 1 1.9 1China 0.8 10 5.1 2 Chinese Taipei 1.8 2 1.0 2India 1.0 7 3.4 3 Korea 0.6 3 0.5 3Pakistan . . . . 3.3 4 China 0.1 15 0.3 4Chinese Taipei 0.2 29 3.3 5 Iran 0.1 16 0.2 5Philippines 5.3 1 2.3 6 Pakistan . . . . 0.2 6Iran . . . . 1.6 7 Germany 0.1 5 0.1 7France 2.2 4 1.4 8 United Kingdom 0.1 7 0.1 8Romania 1.0 8 1.3 9 Switzerland 0.1 6 0.1 9United Kingdom 1.8 5 1.2 10 United States 0.1 9 0.1 10Top ten (% of total) 45.0 62.8 Top ten (% of total) 78.6 78.7

Total immigrantsFamily members Principal applicants

and dependents

1993 1997 1993 1997

Thousands Rank Thousands Rank Thousands Rank Thousands Rank

Total 112.1 60.0 Total 255.8 216.0India 17.3 1 11.2 1 Hong Kong, China 36.6 1 22.1 1China 7.2 4 4.9 2 India 20.5 2 19.6 2Hong Kong, China 9.3 2 3.9 3 China 9.5 5 18.5 3Philippines 8.1 3 3.7 4 Chinese Taipei 9.9 4 13.3 4United States 4.8 8 2.5 5 Pakistan 4.2 14 11.2 5Jamaica 5.0 6 2.4 6 Philippines 19.8 3 10.9 6Sri Lanka 4.4 9 1.7 7 Iran . . . . 7.5 7Vietnam 5.6 5 1.7 8 Sri Lanka 9.1 6 5.1 8Guyana 2.7 12 1.6 9 United States 8.0 8 5.0 9United Kingdom 2.7 11 1.4 10 United Kingdom 7.2 9 4.7 10Top ten (% of total) 59.9 58.6 Top ten (% of total) 48.7 54.6

1. A landing corresponds to a person obtaining the right of permanent residence, either within Canada or from abroad.Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

OECD 1999

Canada

121

From 1994 to September 1998, in addition to employment authorisations through the usual channels, justunder 38 000 authorisations were given under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In both 1994and 1995 some 6 500 of these authorisations were granted annually, and their number has been rising steadilysince, chiefly due to an increase in the entry of Professional Business Persons. These figures do not include busi-ness visitors, who are not required to apply for an employment authorisation.

Total immigrant population and labour force

The 1996 census put Canada’s total population at 28.5 million. The number of immigrants (i.e. persons bornabroad who have been granted immigrant status) was nearly 5 million, and rose by 27% between the 1986 and1996 censuses. The immigrant population accounted for slightly less than 18% of the total population in 1996,which was the highest level in the past 50 years. Immigrants from Europe were still the largest group in 1996, butfor the first time in this century they accounted for less than half of all immigrants because of the higher inflowsfrom Asia. The proportion of immigrants born in Asia was 31% in 1996 as compared with 18% ten years previously.The percentage of immigrants from Africa and Latin America also rose, but still remains small.

In 1996, new immigrants, i.e. those who had arrived between 1991 and 1996, had a higher education levelthan the native born population. More than one third of the new immigrants aged 25 to 44 had completed uni-versity education, compared with 19% among the Canadian born, but there are greater differences between theeducation levels of male and female immigrants than between males and females in the rest of the population.Education levels also vary depending on the countries of origin. In the 25-44 year age group, over half themigrants born in the United States had completed university education, followed by those born in thePhilippines (48%), Chinese Taipei (45%), China (44%) and India (41%).

Examination of the 1996 census data shows that immigrants represent roughly 19% of the labour force inCanada. In aggregate terms, their involvement and behaviour in the labour market as indicated by participationand unemployment rates is very similar to the Canadian born: the participation rates tend to be slightly lowerbut the unemployment rate is virtually the same.

Illegal immigration

Legislative changes, which became effective on 10 July 1995, deny access to the refugee determination sys-tem for multiple or fraudulent refugee claimants or criminals. To combat the growth in illegal trafficking rings,carbon dioxide detectors have been used in ship containers to detect stowaways. In addition, legislation wasenacted in 1995 which authorised the inspection of international mail and the seizure of identity documents thatcould be used to circumvent immigration requirements.

In November 1997, a bilateral meeting between the United States and Canada was held to discuss the long-term development of border co-operation with a view to making cross-border movements easier while prevent-ing the entry of undesirable persons. To achieve this objective, it was decided in particular to strengthen co-operation and the exchange of information between the two countries.

Policy developments

In 1997-98, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) made major progress in reaching new agreementsbetween the federal and provincial governments to improve the immigration system. In recent years, CIC hascontinued to work on new selection criteria for immigrants. In October 1997, a working group met comprised ofa broad range of participants, including representatives of government, the private sector and non-governmentalorganisations.

On 1 April 1997, new regulations for family sponsorship came into force, tightening the previous regulationsthrough more stringent monitoring of sponsors’ ability to follow through on their undertakings. These regula-tions make sponsors and those sponsored aware of their respective obligations. The objective is to reduce theimpact of defaults of sponsorship on the social costs borne by government. In addition, CIC has improved itsinformation system so as to be able to verify that there are bona fide family ties before authorising reunion. Ithas also developed a system of information exchange with municipal and provincial authorities.

OECD 1999


122

The new regulations provide inter alia that: i) sponsors must demonstrate that they have met the requiredincome threshold for the twelve months prior to their application; ii) sponsorships will be binding for a ten yearperiod; iii) sponsors and family members being sponsored must sign an agreement confirming that they under-stand their mutual obligations and responsibilities; and iv) sponsors are denied future sponsorships if they arein default of an undertaking, a transportation loan, or the Right of Landing fee loan. The new provisions mark adeparture from previous policy where sponsorship undertakings were of variable length and were not generallyenforced due to the lack of information systems capable of verifying applications.

Since May 1997, CIC has been conducting a pilot project for software development professionals. CIC,Human Resources Development Canada, Industry Canada and the Software Human Resources Council are work-ing together to streamline the process enabling foreign workers with specific computer and software develop-ment skills to enter Canada when nation-wide labour shortages have been identified. This project concernstemporary workers. It has the support of Canadian employers and continues to be seen as a short-term strategyfor meeting temporary skills shortages. Long-term strategies are being developed by industry and by govern-ment so that Canadian education programmes will be better adapted to market demand.

On 15 October 1998, CIC announced the pilot project for granting authorisation to work to the spouses ofhighly skilled workers admitted on a temporary basis. This project is being implemented over a short period(one year) and allows these workers’ spouses to obtain an employment authorisation without having to showproof of a job offer or undergo the usual validation procedure which ensures that no Canadian job seeker or per-manent resident can fill the position. This measure should enable Canadian employers to hire highly skilledtemporary foreign workers more easily.

In December 1996, the Minister responsible for CIC appointed a three member Legislative Advisory Groupto review existing immigration and refugee legislation and to develop recommendations on how Canada cancontinue to meet its immigration objectives. The Group reported back to the Minister on 31 December 1997.Their report covers all aspects of immigration to Canada, with major changes proposed for virtually all elementsof the current programme. In January 1999, the Minister announced the broad orientations that the governmentintends to follow to modernise immigration and refugee protection policies and legislation. The revised legis-lation can be expected to facilitate family reunion, while respecting strict rules of sponsorship; modernise thesystem for selecting immigrants among skilled workers and business persons; and, facilitate the temporaryentry of highly skilled workers.

The Humanitarian Designated Classes Regulations introduced in May 1997 were extended until31 December 1998. The conditions of admission for refugees are relatively flexible and anyone applying forassistance for humanitarian reasons is eligible. The annually revised list of countries currently comprisesBosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, Colombia, Croatia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Liberia and Sudan. The initialassessment of these regulations will be used to make future changes in the humanitarian component of the ref-ugee repatriation programme.

New regulations relating to Geneva Convention refugees from certain countries took effect in 1997. Theseallow those who are unable to obtain satisfactory proof of identity to proceed with applications to become per-manent residents five years after a positive decision by the Immigration and Refugee Board. This measure wastaken largely in response to problems encountered by refugees from Somalia and Afghanistan who have beenunable to obtain documentation due to continuing civil strife in their country.

The Adjustment Assistance Programme (see box) was replaced by the Resettlement Assistance Programmeon 1 April 1998. The scheme continues to provide assistance to refugee and other humanitarian cases but differsin that service delivery will be “outsourced” rather than provided by CIC directly.

OECD 1999

Canada

123

Box 1. An overview of the structure and approach of Canada’s immigration programme

There are two main mechanisms through which foreigners may legally enter Canada for periods longer than allowedunder short-term tourist and business travel arrangements: i) with permanent residence status through the permanentimmigration programme and ii) on a temporary basis as students, refugee claimants or for temporary employment.Because it is possible to transfer from temporary to permanent resident status, total issues of permanent residence(often referred to as “landed immigrants”) include many who have been in the country for some length of time as tem-porary residents. About 15% of applications for permanent residence are processed in Canada; the remainder are pro-cessed overseas.


Acquisition of permanent residence status is possible under three main classes of entry: i) the “family class” whoenter on the basis of having close relatives in Canada; ii) those entering for employment and business reasons, the“skilled worker and business classes”; iii) and those entering as refugees. The system works through a highly developedset of rules for each class of entry. There are no numerical limits, or other mechanisms for capping the number of per-manent immigrants, the source of control being solely through the rules of entry. As a result, there is no mechanism foreffecting immediate and precise determination of the numbers granted permanent residence status (in contrast to thesystem used in Australia). In November of each year, the Minister responsible for Citizenship and Immigration Canadaissues a statement on the “planned” migration intake for the following year which is based on an assessment of thenumbers who are likely to enter under the existing set of regulations. Note that Canadian authorities often refer toissues of permanent residence as immigrant landings.

Entry under the family class is based on sponsorship by a Canadian citizen or permanent resident. There must beevidence of the sponsor having a bona fide relationship with the applicant. In addition, the sponsor must demonstratean ability to provide financial support for those sponsored.

Entry under the skilled worker class is based on a selection test consisting of criteria against which points areawarded, to determine whether they can become successfully established in Canada. The mix of specific selection cri-teria and their weighting pattern are designed to reflect what is needed to succeed in Canada’s labour market. Only theprincipal applicant is assessed.

Entry under the business class is based on a requirement to make a minimum investment in a Canadian business (orbusiness investment fund) or a requirement to establish, purchase or invest in a designated business that will createemployment opportunities for others.

Refugee status is granted both to Geneva Convention refugees and those who do not quite satisfy the Conventionrefugee requirements, but are nonetheless admitted for humanitarian reasons. There are three major sub-groups of ref-ugees: government-assisted refugees selected abroad; privately sponsored refugees selected abroad; and asylumseekers who come to Canada and claim refugee status and who subsequently receive a positive determination on theirclaim. Asylum seekers are issued an employment authorisation for a period of nine months once certain requirementsare met such as a credible basis for their claim and also having undergone a medical examination.

Temporary immigration

Temporary immigration to Canada is tracked through data on employment authorisations (by law, no person otherthan a Canadian citizen or permanent resident is permitted to be employed in Canada without an employment autho-risation). The motivation for issuing temporary employment authorisations is both humanitarian and economic. Someauthorisations have to be “validated”, i.e. Human Resources Development Canada ensures that there is no Canadiancitizen or permanent resident available to fill the position. However, the majority of authorisations are exempt fromvalidation. Those exempt include a wide variety of applicants such as persons awaiting results of an application for per-manent residence from within Canada and applicants for refugee status.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) allows for temporary entry to Canada by citizens of the UnitedStates or Mexico under four categories of employment: “trader and investor”, “business visitor”, “professional” and“inter-company transferee”. Most of the entries under NAFTA are in the “professional” category where entry is basedon an agreed list of specific professions.

Naturalisation and integration policy

Landed immigrants may apply for citizenship after three years of residence. As a result, trends in naturalisationtend to closely follow trends in permanent immigration, with a lag of about three years.

The Canadian Government has in place several programmes designed to facilitate the integration of immigrants.The more important of these programmes are: Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC); the ResettlementAssistance Programme (RAP), which provides assistance such as temporary accommodation and interpretation to per-sons admitted under the Annual Refugee Plan; the Host Programme; and, the Immigrant Settlement and AdaptationProgramme (ISAP) which provides funds to community-based organisations to assist newcomers to integrate (e.g. inter-pretation, employment-related services and understanding cultural differences).

OECD 1999


124

Introduction

In 1997 and 1998, the Czech Republic experienced a slowdown in its economic growth. The country is cur-rently going through another period of recession, accentuated by the Central Bank’s restrictive monetary policyand inadequate private sector capacity. Over the same period, the stock of permanent residents continued toincrease while the stock of long-term residents, more sensitive to economic conditions, stabilised, albeit at ahigh level. Most newcomers were people of Czech origin and foreigners arriving from neighbouring countries(former USSR, Poland and the Slovak Republic), but some diversification in sending countries was noted (seeTable II.10).

A new Aliens Act and a Refugees Act are being prepared. They will have to be geared to the possibility ofthe Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union and take into account the growing number of immigrants(including asylum seekers).

Emigration

The volume of emigration flows cannot be gauged with any accuracy owing to the unreliability of availablesources. It can nevertheless be stated with some certainty that permanent emigration, including outflows to theSlovak Republic, has shown a clear trend of tapering off since the early 1990s (see Table II.10, in particular forthe definitions of emigration and immigration). Beyond the fact that available figures greatly underestimate theflow of emigrants, it may be supposed that departing Czech workers foresee only a temporary (less than oneyear) stay abroad and so do not bother to report their change of residence.

Today, most of the Czechs employed abroad are cross-border workers, in mostly low-skilled jobs concen-trated in the building and service sectors in Germany and Austria. Flows of Czech contract and seasonal workersto Germany have declined considerably since 1993. Rising unemployment in the countries of Western Europeand the more restrictive measures they have adopted regarding the hiring of foreigners are part of the reasonfor this reversal in trend.


Official figures (based on changes of permanent residence) show a marked rise in permanent immigration,attributable to entries from countries other than the Slovak Republic, in 1997. A growing diversity in the coun-tries of origin is also to be noted. While entries from European countries, especially the former USSR, predom-inate, flows from certain Asian countries (Vietnam in particular) are increasing.

In 1995, for the first time, the National Statistics Institute identified entries of Czech citizens within the per-manent immigration total. They accounted for nearly half of all permanent entries (10 500). They came from theSlovak Republic, Germany, North America and, to a smaller extent, other European countries (Switzerland,Austria, Bulgaria).


Due to the fact that the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (CSFR) did not ratify the GenevaConvention until 1992 (the Czech Republic endorsed it the following year), the flow of asylum seekers (about2 000 per year) is on a quite different scale from that recorded in most European Union countries. Some14 000 persons in all have been admitted to refugee camps since 1990. Ministry of the Interior services supplythem with such essentials as food and medical care. A very small proportion of the asylum seekers (under 15%)had obtained refugee status by the end of 1997, either because their applications had been rejected or becausetheir cases were still being examined.

In March 1997, a new law was adopted for speeding up the processing of applications for asylum. In addi-tion, special arrangements have been made to give temporary shelter to war refugees from the former Yugoslavia.

CZECH REPUBLIC

OECD 1999

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

OE

CD

199

Table II.10. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of migrants in Czech RepublicThousands

1994 1995 1996 1997

12.7 26.7 42.1 25.28.7 12.1 12.8 13.70.6 0.8 2.8 3.3

. . 0.3 0.9 2.5

. . . . . . 2.01.5 1.7 1.6 1.51.1 1.5 1.5 1.58.3 9.3 9.3 11.3

32.9 52.5 71.0 61.0

39.2 59.3 72.2 69.7

nality. . 7.7 17.0 24.7. . 0.8 2.7 8.7. . 2.9 5.9 7.6. . 0.6 1.2 1.5. . 24.9 18.7 21.0

18.6 37.0 45.5 63.5

2.6 2.5 2.3 1.43.5 3.7 3.4 2.3

20.5 19.2 23.7 29.3

s.

e Czech Republic are subject to the same rules as any other foreign resident

not apply to Slovak citizens.arkets. The estimates of the number of Slovak citizens are made by the local

125

9 1994 1995 1996 1997

Total population1 10 330 10 321 10 309 10 299 Registered foreign workers by nationality6

Total population change from beginning to end of year –1 –9 –10 –9 UkraineNatural increase –11 –21 –22 –21 PolandNet migration 10 12 12 12 Bulgaria

BelarusInflows2 10.2 10.5 10.9 12.9 Moldavia

Arrivals (excluding those from Slovak Republic) 6.1 6.7 7.4 9.8 United StatesArrivals from Slovak Republic 4.1 3.8 3.5 3.1 Germany

OtherOutflows3 3.4 1.9 1.5 0.8 Total

Departures (excluding those to Slovak Republic) 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5Departures to Slovak Republic4 3.1 1.5 1.0 0.3 Slovak workers7

Inflows of asylum seekers 1.2 1.4 2.2 2.1 Holders of a business authorisation by natioVietnam

Stocks of foreign residents by type of permits and nationality UkraineHolders of a permanent residence permit Slovak RepublicSlovak Republic5 3.0 6.5 9.9 12.7 GermanyPoland 11.9 12.1 12.1 11.9 OtherVietnam 1.1 1.5 2.5 5.1 TotalUkraine 1.6 2.1 2.8 4.6Russian Federation 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.5 Czech workers employed in GermanyBulgaria 2.6 2.7 1.8 2.4 Contract workersOther 10.6 11.9 14.7 17.1 Seasonal workersTotal 32.5 38.6 45.8 56.3

Illegal migrants caught at the borderHolders of a long-term residence permitSlovak Republic 13.8 33.2 40.3 39.5Ukraine 12.7 26.0 43.5 38.8Vietnam 8.6 12.7 15.1 15.8Poland 8.1 11.0 12.4 13.1Russian Federation 1.9 2.7 4.7 6.5China 2.9 4.2 4.7 4.4Bulgaria 1.1 1.6 2.5 4.2Other 22.2 28.6 29.6 31.2Total 71.2 120.1 152.8 153.5

1. Population on the 31 December of the given year.2. Permanent residents who had their change of address registered.3. Czech and foreign citizens leaving the Czech Republic permanently are supposed to report their departure to the authorities. Figures represent the total number of registered departure4. The data are issued by the Slovak Statistical Office and refer to the registrations of permanent residence in the Slovak Republic.5. Up to 1 January 1993, Czechoslovak permanent residents were registered in the National Population Register. Since the split of the Czech and Slovak Republics, Slovak citizens residing in th

and they are therefore registered in the Central Register of Foreigners.6. A foreigner can be employed only as the holder of a residence permit and an employment permit. A written offer by the employer is needed to apply for a work permit. These rules do7. Under the Treaty on Mutual Employment of Citizens signed by the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic in October 1992, nationals of the two Republics have free access to both labour m

labour offices.Sources: Statistical Yearbook of the Czech Republic (Czech Statistical Office); Ministry of the Interior; Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.


126

Following the Dayton Agreement signed in 1995 and the improvements in conditions in Bosnia and Herzegov-ina, a voluntary repatriation programme for temporary refugees was organised. It ended on 30 September 1997.

A refugee aid programme was introduced in 1994. Agreements are regularly concluded between the centralgovernment and municipal authorities for furthering the social and economic integration of people with refugeestatus. Municipal authorities covered by these agreements receive financial aid from the government to helpthe refugees living in their districts. Nineteen such agreements were signed in 1997, applicable to about300 refugees. Another programme for aiding persons of Czech origin has been initiated. In 1997, it concerned139 people and their families, most of them arriving from Kazakhstan.

Foreign population trends

The stock of foreigners continues to grow – in 1997, for the first time, the number of permanent residencepermit holders rose faster than that of long-term permit holders. Long-term permits, issued for a maximumperiod of one year but renewable, are usually granted for employment reasons. The number of foreigners hold-ing a long-term permit has flattened off, although at a fairly high level (over 150 000 permit holders since 1996).The increase in the number of permanent permit holders – a status granted generally following marriage to aCzech citizen – is mainly attributable to a rise in the number of Slovaks, Ukrainians and Vietnamese; whereasthe number of Poles has stabilised at approximately 12 000.

Regardless of the type of permit, breakdown by nationality is extremely varied. Ukrainians, Poles, Slovaksand Russians may have either permanent or long-term migrant status, whereas Vietnamese and, to a lesserdegree, Chinese usually have long-term migrant status only. The many bilateral agreements signed with SouthAsian and Central and Eastern European countries before the dissolution of the Soviet bloc partly explain thecurrent geographical diversity of migrant origins.

Of the 5 600 foreigners who acquired Czech nationality in 1997, 4 700 of were former Slovak citizens. Natu-ralisation, which precludes any possibility of double nationality, is generally obtained after five years’ perma-nent residence in the country. This restriction does not apply to former Czech nationals, persons born in theCzech Republic, the adopted children of Czech citizens or the spouses of Czech citizens.

Labour migration

Temporary immigration by foreign workers, after declining appreciably in 1990-92 owing in particular to thedeparture of workers whose contracts had been obtained under agreements between the CSFR and otherformer Communist countries (especially Poland), has risen substantially in recent years (see Table II.10). Theworsening labour market situation has, however, led the government to impose stiffer rules for issuing tempo-rary work permits. As a result, the number of work permit holders fell by 14% from 1996 to 1997. Those primarilyaffected by the decrease were Ukrainian labourers, who for the most part are employed in low-skilled construc-tion or factory jobs and form the largest group of foreign workers. The two other most represented nationalities,Poles followed by Bulgarians, were unaffected by the decline.

There is a possibility that restrictions will be imposed on Slovak workers who, under an agreement con-cluded in 1992 between the Czech and Slovak Republics, are allowed free access to the Czech labour market.Immigration by Slovak workers is long-established, and is largely due to economic factors (wage and unemploy-ment rate disparities). Slovak manpower, which is distributed throughout the economy, sometimes meets aneed for special skills not to be found in the Czech Republic.

Tighter requirements governing labour market access by foreigners have had to be combined with tougherpenalties for employers illegally recruiting foreigners. Inspections by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairsand the Ministry of the Interior have revealed an upsurge in the employment of foreigners without residenceand/or work permits. This would indicate that the lower official figures do not necessarily signify a replacementof migrant labour by natives or permanent residents.

A second plank in the policy to control foreign labour is the signing of bilateral agreements on the admis-sion of a fixed quota of workers. Agreements of this kind have already been concluded with Germany, Poland,the Slovak Republic, Vietnam, Ukraine and Russia. Negotiations are under way with Mongolia, Belarus, Bulgaria

OECD 1999

Denmark

127

and Austria. Furthermore, an agreement on trainees was signed with Switzerland in 1997 and, more recently,with Hungary and Lithuania.

Czech law, which is very liberal as regards the control of commercial activities, has helped the trading sectorto expand. In 1997, over 63 000 foreigners (against 45 500 the previous year) held a business licence, whichremains valid for as long as a commercial activity is conducted in the country. The persons concerned are for themost part Vietnamese (24 700), Ukrainian (8 700) and Slovak (7 600). It may be assumed that some of these for-eigners opted for business because they could not obtain a permit for paid employment or could not renewtheir permits.

Illegal migration

Figures released by the Ministry of the Interior on the number of people intercepted at the border showthat, over the period 1993-97, about 136 000 persons (126 000 of them foreigners) were caught. Of these, 43 000were intercepted in 1993 alone (see Table II.10). Three-quarters of those intercepted are stopped as they try tocross the border into Germany. The figures may be partly explained by the fact that nationals of many countriesare able to enter Czech territory without needing to have a visa. This is true in particular of nationals of Russiaand the Baltic States. Of the persons most frequently intercepted in 1997, 13% were Romanians and 12% fromthe former Yugoslavia.

Policy developments

The new Aliens Entry and Residence Act is due to take effect in the near future. Two types of residence per-mit will be instituted – temporary and permanent. The Act will make it more difficult for tourists wishing to settleor work in the Czech Republic to change their status. They will now be obliged to go through prior formalities inembassies or consulates in their home countries. A minimum stay of from eight to ten years will be required ofpersons wishing to acquire permanent resident status. It is planned, in order to comply with Community legis-lation, to restore a visa policy for ten or so countries, including Romania and Bulgaria. A measure of this kindwas adopted as regards the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in October 1998.

The Refugees Act will be amended in order to accelerate the processing of applications for asylum by, onthe one hand, systematically rejecting applications by nationals from countries deemed safe and, on the other,strengthening the protection of refugees.

Finally, ways to counter the presence of illegal aliens are gradually being put in place. Readmission agree-ments have been signed with Austria, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Germany, Hungary, Canada and, morerecently, France (1997), Bulgaria (1998) and Slovenia (1998). Negotiations on the subject are under way withUkraine and Belarus.

In October 1997, a report outlining the problems faced by gypsies and proposing suitable solutions wassubmitted to the government. It emphasised the need for urgent policy measures to educate gypsy minoritiesand bring them into the labour market. Classes will be set up and additional resources earmarked for under-achieving gypsy children. Steps will be taken to combat the discrimination often practised by employers againstworkers of gypsy origin.

Introduction

The Danish economy has been in a phase of expansion since 1993. In 1998, GDP grew by 2.5%. In this contextof continuing growth, unemployment has declined. In January 1999 the unemployment rate stood at 6%, as com-pared with roughly 12% in January 1994.

DENMARK

OECD 1999

Tre

nd

s in In

tern

atio

na

l Mig

ratio

n

128

OE

CD

1999

in Denmark

1994 1995 1996 1997

5.7 5.3 7.3 5.50.4 0.3 0.3 0.30.3 0.2 0.3 0.31.9 1.5 2.1 1.72.0 2.2 3.1 2.00.3 0.3 0.5 0.30.8 0.7 1.0 0.9

5 215.7 5 251.0 5 275.1 . .55.5 54.7 54.3 . .4.7 4.6 4.5 . .

39.3 38.9 46.1 . .5.3 4.3 3.7 . .6.1 6.9 – . .

44.5 45.3 45.7 . .

5 019.0 5 028.3 5 037.4 . .56.1 55.5 55.1 . .4.8 4.7 4.6 . .

40.1 39.8 47.0 . .5.1 4.0 3.5 . .6.1 6.9 – . .

43.9 44.5 44.9 . .

196.7 222.7 237.7 . .40.8 37.6 37.0 . .3.7 3.7 3.7 . .

19.0 18.2 25.6 . .11.6 9.0 7.6 . .6.5 6.8 – . .

59.2 62.4 63.0 . .

r granting it but it generally does not exceed two years.scendants of immigrants.

Table II.11. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population and labour forceFigures in thousands unless otherwise indicated

1994 1995 1996 1997

Long term immigration by group of nationality1 28.9 45.9 37.1 . . Acquisition of Danish nationality, by region of originDenmark 13.4 12.9 12.4 . . Nordic countriesOther Nordic countries 2.5 3.2 3.3 . . Other EU countriesOther EU countries 3.7 3.5 3.9 . . Other European countriesOther European countries 2.2 18.72 7.8 . . AsiaAfrica 2.2 2.3 3.6 . . AfricaAsia 3.5 3.8 4.5 . . Other regionsOther regions 1.5 1.4 1.5 . .

Total population, by labour force statusLong term emigration by group of nationality1 17.7 18.0 19.8 . . In the labour force (%)

Denmark 12.7 12.7 13.8 . . Self-employed (%)Other Nordic countries 1.3 1.4 1.6 . . Wage and salary workers (%)Other EU countries 1.6 1.6 1.8 . . Unemployed (%)Other European countries 0.5 0.6 0.6 . . Not stated (%)Africa 0.2 0.3 0.4 . . Out of the labour force (%)Asia 0.7 0.7 0.9 . .Other regions 0.7 0.7 0.7 . . Nationals, by labour force status

In the labour force (%)Grants of residence permits, by category3 20.3 37.9 32.3 29.5 Self-employed (%)

Refugee 2.8 20.32 8.7 5.9 Wage and salary workers (%)EU provisions 4.3 3.8 5.9 5.9 Unemployed (%)Family reunification 6.0 6.3 8.7 7.7 Not stated (%)Employment 2.1 2.2 2.8 3.1 Out of the labour force (%)Others 4.3 4.7 6.3 6.9

Foreigners, by labour force statusAsylum seekers by region of origin 6.7 5.1 5.9 5.1 In the labour force (%)

Europe 2.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 Self-employed (%)of which: Former Yugoslavia 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 Wage and salary workers (%)Africa 2.4 1.7 1.7 1.5 Unemployed (%)of which: Somalia 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.2 Not stated (%)Asia 1.6 1.5 1.9 1.8 Out of the labour force (%)of which: Iraq 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.8Other regions 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.5

Stock of foreigners, immigrants and descendants4

Foreigners 196.7 222.7 237.7 249.6Refugees 65.0 72.6 79.9 83.7Europe and North America 52.8 68.6 72.3 75.3Other regions 78.9 81.6 85.5 90.6

Immigrants and descendants, by region of origin 283.7 314.6 336.7 347.0Nordic countries 36.8 38.3 38.8 38.4Other EU countries 51.9 53.4 53.8 54.0Other European countries 74.3 93.9 103.8 106.9Asia 84.5 89.6 95.4 100.7Other regions 36.2 39.3 44.8 47.0

1. A long-term immigrant/emigrant is defined as a person who has lived in/out of the country for over one year.2. Including former Yougoslavs who have been recognised as refugees after 2 years of temporary residence in Denmark.3. All foreigners (except Nordic countries citizens) who want to reside for more than 3 months in Denmark need a residence permit. The duration of the permit depends on the reasons fo4. An immigrant is defined in Danish statistics as a foreigner or a Danish citizen born abroad. A descendant is a person born in Denmark with parents who are either immigrants or deSource: Danmarks Statistik.

Denmark

129

Migration movements

Those who enter Denmark as long-term immigrants are recorded in the immigration statistics only afterthey have lived in the country for a full year. As a result, information concerning long-term entries for 1996 didnot become available until 1998. Asylum seekers and refugees admitted temporarily as war refugees are notincluded in long-term immigration statistics, even if they have resided in Denmark for more than one year.

In 1996, 37 100 persons migrated to Denmark, a great many less than in 1995 (see Table II.11). The sharprise in long-term immigration in 1995 was chiefly due to the grant of refugee status, and hence a long-term res-idence permit, to 16 100 asylum seekers from the former Yugoslavia who had been temporarily admitted in pre-vious years. These persons had not been recorded among the immigrant population, even though some of themhad been living in Denmark for four or five years. The first estimates for 1997 indicate an even larger number ofimmigrants than in 1995.

In 1996, one-third of all inward migrants had Danish nationality, most of them having come from Greenlandand the Faroe Islands. Europeans made up 60% of the inflow of foreigners to Denmark that same year. Theirnumber has increased greatly since the early 1990s, mostly because of the rapid development of economic andhuman resource exchanges with other Nordic countries and the European Union. Proportionately, the inflowsfrom Africa and Central and Eastern Europe have increased the most during the 1990s.

After remaining stable throughout the period 1990-95, emigration increased in 1996 (+2 000), with depar-tures totalling approximately 17 500 (mostly Danes or nationals of other Nordic or EU countries).

In 1996 net migration was once again positive (17 400) and up from the annual average for the period 1990-94,this being due to the increase in flows of immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa. Netmigration of Danish nationals was negative.

Residence permits

In 1997 nearly 30 000 residence permits were issued for first entries and renewals (nationals of other Nordiccountries do not require residence permits). Since the beginning of the 1990s the proportion of permits issuedfor the purpose of family reunion has been declining. In 1997 it was a little over one-quarter of all permits issued,compared with nearly 40% in 1990. This was due to the stricter family reunion rules introduced in 1992. On theother hand, there has been an increase in the share of permits granted to EU nationals, which rose from lessthan 10% in 1990 to 20% in 1997. The residence permit issued to EU nationals entitles them to work in Denmarkwithout any other authorisation.

The number of work permits issued increased from 2 100 in 1993 to 3 100 in 1997.


In 1992 the number of asylum seekers all but tripled, with 14 000 applications. Having remained constantin 1993 the number fell steeply in 1994, and by 1996 stood at less than 6 000. The decline continued in 1997,with only 5 100 asylum seekers, but the first figures available for 1998 show an increase of about 600 applica-tions. Most of the applicants are from Somalia, Iraq and the former Yugoslavia. In 1994 Denmark introduced com-pulsory visas for nationals of Bosnia-Herzegovina and a number of African countries. It also created a newprocedure for asylum seekers from former Yugoslavia, who now have to apply directly to a Danish governmentoffice in Zagreb (3 300 applied in 1994).

The number of individuals granted refugee status has fluctuated considerably since the beginning of the1990s. It stood at 4 000 in 1991 and fell to 2 800 in 1994. There was a sudden jump in 1995 (to over 20 000), fol-lowed by a return to more usual levels. In 1997 the number of persons granted refugee status was just below6 000. Nationals of the former Yugoslavia were still the largest group in 1996, accounting for over half of thosewho obtained refugee status.

The 1995 amendment to the Aliens Act empowers the Danish Immigration Service to determine whether anapplication for asylum is justified or not. The individual whose application is denied can no longer appeal tothe Refugee Board, which has to endorse the decision of the Immigration Service. A good many applicationshave been rejected as manifestly unfounded due to a lack of sufficient justification. This amendment to the law

OECD 1999


130

has helped to accelerate the processing of applications by the Immigration Service and to limit the number ofasylum applicants from countries that Denmark considers to be safe.

Foreign population

The resident population of Denmark was estimated at 5.3 million on 1 January 1998. Statistics on residentforeigners are based on population registers and concern those foreigners permanently resident in Denmark.Asylum seekers, persons who are “provisionally resident” and other foreign temporary residents are excluded.

Foreign residents account for 4.7% of the total population. Their number has risen steadily since 1984, from108 000 to just under 250 000 at 1 January 1998. One-third are refugees, mostly from the former Yugoslavia,Somalia, Iraq and Iran. Citizens of Nordic countries, the European Union and North America together accountfor 30% of the foreign population. The remainder come mainly from Turkey (15%), the former Yugoslavia (non-refugees who arrived in the late 1960s and early 1970s) and Pakistan.

Between 1984 and 1997 just over 60 000 persons acquired Danish nationality. Of the 5 500 persons natura-lised in 1997, nearly 20% were originally from Turkey, 10% from Iran and 7% from Sri Lanka (see Table II.11).

Foreigners and the labour market

The proportion of foreigners in the labour force (3%) is smaller than their share of the total population. At1 January 1997 the number of foreign workers was slightly under 88 000. The participation rate of Danes (55%) issignificantly higher than that of foreigners (37%). This difference is partly attributable to the low participationrate of refugees: not only do they have to take part in an integration programme lasting 18 months or longerbefore they may enter the labour market, they also tend to comprise large numbers of children. Thus, nationalsof the former Yugoslavia have a low participation rate (23%) largely because so many of them are refugees. Bycontrast, the participation rates of Nordic country or EU nationals are comparable to that of Danish nationals.

At 1 January 1997 about 2.6 million persons were employed in Denmark, of whom nearly 70 000 were for-eigners. Immigrants from Nordic countries, EU member countries and North America have an employment sta-tus comparable to that of Danish workers. Foreigners from Turkey, Pakistan and other Asian countries are morefrequently self-employed. By sector of activity, 40% of Pakistani nationals and 36% of Turkish nationals work inretail trading and catering.

Since 1994 the total number of unemployed has fallen continuously, a trend which concerns Danes and for-eigners alike. However, the unemployment rate among foreigners is still very high at 21%, compared with 6% forDanes. The fact that foreigners are more vulnerable to unemployment is partly due to the type of jobs they per-form, which are low-skilled and diminishing in number. Turkish and Pakistani nationals are among those hardesthit by unemployment, with jobless rates of around 40% in 1996. Those rates declined slightly in 1997.

Policy developments

In June 1994 measures were taken to improve the situation of refugees from the former Yugoslavia. Theseincluded more training (notably language courses), better housing, increased employment opportunities andmore leisure activities. Under legislation passed in January 1995, most of the Bosnian war refugees have beengranted residence and entitlement to the same integration programmes as statutory refugees. Additionally, astrategy to dismantle labour market barriers to immigrants and refugees was introduced in autumn 1994. At thesame time, some municipalities have restricted their intake of refugees and immigrants in order to avoid highconcentrations of immigrant groups.

In 1995 several changes were made to the Aliens Act in respect of asylum seekers. A procedure was intro-duced to enable applications to be speedily refused if judged to be unfounded or based on insufficient evi-dence. Administrative procedures for processing applications were simplified, and the number of applicationsfrom “safe” countries decreased. Also, the terms of admission were tightened by requiring further informationfrom applicants, and arrangements were made to allow for the detention of asylum seekers and for a new pro-cedure to register them through a computerised finger-printing system. In addition, the Danish governmentdecided to set an annual quota for resident permits given to persons from the former Yugoslavia.

OECD 1999

Finland

131

In December 1996 an amendment to the Aliens Act reinforced provisions for the expulsion of foreignerscharged with drug trafficking. Since June 1997, foreigners who are unco-operative during the expulsion proce-dure have been put on file so as to assist the police in the processing of applications for asylum. The Danishimmigration services are also authorised to carry out DNA tests on family reunion applicants and on unsuccess-ful asylum seekers who attempt to resist expulsion.

At the time of its ratification of the Schengen Agreements in December 1996, Denmark signed with the othersignatories to these agreements and with member countries of the Nordic Union which are not members of theEU a co-operation agreement providing for the application of these Agreements within the Nordic Union. TheDanish parliament ratified this agreement in June 1997.

On 26 June 1998 the Danish Parliament passed its first law on integration, which entered into effect on1 January 1999. The purpose of this law is to promote the integration of immigrants and refugees into Danishsociety. The integration programme focuses essentially on newly arrived immigrants, who are helped to adjustto the requirements of the Danish labour market. Where such adjustment does not seem possible, educationor vocational training is offered.

Responsibility for integration has been assigned to local authorities and no longer rests with the RefugeeBoard, which has to focus all its attention on the situation of refugees. This means that the local authorities haveto deal with all aspects of integration: housing, education and training programmes, and payment of the variousallowances.

Introduction

Since 1994 the economic situation in Finland has been steadily improving, with annual GDP growth of 6%in 1997 and 5% in 1998. Strong growth has been accompanied by a drop in unemployment, from 18% in 1994 tounder 12% in 1998. Over the past decade there has been a sharp rise in immigration, with the resident foreignpopulation growing threefold between 1 January 1991 and 1 January 1998.

Migration and the foreign population

In 1997 the number of immigrants was slightly up on 1996, with some 13 600 arrivals. The largest inflowswere from Russia, followed by Estonia, Sweden and Iraq (see Table II.12). The number of Russian and Swedishimmigrants continued to rise slightly, whereas the number of Estonians entering the country continued todecline. Better economic and social conditions in Estonia are the main factor behind the decline in emigrationflows from that country to Finland. In 1997 inflows from Bosnia and Herzegovina decreased, whereas those fromIran doubled and those from Iraq increased steadily.

Total emigration has risen sharply since 1993, when it stood at 6 400, to 10 600 in 1996. With the exceptionof 1996, emigrants have mainly been Finnish; in 1997, 80% of the 9 900 recorded departures were of Finns.Finnish emigrants went mainly to the United States until the Second World War, and subsequently to Sweden.The range of host countries then broadened to include the other Nordic countries and later the EU.

Since 1994, net migration has been positive and has ranged from 3 000 to 4 000, down from higher figuresof the early 1990s (9 000). Recent trends indicate that Finnish emigration flows exceed immigration flows, butthis is offset by the fact that there are more foreigners entering than leaving the country. In 1997 positive netmigration (3 700) reflected the difference between net arrivals of foreigners (6 600) and net departures of Finns(2 900).

As immigration is a recent phenomenon in Finland, the foreign population is still relatively low comparedto that of other OECD countries. As a share of the total population it stood at 1.6% at 1 January 1998. Of the

FINLAND

OECD 1999


132

80 600 foreigners then resident in Finland, almost one-quarter were Russian, 12% Estonian and 9% Swedish (seeTable II.12). In 1997 the number of EU nationals continued to rise. Of the latter, the largest group were Swedes(7 500), followed by Germans and British (just under 2 000).

Between 1990 and 1998 the proportion of women in the foreign population increased, reaching 48% at1 January 1998 as compared with 43% eight years earlier. On average, foreigners are younger than Finns, with 80%of the foreign population under 45 years of age compared with 60% of Finns. That said, over the decade, the foreignlabour force has aged, with the 25-44 age group steadily giving way to the 45-64 age group.

At 1 January 1998, the only group to have increased in number since the previous year were the Russians,whereas the number of Vietnamese, Chinese and Iranians had declined. This was due to the fact that more of thesenationals have acquired Finnish citizenship, and to a decline in new immigration flows.

Of the 118 000 people resident in Finland but born abroad, 100 000 were residents of foreign origin at1 January 1998. Almost half of those born abroad were born in Sweden (27 400) or in Russia and in other parts ofthe former Soviet Union (28 800).

In 1997 more than 1 400 people acquired Finnish citizenship. Nationals of the former Soviet Union stillaccounted for the largest share of naturalisations (18%), followed by Vietnamese (12%) and Swedes (7%). Since1994 naturalisations have increased in number. In 1997 the increase was spread across most nationalities, unlike1996 when it was confined largely to Asian nationals.

Table II.12. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of total and foreign populations in FinlandFigures in thousands unless otherwise indicated

1994 1995 1996 1997

Inflows by main nationality 11.6 12.2 13.3 13.6Nationals 4.0 4.9 5.8 5.4Foreigners 7.6 7.3 7.5 8.1of which:

Former USSR1 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.4Estonia1 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.6Sweden 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7

Net migration by main nationality 2.9 3.3 2.7 3.7Nationals –3.2 –2.6 –1.8 –2.9Foreigners 6.1 5.8 4.5 6.6of which:

Former USSR 1.7 1.7 1.6 2.3Estonia 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.5Sweden 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3

Foreign population by main nationality2 62.0 68.6 73.8 80.6Former USSR1 15.1 15.9 17.0 19.0Estonia1 7.5 8.4 9.0 9.7Sweden 6.7 7.0 7.3 7.5Somalia 3.5 4.0 4.6 5.2Former Yugoslavia 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.8Other countries 26.9 30.9 33.3 36.4

Acquisition of nationality by former nationality 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.4Former USSR 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3Vietnam 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2Sweden 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Other countries 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.9

Mixed marriages 2.2 2.1 . . . .% of total marriages 8.8 8.8 . . . .

1. A great part of the Russians and of the Estonians have Finnish origins.2. Data are from population registers and refer to the population on 31 December of the years indicated.Source: Statistics Finland.

OECD 1999

Finland

133


In the early 1990s the number of asylum seekers ranged from 2 000 to 3 600 per year; since 1994 the figurehas dropped to under 1 000. In 1997 almost one-third of all applications were from nationals of the formerYugoslavia, followed by Somalis (20%) and Iraqis (10%). The initial data available for 1998 indicate some1 200 applications.

The Finnish Parliament establishes a quota every year for the attribution of refugee status. Set at 500 for1996, the quota was substantially exceeded (the final figure was 1 200) because of exceptional cases from theformer Yugoslavia and Iraq. Nationals from these two countries accounted for 70% of all refugees. The quota for1997 was also set at 500, but Finland took in 1 400 refugees that year. Most were from the Middle East or Africa.By end-1997, an estimated 16 000 residents in Finland possessed refugee status.

Illegal immigration

Estimates of illegal immigration are based on statistics relating to illegal immigrants apprehended at theborder or in airports. Most of them attempt to enter via the border with Sweden, where there are fewer controlsowing to free-circulation agreements between the Nordic countries, rather than via the border with Russia,which is more tightly controlled. At the request of the Ministry of the Interior, a working party has, since1 November 1997, been looking into the issue of illegal immigration in Finland.

Migration and the labour market

Foreigners migrate to Finland as refugees and asylum seekers rather than to find work. This explains tosome extent the high rate of unemployment among foreigners from countries other than the United States,Canada or those of the EU.

At end-1997, people of working age accounted for 73% of the foreign population, compared with 67% fornationals. The most recent data on labour force participation rates date back to 31 December 1996, when theparticipation rate for foreigners was 54%, compared with 71% for nationals.

At 31 December 1997 some 14 000 foreigners were unemployed. According to the Employment Survey,unemployment was estimated at 42% for foreigners and 13% for Finns. Recently, however, the employment sit-uation for foreigners has improved. Unemployment was highest among Russians and Estonians, who accountedfor 45% of all unemployed foreigners. By and large, unemployment has not declined among refugees, in partic-ular citizens of Bosnia, Iraq, Somalia, the former Yugoslavia and Iran, over 70% of whom are out of work. The highlevel of unemployment among foreigners is to some extent attributable to the requirement that refugees reg-ister as job-seekers in order to receive training and certain benefits. Yet they are still not capable of holdingdown a job in Finland, the main reason being that they do not speak Finnish.

There are no reliable statistics on foreigners in temporary employment in Finland, with the exception oftrainees. In practice, there are few temporary workers, most of them are employed by foreign firms establishedin Finland and workers who are on Finnish territory to install foreign-made industrial plant. Estonians andRussians are employed to harvest the raspberry crop, but this is seasonal work. Unemployment in Finland isstill too high to warrant intensive recourse to outside labour. Furthermore, Finland has virtually no branches ofindustry that call for temporary labour.

In 1997 there was a big increase in the number of Finns emigrating to Norway, this being prompted by sec-tor-specific labour shortages and the intensive recruitment campaign that Norwegian employers have con-ducted in Finland, in particular for nurses.

Policy developments

On 16 October 1997 the Finnish Government approved a programme relating to its policy on immigrationand refugees. This programme ratified a two-tier organisational model for government, making the Ministry ofthe Interior responsible for immigration controls and security, together with the issue of residence permits,while the Ministry of Labour takes charge of immigrants and their integration into Finnish society. The Ministryof Labour, in co-operation with the Ministry of Education, also has the heavy responsibility of preventing all

OECD 1999


134

forms of racism and ethnic discrimination. This decision was taken because the Ministry of Labour has its ownregional and local networks, and because helping foreigners to find work is a key factor in their integration.

The objective of Finland’s immigration policy is to ensure that all immigrants (i.e. immigrants, Finnish migrantsreturning from abroad, and refugees) are effectively integrated into society and the labour market. Successful inte-gration is based on the active participation of immigrants in the economic, social and political life of the country.

In February 1997, the Finnish Government adopted a resolution aimed at promoting tolerance and com-bating racism. Various ministries are to take steps to prevent racism and ethnic discrimination. They and theiradministrations are also to recruit to permanent or temporary posts foreign staff with the necessary skills.

In order to improve the integration of foreigners already in Finland, the government has started a four-year(1995-99) project financed by the European Social Fund. The project, which promotes access to employment forthe socially excluded, focuses on specific measures to help those who are at risk of being marginalised andestablishes a new style of co-operation between the various authorities and organisations concerned. In addi-tion, a pilot project to improve the employment situation of immigrants by means of a human capital databasewas launched in the Helsinki region in 1995. The database, which contains information on an immigrant’s edu-cational background and vocational and language skills, is designed to help small- and medium-sized enter-prises recruit immigrants with special skills.

In 1996 Parliament approved amendments and addenda to the Aliens Act as proposed by the Committeefor Policy on Immigration and Refugees. They relate to the issuance of residence permits for ethnic Finns return-ing from the Soviet Union (mainly Russia and Estonia). These persons are recognised as being of Finnish originif they themselves, a parent or at least two of their grandparents hold official documents indicating that they areFinnish citizens. Proof of other links with Finland or Finnish citizens, even if unsupported by official documents,may be sufficient. Thus the spouses/cohabitees and children of those meeting the above requirements canreadily obtain a residence permit.

Introduction

The analysis of recent migration movements and policies in France reveals that inflows of new immigrantshave remained stable at an annual average level of approximately 100 000 and that the control of these flowsand the integration of immigrants are still among the key objectives of migration policy. Major legislativechanges were introduced in 1998. These mainly relate to the conditions for entry and residence and the right toasylum (Law of 11 May 1998) and the conditions for acquiring French nationality (Law of 16 March 1998). Concur-rent with these legislative reforms, it was decided to give a new orientation to French migration policy, in par-ticular by linking the principles governing the attribution of aid for the resettlement of foreign workers in theircountry of origin with new forms of co-development.


Permanent immigration (i.e. for which residence permits valid for one year or more are issued) is composedmainly of family immigration, “visitors” (see below) and workers.

The downward trend in permanent entries observed since 1994 was reversed in 1997 (see Table II.13). Thisincrease was mainly attributable to the inclusion of the first 19 000 individuals to benefit from the regularisationprogramme, the implementation of which was decided on in June 1997 and was concluded at the end of Decem-ber 1998. It is also due to a new and sharp rise in the volume of “visitors” (a 70% increase on 1996).

The annual number of entries from non-EU countries, which were fewer than 50 000 in 1995 and 1996, roseto nearly 75 000 in 1997, an increase of over 50%.

FRANCE

OECD 1999

Fra

nce

OE

CD

199

Table II.13. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force, FranceAll figures in thousands unless otherwise indicated

1994 1995 1996 1997

1.2 1.0 1.2 0.911.3 10.1 11.6 9.21.3 1.6 1.6 1.0

y category. . . . . . 73.4. . . . . . 32.7. . . . . . 11.7. . . . . . 29.0

49.4 40.9 58.1 60.529.1 24.7 34.7 35.743.6 21.0 21.9 23.219.5 16.7 19.1 20.833.3 30.5 29.8 32.5

126.3 92.4 109.8 116.2

23.3 23.8 24.0 . .9.2 9.4 9.6 . .

status6

2 805.7 2 803.0 2 836.1 2 817.71 593.9 1 573.3 1 604.7 1 569.81 202.8 1 232.2 1 217.0 1 205.2

56.8 56.1 56.6 55.724.5 21.7 24.2 23.2

cerning expulsions, removals of illegal immigrants to the border and

135

9 1994 1995 1996 1997

Permanent immigration Registered outflows of foreigners3

ExpulsionsRegistered flows by category Actual removals to the borders

Family reunification (broadly defined) 37.7 31.6 30.4 31.1 Assisted departuresFamily members of French nationals 16.1 16.5 15.6 14.4Family members of foreigners 20.6 14.4 13.9 15.5 Foreigners involved in an assisted departure procedure bFamily members of refugees 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.1 (Cumulated figures since 1984)

Workers 19.6 14.1 11.9 11.7 WorkersWage earners 18.3 13.1 11.5 11.0 Spouses4

Self-employed 1.2 1.0 0.5 0.7 Children4

Visitors 5.2 6.4 8.9 15.1Refugees 7.0 4.7 4.3 4.1 Acquisition of French nationalityRegularisation of foreigners in an irregular situation – – – 18.9 Legal proceduresTotal 69.4 56.7 55.6 62.0 of which: Naturalisationof which: EEA 11.4 7.9 7.2 6.4 Declarations

of which: Decision following a weddingEstimated flows by main category1 Declaration of becoming French5

Family members of foreigners 6.0 4.3 6.5 8.5 TotalVisitors 2.1 2.4 7.5 7.8Other 5.4 5.0 4.4 5.2 Mixed marriagesTotal 13.5 11.6 18.4 21.5 % of total marriagesof which: EEA 10.0 8.2 15.4 17.9

Stocks of foreigners aged 15 and over according to work Total registered and estimated flows 82.9 68.3 74.0 83.5 Total foreign population

Labour forceTemporary immigration by category of which: employment

Asylum seekers 26.0 20.4 17.4 21.4 Participation rate (%)Students 16.3 15.1 16.0 19.2 Unemployment rate (%)Holders of a provisional work permit2 4.1 4.5 4.8 4.7Trainees 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.6Total 46.9 40.4 38.7 45.8

1. Estimates made by the Ministry of the Interior on the basis of residence permits issued.2. Provisional work permits (APT) are granted for a 9 month period and are renewable.3. In the absence of a population register, the only available data on the departures of foreigners are those which are due to administrative decisions and judicial orders con

voluntary departures assisted by the State.4. Accompanying dependents of workers involved in an assisted departure procedure.5. People born in France to foreign parents who declared their intention to become French in accordance with the legislation of 22 July 1993.6. In March of the year indicated.Sources: Office des migrations internationales (OMI); Office francais de protection des refugies et apatrides (OFPRA); Ministry of the Interior; Labour Force Survey.


136

Family reunion, be it of foreigners, of family members of French nationals or of the families of refugees andstateless persons, is the main reason for permanent entry into France, well ahead of inflows of permanent work-ers, both wage earners and self-employed. Total inflows under this category (which have averaged around30 000 per year over recent years and consist predominantly of women) are mainly from the Maghreb countriesand Turkey.

The number of people entering as family members of foreigners increased in 1997, the first time since 1990,to 15 500. The size of families measured at entry remains small (on average 1.53 persons) and the profile of fam-ily reunion continues to shift, in many cases involving the constitution of new families. The increasing diversityin origin countries notwithstanding, two-thirds of these entrants were from the Maghreb and Turkey, as in pre-vious years.

The number of family members of French nationals entering France (nearly 14 500 in 1997) fell again.Spouses comprised just over three quarters, followed by the parents of French children (16%) and ascendantsand children of French citizens.

The number of family members of refugees and stateless persons (1 100 persons in 1997) rose over the pre-vious year. This rise mainly concerned Asian nationals.

The “visitors” category, which was redefined in 1997, consists of persons who have been granted a tempo-rary residence card (valid for a one-year period and renewable) as researchers or university teachers, membersof artistic or cultural professions, or for reasons related to private and family life. Most of the entrants are in thislatter category, which includes in particular the spouses of French citizens authorised to reside in France imme-diately following their marriage, and foreigners with personal and family ties in France who do not qualify forfamily reunion. Entries of “visitors” totalled slightly over 15 000 in 1997. Foreigners from African countriesaccounted for 54%, those from the Americas and Asia 16% each, and those from non-EU Europe (including theformer USSR) for less than 13%.

The immigration of permanent workers from non-EU countries (both wage earners and the self-employed)rose slightly over course of 1997. There were some 5 300, of whom slightly fewer than 700 were wage earners.Five countries accounted for nearly half these: the United States, Algeria, Japan, Morocco and Lebanon. Overall,an increasing proportion of these new wage earners were women and were employed in the service sector. Theyhad higher qualifications than previously. Overall, disparities in the skill levels of nationalities persist.

According to the data from the Office des migrations internationales (OMI), some 6 450 permanent workers arrivedfrom the EEA in 1997, a fall on the previous two years. Nearly 40% of these workers were women. These EEAnationals work mainly in the tertiary sector. The skill-level of their jobs varies significantly with their nationality.

The number of foreigners granted refugee status (just over 4 100 in 1997) has been falling steadily over thepast six years. In 1997 their numbers fell by approximately 5%. In fact, this decline concerned only Europeannationals (mainly from the former Yugoslavia) and nationals of Asian countries (Turkey, Laos and Vietnam). Thenumber of statutory refugees from other major regions rose very slightly. Asia ranked first with 60% of total (SriLankans, Turks and South-East Asian nationals), followed by Africa (23%, one-third of whom are nationals of theformer Zaire), Europe including the former USSR (13%) and the Americas (3%, half of whom are Haitians).

In June 1997 the French government decided to implement a regularisation programme for foreigners with-out the required papers. This operation was concluded at the end of 1998. Thus far 80 000 of the 143 000 appli-cations have been accepted. A significant number of those accepted are family members in the broad sense(including 10 000 spouses of documented foreigners, 10 000 adult members of long-established foreign familiesand 19 000 parents of children born in France). These partial results are explained by the fact that the eligibilitycriteria are based on family ties or long-standing integration in France attested to by at least seven years of res-idence. It should also be noted that the bulk of applicants and of those regularised were nationals of Africancountries.

The largest number of applicants were Moroccans, Algerians and Malians, followed by Congolese (nationalsof the former Zaire) and Chinese, and then Tunisians, Turks, Senegalese and Congolese (Congo-Brazzaville), andlastly Sri Lankans, Filipinos and Pakistanis.

There are considerable disparities in the regularisation rates for each nationality. During the operation, itcame to light that most of the foreigners who were regularised belonged to the better-off social categories with

OECD 1999

France

137

relatively high employment rates in their country of origin rather than to the poorest classes of the population.Moreover, most applicants for regularisation had entered France legally.

Temporary immigration and seasonal immigration

Temporary entries mainly consist of temporary seasonal workers, students and asylum seekers. Entries ofnew permanent foreign workers are currently very small (as is the case in a number of OECD countries of immi-gration). Although, for the labour market as a whole, the recourse to temporary labour is increasing in France,seasonal immigration (slightly over 8 000 persons in 1997, mainly Moroccans and Poles employed in agriculture)underwent a structural downturn in the mid-1980s.

In 1997, as in 1996 there were slightly more recipients of temporary work permits (just under 5 000) thanpermanent foreign salaried workers (see Table II.13). These recipients included, most notably, nationals fromthe Americas (US citizens, Brazilians and Canadians), followed by Algerians (down by 15% from 1996), Poles andRussians.

The number of students rose compared with the three previous years, with women students predominating.

The number of applications for asylum increased in 1997, reversing the downward trend hat had prevailedsince 1990. L’Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides (OFPRA) recorded some 21 500 applications in 1997and practically the same number in 1998. Half of these asylum seekers came from Europe (the majority of whomfrom Romania and Bulgaria), one-third from Asia (mostly from Sri Lanka and China), and the rest from Africa andthe former USSR. In 1997 OFPRA reviewed 24 000 applications; the “automatic” refusal rate was 83%.

Departures from France

In France, the only departures to be recorded are those prompted by administrative action, i.e. forceddepartures and assisted departures. Of the forced departures, expulsions (some 900) declined by over 20% in1997, while removals to the frontier fell from 40 400 in 1995 to 33 000 in 1997. The number of readmissions, underthe Schengen Agreements or other international conventions, increased however, rising from 2 500 in 1996 to3 700 in 1997.

The two main schemes for assisted departures are government aid for the resettlement of certain wageearners and job seekers, and aid for the resettlement of foreigners who are instructed to leave the country. In1997, less government aid for the resettlement of workers was accorded than in 1996. The data available for 1997on foreigners instructed to leave the country (slightly over 1 000 persons) show that 90% requested resettle-ment aid. These were comprised mainly of asylum seekers of Romanian origin whose application for asylum hadbeen rejected.

The foreign population

France, as a whole, has a low rate of demographic growth. Natural increase mainly accounts for the littleincrease that there is. The foreign population accounts for less than 7% of the total population. Every year, nat-uralisations reduce the foreign population and increase the French population correspondingly. In 1996, a totalof just under 735 000 births were recorded: of these, 6% were to two foreign parents and in 5.8% of cases to oneforeign parent. The net migration balance for that year (40 000) accounted for nearly 17% of the total populationgrowth in France. The proportion of foreign births in total births was higher in 1996 than the proportion of for-eigners in the total population (approximately one and a half times larger).

The Ministry of the Interior put the number of foreigners holding a valid residence permit at 31 December1996 at 3.23 million, of whom slightly less than 1.6 million were economically active. The number of foreigners,which had declined from 1990 through to 1994, started to rise again in 1995, and increased more sharply in 1996(+39 000 persons). The proportion of women in the foreign population (43.5% in 1996) continues to grow, accom-panying the development of family oriented immigration. Nationals of the European Union account for nearlytwo-fifths of the foreign population (just over 1 250 000 persons). The nationals of three EU countries (Italy,Spain and Portugal) and of the Maghreb account for nearly three-quarters of all residence permit holders.Almost 85% of foreigners have a residence permit valid for ten years.

OECD 1999


138

The foreign labour force

The foreign labour force, estimated annually in the Labour Force Survey, numbers some 1.6 million,accounting for 6.2% of the total labour force (a percentage that has been in decline over the past twenty years).The number of foreign workers in employment, which since 1995 had been falling, rose slightly in 1998 however.The number of self-employed foreigners stood at approximately 142 000 in 1998. This figure has been slowlyincreasing since 1995. A growing proportion of foreign workers are women: they accounted for 37% of the foreignlabour force in 1998 (as compared to 35% in 1995). Portuguese nationals are the largest group of foreign workers,followed by Algerians and Moroccans.

While the service sector is the main employer of foreign wage earners, large numbers still work in agricul-ture and manufacturing, as well as in construction. A detailed analysis of salaried employment by industryshows that it is real estate activities and construction that employ the highest percentage of foreigners, followedby personal services, agriculture and the motor industry.

Greater vulnerability of foreigners to unemployment

In 1997 and 1998 foreigners remained more affected by unemployment than the French. Indeed, the gapbetween the unemployment rates of foreigners and French citizens widened in 1998: 11.1% for the French and23.7 for foreigners (with a rate of 10.2% for EU nationals and 31.4% for non-EU nationals). Foreign nationalsaccounted for 12.3% of those unemployed in 1998 as opposed to 11.5% in 1997. Nearly 37% of women from non-EU countries are unemployed. Young people aged 15 to 24 from non-European Union countries, in particularAlgeria and other African countries, are the most likely to be unemployed, with average unemployment of 50%.

Economic and social integration of foreigners

The economic and social integration of foreigners encompasses many aspects, such as the acquisition ofFrench nationality, mixed marriages, the schooling of children of foreign nationality and labour market integra-tion.

Acquisition of French nationality

In 1997, a total of 116 000 foreigners acquired French nationality through all procedures combined: 60 000 bydecree, 34 100 by formal statement and 21 000 by marriage. Adding to these the attributions of French nation-ality at birth to children born in France of foreign parents, the number of persons who acquired or were grantedFrench nationality in 1997 totalled 122 000.

The proportion of women amongst those acquiring French nationality by declaration is rising. Over a tenyear period (1988-97), it has increased from 40 to 47%. Nationals of African countries account for over half ofthose who obtain French nationality by acquisition. In 1997, the five main nationalities of origin remained thesame as those for 1996 (Moroccan, Portuguese, Algerian, Tunisian and Turkish): they continue to account for overthree-quarters of total acquisitions.

Mixed marriages

After peaking during 1990-92 (an annual average of 31 500), the number of mixed marriages then fell signif-icantly, rising again from 1994 (+3% on a cumulative basis between 1994 and 1996); there were some24 000 mixed marriages in 1996. This increase is largely one of marriages between French women and foreigners.The breakdown of foreign spouses by nationality is relatively stable, and the number of marriages betweenFrench citizens and nationals of African countries, particularly those of the Maghreb, continues to grow.

The schooling of migrants’ children

The schooling of migrants’ children represents a key element in France’s integration policies. At the begin-ning of the 1997 school year, some 11.9 million pupils were enrolled in the primary and secondary schools ofMetropolitan France, of whom 739 000 were of foreign nationality, i.e. 6.2% of the total (see Table II.14). This is

OECD 1999

France

139

nearly 190 000 fewer than during the 1994-95 school year. This decline has occurred at all levels of the system.By nationality, the number of pupils varies according to a number of factors, such as the dominant trends ofmigration flows, birth rates, geographical patterns of departures and acquisitions of nationality. In absoluteterms, Moroccan pupils are still the largest group (slightly less than 200 000), followed by Algerians (110 000),Portuguese (84 000), sub-Saharan Africans (80 000) and Turks (76 000).

Labour market integration

Major programmes for vocational training and for labour market access for young people and the unem-ployed comprise the essential elements of the policies aimed at promoting migrants’ entry in the labour mar-ket. The integration of immigrants in distressed urban areas is also of concern to policymakers at local andnational levels. Significant measures have been taken in France over the past two years to improve housing andworking conditions in certain distressed urban areas and to improve the quality of transport and the availabilityof public services, which are key factors for urban development.

In 1997, foreigners accounted for 8.4% of the participants in training programmes or employment subsidyschemes. The proportion of foreign women participating in these various schemes was almost the same as thatof foreign men, all nationalities combined, and was even higher in work experience and training schemes (15 asopposed to 12%). Discrepancies remain in the proportion of foreign participation according to the type of aidmeasure: when a scheme prepares participants directly for employment (as in apprenticeships), it is around 3%,while in ordinary training programmes it is over 12%.

Policy developments

Two key developments in migration policy will be outlined below. The first concerns the two legislativereforms carried out during the first half of 1998 relating to the entry, residence and the forced departure of for-eigners, the procedures for obtaining asylum, and the acquisition of French nationality. The second concernsinternational co-operation. Discussion of these developments is preceded by an initial assessment of the June1997 regularisation programme.

The June 1997 regularisation programme: a provisional assessment

In June 1997 it was decided to carry out a programme to regularise certain categories of foreign nationals.This programme ended in May 1998. The operation was aimed primarily at regularising the unlawful status, withregard to their entry or residence, of people married to French citizens, of foreigners having entered Francelegally outside the family reunion procedure, of the spouses of refugees, and of long-established foreign fami-lies. It also applied to certain categories of children who had entered France outside the family reunion proce-dure and, under certain conditions, other clearly specified categories of foreigners (foreigners with no family

Table II.14. Foreign pupils1 attending public and private schools in France, 1994/95, 1996/97 and 1997/98Thousands and percentages

Primary level Secondary levelSchool year Total

Pre-primary and primary Lower secondary Upper secondary Special education

1994/95 551.8 228.5 130.0 16.8 927.11996/97 . . 199.3 122.4 14.8 . .1997/98 424.8 183.2 118.5 12.3 738.9

% of foreign pupils in all pupils1994/95 8.4 7.0 6.0 15.3 7.61996/97 . . 6.2 5.6 12.6 . .1997/98 6.7 5.7 5.4 11.6 6.2

1. On the assumption that the pupils’ nationalities have been recorded on the same basis across all levels of the system and across the public and privatesectors.

Sources: Ministere de l’Education nationale, DPD.

OECD 1999


140

responsibilities, foreigners who were ill, students pursuing higher-level studies and people refused asylum).According to the most recent available information, around 143 000 applications were received and some80 000 residence permits granted. Most of these permits (85%) were granted on family-related grounds.

The entry, residence and expulsion of foreigners

With respect to entry conditions, the Law of 11 May 1998 requires the government to justify its groundsshould it refuse a visa to certain categories of foreigner, in particular to the family members of a French citizenor a national of the European Economic Area, those qualifying for family reunion or persons registered in theSchengen Information System. This legislation abolished the accommodation certificate, replacing it by a dec-laration signed by the person at whose dwelling the foreign national will be staying confirming that the for-eigner’s accommodation needs will indeed be met. It also introduced changes in the family reunion procedureand extended it to include minors born to either spouse during a previous marriage.

As regards residence, the Law of 11 May 1998 extends the validity of European Economic Area nationals’first residence permit to ten years. It introduces three new types of temporary residence permit specifically forscientists, artistic and cultural professionals and family members. The “private and family life” permit entitleseligible persons to a work permit and enables them to obtain a permanent resident permit after five years’unbroken residence in France. The law also introduces new categories of individuals eligible for a permanentresident permit, in particular foreigners living outside France who formerly held a permanent resident permitand who are currently receiving a retirement pension. These persons and their spouses are now issued a permitknown as a “retired persons” residence permit.

As regards measures concerning forced departures, the law substantially simplifies the procedures forremovals to the frontier and administrative detention. It protects certain categories of foreigners: these can nolonger be removed to the frontier after being convicted of a crime.

Asylum

The Law of 11 May 1998 amended the 25 July 1952 Asylum Act. It extends the possibility of refusing theadmission of asylum seekers from a so-called “safe” countries into France and establishes two new forms of pro-tection: “constitutional” asylum and territorial asylum. Drawing on the Preamble to the 1946 Constitution, con-stitutional asylum makes possible the granting refugee status to persons persecuted because of their activitiesto promote freedom. Territorial asylum may be granted to those able to show that their life or freedom is threat-ened in their country or that they are liable to inhuman or degrading treatment there.

Nationality

The Law of 16 March 1998 re-established principle of jus soli as it existed in the Nationality Code between1945 and 1993. Two conditions are laid down: the person must have established their principal residence inFrance, evidenced by having resided there habitually for a five-year period. The law reduced to one year (fromthe previous two years) the delay before which a foreigner married to a French citizen can obtain French nation-ality by declaration. Under certain conditions, minors born in France of foreign parents may obtain nationalityby declaration at the age of 16, or at the age of 13 with their legal representative acting on their behalf. The lawnow applies the principle of dual jus soli without restriction to children born in France of at least one parent bornin Algeria before its independence (July 1962); that parent is no longer required to have resided in France.

The law also states that any minor born in France of foreign parents holding residence papers will begranted a “republican identity document”. This constitutes legal proof of identity and enables the child to bereadmitted into France without a visa and to move freely in the Schengen Area.

Reintegration and co-development

After having launched the “local development and migration” programme in 1995, France set out in 1998 aco-development policy overseen by an “interministerial delegate for co-development and international migra-tion” reporting to the Minister for Employment and Solidarity. One of the first manifestations of this policy,which promotes active co-operation with origin countries, was to find timely solutions to the problem of

OECD 1999

Germany

141

enabling the return to their origin countries under acceptable conditions of those who did not meet the require-ments to be accepted under the regularisation programme. Two different schemes were adopted to this end:resettlement aid and a resettlement contract in the country of origin.

The resettlement aid is only for those who are obliged to leave France; in some cases they are accompaniedby their family. Psychological help as well as administrative, material and financial assistance are provided inFrance prior to their departure. France also makes available a resettlement subsidy and aid for small businessstart-up projects upon the person’s arrival in their country of origin.

The resettlement contract in the country of origin is currently offered to nationals of Mali, Morocco andSenegal who are asked to leave France. This contract entitles them to training in France, followed by additionaltraining in their country of origin upon they return. The OMI has generally observed that six months after theirreturn the individuals have succeeded in resettling; such success may be followed by a recommendation fromthe OMI that they be issued with a visa enabling them to travel between their country of origin and France.

Introduction

Inflows of foreigners continued to decline in 1997. Every type of flow (but especially those of asylum seek-ers and ethnic Germans – Aussiedler) diminished substantially. Political and economic developments in certainmajor origin countries, combined with an active policy of encouraging refugees to return voluntarily, helped toproduce an increase in departures, towards Bosnia-Herzegovina in particular. For the first time since 1984, thenet migration balance of foreigners was negative, albeit slightly.

During 1997, the employment situation continued to deteriorate. Average total employment during theyear (new Länder excluded) fell by 280 000 on 1996, i.e. by 1.4%. The gap between the unemployment rate fornationals (11% on annual average in 1997) and that for foreigners (20.4%) widened even further.

As regards migration policy, the Government is working to establish effective cultural and economic inte-gration programmes for first- and, above all, second-generation immigrants. In May 1999 the Parliamentapproved a new law modifying the Nationality Code.


Available figures on migration flows of foreigners chart both inflows and outflows. The recorded entriesinclude, notably, stays in excess of three months and asylum seeker entries. All persons occupying a private res-idence for a period exceeding three months are required to register. Because of this broad definition of immi-gration flows, net flows need to be considered rather than inflows only, so that the amount of migration is notinflated compared to flows recorded in other countries.

Over the past 30 years, immigration of foreigners has moved cyclically (see Chart II.7), reflecting the succes-sive changes in German migration policy and the upheavals in the Central and Eastern European countries.Germany, which had called extensively on foreign labour, signing numerous recruitment agreements in the early1970s, officially terminated labour immigration in 1974. From 1989 to 1993, fairly liberal legislation allowed manyasylum seekers and ethnic Germans (Aussiedler) to settle in Germany. But since 1993, inflows of immigrants, asy-lum seekers and Aussiedler from the principal sending countries (Central and Eastern European countries, formerYugoslavia, former USSR, Turkey) have steadily declined. Entries of Aussiedler fell from almost 180 000 in 1996 toa little over 100 000 in 1998. In 1998, the number of entry applications was down to 47 000. The large-scale out-flow of Bosnians in 1997 (84 000 departures as against 27 000 the previous year) explains why the migration bal-ance of foreigners was slightly negative (–21 800) that year.

GERMANY

OECD 1999


142

In 1997, only the positive migration balance of Germannationals (including Aussiedler) and the natural growth ofthe foreign population were responsible for theincrease in total population – which was very small thatyear (see Chart II.8). The proportion of foreigners in thetotal population was 9% at the end of 1997 compared to8.9% the previous year. The fraction of those foreignnationals from European Union countries and OECDarea countries (primarily Turkey, Italy and Greece)remained steady (25 and 64% respectively). The mas-sive influx of immigrants and asylum seekers, espe-cially in the early 1990s, is the reason why over a thirdof foreign residents have been settled in Germany forless than six years. On the other hand, nearly 50% of for-eign residents have been settled in the country for tenyears or more.

Naturalisations

The number of naturalisations declined in 1997 (272 000as against 303 000 in 1996). For a very large part, the for-eigners naturalised were of Kazakh or Russian originalong with a smaller number of Turks (see StatisticalAnnex, Table B.1.7). In particular, the number of nation-als from the former USSR (Kazakhs and Russiansexcepted) dropped sharply, from 21 500 in 1996 to 9 000in 1997.

The Aliens Act was amended to ease naturalisation pro-cedures for long-standing foreign residents in Germany.

The new provisions came into force in July 1993. The commonest requirement to be met concerns the period ofresidence – eight years for young people of the second generation, and fifteen years for adults. Special provi-sions apply to people of recognised German origin who consequently have a right to reside in Germany andobtain German nationality. The requirements for a discretionary decision are more restrictive, particularly withregard to knowledge of the German language. A new law modifying the Nationality Code was approved byParliament in May 1999 (see below).


Tougher legislation designed to clarify who is entitled to apply for asylum came into force on 1 July 1993,following an amendment to the Basic Law. Its effect has been to reduce drastically the number of valid applica-tions while increasing the proportion of applications granted. Some 105 000 applications were registered in1997, down threefold from 1993 (see Table II.15). In 1997, the largest flows were from Turkey (16 800), formerYugoslavia (14 800) and Iraq (at 14 100 entries, the only flow to exceed the 1996 figure).

Germany has signed bilateral agreements with Turkey, Chile, Vietnam, Slovenia, Croatia, the former YugoslavianRepublic of Macedonia, Albania and the Palestinian authority, and will soon do so with Bosnia-Herzegovina. Fundsare, with the consent of the State concerned, released by the German government to grant low-interest loans torefugees wishing to set up a business in their home country once the political and economic situation allows. Atthe end of 1997, about 5 800 loans had been granted.


All foreigners from outside the European Economic Area must obtain a work permit to take up paid employ-ment in Germany. In 1997, nearly 451 000 new permits were issued (see Table II.15), a number which has stayed

1 200

1960

1 000

800

600

400

200

0

-200

1 200

1 000

800

600

400

200

0

-200

65 70 75 80 85 90 95

Net migration of foreigners

Inflows of foreigners

Chart II.7. Migration flows of foreigners,11960-1997, Germany

Thousands

1. Registered inflows (foreigners staying in Germany more than 3 months)and outflows of foreigners. Including registered asylum seekers. Thedata cover western Germany up to 1990 and Germany as a whole from1991 on.

Source: Statistisches Bundesamt.

1 200

1960

1 000

800

600

400

200

0

-200

1 200

1 000

800

600

400

200

0

-200

65 70 75 80 85 90 95




Thousands



1 200

1960

1 000

800

600

400

200

0

-200

1 200

1 000

800

600

400

200

0

-200

65 70 75 80 85 90 95




Thousands



OECD 1999

Germany

143

fairly steady since 1995. From 1990 to 1997, the proportion of recent immigrants in all work permit issues for afirst job rose from under 50 to over 60%.

The majority of new permits, known as “ordinary” permits, are subject to the rule of prior entitlement forGerman or foreign workers with comparable status. In addition, they are valid only for a specific activity. Theremaining permits are “special” permits, which give free access to the labour market for a limited or unlimitedperiod without geographical or occupational restriction.

The employment of contract labour and of guest workers (Gastarbeiter), being regarded as a form of co-operationwith the Central and Eastern European countries, is an exception to the rule of prior entitlement, althoughannual quotas are set for each nationality and occupation depending on the labour market situation. The pro-portion of contract workers in the total of new permit holders has fallen; in 1997, it amounted to 12%, against 20%in 1992. On the other hand, employment of seasonal workers rose for the third year running (see Table II.15).

The total workforce has been shrinking since 1992. Since total employment has declined even more mark-edly (see Chart II.9), there has been a substantial increase in unemployment in Germany. Furthermore, fluctu-ations in the employment of foreign workers, viewed over a long period, have been greater than for the labourforce in general. The gap between unemployment rates in the native and foreign population has continued towiden since the early 1980s. This would indicate that foreigners are more vulnerable in this respect, owing insome cases to inadequate skills. From 1996 to 1997, unemployment rose from 10.1 to 11.0% for the populationas a whole, but from 18.9 to 20.4% for foreigners. However, the rate conceals significant disparities dependingon nationality and sector of the economy. The hardest hit were Turks (25.5% at the end of the year), followed byItalians (21%) and Greeks (19.5%).

Illegal migration

The illegal entry and employment of foreign labour persist, despite manifold efforts to combat illegal immi-gration. The total number of persons intercepted at the borders rose from 27 000 in 1996 and 35 200 in 1997 to

1970

700600500400300200100

0-100-200-300-400

7006005004003002001000-100-200-300-400

72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 1970 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96

Chart II.8. Components of German population change, 1970-1997Nationals and foreigners

Thousands

Note: The data cover western Germany up to 1990 and Germany as a whole from 1991 on.1. Including naturalisations on the basis of a claim.2. Net migration, natural increase and acquisition of nationality.3. Aussiedler are considered as nationals in statistics on migration. They can reside in Germany and acquire German nationality as soon as their German

origins are recognised.Source: Statistisches Bundesamt.

Nationals3

Total change2Acquisition of German nationality1

Natural increaseNet migration

Foreigners

1970

700600500400300200100

0-100-200-300-400

7006005004003002001000-100-200-300-400

72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 1970 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96


Thousands



Nationals3



Foreigners

1970

700600500400300200100

0-100-200-300-400

7006005004003002001000-100-200-300-400

72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 1970 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96


Thousands



Nationals3



Foreigners

OECD 1999


144

Table II.15. Current figures on the components of total population change,on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Germany


1994 1995 1996 1997

Components of population changesTotal population (total change) 205.8 288.6 195.4 45.4

Natural increase –115.1 –119.4 –86.8 –48.2Net migration 320.8 408.0 282.2 93.7

Germans (total change)1 224.0 288.1 256.5 245.5Natural increase –203.4 –206.3 –179.7 –141.7Net migration 168.3 180.7 133.3 115.4Acquisition of German nationality 259.2 313.6 302.8 271.8

Foreigners (total change) –18.3 0.6 –61.1 –200.0Natural increase 88.3 86.9 92.8 93.5Net migration 152.6 227.2 148.9 –21.8Acquisition of German nationality –259.2 –313.6 –302.8 –271.8

Migration of foreigners2

Inflows by nationality 774.0 788.3 708.0 615.3of which:

Poland 78.6 87.2 77.4 71.2Turkey 63.9 73.6 73.2 56.0Italy 38.7 48.0 45.8 39.0Former Yugoslavia 63.2 54.1 42.9 31.2Portugal 26.5 30.5 32.0 26.4Russian federation 33.4 33.0 31.9 24.8

Net migration by nationality 152.5 227.2 148.9 –21.8of which:

Russian federation 21.1 19.5 19.3 13.6Turkey 17.6 30.4 29.7 10.0Italy 6.6 14.5 9.0 1.1Poland 12.9 16.5 5.7 1.0Portugal 23.6 27.6 29.1 –0.1Former Yugoslavia 1.0 13.8 8.6 –13.3

Inflows of ethnic Germans from:Central and Eastern Europe 222.6 217.9 177.8 134.4of which:

Former USSR 213.2 109.4 172.2 131.9Romania 6.6 6.5 4.3 1.8Poland 2.4 1.7 1.2 0.7

Inflows of asylum seekers 127.2 127.9 116.4 104.4of which:

Turkey 19.1 25.5 23.8 16.8Former Yugoslavia 30.4 26.2 18.1 14.8Iraq 2.1 6.9 10.8 14.1Afghanistan 5.6 7.5 5.7 4.7

Stock of foreign population by duration of stay(31 December of the year indicated)2 6 990.5 7 173.9 7 314.0 7 365.8Less than one year (%) 6.3 7.9 5.6 5.21 year to less than 4 years (%) 23.9 23.1 18.2 15.84 to less than 11 years (%) 22.3 24.5 27.7 29.811 years or more (%) 47.4 44.5 48.5 49.2Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Acquisition of German nationality3 259.2 313.6 302.8 271.8

OECD 1999

Germany

145

Table II.15. Current figures on the components of total population change,on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in Germany (cont.)


1994 1995 1996 1997

Issuance of work permits for a first employment4 419.4 470.0 440.0 451.0of which:

Asylum seekers 44.1 40.3 21.3 24.8Contract workers 63.5 76.6 54.5 54.8By duration of stay in Germany

Newly entered 221.2 270.8 262.5 285.4of which: Polish workers 126.2 181.6 180.8 205.6Not newly entered 198.2 199.2 177.5 165.6

By kind of permit5

General permit 323.1 374.7 346.3 352.4Special permit 96.3 95.3 93.4 98.5

Stock of employed foreign workers by economic activity(Western Germany)6 2 168.0 2 155.9 2 084.7 2 017.9Agriculture 24.7 25.3 27.3 26.5Energy, mining 26.3 24.0 21.9 20.0Manufacturing industry 885.1 863.6 823.1 791.7Construction 202.5 203.9 196.1 174.5Commerce 220.2 215.1 217.3 213.6Transport and communication 101.8 100.2 103.4 102.6Intermediary services 22.8 22.7 22.6 22.9Non-profit organisations, private households 32.2 33.2 35.5 582.2Regional authorities, Social Security 54.0 49.0 48.9 36.4Other services 557.5 562.3 588.6 47.5Not specified 40.9 56.6 0.1 0.1

Stock of contract workers by nationality7 48.4 56.2 47.3 42.1of which:

Poland 19.2 28.8 24.3 23.0Hungary 9.2 10.2 9.1 5.6Croatia 5.3 5.2 5.0 3.9Czech Republic 2.6 2.5 2.3 1.4Turkey . . 1.8 1.8 1.5

Seasonal workers by nationality8 154.5 192.0 220.9 226.0of which:

Poland 136.7 170.6 196.3 202.2Slovak Republic 3.9 5.4 6.3 6.4Croatia 5.8 5.6 5.7 5.8Romania 2.3 3.9 5.0 5.0Hungary 2.5 2.8 3.5 3.6Czech Republic 3.5 3.7 3.4 2.3

Unemployment (national definition)Total number of unemployed workers (Germany as a whole) 3 698.1 3 611.9 3 965.1 4 384.5Total number of unemployed workers (western Germany) 2 556.0 2 564.9 2 796.2 3 020.9

Unemployment rate (%) (western Germany) 9.2 9.3 10.1 11.0Total number of foreign unemployed workers (western Germany) 408.1 424.5 496.0 521.6

Foreigners’ unemployment rate (%) (western Germany) 16.2 16.6 18.9 20.4

Note: The data cover Germany as a whole, unless otherwise indicated. Data for Former Yugoslavia cover Montenegro and Serbia.1. Figures include ethnic Germans whose German origins have been recognised.2. Data are from population registers.3. Statistics include naturalisation claims, which concern essentially ethnic Germans.4. Citizens of EU Members States are not included.5. A general permit is only granted if no domestic worker is available. This is not the case for the issuance of a special permit. Activity of holders of a special

work permit is not restrictive.6. Data are for 30 September of each year and include cross-border workers but not the self-employed.7. Contract workers are recruited under bilateral agreements and quotas by country of origin are revised annually.8. Seasonal workers are recruited under bilateral agreements and they are allowed to work 3 months per year.Sources: Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit; Statistiches Bundesamt.

OECD 1999


146

39 700 in 1998. The borders most concerned are theCzech and Polish frontiers, though growing numbersof illegal migrants are being stopped at the borderwith France. Clandestine networks, especially thosesmuggling workers from the Central and EasternEuropean countries, are developing.

Total fines levied on employers of illegal for-eign immigrants have grown, even though the num-ber of breaches of the labour laws in this regard didnot rise in 1997 (78 500 offences as against 86 800 theprevious year). Germany, in order to improve theeffectiveness of measures to curb flows of non-EUforeign nationals, particularly those using the asy-lum-application channel, is endeavouring to signreadmission agreements with the main countriesfrom which the illegal migrants come.

Policy developments

In May 1999, the Parliament approved a draftBill modifying the Nationality Code, in force since1913. The mandatory residence period precedingnaturalisation is shortened: adult foreigners mayacquire it after eight years of legal residence(instead of the fifteen required under the presentlaw). Over 4 million foreigners (out of a total7.4 million) meet this requirement. Children of for-eign parents of whom at least one was born in Ger-many or settled in Germany before the age of 14receive German nationality automatically. Otherchildren born of foreign parents must, between theages of 18 and 23 years, choose which nationalitythey will definitively take. The new governmentregards the new law as a measure which will favourthe integration of foreigners and their families longsettled in Germany.

The most controversial aspect of the first draftof the Bill, the offering of the opportunity to natura-lised foreigners, as to Germans residing abroad andwishing to acquire the host country’s nationality, tokeep their first nationality, was not included in thefinal version.

The Federal Government, while seeking torestrict the number of new non-EU immigrants, is, inconjunction with the Länder and city administrations,pursuing an active policy for integrating foreignersand their families who have lived in the country for along time.

One of the groups targeted by government andassociation aid measures is that of young people ofimmigrant origin. Emphasis is usually laid on learn-ing German, especially among young people who

7.5

20.0

5.0

2.5

0

-2.5

-5.0

-7.5

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97

17.5

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97

7.5

5.0

2.5

0

-2.5

-5.0

-7.5

20.0

17.5

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

Chart II.9. Change in employment and unemploymentin Germany, 1981-1998

Total population and foreignersPercentages

A. Employment and labour force

1. Figures represent, for a given year, percentage change in the stock ofemployed foreigners compared to the previous year. Data are fromSocial Security records (in June of the given year). The data only coverwestern Germany.

2. Figures on unemployment are given as an annual average andcorrespond to the national definition based on the register of unemployedpeople. The data only cover western Germany.

Sources: Statistisches Bundesamt and OECD Economic Outlook, n° 65,June 1999.

Employment of foreigners1

Total labour force Total employment

Annual change, %

B. Unemployment rates2

Total population Foreigners

Annual change, %

PercentagesPercentages

7.5

20.0

5.0

2.5

0

-2.5

-5.0

-7.5

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97

17.5

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97

7.5

5.0

2.5

0

-2.5

-5.0

-7.5

20.0

17.5

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0









Annual change, %



Annual change, %


7.5

20.0

5.0

2.5

0

-2.5

-5.0

-7.5

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97

17.5

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97

7.5

5.0

2.5

0

-2.5

-5.0

-7.5

20.0

17.5

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0









Annual change, %



Annual change, %


OECD 1999

Greece

147

have not received their schooling in Germany. Proficiency in the German language is an invaluable asset in suc-cessful social and economic integration and in the acquisition of occupational skills. Programmes are being con-ducted, for example, with such sending countries as Greece, Spain, Italy, Turkey and Portugal. Qualificationsacquired in Germany by foreigners taking part in these programmes are, like training courses attended in thehome country, recognised by the two partner countries. These schemes are designed to put these young peo-ple’s proficiency in two (or more) languages and their belonging to two cultures to professional advantage.

Other schemes are more specifically centred on women arriving in the country in the context of familyreunion. Projects exist for vocational skills training, for example in the health services (training as nursing aids,or in caring for elderly people).

The Federal Government is at the same time supporting initiatives by some foreigners (particularly Turkishnationals) who wish to return to their country of origin. It provides information on the conditions in their origin countryand the prospects for salaried work or self-employment. Technical training recognised by the country of origin isoffered in Germany. The Federal Government and industry have together funded measures to promote return migra-tion and develop self-employment in the home country. In June 1995, a vocational training centre was opened in Tur-key. In co-operation with Hungary, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, upskilling programmes have beenmade available to guest workers (Gastarbeiter) who return to their country of origin.

Over and above the measures aimed at facilitating the integration of immigrants and persons from immi-grant families, the Ministry of Labour is combating racism by promoting better inter-cultural understanding.

Introduction

Extensive land and coastal borders and a labour market with an important seasonal element lie at the rootsof the present situation whereby undocumented foreigners are understood to comprise approximately 10% ofthe total labour force. The regularisation programme currently in the course of implementation seeks to encour-age the integration of these workers into the formal economy and civil society. A Decree has recently been pub-lished to extend asylum seekers and refugees’ right to take up employment. Its practical effect will becontingent however upon further improvements in the Greek economy.

Emigration

Greece’s National Statistical Service ceased collecting data on emigration in 1977. Information has there-fore to be obtained from the records of recipient countries. The once substantial emigration flows to the UnitedStates, Canada and Australia are now almost negligible and are primarily linked to family reunion. Germany isnow the principal destination with an inflow of 16 400 in 1997. It is also the only country for which departure datais available. On the assumption that Greek nationals leaving Germany are returning to Greece, then net migra-tion of Greek nationals between the two countries became slightly positive in Greece’s favour for the first timein 1994. At 5 300, it was strongly so in 1997.

In 1997, remittances transmitted through official sources amounted to just over US$2.9 Billion, adecline of 2.4% on the 1996 figure. The principal reasons for the decline were the same as last year: slowgrowth in Germany (whence approximately one quarter of the remittances are transmitted), the re-evaluation of the US dollar against the drachma and the increased assimilation of overseas Greeks.


The estimated total foreign population in Greece recorded a slight increase (1½%) in 1997 to stand at justover 309 000 at the end of the year. It is noteworthy that about 45% of the total are of Greek background. This

GREECE

OECD 1999


148

estimate only includes, however, those in possession of a valid or expired permit and those who are on the wait-ing list. There are believed to be approximately 500 000 undocumented immigrants, around three quarters ofwhom took advantage of the recently implemented regularisation programme (see below), a small proportionof whom can be expected to show up in the figures for 1998; the bulk of the applications will be treated in 1999.

Temporary foreign residents

Almost 75 000 residence permits (of one year renewable) were issued in 1997, an increase of 6% on 1996(see Table II.16). This increase was largely due to greater inflows from countries of Central and Eastern Europeand the former Soviet Union, in particular Ukraine. These were in all likelihood ethnic Greeks: the number ofresidence permits granted to non-ethnic Greek foreigners remained stable. It is expected that these statisticsmay undergo further increases in the future, as a result of a new law regarding the family reunion of migrant work-ers (see “Policy developments”, below).

Over half of the foreign population with residence permits lives in Greater Athens. This proportiondeclined slightly during 1996 and 1997 reflecting a redistribution toward the rural and the intermediate urbanareas. Such a redistribution is welcome given the higher unemployment rates in the large urban areas.

Labour migration and work permits

The maximum number of work permits granted each year to foreign migrants by country of citizenship,occupation and duration of work and for the various regions of the country is determined by a joint decision ofthe Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Labour and Public Order after consultation with the Manpower and EmploymentOrganisation and the representatives of trade unions and employers’ organisations

Both the Ministry of Public Order and the Ministry of Labour provide data on legal foreign workers. Thestatistics on legal foreign workers obtained from the Ministry of Public Order are somewhat different fromthose published by the Ministry of Labour. According to the more inclusive statistics of the former there were

Table II.16. Residence permits issued to foreigners,1 by country of origin, 1994-1997, GreeceThousands

of which: Women1994 1995 1996 1997

1996 1997

Russian Federation 17.0 17.3 13.9 13.0 8.2 7.9Bulgaria 3.5 3.7 4.3 6.1 2.8 4.0Albania 3.7 4.2 3.4 4.4 2.4 3.0Romania 3.5 2.6 2.7 3.3 2.0 2.4Egypt 3.6 3.6 3.1 3.3 0.4 0.5Former Yugoslavia 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 1.8 1.8Ukraine . . 0.5 1.4 2.9 0.9 2.3United States 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.5 1.3 1.3Turkey 6.2 5.1 2.3 2.5 1.1 1.1Georgia . . 2.9 5.3 2.4 2.8 1.4Cyprus 5.5 4.7 2.1 2.4 1.0 1.1United Kingdom 3.2 3.1 2.7 2.2 1.5 1.2Poland 1.9 1.7 1.8 2.2 1.4 1.6Germany 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 0.9 1.0Philippines 2.7 2.3 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5Syria 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.2 0.3 0.2Lebanon 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.4 0.4Italy 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.4Other 15.6 15.9 15.7 17.5 8.9 10.2

Total 77.2 78.2 70.4 74.6 39.9 43.5

1. Data refer to total number of permits issued. One person can be granted several permits per year. However a large majority of the permits are deliveredfor one year and only a small number of persons receive more than one permit. Data include ethnic Greeks.

Source: Greek Ministry of Public Order.

OECD 1999

Greece

149

35 700 foreign workers in 1997. The latter’s estimate is 12 000 less. As was the case last year, these ministries’figures point to conflicting trends: according to the former, the number of foreign workers registered a very slightincrease; according to the latter their number fell by some 6%, attributable to a decline in the inflows from theEuropean Union.

Of the non-ethnic Greek foreign workers, 37% are from the EU (the United Kingdom, Germany and Spainbeing the most important); less than 10% are from other OECD Member countries. Among the ethnic Greeks,large contingents are from Albania, Cyprus, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

Settlement of ethnic Greeks

The data on the immigration of ethnic Greeks from the former Soviet Union (Greek Pontians) show a con-tinuation of the generally downward trend. Having peaked at almost 14 000 in 1990 the inflow was less than 5 000in 1997. This is in all likelihood the result of a multiplicity of factors including the near exhaustion of the poten-tial pool, the employment and re-integration problems confronting the Pontians in Greece (despite the numer-ous programmes on the part of the Greek state, see “Policy developments” below for recent developments inthis vein), the relative stabilisation of the political situation in the source countries and the success of the Greekgovernment’s policies aimed at encouraging them to stay in the host countries whilst maintaining cultural andpolitical links with the mother country.

Naturalisations

Following an amendment introduced in 1997, regulations governing the naturalisations of foreigners mar-ried to Greeks are now much more relaxed: upon the birth of a child the application can be examined immedi-ately. Otherwise the spouse, in common with other categories of foreign national, must have been resident inthe country for ten of the preceding twelve years.

The figures for naturalisations fluctuate considerably. Those of ethnic Greeks have moved within a range ofbetween 100 and 2 700 over the period 1986-96; in the case of non-ethnic Greeks between 300 and 3 700. Thisbeing the case, it would be hazardous to attribute 1997’s 160% increase in the naturalisations of non-ethnicGreeks to the aforementioned amendment: at slightly over 1 000 the absolute figure was well within the estab-lished range. In the case of ethnic Greeks, the rate of increase was rather more modest, 26% for a total of 1 250;this figure is likely to be revised downwards following the discovery of some fraudulent “hellenisations” espe-cially among migrants from countries of the former Soviet Union. A review of procedures can also be expected.

Illegal immigration

Regularisation programme

In addition to the officially recorded labour force of some 4.3 million, Greece is host over the course of theyear to an estimated 500 000 undocumented foreign workers. The strongly seasonal character of the Greek econ-omy (especially in construction, tourism and agriculture), has acted as an important pull factor. As a complementto the signature of bilateral agreements with Albania and Bulgaria designed to facilitate seasonal employmentand thereby the normalisation of the migration flows, the Government has judged it sensible to encourage theorderly integration of undocumented foreign workers into the labour market. To this end, a regularisation pro-gramme has been in the course of implementation since November 1997. The initial registration phase was com-pleted at the end of May 1998.

At almost 375 000, the number of applications for regularisation was higher than anticipated. As expected,a preliminary sample analysis revealed that just over half were Albanian. The overwhelming majority (85%) werein the 20-44 age cohort, over 70% were male, and just over half of were married. The preliminary sample analysisalso suggests a higher level of education among the non-documented migrants than the Greek population;adjustments have yet to be made for age differences however.

The issuance of a “green card” is contingent on the decision of a committee of Greece’s public employmentservice. This decision will take into account, inter alia, the type of the work performed by the immigrant and theneeds of the labour market. The cards will be valid initially for between 1 to 3 years. Subsequent renewals

OECD 1999


150

based on the same criteria will be possible. In common with all regularisation programmes, there remains theconcern that the regularised immigrants’ enhanced labour market status is likely to give rise to reneweddemand for undocumented labour.

Deportations

The number of foreigners deported declined by over 6% in 1997 to just under 17 900. Almost two thirds ofthose deported were Romanian or Bulgarian.


Due exclusively to an almost threefold increase in applications by Iraqi citizens, requests for asylumincreased by almost 170% in 1997 to 4 400. It is not known if these were Kurds fleeing persecution or Iraqis flee-ing economic hardship and political persecution more widely defined.

During 1997, the Greek government granted asylum to 130 of the almost 2 500 cases examined. Havingplummeted since the mid-1980s this recognition rate of approximately 5% is in line with that of previous years.Even when acceptances for humanitarian status are included (a further 4%), Greece has one of the lowest totalacceptance rates in the EU. Refugees are known to use Greece as a springboard for migration to other Westerncountries. Of the less than 6 200 individuals granted asylum since 1980 it is not known how many are still inGreece. The new legal infrastructure (see “Policy developments”, below) is expected to improve their integra-tion and perhaps also statistical collection.

Policy developments

Family reunion for medium and long term migrants

A Presidential Decree was issued at the beginning of 1998 allowing those workers who have held a resi-dence permit for over seven years or who possess a permit giving them the indefinite right of stay to bring theirfamily members (spouse and children under 18 years of age) to Greece. Permission for family reunion is how-ever subject to four conditions: that before the arrival of the migrant in Greece they were cohabitants anddependants; that all the incoming family members possess a certificate attesting to their good health; that theadults do not have a criminal record; and, finally, that the sponsoring immigrant can provide proof of his/herfinancial ability to support the dependants.

“Return migration” of ethnic Greeks from Albania

“Special Identity Cards” granting the right to accommodation and guaranteeing equal treatment in thelabour market have been issued to Greek Albanians since April 1998. The cards, valid for three years and renew-able, are also given to spouses, children and grandchildren provided that they can furnish formal documentsattesting to their relationship.

Asylum seekers and refugees

In last year’s report reference was made to new legislation passed in 1996 to extend health care and tem-porary employment rights to asylum seekers and to foreigners granted refugee status. The new law also con-tained provisions for the family reunion of recognised refugees, expediting recognition procedures for asylumseekers as well as granting temporary protection status to special categories of persons who take refuge inGreek territory for reasons beyond their control (e.g. civil wars, natural disasters etc.). In order for the law to beimplemented, however, Presidential Decrees had to be issued by December 1997 confirming it. They were not.

A Presidential Decree regarding the employment of recognised refugees, those granted humanitarian sta-tus and asylum seekers was issued in June 1998 however. Further, fresh legislation has been drafted which willexpedite recognition procedures, facilitate family reunion and also give refugees and asylum seekers moresocial protection. It is hoped that the implementation of these new laws, harmonized with the EU and UNCHR

OECD 1999

Hungary

151

regulations, will improve the status of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, especially if these changes areaccompanied by an improvement in the Greek economy.

Introduction

Since 1997 the Hungarian economy has experienced accelerating growth. GDP grew by 4.6% in 1997 and by5.1% in 1998. In 1998, total employment grew faster than the labour force. The unemployment rate fell to 8% fromthe 8.9% recorded in 1997. Officially recorded immigration flows have remained stable over the last three years,as has the number of foreign residents. Over two thirds of the immigrants are of ethnic Hungarian origin andcome mainly from Romania, the former Yugoslavia and Ukraine. Undocumented immigration persists.

Temporary migration and settlement

Immigration flows rose steadily from the middle of the 1980s, reaching a peak in 1990. The lifting of exitrestrictions in neighbouring countries, their economic and political situation and ethnic conflicts, all led to large-scale movements of people. In 1990, almost 40 000 people arrived in the country legally with the intention settleor to stay for over a year. The inflow fell steeply thereafter: the 1992 figure was half that of 1992. The figures forthe last four years show the inflow of documented long term immigrants stabilising at 13-14 000 per year (seeTable II.17).

The majority of immigrants come from neighbouring countries, one third from Romania. The proportion ofmigrants from the Ukraine grew to 17% in 1997. The number of immigrants from the former Yugoslavia isaccounted for more than 30% of immigrants in 1993; by 1996 their proportion had fallen back to 8%, in 1997 itbegan to rise again. The proportion of immigrants coming from EU countries increased from 1995 to reach 12%in 1997.

Budapest and its surrounding area and the zone along the southern border (neighbouring Romania and theformer Yugoslavia) are the most important host centres. Those from more developed countries and/or withhigher skills mostly live in Budapest.

Naturalisation and permanent immigration

In 1998, 6 400 naturalisation applications were accepted, a 25% fall on the 1997 figure and half that of 1996.In 1998, as in 1997, 60% were of Romanian origin. Ukrainians and nationals of the former Yugoslavia comprise themajority of the remainder.

The overwhelming majority of the applicants are of Hungarian origin, or were themselves once Hungariancitizens. Re-naturalisation requests accounted for one fifth of the total and descendants of Hungarian citizensaccounted for 70%. Others cite family reasons (Hungarian spouse or child). In these three cases the naturalisa-tion law accords applicants preferential treatment.

At the end of 1997, almost 74 000 foreign citizens lived in Hungary as permanent residents.

Labour migration

Precise data on the number of foreigners employed in Hungary are not available. However, a reasonableestimate of those legally employed can be made on the basis of the number of work permits and residence per-mits issued.

After the fall in 1996 (which was largely due to a change in the regulations) the number of newly issued workpermits has continued to rise: from 14 000 in 1996 to 19 700 in 1997 and to 22 600 in 1998 (see Table II.17).Approximately 9 000 residence permits were granted for practising gainful activities for which a work permit is

HUNGARY

OECD 1999

Tre

nd

s in In

tern

atio

na

l Mig

ratio

n

152

OE

CD

1999

in Hungary

1994 1995 1996 19971

9.9 10.0 12.3 8.7

70.1 70.4 69.7 60.48.6 11.3 16.3 18.6

16.0 11.8 10.0 9.1

3.8 3.4 2.9 3.1

8.0 8.9 6.8 9.02.3 2.0 2.2 3.31.3 1.8 1.0 1.17.0 5.7 4.4 6.4

18.6 18.4 14.4 19.7

9.0 9.8 8.5 9.51.8 2.6 2.2 3.11.0 1.4 1.0 1.18.3 7.2 7.1 6.7

20.1 21.0 18.8 20.4

15.6 17.6 14.0 11.9

10.9 10.0 7.9 7.31.3 3.0 2.3 2.5

tended more than one year. Therefore data on long-term

Table II.17. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population and labour forceFigures in thousands unless otherwise indicated

1994 1995 1996 19971

Registered long-term immigration by country of origin2 Acquisition of the Hungarian nationalityRomania 4.3 4.7 4.0 4.3 of which, in per cent of total acquisitions:Former USSR 1.9 1.8 1.8 2.3 RomaniaEU countries 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.6 Former YugoslaviaFormer Yugoslavia 2.5 1.6 1.0 1.3 Former USSROther 2.7 3.8 4.4 4.0Total 12.8 13.2 12.8 13.4 Applications for acquiring Hungarian nationalityof which: Women 5.7 5.7 5.6 6.3

Grants of work permits (excluding renewals),Share of ethnic Hungarians among long-term immigrants, by country of origin

by country of origin (%) RomaniaRomania 92.3 91.0 93.9 . . Former USSRFormer USSR 53.4 48.3 58.6 . . PolandEU countries 5.8 7.3 11.5 . . OtherFormer Yugoslavia 82.8 78.0 67.7 . . TotalTotal 59.3 56.6 68.6 . .

Registered foreign workers, by country of origin5

Grants of residence permits by type of permit RomaniaShort-term permits (including renewals) 51.4 30.3 25.0 21.9 Former USSRLong-term permits (including renewals) 17.7 22.4 15.1 20.4 PolandPermanent permits3 5.8 3.9 4.5 4.8 OtherPermanent permits4 3.4 2.2 2.8 2.7 Total

Inflows of asylum seekers and refugees 3.4 5.9 1.3 2.1 Number of deportations and expulsionsof which:

Stocks of permanent residents 81.9 81.4 77.4 73.7 Romaniansof which: Women 44.1 43.8 41.8 40.1 Former Yugoslavs

Stocks of foreign residents (long-term and permanent residents),by country of origin

Romania 68.3 65.7 61.6 57.4Former USSR 15.6 16.1 17.0 18.6Former Yugoslavia 15.6 16.8 16.4 16.0Germany 7.4 7.8 8.3 8.4Other 30.9 33.5 38.9 43.4Total 137.9 139.9 142.2 143.8of which: Women 65.0 65.6 66.1 66.7

1. Data are estimates.2. Foreigners registering in the given year and holding a long-term permit. A long-term permit is usually granted after one year living in Hungary with a short-term permit which cannot be ex

immigrants cannot be fully considered as flow data.3. All permits granted in the year.4. Granted permits from the applications of the given year.5. Valid work permits at the end of the year.Sources: Registers of foreigners, Ministry of the Interior; Office for Migration and Refugees, Ministry of the Interior.

Hungary

153

not required. The number of (15-74 year-old) settled immigrants and refugees who can take up employmentwithout further permission was 61 000 in 1998. On the basis of the above figures, the number of registeredforeigners legally present on the Hungarian labour market can be estimated at 90-95 000.

Work permits are generally granted for professions in which there is a shortage of labour or for persons whobring special knowledge and expertise. Just over one third are employed in the tertiary sector (60% of themhighly qualified) the remainder work in the primary and secondary sectors (72% of whom are qualified). Themain branches are culture, recreation, sport and other services (28%) and building, processing, industry andtrade (16%). Education and agriculture account for 6%.

The composition by nationality of work permit holders has not changed much over the last three years;almost half (47%) were Romanian citizens, 13% come from the successor states of the Soviet Union, mainly fromthe neighbouring Ukraine. Poland, the former Yugoslavia, China and Mongolia each account for between 4 and5%.

Approximately 16% of the permit holders came from the developed European countries and overseas. Arelatively large group foreigners working in Hungary is comprised of senior managers of foreign companies. Theydo not require a work permit.


Since March 1998, when the law on refugees was codified, Hungary has admitted refugees from outsideEurope. As a result, Hungary is considered as a safe third country, i.e. foreigners who have travelled throughHungary to the countries of the European Union to apply for refugee status can be sent back there. In such casesit is the task of the Hungarian authorities to process the refugee’s application. So far, this rule has only beenapplied on a large scale by Austria. (In February 1997, the modification of the readmission agreement betweenAustria and Hungary came into force. According to this new version, the Hungarian authorities have to acceptanyone who is presumed to have entered Austria illegally through Hungary.) By the autumn of 1998, Austria hadsent back 2 500 people to Hungary.

The number of asylum applications increased from 2 100 in 1997 to 7 100 in 1998. Half of the applicationswere from non-Europeans and 46% from nationals of the former Yugoslavia. The number of recognitions is stilllow: approximately 360 received refugee status, a further 260 were granted exceptional leave to remain eitherfor humanitarian reasons or because they could not safely be returned. For many migrants, this latter status isnot satisfactory as it is difficult for them to obtain permission to work and they are not eligible for social assis-tance.

Undocumented migration

The number of those attempting to illegally cross the Hungarian borders increased markedly at the begin-ning of the 1990s. In 1991 Hungarian border guards intercepted 10 000 attempting to enter the country illegallyand caught 14 000 attempting to leave. In the same year, foreign authorities readmitted a further 5 000. Duringthe following years, the number of illegal border crossings decreased; the 1994 figure was 40% less than that of1991. The trend reversed in 1997. In that year, 15 000 and in 1998 nearly 22 000 illegal border crossings wererecorded. Attempts at clandestine emigration rose by 25% in 1997 and by 50% in 1998.

Approximately two thirds of all registered illegal border crossings were attempts to leave the country, indi-cating Hungary’s transit role in undocumented East-West migration flows. This role is confirmed by the disag-gregated data on illegal border crossings: over 80% of the illegal migrants apprehended entered the countrythrough the Eastern and South-eastern borders, from Romania and the former Yugoslavia, whereas 95% of thosecaught attempting to leave Hungary tried to do so at the Slovenian, Slovakian and primarily at the Austrian fron-tier sections.

Illegal migration often involves organised traffickers. Data indicate changing trends in the number and alsothe proportion of trafficker-assisted border crossings. They were particularly high in 1991 and 1992, when manyillegal migrants came in big groups from Turkey and Asian countries. Between 1993 and 1997, both the numberand the proportion of assisted border crossings was much lower. In 1998, the importance of trafficking increasedconsiderably: the numbers (both inward and outward) more than doubled and the proportion of assisted illegal

OECD 1999


154

border crossings was close to one third. The number of traffickers arrested has ranged since 1991 at between300 and 700 a year. The 1998 figure was 680.

Approximately 12 000 foreigners were expelled from Hungary in 1997 and 16 600 in 1998. The number of for-eigners who were turned back at the borders on the basis of entry regulations was much higher; in 1997 53 000and in 1998 32 000.

Undocumented foreign workers

Irregular labour migration is only one aspect, albeit a rather visible and sensitive one, of the informal econ-omy. The informal sector in Hungary is estimated to account for 30% of GDP and the participation of foreignersin this economy is understood to be wide-ranging.

Given that it is possible to enter Hungary from practically all European countries without a visa, it is notsurprising that the majority of undocumented workers enter as tourists and regularly or occasionally undertakea variety of jobs. Their residence is made “legal” by leaving the country once a month to have an exit stamp putinto their passports because the visa free agreement allows them to stay only under such conditions.

Many of these “tourists” from the neighbouring countries work in construction and agriculture doing occa-sional or seasonal work. Participation of foreigners in retail activities and market/street trading carried out with-out a valid permit is also commonplace, although its significance has decreased. Households are oftenemployers; they offer many kinds of work but usually only for short periods, maybe a couple of hours per weekor month.

The majority of undocumented labour migrants are from the neighbouring countries, mainly from Romania,but also from Ukraine and the former Yugoslavia. Many are ethnic Hungarians who speak the language and haverelatives or other contacts in the country. Migration from neighbouring countries into Hungary is fundamentallyof a temporary nature. Those involved try to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the open bor-ders, but do not wish to settle permanently. Even if the phenomenon is less visible, irregular employment alsoexists among westerners. Most are young, they typically work for foreign companies in media and internet activ-ities or as language teachers.

Policy developments

Recent developments in migration policy reflect the fact that Hungary is increasingly becoming a countryof immigration. The legal framework related to migration has been in continuous development from the begin-ning of the 1990s but is still widely considered as incomplete. Efforts are being made to bring the fragmentedregulations into compliance with best world standards. Following on from the 1989 Emigration Act, in 1993-1994two Acts regulating immigration entered into force: the Act on Hungarian Citizenship and the Act on the Entry,and Settlement of Foreigners in Hungary, commonly referred to as the Aliens Act. The Aliens Act requires anindividual to spend a minimum of three years working and living in Hungary with a residence permit beforeobtaining immigrant status. The Citizenship Act also stipulates that eight years of residence in Hungary are anecessary prerequisite for naturalisation.

In 1998, as the last major pillar of the legal regulation of the migration issues, the Act on Refugees came intoforce. A widely discussed element of the previous regulation was the geographical reservation, limiting asylumto only those coming from Europe. A basic new element was removing this limit.

Provisions relating to the permission for foreign citizens to take up employment came into effect on17 October 1991. These were modified in 1995. In November 1996, a law on labour market access came intooperation rendering the rules governing employment of foreigners more restrictive. Foreigners who travel toHungary with the purpose of working there must obtain an employment visa or an income earning activity visabefore entering Hungary, regardless of the length of their stay there. The work permit can be issued only if thereis no locally available person with relevant qualifications to fill the post. Employers are obliged to register theirlabour force demand 60 days – in case of seasonal or occasional employment, 30 days – prior to the submissionof the application for an employment permit.

The sanctions imposed on employers for infringing the regulations were recently increased. Nevertheless,the sanctions imposed are greater on the employee than on the employer. If a foreigner is caught working with-

OECD 1999

Ireland

155

out a valid work permit, the employer must pay a fine equal to at least five times the minimum wage during theperiod of illegal employment; the worker, on the other hand, can be banned from Hungary for between one andfive years.

According to the Association Agreement with the European Community, Hungary is obliged to bring itsexisting and future legislation into line with that of the European Community. In the area of migration this con-cerns two major aspects: the free movement of EU citizens and the strengthening of frontier controls. Specialprovisions, with preferential treatment for EU citizens are under preparation; some were recently introduced(e.g. concerning companies’ key personnel). In addition the development of more effective border control hasbeen given priority.

Introduction

Net migration of Irish nationals has over recent years become more responsive to changes in labour marketconditions, especially when the domestic situation is viewed in a relative sense vis-à-vis the position abroad.This is especially the case for graduates, the migration flows of whom have tended to exhibit a “rotational”aspect, described below. Further, the destinations chosen by Irish migrants have become more diverse as hasthe composition of the nationalities recorded in the inflows.

Reflecting the variable character of relative differences in domestic and overseas economic performance, migra-tion flows displayed considerable volatility during the 1980s and early 1990s. Thereafter Ireland’s economic perfor-mance, both in relative and absolute terms, improved spectacularly. Real GDP growth has since 1994 consistentlyexceeded 7%; since 1995 Ireland has been the fastest growing economy in the OECD zone. With average net employ-ment growth approaching 4% since 1994 unemployment has steadily declined from a peak of over 15% in 1993 to fallbelow 10% in 1998. This degree of economic buoyancy has given rise since 1996 to net population inflows, derivedboth from reduced outflows and increased inflows.

Emigration

Net outflows reached very high proportions in the latter half of the 1980s, indeed, at almost 45 000 in 1988/89(13.0 per thousand of the population) the level equated with that of earlier periods of very high emigration. Hav-ing fluctuated around migration balance between 1991 and 1995 net migration has since followed a positiveupwards trend, reaching 23 000 in the most recent twelve month period for which up to date data are available, i.e.the year to April 1998 (see Chart II.10). This was due to both reduced outflows (21 200, a decrease of 27% on 1996/97)and a constant inflow of 44 000.

In 1989 nearly 70% of those who emigrated went to the United Kingdom, some 12% to the United States, 6%to other European Union countries and about 14% to other destinations. By 1993 the United Kingdom was nolonger, after six decades, the destination of the majority of Irish emigrants. This trend towards increasing diver-sity in destinations has continued. In 1998 the United Kingdom share was 40% while that for the rest of the EUhad risen to 20, the same proportion as for the United States and for all other countries taken in aggregate.

Characteristics of emigrants

Irish emigrants, who were previously largely unskilled, or at best possessed rudimentary manual skills, arenow broadly representative of the social structure of Irish society. Indeed, there appears to be a tendencytowards disproportionately higher emigration among those with third level qualifications (advanced diplomasor degrees). Within a year of obtaining such qualifications almost one in seven of the 1996 graduate cohort hadtaken up jobs abroad. This figure, though high, has steadily declined from the peak of over one in four for the1988 cohort.

IRELAND

OECD 1999


156

Ireland’s graduate labour force involves what might be described as an ongoing or even constant migratoryelement, which exists to a significant degree even when the economy is buoyant. Relatively large numbers ofthose possessing diplomas or degrees (especially in the technical areas) initially emigrate, but a high proportionalso return at a later stage having acquired experience and enhanced skills. This rotational pattern tends to be selfperpetuating as Irish employers, especially when seeking qualified technical personnel, often favour applicationsfrom emigrants rather than hire recently qualified graduates. As a result, the latter can sometimes find it difficultto acquire employment in the domestic labour market, especially in the initial stages of an economic upswing.Estimates based on 1991 Irish Census data, reveal that no less than 30% of the population aged over 40 years withthird level qualifications had resided outside the country for at least one year. The corresponding proportion forthe adult population as a whole (i.e. 25 years of age and over) was 10%. This represents a very high return rate (itis undoubtedly higher now) for the most educated emigrants, and is important in dispelling fears of a “brain drain”.

60

60 40

1871

-81 1988

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

20

0

-20

-40

-60

50

40

30

20

10

0

40

20

0

-20

-40

-60

-80

60

40

20

0

-20

-40

-60

-80

1881

-91

1891

-1901

1901

-1111

-2626

-3636

-4646

-5151

-6161

-7171

-8181

-9191

-98 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

Chart II.10. Trends and characteristics of migration, Ireland

A. Components of population change1

Intercensal periodsThousands

Natural increase

Total change

Net migration

B. Migration flows,2 1988-1998Thousands

1. Annual average. Data for 1991-98 are estimates on the basis of the 1996 census results.2. Data are estimates.Sources: Commission on Emigration, Reports (1954); Census of population of Ireland 1991, Volume 1, Population classified by area; Census of population

of Ireland 1996 ; Population and migration estimates, CSO, 1998.

C. Age distribution of migrants,2 1998Percentages

Emigrants Immigrants

D. Net migration and unemployment rate1971-1998

Correlation coefficient = 0.67Net migration (thousands)

Unemployment rate (%)0-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65 and over

Net migrationImmigrationEmigration

60

60 40

1871

-81 1988

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

20

0

-20

-40

-60

50

40

30

20

10

0

40

20

0

-20

-40

-60

-80

60

40

20

0

-20

-40

-60

-80

1881

-91

1891

-1901

1901

-1111

-2626

-3636

-4646

-5151

-6161

-7171

-8181

-9191

-98 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98




Natural increase

Total change

Net migration










60

60 40

1871

-81 1988

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

20

0

-20

-40

-60

50

40

30

20

10

0

40

20

0

-20

-40

-60

-80

60

40

20

0

-20

-40

-60

-80

1881

-91

1891

-1901

1901

-1111

-2626

-3636

-4646

-5151

-6161

-7171

-8181

-9191

-98 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98




Natural increase

Total change

Net migration










OECD 1999

Ireland

157

Immigration

Just as the numbers emigrating from Ireland have steadily fallen since 1994, the numbers entering the coun-try have shown a tendency to increase, albeit at a slower pace. The inward flows now also include sizeable num-bers of non-nationals (47% in 1997/98). The latter largely comprise persons coming to work (mainly in skilledactivities but also notably in the catering trade), students coming to attend third level institutions and depen-dants of persons in these groups.

From the Labour Force Survey data, which provide the only means of estimating the stock of non-nationals inIreland, it is apparent that this component of the Irish population has increased substantially over recent years.The number rose from 83 000 in 1983 to just over 96 000 in 1995 and it soared to 118 000 in 1996; the 1997 figure of114 000 (3.1% of the total population) represents only a slight fall-back (see Table II.18). The increase has been par-ticularly rapid among non-EU citizens (other than those from the United States). Numbering just 8 400 in 1983,there were 22 000 in 1997. The great majority of foreign residents are EU passport holders (approximately 81 000)of these some 64 400 were from the United Kingdom.

Inflows of workers from outside the European Union

Analysis of the data on the issue and renewal of work permits (which are required for all engagements forfinancial gain, irrespective of duration) provides some indication of the trends in the numbers of non-EU nation-als entering the country in order to take up employment. The number of issues and renewals rose rapidlybetween 1989 and 1993, from 2 500 to about 4 300 and has not varied greatly from this level since that date.

The number of permits issued to persons from India and Pakistan has declined markedly over recent years.The number was as high as 1 500 in 1994 but had fallen to less than 500 by 1997. Significant factors here havebeen a) the imposition of more restrictive registration conditions governing eligibility to work as a medical prac-titioner and b) a tightening of immigration procedures generally. However, there have also been in recent yearssignificant increases in the numbers entering employment from some other countries which had previouslybeen of relatively low importance. These include, for example, Australia, Malaysia, South Africa and Switzerland(although for all four of them combined the figure is less than half that of India).


Until the early 1990s the numbers of refugees and asylum seekers were very small; since then they haverisen sharply, from less than 40 in 1992 (not including the several hundred Bosnian programme refugees, displacedfrom the former Yugoslavia, whom the Irish Government agreed to accept in that year) to some 4 500 in 1998. Possiblereasons for the recent increase include increasing numbers of asylum seekers generally, and the fact that othercountries are adopting a more restrictive stance with regard to applications.

The number of persons who have been granted official refugee status is relatively small (the total over theperiod from the beginning of 1992 until August 1998 was 333). Over the same period the number of personswhose applications for asylum were refused was just under 980. When these figures are viewed alongside thatof the total number of applications it is clear that, withdrawals and leavers notwithstanding, there is now a con-siderable backlog of cases pending. Despite a five-fold increase since mid-1997 in the number of staff assignedto dealing with them it is estimated that the existing backlog of cases will not be eliminated until the middle ofthe year 2000.

Policy developments

The basic legal framework covering foreign nationals in Ireland in regard to rights of entry, residence andemployment is the 1935 Aliens Act and the subsequent ministerial orders appended to it. In 1996, in responseto the rapid increase in the numbers of asylum seekers the Refugee Act was introduced to parliament with theprimary objective of codifying asylum procedures in law and rendering them more transparent. However, due interalia to a legal challenge and to the view taken by the Justice Minister that certain of the provisions of the Act were

OECD 1999


158

unworkable, it has only been partially implemented. Nevertheless, as from 28 August 1997 that part of the actwhich enables Ireland to ratify the Dublin Convention has been brought into law.

In order to deal with the continuing inflow of asylum seekers new administrative procedures were put inplace under the existing legislation in early 1998. Under the new arrangements (which follow the principles ofthe 1996 Act), Department of Justice officials adjudicate on asylum applications in the first instance. There is,however, an independent appeals procedure presided over by practising lawyers. The system also includesprocedures (with provision for appeal) whereby what appear to be “manifestly unfounded” applications aredealt with speedily.

Table II.18. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of total population and labour force in IrelandFigures in thousands unless otherwise indicated

1994 1995 1996 1997

Immigration by country of origin1 30.1 31.2 39.2 44.0United Kingdom 15.2 15.6 17.6 20.0Other European countries 5.8 6.3 7.2 8.1United States 4.3 3.8 6.4 6.6Other countries 4.8 5.5 8.0 9.3

Emigration by country of destination1 34.8 33.1 31.2 29.0United Kingdom 14.8 13.3 14.1 12.9Other European countries 5.5 5.1 5.1 4.1United States 9.6 8.2 5.2 4.1Other countries 4.9 6.6 6.8 7.9

Net migration1 –4.7 –1.9 8.0 15.0

Total population2 3 570.7 3 601.5 3 626.1 3 660.6Irish nationals 3 479.6 3 505.3 3 508.3 3 546.2Total foreign population 91.1 96.2 117.8 114.4

United Kingdom 58.2 60.0 71.3 64.4Other EU countries 12.2 13.0 15.4 16.4United States 9.4 8.2 12.7 11.3Other countries 11.3 15.0 18.1 22.3

% of foreign population in total population 2.6 2.7 3.2 3.1

Asylum seekers 0.4 0.4 1.2 3.9

Labour market

Work permits issued and renewed 4.3 4.3 3.8 4.5India and Pakistan 1.5 1.4 0.6 0.5United States and Canada 0.9 0.7 0.9 1.4Other countries 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.6

Employment by nationality2 1 181.6 1 233.6 1 285.3 1 338.4Irish nationals in employment 1 150.4 1 199.3 1 241.9 1 294.7Foreigners in employment 31.2 34.3 43.4 43.7

United Kingdom 14.0 21.3 27.6 26.7Other EU countries 5.0 5.7 7.1 7.6United States 2.8 2.6 3.0 3.2Other countries 9.4 4.7 5.7 6.2

Employment to total population ratioIrish nationals in employment (%) 33.1 34.2 35.4 36.5Foreigners in employment (%) 34.2 35.7 36.8 38.2

United Kingdom (%) 24.1 35.5 38.7 41.5Other EU countries (%) 41.0 43.8 46.1 46.3United States (%) 29.8 31.7 23.6 28.3

Note: Figures for the EU refer to the 15 member countries of the Union from 1997 on.1. CSO estimates made on the basis of 1996 Census results.2. Estimated from the annual Labour Force Survey. Fluctuations from year to year may be due to sampling error.Sources: Central Statistical Office; Labour Force Survey.

OECD 1999

Italy

159

Important issues associated with the refugee question that continue to be controversial include:

The right of asylum seekers to work. Heretofore the official view has been that granting asylum applicants earlyaccess to employment would act as a “pull factor”, leading to further abuses of the asylum system, further pres-sure on the processing arrangements, and delays the recognition for genuine refugees in need of protection.There are now, however, indications that the Government may change the regulatory procedures to allow asy-lum seekers to work in certain circumstances.

Support systems for asylum seekers. At present, refugees in Ireland receive welfare payments. Their accommo-dation (usually in the private sector) is also paid from public funds. The question of providing support throughdirect provision (e.g., vouchers, accommodation in special reception centres) has been raised. The Governmentis considering various options, but has indicated that in the context of new arrangements, it does not favour thecreation of large-scale reception centres. The fact that the United Kingdom (with which Ireland shares aCommon Travel Area for their citizens) announced its intention in July 1998 to in future provide support to asy-lum seekers in kind rather than in cash, is likely to have some influence on policy.

It is the Government’s intention to review the question of the implementation of the 1996 Refugee Act inthe light of the conclusions of a) a comparative study of relevant legislation in Ireland and in other EU memberstates (soon to be completed) and b) the experience gained in the Department of Justice in operating the cur-rent procedures.

Introduction

Over the past two years, major changes have been seen in Italy with regard to immigration legislation, thetrend and control of flows and the regularisation of undocumented foreigners. At the same time Italy has expe-rienced the arrival of large numbers of migrants and refugees from Albania, Turkey and, more recently, Kosovo.However, these entries have been on a fairly limited scale by comparison with immigration flows to the otherEuropean Union countries.

Migration and the resident foreign population

According to Interior Ministry statistics, slightly over 1 200 000 foreigners were legally resident in Italy at31 December 1997, that is to say 145 000 more than in the previous year (see Table II.19). The increase was duepartly to further arrivals, notably refugees from Kosovo, and partly to the new residence permits issued underthe regularisation programme of 1996. In 1997, foreigners accounted for 2.2% of the total population, an increaseof 0.2% from 1996. This percentage is still well below the EU average (4.9%).

The foreign population is heavily concentrated in northern and central Italy (51% and 30% respectively),particularly in Lombardy, Lazzio, Veneto and the cities of Rome and Milan.

The heaviest migration flows in 1997 were from Central and Eastern Europe and North Africa: Moroccansaccounted for 10.5% of total arrivals (representing an increase of 39% over two years) and Albanians for 6.8%(their number having doubled during the same period). Filipinos accounted for 4.1% of arrivals, their numberhaving likewise increased steeply.

In 1997 nearly 71% of immigrants were aged between 19 and 40. Immigration is thus essentially work-related, although a 3% increase in the number of minors and persons aged over 40 is indicative of a tendencyfor foreigners to settle in Italy.

A little over 45% of immigrants are women, though with wide differences in presence according to countryof origin. Most immigrants from Morocco, Tunisia, Senegal and Egypt are men, while women predominateamong immigrants from Eastern Europe and the Balkans and especially from Cape Verde and the Philippines.

ITALY

OECD 1999

Tre

nd

s in In

tern

atio

na

l Mig

ratio

n

160

OE

CD

1999

1994 1995 1996 1997

99.8 111.3 129.2 166.5

76.3 76.7 78.3 82.220.3 19.6 18.2 14.92.9 3.1 2.9 2.40.5 0.6 0.5 0.4

21.6 18.5 21.9 22.638.4 44.0 44.2 43.513.1 9.3 5.4 5.326.9 28.2 28.5 28.6

307.1 332.2 . . 532.7

86.9 98.4 146.9 177.9

36.5 34.6 35.9 . .34.3 34.6 35.4 . .29.1 30.8 28.8 . .

1.9 1.6 1.5 . .15.2 14.2 15.0 . .27.4 25.4 24.6 . .55.5 58.8 58.9 . .

.

Table II.19. Current figures on foreign population in ItalyFigures in thousands unless otherwise indicated

1994 1995 1996 1997

Foreigners who hold a permit of residence1 922.7 991.4 1 095.6 1 240.7 Characteristics of non-EU foreigners who newly obtainedBy group of nationality a work permit

Europe 367.2 404.3 426.0 486.4 Level of education (%)Africa 259.6 265.0 314.9 351.0 No diplomaAsia 150.4 164.2 195.5 225.5 Primary levelAmerica 140.4 152.5 154.8 172.8 Secondary levelOther 5.1 5.4 4.4 5.0 University

By reason for presence Sector of activity (%)Employment2 516.7 544.2 685.4 782.3 AgricultureFamily reunification 164.5 185.2 204.4 243.4 ManufacturingStudies 55.5 61.8 45.7 57.3 Domestic workReligion 53.5 57.4 54.9 59.2 OtherTourism (long-term) 39.7 48.6 30.0 44.5Retirement 43.3 44.0 43.1 45.9 Stocks of foreign employment3

Asylum seekers/refugees 10.3 10.4 3.9 5.6Other and not specified 39.2 39.8 28.4 2.5 Characteristics of registered foreign unemployed

By region of residence (excluding EU citizens)North 473.3 507.6 . . 636.7 Length of registration (%)Central 284.2 320.2 . . 378.4 Less than 3 monthsSouth 165.2 163.6 . . 225.6 3 months to 1 year

More than 1 yearAcquisition of Italian nationality 6.6 7.4 7.0 9.2 Age groups (%)

Less than 18Legal action taken against foreigners 19-24

Foreigners for whom a penal action has been undertaken 54.3 54.4 69.0 56.5 25-29Foreigners under arrest 22.4 21.6 23.6 24.2 30 and overForeigners who are to be expelled 56.6 56.0 34.5 49.1Expelled foreigners 6.1 7.4 5.1 8.4

1. Data are from population registers and refer to the population on 31 December of the years indicated. Children under 18 who are registered on their parents’ permit are not counted2. Including self-employed and unemployed.3. Number of non-EU foreigners who hold a work permit. Excluding unemployed with a residence permit who are registered in the local employment Offices.Sources: Ministry of the Interior; ISTAT.

Italy

161

The number of foreign minors is put at between 130 000 and 140 000, while the number of residence per-mits issued rose from a little over 35 000 in 1996 to more than 43 000 in 1997. This increase is indicative ofchanges in family composition and the desire of foreigners to settle in Italy, as confirmed by the growing numberof residence permits issued for family reunion (up by 18.5% in 1997).

In 1997, nearly 155 000 residence permits expired and nearly 40 000 applications for permits were refused.

Naturalisations and integration

The desire of foreigners to settle permanently in Italy has been manifesting itself increasingly, to judgefrom such indicators as labour market entry, participation in social and cultural integration programmes, cre-ation of family ties and development of social relations. The presence of minors and the annual number of fam-ily reunion procedures are other significant indicators of this desire for permanent abode. Family reunionauthorisations are requested mostly by Moroccans and Albanians, followed by nationals of the United States,Romania, Sri Lanka, China, Cuba and Tunisia. By contrast, nationals of Poland and the Philippines, who arepresent in large numbers, have very little recourse to family reunion procedures. In 1997, nearly 24 000 familyreunion authorisations were granted.

The proportion of married foreigners amounted to 44% in 1997, up 6% from 1991. A little over 11% of thesepersons had children, another indication of the tendency to settle permanently and start families. According toInterior Ministry data, more than 9 100 mixed marriages were performed in 1994.

In 1997, Italian nationality was granted, through marriage or naturalisation, to over 9 300 persons (seeTable II.19), most of them women (6 300). The vast majority of recipients were of Romanian, Swiss, Moroccanand Dominican Republic origin.


In 1997, nearly 1 800 residence permits were issued to asylum seekers and over 3 200 to refugees. A littleunder 1 900 applications for refugee status were lodged in 1997 at the Central Commission, an increase of 176%on 1996. The increase was essentially due to the inflow of Albanians in March and of Kurds from Iraq in July. Therate of refusal remained high, however (69%).

Nearly 89% of the asylum seekers entered Italy illegally, the main points of entry being the coast of Pugliaand Rome and Milan airports. Most of the arrivals were from Albania and Iraq. The Central Commission exam-ined 1 850 applications in 1997 but awarded refugee status to only 350 persons.

The relatively low number of applications for refugee status is due to several factors. Many asylum seekers– from Somalia and the former Yugoslavia, for example – are given work permits on humanitarian grounds, whichrelieves them of the need to apply for refugee status. The lengthy formalities involved tend to act as a deterrent,and periodic regularisation programmes legalise certain situations rendering unnecessary the need to apply forrefugee status. Even so, requests for asylum increased considerably during the first few months of 1998. Theinflow of Kurds, Kosovars and Albanians between 1 July and 20 September brought the number of applicationsto 4 850.

Foreign workers and the labour market

Despite some rigidity in the Italian labour market, employment of foreigners has trebled over the past sixyears and their unemployment has fallen by one-fifth. The unemployment rate among foreigners stood at 18.5%in 1997 as against 50% in 1990. This decline reflects the service sector’s expansion in recent years and an increasein the number of temporary contracts for the low-skilled jobs shunned by Italian workers. Demand for foreignlabour is particularly strong in the manual trades and in such sectors as seasonal tourism, agriculture, construc-tion, domestic services and home care. Moreover, this demand seems set to increase, given the demographiccharacteristics of the Italian population.

Residence permits granted for economic reasons (i.e. employment) account for 60% of total permits, mostof them being issued to self-employed persons or workers required for temporary jobs.

OECD 1999


162

Various new measures introduced under the 1998 Immigration Act should facilitate the entry of foreignersfor work-related reasons, notably a system of preferential quotas for nationals of countries with which Italy hasconcluded agreements on entry flow regulation and readmission.

Newly hired foreign workers are for the most part unqualified and perform unskilled jobs under temporarycontracts. The majority of these persons are from Morocco (21%), the former Yugoslavia (13%), Albania (13%) andTunisia (9%).

In 1997, the number of new work permits issued to non-EU nationals rose by nearly 25%. Most of theseauthorisations were granted to men, nearly half of them aged 20 to 29. The main sectors of employment wereagriculture (40%), services (48%) and industry.

The situation of self-employed foreigners is less buoyant. Although the number of permits issued doubledbetween 1990 and 1997, they represent only 5% of total work permits granted, and self-employed foreigners areoutnumbered six to one by self-employed Italians.

Illegal immigration

The number of foreigners in an irregular situation is estimated at nearly 235 000, most of them fromMorocco, Albania, Tunisia, Romania, Poland and Brazil.

Illegal entry of foreigners by way of the southern coasts has been a notable feature of the past few years. InMarch and April of 1997 nearly 17 000 Albanians landed in Italy, of whom 62% were granted temporary residencepermits. In 1998, most of the arrivals were from Kosovo, Turkey, Iraq and North Africa. The points of entry werethe Salentine Peninsula and the ports of Bari and Brindisi (in Puglia), Pantelleria and Lampedusa (islands offSicily) and the coasts of Calabria. The heaviest inflows occurred in January, February, July, August and October.

While it is impossible to put a reliable figure on undocumented arrivals in Italy, notably because of thenumber of persons turned back at the border and those that escape detection, it is estimated that over20 000 persons entered Italy illegally between 1 January and 31 October 1998.

July and August of 1998 saw an easing of the strained relations between police and North African immigrants(Tunisians and Moroccans) in the initial reception centres established under the 1998 Immigration Act. This waslargely due to the Italian government’s intensification of diplomatic relations with the countries of origin on the sub-ject of migration flow regulation. Governmental negotiations with Albania also proved useful, particularly on thequestion of flows from that country and their links with criminal organisations. An agreement was signed at the endof October 1998 that provides for effective measures to combat transportation of undocumented foreigners to Italy.

Different measures have been adopted in the case of Kurds and Kosovars, who are considered to be poten-tial asylum seekers. The Italian government intends to regard them as refugees and grant them temporaryrenewable work permits on humanitarian grounds.

Policy developments

Immigration was a hotly debated issue in 1997 and 1998. The focal points were the large numbers of for-eigners arriving on Italian shores and the adoption of new legislation on the entry and residence of foreigners,which gave rise to numerous discussions and clashes in Parliament. A new regularisation procedure was initi-ated early in 1999.

New legislation on the entry and residence of foreigners

Act No. 40 of 6 March 1998 replaces the legislation of 1990 and separates regulation of immigration from that ofasylum and other humanitarian treatment. The new Act has three main objectives: regulation of entry on the basis ofannual quotas set by the government; sterner action to combat illegal entry and criminal exploitation of migrants;and, increased support for the integration of foreigners residing legally in Italy. The Act also brings Italian legislationon border controls into line with the Schengen Agreements, which came into force in Italy in October 1997.

Albanians, Moroccans and Tunisians, because of their numerical preponderance and the bilateral negotia-tions in progress, will receive priority in their applications for residence permits if they were already living inItaly when the Act came into effect and can prove that they have employment.

OECD 1999

Japan

163

The new legislation introduces a system of official deportation and immediate escort to the border in casesof illegal entry, ineligibility for a residence permit, or threat to public order. Foreigners for whom a deportationorder has been issued will be sent to special centres and may be held there for 20 to 30 days at the request ofthe competent authority. These new deportation measures were strenuously debated in Parliament.

The same legislation contains measures to promote and improve the integration of foreigners residing inItaly, although some of these measures may seem a little ambiguous. For instance, a permanent residence per-mit may be issued to persons who have been residing legally in Italy for at least five years. But this permit maybe withdrawn at any time if certain requirements, notably as to income, cease to be met. Family reunion will beauthorised upon proof of a minimum monthly income (L 480 000 for the addition of one family member). Thismeans-testing could be seen as inconsistent with the constitutional right of all persons, foreigners included, tolive with their families. It will now be possible for a foreigner – within the annual quota and on the consulate’swaiting list – to come to Italy and look for work, instead of having first to obtain an offer of employment.

Finally, the new Act provides for health-care assistance for all foreigners, in particular minors, regardless ofstatus, together with social security cover, compulsory schooling for children and adult education.

New regularisation procedures

A fourth programme of regularisation for foreigners inirregular situations is now under way, following those of1986, 1990 and 1996 (see Table II.20). Initially the newround was to concern 38 000 persons, an arbitrary figureset by the Italian authorities. Those persons had to havebeen living in Italy prior to 28 March 1998 and prove thatthey had employment. Owing to the very large number ofapplicants meeting these requirements, the quota wasincreased to 300 000 by a legislative decree of13 April 1999. An Interior Ministry circular dated13 May 1999 has further relaxed the regularisation proce-dure so that more persons may benefit.

The most important provision of the ministerial cir-cular is the possibility of a deadline extension until20 October 1999 for persons as yet unable to submit allthe papers required. In order to make things easier forself-employed workers, the circular also stipulates that persons unable to prove that their annual income is atleast equal to the benchmark minimum for Italy may submit their applications for regularisation with an under-taking to supply all the necessary details of income when the permits come up for first renewal, i.e. in one year’stime. Finally, the circular broadens the range of acceptable “proof” of presence in Italy prior to 28 March 1998.

Introduction

As evidenced by the sharp decline in the ratio of employment vacancies to job seekers, the labour marketbegan to slacken markedly from the beginning of 1997. Having been at that time just under 0.75 it is now below0.5 and continues to fall, albeit at a much slower pace. Since February 1998 employment growth has been neg-ative. By the end of the year the net reduction had reached an estimated 500 000 bringing the unemploymentrate up to 4.5%, the highest since records began in 1953.

JAPAN

Table II.20. Regularisation requests of immigrantsin an illegal situation, three last regularisation

programmes, by region of residence, ItalyThousands

1990 1997 19981

North 89.2 115.3 123.5Centre 75.9 75.8 75.5South 30.6 48.2 26.5Islands 39.1 19.4 10.1

Total 234.8 258.8 235.6

1. At 15 April 1998.Sources: Ministry of Labour; Ministry of the Interior.

OECD 1999


164

Table II.21. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in JapanThousands

1994 1995 1996 1997

Inflows of foreign nationals1 237.5 209.8 225.4 274.8

Stock of total population2 125 034 125 568 125 864 126 166

Stock of foreign nationals3 1 354.0 1 362.4 1 415.1 1 482.7By country of origin

Korea 676.8 666.4 657.2 645.4China (including Chinese Taipei) 218.6 223.0 234.3 252.2Brazil 159.6 176.4 201.8 233.3Philippines 86.0 74.3 84.5 93.3United States 43.3 43.2 44.2 43.7Other 169.7 179.1 193.1 214.8

By status of residencePermanent residents4 631.5 626.6 626.0 625.5Long-term residents 375.4 402.3 438.2 483.7of which:

Spouse or child of Japanese national 231.6 244.4 258.8 274.5Spouse or child of permanent resident 7.0 6.8 6.5 6.3Other 136.8 151.1 172.9 202.9

Foreign workers with permission of employment 105.6 88.0 98.3 107.3Other (accompanying family, student, trainee, etc.) 241.5 245.5 252.6 266.2

Naturalisations 11.1 14.1 14.5 15.1of which:

Korea 8.2 10.3 9.9 9.7China 2.5 3.2 4.0 4.7

Foreign labour force (estimates)5 620 610 630 660

Foreign residents with permission of employment by status of residence6

Specialist in humanities or international services 24.8 25.1 27.4 29.9Entertainer 34.8 16.0 20.1 22.2Engineer 10.1 9.9 11.1 12.9Skilled labour 6.8 7.4 8.8 9.6Instructor 6.8 7.2 7.5 7.8Intra-company transferee 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.4Professor 3.8 4.1 4.6 5.1Investor and business manager 4.5 4.6 5.0 5.0Religious activities 5.6 5.3 5.0 5.0Researcher 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.5Journalist 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4Artist 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3Medical services 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1Legal and accounting services 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Total 105.6 88.0 98.3 107.3

Trainees and Working Holiday Makers 6.4 6.6 8.6 12.1

Estimates of students engaged in part time jobs 33.5 32.4 30.1 32.2

Estimates of Japanese descents engaged in gainful activities7 181.5 193.7 211.2 234.1

Illegal workers8 290 280 280 280Number of foreign nationals deported 65.6 55.5 54.3 49.6

1. Excluding temporary visitors and re-entries.2. Registered population as of 1 October of the years indicated.3. Data are based on registered foreign nationals as of 31 December of the years indicated. The figures include foreigners staying in Japan for more than

90 days.4. Essentially Korean nationals. A ‘‘special permanent residents’’ category was introduced in 1992. It includes Koreans and Taiwanese nationals who lost

their Japanese nationality as a consequence of the Peace Treaty of 1952 but who had continued to reside permanently in Japan.5. Estimates including illegal workers. Excluding permanent residents.6. Permanent residents, spouses or children of Japanese nationals, spouse or children of permanent residents and long-term residents have no restriction

imposed to the kind of activities they can engage in Japan and are excluded from these data.7. Estimates made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.8. Estimates made by the Ministry of Justice on the basis of the number of overstayers.Sources: Ministry of Justice; Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Ministry of Labour.

OECD 1999

Japan

165

The slack labour market notwithstanding, the registered inflow of skilled foreign workers increased by almost20% in 1997. Compared to other OECD countries their stock remains low however. Together with the other catego-ries of foreign labour (those with a residence status permitting unrestricted employment, the majority of the train-ees in the small and medium sized enterprises and the illegally employed) they account for less than 1% of thetotal labour force. Due in part to the implementation of a programme to dissuade employers from hiring them, thenumber of undocumented migrants has been in decline since 1993. It would appear that ethnic Japanese fromSouth America and foreign trainees are increasingly taking their place. The sub-contracted employment of foreignworkers has risen strongly recently to now account for almost 40% of the total. As flexibility is increasingly soughtit can be expected to rise still further.

Migration flows and changes in the foreign population

Following a further strong rise in the inflow of those staying for more than 90 days (the registration of whomis obligatory under the Alien Registration Law), the recorded stock of foreign nationals stood at just under1.5 million (1.18% of the total population) at the end of 1997, a rise of almost 5% on 1996 (see Table II.21).Koreans are the most numerous, accounting for over 40% of the total; their numbers are steadily and slowlydeclining however. Above the general trend increases in the next two nationalities, Chinese and Brazilian (eachnow accounting for approximately one sixth of the total stock), explain the major part of the overall increase.

Entrants to Japan are assigned a residence status according to their economic activity in Japan or their per-sonal status as a foreigner eligible to enter and reside there. In principle, permanent residence cannot beaccorded immediately but rather after a fairly extensive period of stay. Numbering 625 450, permanent residentsaccount for 42% of the foreign population. Of these, almost 90% are special permanent residents, i.e. those Koreanswho had lost Japanese nationality on the basis of the Treaty of Peace with Japan, and their descendants who, bornof foreign parents, are not automatically entitled to Japanese nationality.

Those entering as “long term residents” (who have no restriction placed on their employment) numbered65 000 in 1997 to bring their stock to 484 000, one third of the total foreign population. Slightly over half of theseare the spouses or children of Japanese nationals. The remainder are ethnic Japanese, the grandchildren andlater descendants of Japanese emigrants (the overwhelming majority from South America), the inflows of whomnumbered 33 400 in 1997. Under a guideline issued by the Immigration Bureau in 1997, foreign nationals cannow stay in Japan under the status of long term resident in order to support their children, legitimate or illegit-imate, born conjointly of Japanese nationals.

Entries of individuals with restricted permission to work totalled 94 000, an increase of just under 20% overthe previous year. At the end of 1997 the total number of foreign nationals residing with this status was just over107 000, an increase of just over 9% on 1996. The increases were broadly spread across employment categories;this includes those entering under the status of entertainer the number of whom having declined by 50% in 1995due to a tightening of controls has since almost rebounded, the inflow in 1997 being just over three quarters ofthe 1994 figure.

Entries of trainees numbered almost 50 000 in 1997, an increase of 9% on 1996. Official stock data areunavailable. A recent estimate has put the figure at 115 000.

Naturalisations

Naturalisations are continuing to increase. In 1997 there were over 15 000, almost three times the 1988 fig-ure. Koreans account for almost two thirds and Chinese almost one third. The majority had previously pos-sessed permanent resident status.

Asylum

Japan receives few applications for asylum. However, their number is showing a markedly upward trend.Having received a total of fewer than 1 200 applications during the period 1982-95, in 1996 147 applications wererecorded, 242 in 1997 and 284 during the first eight months of 1998. China and Myanmar account for the majority.Since 1982 just over 200 applications have been accepted; in a further 106 cases the applicants were grantedexceptional leave to remain.

OECD 1999


166

Illegal immigration

Through the matching of embarkation and disembarkation cards the number of foreign nationals overstay-ing their legal period of stay has been estimated twice yearly since 1992. Continuing the trend observed since1993, their number fell by 2% in 1997 to stand at 277 000 in January 1998. Koreans, Filipinos, Chinese and Thaistogether account for almost two thirds of the total. The falls across all the significant nationalities with the excep-tion of the Philippines (the bucking of the general trend by this latter is almost certainly linked to the aforemen-tioned imposition of controls on the entries of entertainers) can be attributed to tightened visa control,improved co-operation between the agencies charged with tackling the problem as well as to a publicity cam-paign dissuading employers from hiring illegal workers. Implementation of the May 1997 amendment to theImmigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act which provides for the imposition of severe penalties onthose found to have organised or abetted the smuggling of aliens has also had an impact.

Just under 8 000 of the almost 50 000 deported in 1997 had entered without proper documentation (in 90%of cases without a passport), an almost 50% rise on 1996. Corresponding to the growing problem of illegal entryby boat almost 90% were from China. In view of the likelihood of further increases in unemployment in China asa result of the restructuring of State enterprises the Japanese authorities are considering introducing additionalamendments to the Immigration Act in order to further counter the criminal organisations involved in clandes-tine immigration.

Foreign workers

Policy on the entry of foreign workers

The scope for the acceptance of foreign workers is controlled by the Immigration Control and RefugeesRecognition Act and other related immigration laws and regulations the implementation of which is theresponsibility of the Ministry of Justice. Containing neither quota systems nor a labour market test, theselaws adopt rather a positive list approach the requirements of which are set out in an Ordinance drawn-upby the Ministry of Justice following consideration of factors that might affect “Japanese industry and thegeneral welfare” (Article 7): implicitly this includes consideration of labour market developments.

Within this framework, the basic principles of current migration policy are set out in the Economic Plan(1996) and the Employment Counter Measures Plan (1996). According to these plans, which differ little fromthose set out in the recent past, Japan will readily accept foreigners possessing technological expertise, skillsor knowledge or who engage in business which requires a knowledge of foreign culture not possessed byJapanese nationals. Those with lower levels of qualification, however, are not to be accepted. The ethnicJapanese, who enter under the status of long term resident rather than foreign worker, are not subject to thisbasic principle.

Foreigners entering Japan for employment are given an authorised period of stay as stipulated by theirentry category in the Immigration Act. They can apply for an extension of the period if they remain under thesame circumstances. Japanese immigration policy, then, has neither a concept of “permanent” nor of “tempo-rary” foreign worker. Foreign workers’ dependants (i.e. their spouses and unmarried minor children) are not ingeneral authorised to work.

Stock of foreign workers

In spite of the recession, the Ministry of Labour estimates that the number of foreigners, with theexception of permanent residents, working in Japan increased by 5% in 1997 to approximately 660 000. Thisestimate includes illegal workers, for whom the number of overstayers (277 000) serves as a proxy. However,it does not take account those working in violation of their visa status, for example, language teachers work-ing on tourist visas. Technical intern trainees (see below) are included but not general trainees. Three quar-ters of the aforementioned rise is attributable to the increase in the number of ethnic Japanese, the inflowof whom grew by 11% in 1997 to now account for over one third of the total stock.

OECD 1999

Japan

167

According to the most recently collated results of the reports requested by and voluntarily submitted tothe Reporting System on the Employment of Foreigners, established in 1993 by the Ministry of Labour, those ofJune 1997, there had been no significant changes over the previous twelve months in the occupational distribu-tion of foreign workers: 35% of those directly employed were in the service sector and just over 60% in the man-ufacturing sector. Those engaged in subcontracted employment now account for just under 40% of the foreignworkers. This proportion has been rising continually since 1994, the first year that data on them were compiledand when they accounted for just over one quarter of the foreign workforce.

Foreign trainees and technical interns

Accompanying the growth in the direct investment by Japanese companies in other Asian countries theemployees of their overseas affiliates or joint ventures have been coming to Japan as trainees since the 1960s.The companies’ three primary objectives have been to compensate for their foreign employees’ lack of basiceducation and general training, to enhance their understanding of the companies’ products and production pro-cesses and to encourage their long-term commitment.

Since 1990, small and medium sized enterprises without an overseas presence have been permitted tobring in overseas trainees. They typically do so through intermediary bodies such as Chambers of Commerceand employers associations; this exempts them from the 5% ceiling on the proportion of trainees to regularworkers.

The Technical Internship Training Programme, an extension of the general trainee scheme, was introducedin 1993 under the supervision of the Japan International Training Co-operation Organisation (JITCO). Within theframework of this programme, regular trainees, who pass certain skill tests after a period of training, can becometechnical intern trainees thereby changing their status of residence to come under the “designated activities”category and so becoming entitled to the same rights as their Japanese colleagues vis-à-vis the labour standardlaw, the minimum wage law and other labour-related laws. In addition to possessing good working skills, tech-nical intern trainees play an important role in supervising and assisting the regular trainees. In 1997 their max-imum period of stay was extended from two years to three. JITCO has concluded agreements as a record ofdiscussions with the governments of China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Peru, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailandand Vietnam regarding the exchange of information on trainees and on sending organisations.

At 49 600 the inflow of trainees in 1997 was 9% higher than in 1996 (see Table II.22). China accounted for 43%,only slightly less than the combined figure for the five next most important countries (Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia,the Philippines and Thailand). The number of regular trainees permitted to change their status of residence

Table II.22. Inflows of foreigners by main categories and nationality, 1997, JapanThousands

Dependents DependentsTemporary Accompanying Designated Long-term

Students Trainees of Japanese of permanent Other Totalvisitors dependents activities1 residents

nationals residents

Asia 2 092.9 18.8 44.4 10.7 0.5 14.3 0.3 7.4 54.2 2 243.4Korea 899.6 6.8 1.6 2.8 – 0.9 0.1 0.1 5.5 917.5Chinese Taipei 791.7 1.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 – 0.1 1.8 796.8China 97.5 7.4 21.3 5.3 – 5.9 0.1 5.8 6.4 149.8Others 304.2 2.8 20.9 2.3 0.3 7.0 – 1.4 40.4 379.3

Europe 672.8 2.0 1.0 2.0 0.1 0.5 – – 27.9 706.3North America 625.1 1.9 0.6 2.6 1.1 1.1 – 0.1 27.0 659.5Oceania 89.7 0.9 0.4 0.4 1.6 0.2 – – 3.9 97.0South America 41.9 0.3 1.6 0.2 – 15.4 – 25.8 2.0 87.3Africa 9.1 0.2 1.5 0.3 – 0.1 – – 1.4 12.6Stateless 3.4 – 0.1 – – – – – – 3.5

Total 3 534.9 24.2 49.6 16.1 3.3 31.6 0.3 33.4 116.4 3 809.7

1. Constituted mostly of Working Holiday Makers.Source: Ministry of Justice.

OECD 1999


168

from trainee to technical intern is increasing rapidly, the number in 1997 (6 300) being almost equal to the totalof the preceding four years. Since the start of the programme slightly less than 60% of those accepted were fromChina and just under 30% were from Indonesia.

Japanese nationals residing abroad

Due largely to the increasing scale of intra-company transfers, the number of Japanese nationals residingabroad has been rising strongly since 1987. The total number of those residing in foreign countries for threemonths or longer and who had reported to a Japanese embassy or consulate exceeded 780 000 in 1997. Perma-nent residents, the proportion of whom is slowly declining, accounted for just over one third of the total. NorthAmerica accounts for almost 40% of the total, South America just under 30% and Asia slightly over 20%.

Policy developments

Intra-company transfers

In line with the growing world-wide trend towards an increased liberalisation of the regulations governingthe movements of highly skilled workers, the maximum period of stay for intra-company transferees (5 years)was abolished in January 1998: transferees may now apply for an extension of their permit.

Programmes to encourage the use of the proper channels for obtaining employment

In order to discourage illegal migration and to increase the proportion of technical and highly skilledworkers in the inflows from Asia and South America, the Ministry of Labour has begun an information dis-semination programme in the countries of these regions. The information concerns the labour market situ-ation for foreign workers, Japan’s job placement system and other related matters. Within the framework ofthis programme seminars were held and pamphlets were distributed in Thailand in the 1998 fiscal year.

Introduction

Towards the end of 1997, in the wake of the financial crises affecting the majority of the other economies inits region, the Korean economy moved into deep recession. In 1998 output fell by 5.5%. It is expected toincrease in 1999 as domestic demand bottoms out, with a stronger pick up likely in 2000. The timing andstrength of the recovery, though, will depend to some extent on developments elsewhere in Asia: export growthhas decelerated markedly in recent months, reflecting sharp declines in shipments to Japan and other Asiancountries. The capacity and willingness of banks to lend, which have been eroded by the rise in non-performingloans and the need to meet capital adequacy ratios, will also be of determining influence. Unemployment hasquadrupled since the beginning of the crisis, reaching 8.5% in January 1999.

The issue of foreign workers, of whom the importation and the employment (the vast majority unskilled,the majority illegal) had hitherto been a source of some controversy despite their small scale, has ceased forthe time being to be a one of political moment. Although social and political pressure to clamp down on illegalmigrant workers and their employers has increased, it would appear that trade unions are not demanding thatthe legal employment of foreigners be scaled back. The number of skilled foreign workers, small prior to thecrisis, has sharply decreased. As for the unskilled, whose numbers have declined to a greater degree, there isevidence to suggest that in spite of the high level of open unemployment and the generally weak insurance cov-erage there remains unsatisfied demand on the domestic labour market for low-wage workers prepared to per-form the more disagreeable jobs.

KOREA

OECD 1999

Korea

169

Foreign population

The rate of growth in the number of foreign nationals, staying more than 90 days and registered as requiredunder the Emigration and Immigration Act, having remained low through to 1991 increased rapidly following the1992 normalisation of diplomatic relations with China. This normalisation led to substantial increases both inthe inflows from China of Chinese and of ethnic Koreans and in the number of trainees entering from otherneighbouring countries. By 1997 the foreign population had reached 177 000, still less than half of 1% of the totalpopulation however. In 1998, the number of foreign nationals decreased by 29 000, a fall of over 16% (seeTable II.23) As with the previous increases, all nationalities with the exception of the Taipei Chinese recordedfalls in their numbers. The stability in the numbers of this latter community is attributable to the fact that it iscomposed largely of immigrants from China who arrived during the first half of the century and their descen-dants who, born of foreign parents, are not automatically entitled to Korean nationality. Given that there hasbeen little intermarriage and that most Taipei Chinese born in Korea attend Taipei Chinese-only schools andso retain their culture and language, it is not surprising that the children tend not to seek Korean nationality.

Foreign workers

There are three types of migrant worker in Korea: the legally employed; de facto employees accepted underthe industrial and technical training program (ITTP); and the illegally employed. All categories combined, theyaccounted prior to the crisis for less than 1% of the total workforce. The legal migrant workers are comprisedsolely of professionals, teachers, technicians and entertainers. The use of workers-cum-trainees is largely con-fined to areas of the manufacturing sector such as textiles, electronics, chemicals, toys and musical instruments.Illegal workers are typically found in unskilled positions in the construction sector and areas of manufacturingand service sectors.

The total stock of foreign workers declined by 30% during 1998. Disaggregated by employment status, thedeclines were negatively correlated with skill level and degree of employment protection: the number of skilledworkers fell by almost a quarter, trainees by just under 30% and illegal workers by one third (see Table II.24).

Skilled workers

Reflecting Korea’s increasing integration into the global economy and its consequent need to facilitate theentry of skilled professionals both to render foreign direct investment projects more attractive and to promotethe acquisition of expertise, the inflow of skilled workers accelerated through to the first half of 1997. Accompa-nying the deterioration in the economic climate later in the year their entries then went into decline (seeTable II.24). The decrease in the number of technicians in 1998 was the largest of all the categories. Although

Table II.23. Stock of foreign population in Korea by nationality, 1988, 1990, 1995-1998Thousands

1988 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998

China – – 19 27 35 31of which: Chinese with Korean descents – – 7 9 12 . .United States 11 14 22 26 28 26Chinese Taipei 24 24 23 23 23 23Japan 4 5 9 12 14 13Indonesia – 0 3 10 14 10Vietnam – – 6 10 13 8Other 6 6 27 40 50 37

Total 45 50 110 149 177 148

Note: Foreigners staying in Korea for more than 90 days and registered in population registers as stated by the law.Source: Ministry of Justice.

OECD 1999


170

language teachers, mostly from English-speaking countries, still compose the largest share at just less than halfthe total their numbers also fell back sharply.

In 1997 the government, in order to stimulate foreign direct investment, not only relaxed the rules sur-rounding it but also revised the Immigration and Emigration Law to abolish the ceiling on the period of staygranted to foreign skilled workers. It also simplified the administrative procedures governing the issuing of theirvisas. We can therefore expect their inflows to pick up quite rapidly.

Trainees

Created in 1992, the initial purpose of Korea’s trainee programme (the ITTP) was to permit foreign workersemployed by the overseas subsidiaries of Korean firms to come to Korea for up to one year in order to upgradetheir skills. Then, as now, unskilled foreign workers were not permitted to work in Korea. Later, the programmewas extended to medium and small size companies in the manufacturing sector suffering from labour shortages;de facto, their trainees are workers. In this way, the training programme has effectively become a programme ofunskilled labour importation. The maximum period of stay has been extended twice, in late 1993 and in 1996,to bring it up to three years. In 1997, after a great deal of nation-wide debate concerning the possible introduc-tion of a work permit system, a revision was made to the ITTP allowing trainees to be employed as legal workersupon completion of a certain period of training.

Two thirds of the trainees admitted under the ITTP do so through the Korea Federation of Small Businesses(KFSB). Almost negligible numbers are admitted through the National Federation of Fisheries Co-operatives(NFFC) which has been permitted to bring in trainees since 1997 and latterly the Korean Construction Associa-tion (KCA). The remainder are selected by the overseas subsidiaries of Korean firms (see Table II.24). Each ofthe three federations requires approval from its relevant Ministry for the firms it selects to receive trainees andthe numbers allocated to them.

Table II.24. Foreign workers in Korea by category, 1995-1998Thousands

1995 1996 1997 1998

Skilled workers 8.2 13.4 14.7 11.1Language teachers 4.2 7.5 7.6 4.9Other teachers 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8Entertainers 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.1Researchers 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.6Technicians 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.5Other professionals 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3Others 1.7 2.4 2.8 2.9

Trainees by recruting agencies 38.8 68.0 90.4 64.2Korean Federation of small businesses . . 46.5 61.9 43.3Companies investing abroad . . 21.6 26.9 19.8Others . . – 1.6 1.1

Estimates of the number of overstayers1 81.9 129.1 148.1 99.5China 36.5 50.6 57.8 55.6Bangladesh 5.5 9.6 9.0 7.5Philippines 10.3 14.6 13.9 6.4Mongolia . . 3.5 7.6 5.6Vietnam . . 4.4 6.4 3.7Pakistan 3.0 5.5 5.9 3.1Sri Lanka 2.1 1.6 2.2 1.1Others 24.5 39.3 45.2 16.6

Total (skilled workers, trainees and overstayers) 128.9 210.5 253.1 174.9

1. Most of the overstayers are presumed to be working illegally.Source: Ministry of Justice.

OECD 1999

Korea

171

In 1998 the government froze the quota for trainees. This proved to be unnecessary: due to lack of demandthere were at the end of 1998 fewer than 65 000 trainees, a 30% fall on the corresponding figure for 1997. Thisdecline was broadly uniform in aggregate across the small businesses and the international companies.

Illegal workers

As wages increased and labour shortages became more severe from the early 1990s onwards, the employ-ment of illegal migrant workers rapidly increased. The figures presented in Table II.24 and discussed below arebased on the assumption that all those and only those overstaying their visa are illegally employed; they donot include those who are working in violation of their visa status, for example private sector language teachersworking on tourist visas. (In view of Korea’s geographical situation and its uncommonly tight border control, veryfew will have entered the country clandestinely.) In 1992 they accounted for almost three quarters of all foreign-ers working in Korea. After rising to over 80% in 1993 the proportion then fell back to just under 60% in 1994. Theproportion has since remained remarkably stable reflecting, it would be reasonable to suppose, the influenceof the ITTP.

The number of Chinese overstayers declined only slightly in 1998 whereas other nationalities registered atotal decline of just over 50% (see Table II.24). Over half of the Chinese are believed to have Korean ancestorsand are understood to benefit from the existence of a firmly embedded social network.

Policy developments

Amnesty for overstayers and measures to combat the illegal employment of foreigners

The Ministry of Justice, having taken the view that the success of any direct measures implemented to com-bat the illegal employment of foreigners, the overwhelming majority of whom are overstayers, would be limitedby the disincentive presented by the immigration fines they would incur if caught attempting to leave the coun-try, a considerable risk given the uncommonly tight border controls, announced in December 1997 that until theend of March 1998 they would be allowed to leave the country without having to face this penalty. This amnestyperiod was subsequently extended through to the end of July. In August 1998 the number of overstayers hadfallen to 92 000 from the estimated 148 000 present at the beginning of the year

The direct measures implemented aimed on the one hand to facilitate their substitution for legal workersand on the other to render their continued employment more costly.

Financial support for the purchase of new machinery was made available to small and medium sized com-panies in the hope that increased capital investment would render employment in the companies less dis-agreeable to nationals. Thus far this policy has met with scant success. Few companies have taken up thefunding, dissuaded, it would appear, by previous difficulties in retaining nationals. In those that have, the num-ber of foreign workers replaced has been extremely modest.

The penalties on the employers of illegal migrants, on private recruitment agencies (these have long sincebeen prohibited from dealing with migrant workers) and on illegal migrants themselves were raised. The gov-ernment also appointed labour officers to investigate migration-related issues. This too would appear to havehad scant impact. By April 1999 the number of overstayers had risen to 111 000. In response to the new figuresthe government announced that a second amnesty would take place during May 1999.

Draft law on the Status of Overseas Koreans

In 1998 the government presented a draft law on the Emigration, Immigration and Legal Status of OverseasKoreans. Overseas Koreans are defined as those living abroad who possessed Korean nationality but rescindedit in order to take up a foreign nationality or who have Korean ancestors but have never themselves possessedKorean nationality.

Under this draft law, persons in these two categories would be permitted to stay in Korea for two years witha possibility of extension and would be permitted to visit Korea any number of times. They would be permittedto take up employment and to engage in other economic activities such as acquiring real estate. Those staying

OECD 1999


172

more than 90 days would be eligible for voting rights. Finally, despite not having Korean nationality, those tak-ing up work as civil servants, teachers or soldiers would be entitled to receive a state pension.

Although the draft law was not passed it has not been abandoned. Should it be passed it can be expectedto have a huge impact on Korea’s migration flows: reports indicate that approximately seven million peoplecome within its scope.

Introduction

Luxembourg is the smallest of the OECD countries, covering 2 586 km2 and with a population of 423 700. In1998, one resident in three was foreign and cross-border workers accounted for one-quarter of the total work-force. Like other European countries, Luxembourg has passed legislation regulating immigration, but it is cur-rently promoting the integration of foreigners through innovative cultural and vocational training programmes.

Migration flows and resident foreign population

Since 1990, the annual flow of foreigners has averaged some 10 000 arrivals and 6 000 departures (seeTable II.25), although net migration was below 4 000 in 1996 and 1997. Nearly 90% of immigrants come fromEuropean countries. The Portuguese are still by far the largest group of foreigners living in Luxembourg, eventhough the number of new arrivals has been falling since 1993.

Based on the initial estimates available, the foreign resident population at 1 January 1998 was nearly148 000, out of a total population of 423 700. Luxembourg is the OECD country with the highest proportion offoreigners; they accounted for just under 35% of its population at 1 January 1998. Since the end of the nineteenthcentury, this proportion has steadily increased. Foreigners accounted for barely 3% of the population in 1875and 10% at the end of the Second World War.

The structure of the foreign resident population by nationality has changed over the years. Between theend of the Second World War and the 1970s, Italians constituted the largest foreign group. They were subse-quently overtaken by the Portuguese, whose numbers increased steadily during the 1980s to reach 54 500 at1 January 1998, that is to say slightly less than 37% of the total foreign population. The Portuguese are followedby the Italians, French, Belgians and Germans, in that order (see Table II.25).

Over the past twenty years, the difference in the fertility rate between Luxembourg women and foreignershas narrowed. In 1970, the average number of children per woman (the fertility index) was 2.37 for foreign womenand 1.88 for Luxembourg women; in 1997 the figures were 1.74 and 1.69 respectively. Since 1990, the proportionof mixed marriages has increased, from 22% in 1990 to nearly 28% in 1997. This increase is essentially due tomarriages between Luxembourg men and foreign women.

Naturalisations

The annual number of naturalisations has ranged between 700 and 800 since 1993 (749 in 1997). The tem-porary increase observed at the end of the 1980s was due to a change in the legislation on nationality (Act of11 December 1986 lowering the required age to 18). In theory, some 50 000 foreign residents meet the criteriarequired for naturalisation, but have not applied for it. This is largely because 90% of the resident foreign pop-ulation is composed of EU nationals. They have little to gain from acquiring Luxembourg nationality, unless theywish to apply for a post in the Luxembourg civil service or become actively involved in politics. Moreover,Luxembourg does not allow dual nationality, which means that applicants must give up their previouscitizenship.

LUXEMBOURG

OECD 1999

Lu

xem

bo

urg

OE

CD

199

Table II.25. Current figures on the components of total population change, on migratory flows and stocksof foreign population and labour force in Luxembourg

Figures in thousands unless otherwise indicated

1994 1995 1996 1997

16.2 16.5 18.3 18.65.7 5.9 6.7 6.4

14.7 15.5 17.2 17.7

6.0 6.7 8.1 8.62.5 2.6 2.9 3.02.5 2.2 2.5 2.62.2 2.2 2.1 1.80.6 0.5 0.6 0.61.5 1.0 1.1 0.9

0.2 0.2 0.2 . .s 1.1 1.3 1.3 . .

1.6 1.8 1.6 . .7.5 7.4 9.3 . .1.0 1.1 1.4 . .1.9 1.9 1.8 . .0.3 0.3 0.1 . .2.4 2.5 2.5 . .

5.5 5.7 5.6 . .10.7 10.7 12.6 . .

)207.9 213.5 219.5 226.5

46 44 44 4154 56 56 59

lity4 51.3 55.5 59.6 64.451.0 51.5 51.7 52.330.5 30.5 30.0 29.518.5 18.0 18.3 18.2

4.6 5.1 5.7 6.4) 53.6 54.3 57.7 57.9

173

9

1994 1995 1996 1997

Components of total population change Inflows of foreign workers3

Natural increase 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.6 of which: womenof which: foreigners 1.7 . . 1.9 1.9 Inflows by region or country of originNet migration 4.0 4.6 3.7 3.8 EUof which: foreigners 3.9 4.7 4.7 3.7 of which:Population (31 December) 406.6 412.8 418.3 423.7 Franceof which: foreigners 132.5 138.1 142.8 147.7 Belgium

GermanyMigration flows by country of origin/destination Portugal

Inflows 10.1 10.3 10.0 10.4 ItalyPortugal 2.4 2.4 2.0 1.9 Other countriesFrance 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.7 Inflows by major industry divisionBelgium 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.2 Agriculture, forestryGermany 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 Extractive and manufacturing industrieOther countries 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.9 Building

Trade, banks, insurancesNet migration 4.0 4.6 3.7 3.8 Transport, communications

Portugal 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.6 HotelsFrance 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 Personal servicesBelgium 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 Other servicesGermany 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 Inflows by status of residenceOther countries 1.7 2.1 1.6 1.6 Resident workers

Cross-border workersForeign population by main nationality1 132.5 138.1 142.8 147.7

Portugal 49.4 51.5 53.1 54.5 Stock of workers (excluding unemployedItaly 19.7 19.8 19.8 19.9 Total employment (including nationals)4

France 14.3 15.0 15.7 16.5 Breakdown by nationality (%)5

Belgium 11.3 11.8 12.4 13.2 LuxembourgersGermany 9.5 9.7 9.9 10.0 Resident and cross-border foreignersSpain 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9Other countries 25.4 27.5 29.1 30.7 Stock of cross-border workers by nationa

France (% of total cross-borders)Acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality2 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 Belgium (% of total cross-borders)

Italy 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Germany (% of total cross-borders)France 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Germany 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Job-seekers (national definition)Belgium 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 of which: foreigners (% of total job seekersOther countries 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

Mixed marriages 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6% of total marriages 23.2 26.8 24.4 27.6

1. Data are from population registers and refer to the population on 31 December of the years indicated.2. Children acquiring nationality as a consequence of the naturalisation of their parents are excluded.3. Data cover arrivals of foreign workers to Luxembourg and foreign residents entering the labour market for the first time.4. Annual average.5. Salaried workers as of 31 March of each year.Sources: STATEC; Inspection generale de la Securite sociale (IGSS); Administration de l’Emploi.


174


Until 1987, most asylum seekers in Luxembourg came as part of quotas accepted by the government underinternational refugee resettlement programmes. Thus, refugees from Chile were accepted in 1974, followed,between 1977 and 1980, by three contingents from Vietnam and Cambodia. Between 1982 and 1987, three fur-ther contingents were accepted: from Poland in 1982, Iran in 1986, and Vietnam in 1987.

Since 1988, the number of asylum applications has fluctuated considerably. The introduction in March 1992of an ad hoc humanitarian status for refugees from the former Yugoslavia (except for citizens of Kosovo andMontenegro) explains the reduction in the number of asylum seekers falling under the Geneva Convention.Beneficiaries receive social assistance from the government, free medical care, clothing and a work permit validfor the length of stay corresponding to their status. From the beginning of the war Yugoslavia in 1992 over3 000 nationals of the former Yugoslavia had registered by 1 November 1995. Many of these refugees were able toobtain an extension of their residence permit and a foreigners’ identity card (there were 1 274 such refugees atthe end of September 1996).

Asylum applications have been rising since 1996, mainly due to the arrival of asylum seekers from Albaniaand Kosovo, but also from Montenegro, Bosnia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The trend rosesharply in 1998, with 1 600 new applications (compared with 400 in 1997).


In 1997, Luxembourg’s employed labour force in was estimated at 226 500, of whom slightly over 28% werecross-border workers living in France, Belgium or Germany. Employment of residents (both nationals and for-eigners) continued to rise slowly because of continuing immigration and the increase in the female participationrate.

The proportion of foreign wage-earners has continued to increase over recent years. Thus, at 31 March 1998foreigners accounted for nearly 60% of the total of 217 000 wage-earners, as compared with 46% in 1990. Theslowdown in economic growth and the increase in unemployment since 1991 (3.6% in 1997) have not yet led toa fall in the numbers of foreign and cross-border workers. In 1997, new hires of foreign workers reached a littleover 18 600 (see Table II.25), but it should be noted that the number of newly hired Portuguese fell over the lasttwo years, as did Portuguese immigration.

The breakdown of workers by sector of activity shows that a majority of workers in the primary sector areforeign. Cross-border workers are more numerous in the secondary sector as well as in transport. The majorityof foreigners in employment are either blue collar or office workers in the private sector.

Since the beginning of the 1970s, the number of cross-border workers employed in Luxembourg hasincreased considerably, from 7 200 in 1970 to 64 400 in 1997. Whereas in 1970 the majority of cross-border work-ers lived in Belgium, the relative share of these workers by country of origin began to change in 1992. Today,more than half of such workers live in France, 30% in Belgium and 18% in Germany. A study published in January1995 based on social security records made it possible to identify certain characteristics of these cross-borderworkers. Most are wage-earners. More than two-thirds are men, although women are relatively more numerousin the category of office workers, as far as cross-border workers from France and Germany are concerned.German cross-border workers tend to be more frequently employed in the construction and public works sectorand the French in business services and real estate.

In 1997, there were some 8 000 officials and international civil servants working in the European institutionslocated in Luxembourg; they are not counted in Luxembourg’s labour force.

Policy developments

A number of measures have been introduced recently to supplement the legislation and regulations gov-erning the employment of wage-earners who not European Economic Area nationals. The impact of these newprovisions is not yet clearly reflected in the available statistics. Of the considerable legislation passed duringrecent years, the following pieces are worthy of note:

OECD 1999

Mexico

175

– The Act of 28 January 1994 laying down the procedure for electing representatives of the Grand Duchy ofLuxembourg to the European Parliament. This Act specifies the conditions under which resident foreign-ers from other European Union countries are able to participate in the elections.

– The Act of 4 March 1994 abolished the last remaining restrictions that previously prevented foreignersfrom becoming founding members of non-profit associations.

– The Grand Ducal Regulation of 17 June 1994 laid down the measures applicable for the employment offoreign workers within the Grand Duchy. Priority is given to citizens of countries that are Member Statesof the EU and of the European Economic Area.

– The Acts of 23 December 1994 are of fundamental importance in Luxembourg’s constitutional historysince they amended a number of articles of the Constitution with a view to allowing non-Luxembourgnationals to exercise certain political rights, in particular with regard to local elections. These consti-tutional amendments were taken into account by the Act of 3 July 1995, which abolished the require-ment that candidates for elections to trade associations be of Luxembourg nationality.

– The Act of 18 August 1995 includes several provisions updating the basic law on immigration (enacted1972) with regard to foreigners’ entry, stay, medical examination and labour market access. These newprovisions took account in particular of the entry into force of the 1990 Schengen Agreement as well asthe provisions applicable to Member States of the European Union and the European Economic Area.

– The Act of 28 December 1995 established the procedure whereby residents who are nationals of otherEuropean Union countries can participate in local elections.

– The Act of 19 July 1997 increased the sanctions applicable for the offence of slander or libel motivated bythe victim’s membership of an ethnic group, nation, race or particular religion.

Other legislation concerns the integration of foreign children through education. The objective is “oneschool for all” but with special measures for foreigners with difficulties, notably linguistic ones. The trilingualbasis of education (Luxembourg, French and German) is reaffirmed as a cornerstone of national identity, butspecial teaching methods are used with foreigners so that they are not handicapped by their lack of familiaritywith these languages when they begin their education. To this end, the Act of 3 June 1994 created a system ofpreparatory classes for technical secondary education. Other legislation specified that foreign pupils are to beintegrated into Luxembourg schools with due regard to their native culture and mother tongue (primarilyPortuguese).

In a ministerial circular of May 1998, the Ministry of National Education proposed the introduction of an“early education project” that would become mandatory in all communes as from 2001. One of the objectives ofthis project is to familiarise foreign children with the language and culture of Luxembourg. This innovative edu-cation programme is still optional for communes during the 1998-99 period and is being introduced as a pilotproject under the supervision of the Ministry of National Education.

Introduction

The difficult economic situation that Mexico has been experiencing since the December 1994 crisis hasprevented any narrowing of wage and income differentials with the United States. Both authorised and unau-thorised emigration to the United States are therefore continuing (see Table II.26) The two countries haveendeavoured to act jointly to control the flows, combat illegal immigration and labour trafficking and promotethe integration of immigrant populations. The application since 1994 of the North American Free Trade Agree-ment (NAFTA) is encouraging increased movements of American and Canadian business people to Mexico.Mexico is having to cope with immigration flows of refugees and undocumented workers from Central America,which are as yet not properly identified or controlled.

MEXICO

OECD 1999


176

Emigration

For several decades the principal destination ofMexican migrants has been the United States. In 1996,it was estimated that between 7 and 7.3 million Mexicanswere living in the United States, of whom approximately2.3 million were undocumented. In 1996-97, migrantworkers in the United States were almost exclusivelymale; their average age was a little over 30. More thanhalf had jobs in Mexico before emigrating and camefrom urban areas. One worker in two was not in posses-sion of a work permit at the time of entering the country.

From a study entitled the “Zapata Canyon Project”,which was conducted over a period of ten years and wasbased on personal interviews with prospective emi-grants in the main border areas, it can be seen that flowof undocumented migrants to the United States is notdiminishing. The study put forward two possible expla-nations for this persistence: that the host country lacksthe resources needed to restrict such undocumentedmigration or that it has instead a special interest inmaintaining this form of migration. American demandfor undocumented Mexican labour is permanent andquite strong as regards low skilled workers. In 1998,more than one-third of undocumented Mexican workerswere employed in agriculture, a quarter in the construc-tion sector, nearly 15% in industry and almost as manyin domestic services (see Table II.27).

Immigration

Traditionally a country of emigration, Mexico is now receiving a growing number of immigrants, most ofthem from other Central American countries. Immigration flows (including movements of tourists and temporaryvisitors) have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s, recorded inflows reaching some 10.5 million in1997. (Outgoing movements, on the other hand, totalled over 8.5 million.) Although these flows reflect the inten-sity and steady growth of cross-border population movements, they do not reflect the reality of foreign migra-tion to Mexico. Subtracting from these the inflows of tourists, entries of foreigners numbered approximately480 000 in 1997. Of these, 46 000 were foreigners with the status of permanent resident, approximately 27 000were immigrants wishing to settle in Mexico, 158 000 were temporary visitors, 85 000 were foreigners in transitand 113 000 were United States and Canadian nationals taking advantage of the provisions of NAFTA.

In order to counter the increase in undocumented immigration flows, the Mexican authorities are seekingto tighten border controls. They are also carrying out forced departures and are turning back some would-beentrants. In 1997, some 86 000 people were expelled for illegal residence in Mexico, or were refused entrybecause they had no identity papers. Most of the foreigners concerned were from Central America (Guatemala,Honduras and El Salvador in particular).

Temporary entries of business persons in the context of NAFTA

In the context of NAFTA, Mexico has since 1994 had a specific document (FMN) to be completed by profes-sionals and business people entering from the United States and Canada. Nearly 113 000 entries were recordedunder this heading in 1997, compared with 91 000 in 1996 and 64 000 in 1995. The majority were male and, becauseof the geographical proximity of the United States and the intensity of trade in goods and services between thetwo countries, most of them were American nationals. Business people predominated in the entries under this

Table II.26. Mexican emigration to the United States,1911-19971

Thousands

Of which: immigrants who benefitedPeriod Numbers from the 1986 Immigration Reform

and Control Act (IRCA)

1911-20 219.01921-30 459.31931-40 22.31941-50 60.61951-60 299.81961-70 453.91971-80 640.31981-90 1 655.8 962.71991-96 1 800.7 1 042.3

1989 405.7 339.21990 680.2 623.51991 947.9 894.91992 214.1 122.51993 126.6 17.51994 111.4 4.41995 90.0 3.01996 163.7 3.61997 146.9 . .

1. Data refer to grants of permanent residence in the United States. Datarefer to fiscal year (October to September of the given year).

Source: US Department of Justice, 1997 Statistical Yearbook of theImmigration and Naturalization Service, forthcoming.

OECD 1999

Mexico

177

heading, followed by scientific and medical specialists, company transferees and, finally, traders and investors. In1996 and 1997, more than half were engineers, architects, manufacturers and businessmen.

Refugees

With the participation of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the MexicanCommission for assistance to refugees has given humanitarian aid as well as assistance for education and healthpurposes to Guatemalan refugees in Mexico. More than 39 000 of them have returned to Guatemala, but 25 000remain in the 113 camps set up in the states of Chiapas, Campeche and Quintana Roo. Most of these refugeeswere born in Mexico and are descendants of the first wave of refugees. In response to the wishes of the majorityof them to stay in Mexico, the General Population Law was amended in 1996 creating the status of “asimilado”(assimilated immigrant). This enables them to settle and take up employment or engage in business.

In August 1996, a programme for the settlement of migrants was introduced in order to promote the inte-gration of Guatemalan refugees living in the states of Campeche, Quintana Roo and Chiapas. Under this pro-gramme, official documents are issued to these refugees allowing them to travel freely within Mexico, take upemployment or engage in business and, possibly, settle in another state. The programme also allows them toapply for Mexican nationality.

With the help of the European Community and the UNHCR, the government has also drawn up develop-ment programmes for the states of Campeche and Quintana Roo, where the refugee camps are situated. Thecamps will be considered legally as towns and incorporated in Mexico’s municipal and state jurisdictions. Thismeans that the Guatemalans who decide to stay in Mexico will be able to settle there and become owners ofthe land they work. The three thousand refugee families living in Chiapas were given three choices: voluntary

Table II.27. Socio-economic characteristics of undocumented Mexican immigrantsto the United States, 1988, 1990, 1996-1998

Percentages

1988 1990 1996 1997 1998

SexMen 85.6 86.1 97.4 97.4 96.0Women 14.4 13.9 2.6 2.6 4.0

AgeLess than 20 18.7 17.8 9.0 9.0 8.420 to 24 31.4 32.4 26.6 22.8 21.025 to 29 22.9 28.0 34.5 32.6 33.230 and over 27.0 21.8 29.8 35.6 37.4

Level of educationLess than elementary 38.8 23.6 17.6 11.2 11.5Elementary 25.3 34.5 42.7 45.9 45.9Secondary 23.7 31.2 34.1 37.6 36.5More than secondary 12.1 10.6 5.6 6.2 6.0No answer 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Characteristics of last job in MexicoFarm work 27.5 28.3 37.4 35.6 38.0Job in a city 52.9 54.0 58.0 60.7 58.0Unemployed 19.2 17.7 4.5 3.6 3.9No answer 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1

Have you already had a job in the United States?Yes 46.6 44.2 49.3 46.0 42.6No 52.9 55.4 50.7 53.9 57.4No answer 0.5 0.4 – 0.1 –

Source: Project Zapata Canyon. Survey of flows of undocumented Mexican immigrants as they cross the border with the United States. El Colegio de laFrontera Norte.

OECD 1999


178

repatriation, integration where they are or settlement in another Mexican state. Most of the families have optedfor the third choice.

Policy developments

The object of Mexico’s migration policy is to control and facilitate migration flows, draw up and apply mea-sures that are consistent with the country’s international commitments and in compliance with human rights,and guarantee Mexico’s interests by both strengthening its security and fostering the kind of migration that willbenefit the country.

Mexico has introduced a number of humanitarian measures, such as the creation of groups responsible forprotecting migrants, the setting up of consultations procedures with neighbouring Central American countries,the amendment of the General Population Law with the object of facilitating family reunion and the strengthen-ing of the Paisano programme for return migrants.

Mexico has facilitated the entry or settlement of certain categories of migrant. In 1997, permanent residentstatus was granted to nearly 3 000 persons, an increase of almost 50% on the previous year. Entry into Mexicowas facilitated for business people from 33 countries, including the United States and Canada, as well as Bolivia,Colombia, Costa Rica and Venezuela. Entry conditions for nationals of certain Central and Eastern Europeancountries, such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia have also been sim-plified. Information programmes have been set up for temporary agricultural workers and for border residentsof Guatemala and Belize.

In July 1998, the countries party to the Tuxtla Dialogue and the Consultation Mechanism agreed to “promotethe gradual simplification of migration procedures in order to facilitate the movement of persons”. Mexicoannounced at the time a series of measures aimed at nationals of Central American countries. These includedhaving travel agencies issue the forms to be completed by tourists, registering tourists and business people fora period of five or ten years (which will simplify entry procedures for subsequent visits) and providing informa-tion for carriers and travel agencies and also for students.

As part of the dialogue between Mexico and the United States on migration questions, which was institu-tionalised by the Binational Commission, a programme was set up to facilitate the removal to the border ofundocumented Mexicans. In 1997, nearly 880 000 Mexicans were removed to the border, a higher figure than thatof 1996. It would seem, however, that because of the unpromising prospects for economic growth over the shortterm, illegal migration to the United States will continue, especially if demand for unskilled labour persists inagriculture. Mexico would like to see increased dialogue and co-operation between the two countries on migra-tion questions. It would also like these contacts to be extended to cover other issues such as development, eco-nomic integration, social and cultural ties in border areas and the functioning of binational labour markets.

Introduction

In 1998 GDP grew by a further 3.7%. This was the third consecutive year in which growth was above theannual average for the previous ten years (2.8%). The labour market situation improved and the unemploymentrate declined. The fall in the number of job seekers in 1998 was the steepest recorded since 1970.


At the start of the 1990s the annual inflow of migrants (foreigners and Dutch nationals) was of the order of120 000. This number fell in 1994 and 1995, rising again to nearly 110 000 in 1997. In the first six months of 1998immigration was up slightly from the same period a year earlier. In 1997, arrivals of Dutch nationals (mostly from

NETHERLANDS

OECD 1999

Netherlands

179

the Dutch West Indies) increased, while those of foreigners decreased. Entries of foreigners from the EuropeanUnion, Turkey and Morocco rose again slightly. For non-EU nationals the main pathway to permanent settlementin the Netherlands is family reunion.

Between 1990 and 1996 emigration flows (foreigners and Dutch nationals) rose steadily, before declining in1997. Outflows of Dutch nationals increased until 1997, while those of foreigners have remained fairly stablethroughout the 1990s (see Chart II.11).

The continuing buoyancy of the Dutch economy largely explains the decrease in outflows and the increase ininflows of Dutch nationals. The positive net migration balance for foreigners (+55 000) breaks down between thetraditional inflows of migrants from the European Union, Turkey, Morocco and Surinam, and inflows of an increas-ingly diverse range of other nationals and refugees. Arrivals from Central and Eastern European countries

90

75

60

45

30

15

0

90

75

60

45

30

15

0

1980

90

60

30

0

-30

-60

-90

83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97

83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97

97969594939291908988871986

1980

1. Data are taken from population registers, which include asylum seekersliving in private households.

2. The data include net administrative corrections.3. A request heard is a request on which a decision is made in the given

year without regard to the year in which the request was filed. Requestsgranted refer to applications for asylum in the given or in the previousyear. They include persons who are granted refugee status and personswho receive a temporary residence permit on humanitarian grounds.

4. Figures have not been adjusted to include net administrative corrections.Sources: Central Bureau of Statistics; Ministry of Justice.

Chart II.11. Migration flows and components of foreign population change,1980-1997, Netherlands

Thousands

A. Migration flows1

Nationals and foreigners

Total net migration

Immigration of nationals

Immigration of foreigners

Net migration, adjusted figures2

Emigration of nationals

Emigration of foreigners

B. Flows of asylum seekersRequests and grants3

Total grants of asylum

New requests for asylum Total requestsfor asylum heard

C. Components of foreignpopulation change

Statistical adjustment

Net migration4

Total change

Naturalisation

Natural increase

90

75

60

45

30

15

0

90

75

60

45

30

15

0

1980

90

60

30

0

-30

-60

-90

83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97

83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97

97969594939291908988871986

1980






Thousands

A. Migration flows1


Total net migration











Net migration4

Total change

Naturalisation

Natural increase

90

75

60

45

30

15

0

90

75

60

45

30

15

0

1980

90

60

30

0

-30

-60

-90

83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97

83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97

97969594939291908988871986

1980






Thousands

A. Migration flows1


Total net migration











Net migration4

Total change

Naturalisation

Natural increase

OECD 1999


180

remained stable in 1996 and 1997, with the exception of nationals of the former Yugoslavia whose number fell byhalf. Outward migration to those countries is still low.

Net migration is assessed from population register data, which records changes of residence reported bythe persons concerned. Using additional information, the Central Statistical Office then adjusts the migrationdata. In 1997 a downward adjustment of 17 000 was made, reflecting the fact that departures are less known andtherefore recorded than arrivals. To date these corrections have been roughly of the same magnitude each year,thus having no effect on the net migration trend (see Chart II.11).

Table II.28. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of total population and labour force in the NetherlandsFigures in thousands unless otherwise indicated

1994 1995 1996 1997 1994 1995 1996 1997

Migration flows1 Labour forceTotal population Total foreign employment4 216 221 218 208

Inflows 99.3 96.1 108.7 109.9 % of total foreign population 28.5 30.5 32.1 30.7Outflows 62.2 63.3 65.3 62.2Net migration 37.2 32.8 43.4 47.6 Dutch nationals born in the NetherlandsNet administrative corrections2 –17.0 –18.0 –22.0 –17.0 Working age population 9 340 9 391 9 406 9 433Adjusted total net migration figures 20.0 15.0 21.0 31.0 Labour force 5 859 5 986 6 061 6 192

Dutch nationals Employment 5 435 5 574 5 678 5 857Inflows 30.9 29.1 31.6 33.1 Unemployment 423 412 383 335Outflows 39.4 41.6 42.9 40.3Net migration –8.5 –12.5 –11.3 –7.2 Dutch nationals born abroad and foreigners

Foreigners Working age population 1 133 1 107 1 124 1 130Inflows 68.4 67.0 77.2 76.7 Labour force 608 610 620 646Outflows 22.7 21.7 22.4 21.9 Employment 484 489 509 543Net migration 45.7 45.3 54.8 54.8 Unemployment 123 122 111 103of which:

European Union 5.8 6.0 8.6 10.3 Participation rates (%)5

Former Yugoslavia 8.1 7.1 3.0 1.2 Dutch nationals born in the Netherlands 63 64 64 66Turkey 2.7 3.5 4.9 5.4 Dutch nationals born abroad and foreigners 54 55 55 57Morocco 2.0 1.9 3.2 3.7 of which:Surinam 2.4 1.4 2.4 2.3 Turkey 42 44 44 45

Morocco 40 42 42 44Stock of population3 Other Mediterranean countries 56 59 54 56

Total population 15 421.5 15 493.9 15 567.1 15 654.2 Other European countries 61 62 64 65Total foreign population 757.1 725.4 679.9 678.1 Surinam 60 63 63 65of which: Netherlands Antilles 56 58 63 57

Morocco 158.7 149.8 138.7 135.7 Indonesia 57 58 54 60Turkey 182.1 154.3 127.0 114.7 Other 53 51 53 56Germany 53.4 53.9 53.5 53.9United Kingdom 43.0 41.1 39.3 39.2 Unemployment rates (%)6

Former Yugoslavia 29.9 33.5 32.8 28.4 Dutch nationals born in the Netherlands 6.4 5.8 5.4 4.0Dutch nationals born abroad and foreigners 19 19 19 16

Naturalisations of which:Total 49.5 71.4 82.7 59.8 Turkey 36 41 36 31of which: Morocco 31 27 25 24

Turkey 23.9 33.1 30.7 21.2 Other Mediterranean countries 18 19 21 20Morocco 8.1 13.5 15.6 10.5 Other European countries 9 8 7 7Surinam 5.4 4.0 4.4 3.0 Surinam 18 15 16 13Former Yugoslavia 1.7 1.4 1.8 2.9 Netherlands Antilles 30 28 28 24European Union 1.5 2.4 3.5 2.9 Indonesia 7 8 9 7

Naturalisation rate (%) 6.3 9.4 11.4 8.8 Other 21 28 25 22

Refugees and asylum seekersNew requests for asylum 52.6 29.3 22.9 34.4Total requests for asylum heard 51.5 50.8 75.3 . .Total grants of asylum 19.3 18.5 23.6 17.0

Expulsions 31.2 40.0 51.5 62.0of which: asylum seekers 13.3 14.5 16.5 18.9

1. Data are taken from population registers, which include some asylum seekers.2. The administrative corrections account for unreported entries and departures on the population register.3. Data are from population registers and refer to the population on 31 December of the years indicated. Figures include administrative corrections.4. Estimates are for 31 March and include cross-border workers, but exclude the self-employed and family workers.5. The percentage of those in the labour force out of the total working population based on Labour Force Survey data.6. Unemployment rates based on registered unemployment figures.Sources: Central Bureau of Statistics; Ministry of Justice; Labour force Survey.

OECD 1999

Netherlands

181


The number of asylum seekers rose by nearly 50% between 1996 and 1997, with about 35 000 applicationsfiled in the latter year (see Chart II.11 and Table II.28). The increase continued in 1998, the provisional estimateof applications being in the vicinity of 45 000. In 1997, the rise in the number of asylum seekers was almostentirely due to applications from nationals of Iraq, Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia. The Note on ReturnPolicy published by the Ministry of Justice (3 June 1997) was doubtless influential here, since it stated that asy-lum seekers from Afghanistan, Bosnia, Burundi, Iraq, Liberia, Rwanda, Sudan, Somalia and Zaire would not besent back. Asylum seekers from those countries receive a conditional stay permit.

Refugee status was granted to just under 17 000 persons in 1997, which was a good deal less than the num-ber of grants in each of the previous four years.

The foreign population and naturalisation

At 1 January 1998 the total population of theNetherlands was 15.7 million. Of these 1.3 million wereborn abroad, of whom 58% were Dutch nationals. Thetop five countries of origin for the foreign-born are, indescending order, Surinam, Indonesia, Turkey, Moroccoand Germany (see Table II.29).

The foreign population of the Netherlandsdeclined significantly between 1 January 1994 and1 January 1998, from nearly 780 000 to 678 000 (seeChart II.11). This was attributable to the large number ofnaturalisations, which more than offset the positive netmigration balance and the natural increase in the for-eign population. The naturalisation rate – i.e. the num-ber of naturalisations expressed as a percentage of thetotal foreign population at the beginning of the year –was approximately 9% in 1997 (see Table II.28), whichwas considerably higher than in other European coun-tries.

The increase in the number of naturalisationsduring the 1990s has been mainly due to the recogni-tion of dual nationality since 1991. However, since1 October 1997 retention of original nationality hasbeen allowed only to individuals whose countries oforigin do not authorise them to relinquish their nationality or who have difficulty in doing so.

For the period 1995-97 the Central Statistical Office (CBS) has calculated that nearly 80% of those whoobtained Dutch citizenship also kept their original nationality. Thus, of a total of 85 000 Turks and40 000 Moroccans who became Dutch citizens, only 20 Turks and 8 Moroccans gave up their original nationality.By contrast, most Chinese, Ethiopians and Somalis have relinquished their original nationality. One of the prob-able reasons for their doing so is that if they did not, the Netherlands would be unable to provide them withdiplomatic assistance if they returned to their countries of origin.


Unemployment among the foreign population declined by 25% between 1997 and 1998, a steeper fall thanin any other EU country. Even so, unemployment of foreign labour is still high, particularly among Turks andMoroccans. Although 70 000 foreigners were employed in 1998, the unemployment rate for foreign nationals(20%) was four times higher than that of Dutch nationals (see Table II.28).

When evaluating relative labour market performance between migrants and non-migrants, the Dutchauthorities divide individuals into two broad categories: those of “Dutch origin”, namely Dutch nationals born

Table II.29. Foreign-born population by birthplace,1 January 1998, Netherlands


of which: Dutch nationals

TotalBirthplace % of total

foreign-bornThousands foreign-born

population

Europe 528 239 45Turkey 172 88 51Western Germany 109 62 56

Asia 290 203 70Indonesia 144 137 95

Americas 286 250 87Surinam 181 169 94

Africa 236 94 40Morocco 146 52 36

Oceania 5 3 53

Total 1 346 789 59

Source: Central Bureau of Statistics.

OECD 1999


182

in the Netherlands, and those of “non-Dutch” origin, who are persons born abroad and foreign nationals bornin the Netherlands. On this basis, the 1995 labour force survey shows that of the total working-age population,just under 10% are of non-Dutch origin. The participation rate for those of non-Dutch origin is 55% compared with64% for those of Dutch origin. There are wide variations according to nationality and gender: 70% for Indonesianmen to 25% for Moroccan or Turkish women.

The unemployment rate for those of Dutch origin fell from 6.3% in 1996 to 5.4% in 1997; that for those of non-Dutch origin fell from 18 to 16%. Only those of European or Indonesian origin have the same unemploymentrates as those of Dutch origin (see Table II.28).

Policy developments

The principal policy developments over the past few years include: recognition of dual nationality (1991),revision of the Aliens Act (1992), new rules for family reunion (1993) and a new Act regulating the employmentof foreigners (1995). More recently, the main initiatives relate to concerns about inflows of asylum seekers, mea-sures to encourage the voluntary return of immigrants and measures to assist young persons arriving from theDutch West Indies.

Measures to control inflows of asylum seekers

The growing number of asylum seekers – and more especially the ever-increasing inflows from Iraq andAfghanistan – is a continuing source of concern. In November 1997 the Ministry of Justice announced a numberof measures including:

– Closer co-operation with other EU Member States (especially Germany).

– The appointment of special staff in embassies receiving large numbers of queries and requests for asy-lum.

– The setting up of a special task force to deal with illegal trafficking, particularly from Iraq and Afghanistan.

– Increased use of fingerprinting as a means of checking identity.

– Proposals for a change in the Aliens Act which will make it possible to declare an asylum claim unfoundedif it is proved that the applicant was responsible for the destruction of proper documents.

– Intensification of behind-border controls, especially with regard to air travel (e.g. extension of pre-boardingchecks on certain flights).

The present Aliens Act will be revised in 1999, notably the section dealing with asylum seekers and espe-cially those with no identification papers. Since 1 February 1999 asylum seekers who have deliberatelydestroyed their papers may be turned back within 24 hours.

The number of mandatory departures from the Netherlands continues to rise, with 62 000 persons affectedin 1997. However, this figure includes both deportations and government-assisted voluntary departures(23% deportations, 40% voluntary departures). The remainder consists of individuals who “vanish” after beingordered to leave the country. Such persons, who numbered 22 600 in 1997, account for 60% of asylum seekers.

Measures to encourage voluntary return

The Ministry of Development Co-operation has recently set up pilot projects designed to encourage thevoluntary return of immigrants to their native lands. Both legal immigrants and rejected asylum seekers are tar-geted. Measures include:

– General assistance for the country of origin concerned.

– Specific programmes, for example in neighbouring countries, to finance the return and reception of refu-gees to their region of origin and their reception there.

– Specific programmes to provide financial support for the reception, accommodation, training,employment etc. of those who return to their country of origin. The support will not be given on an indi-vidual basis but has to be of benefit both to the returnees and to the community as a whole.

OECD 1999

Norway

183

To date, agreements have been concluded with Ethiopia, Eritrea and Angola. However, as ofNovember 1997 none had been fully implemented and they have been received with mixed feelings by DutchNGOs and refugees’ and asylum seekers’ organisations.

There are also two pilot projects supporting voluntary return to Surinam. These are slightly different fromthe projects based in Africa. They involve payment of transport and relocation costs for the return of highlyskilled Surinamese who transfer from posts in the Netherlands, and subsidised employment for highly skilledSurinamese who find government posts in Surinam.

In addition, a new Act on return migration has been under discussion since April 1998. This legislation pro-vides for a special health insurance scheme and payment of individual allowances to family members, as wellas a system of visas for family members wishing to visit the Netherlands. These measures are intended for per-sons over 50 years of age; the age limit may be lowered to 45 in the future. EU migrants, aged over 50 especially,from Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece who came to the Netherlands in search of employment are also targeted.

In November 1998 the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Justice proposed a number of measuresin a Note on the migration of young West Indians. Some of the measures aim to discourage the migration ofunderprivileged young West Indians to the Netherlands, others are concerned with assisting the integration ofyoung West Indians entering the Netherlands.

Introduction

The Norwegian economy has grown steadily over the past six years. In 1997, strong growth was maintained,with GDP increasing by 3.7%. Growth continued in 1998, although at a slightly slower pace. Economic expansionhas stimulated employment growth: over the twelve months from February 1997 unemployment fell by almosta point, bringing the rate down to 2.8%.

Migration and the foreign population

Immigration of foreigners increased in 1997, primarily due to entries of Swedish nationals. The number ofdepartures of foreigners in 1997 was nearly the same as in 1996 at approximately 10 000 (see Table II.30). In 1997net immigration of foreigners increased to just under 12 000, but again there was net emigration of Norwegiannationals, in that year approximately 1 300.

At 1 January 1998, the total number of foreigners residing in Norway stood at some 158 000, ie. 3.6% of thetotal population (see Table II.30). Approximately two-thirds of the foreign population were European nationals,followed by Asian nationals (just under 20%), whose numbers have been falling steadily since 1994. This ismainly due to the large number of naturalisations (some 6 600), although there was a net migration gain of3 100 Asian nationals in 1997.

As a rule, foreigners may acquire Norwegian nationality after they have legally resided in the country forseven years. Naturalisation may be denied to individuals with a criminal record. There are no language require-ments or financial prerequisites. During the 1980s the annual number of naturalisations ranged from 1 800 to4 600. They averaged approximately 5 000 at the beginning of the 1990s, but have risen sharply since then, withslightly more than 12 000 persons acquiring Norwegian nationality in 1997. Of these, 13% were of Pakistani originand 11% of Vietnamese origin. Among the main groups of immigrants that have been in Norway for more thanseven years, Danes, Swedes and United States nationals rarely acquire Norwegian nationality (fewer than 2%),unlike Pakistanis, Turks and Sri Lankans.

NORWAY

OECD 1999


184


In 1997, the total number of asylum seekers stood at approximately 2 300, which is a relatively low figurecompared with the levels reached in the early 1990s. Large numbers of asylum seekers started to arrive inNorway in 1985. The inflow reached its peak in 1987 at 8 600, to then broadly stabilise from 1989 to 1991 withinthe range of 4 000 to 5 000. However, in 1993 a large inflow, mostly from the former Yugoslavia, drove the totalnumber to almost 13 000. After the introduction of a visa regime for Bosnians in October 1993, which followedone for Serbs put into place in 1992, flows of asylum seekers from the former Yugoslavia fell dramatically.

Estimates for 1998 indicate a substantial increase in asylum seekers, due to large-scale arrivals of Serbsfleeing Croatia (the region of Eastern Slavonia). Albanians from Kosovo, Iraqis and Somalians comprise theother major groups of asylum seekers.

Norway receives a fixed number of refugees in co-operation with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees undera resettlement quota. Between 1992 and July 1996, Norway received approximately 6 000 resettled refugees underthis quota, more than half from the former Yugoslavia. For the three-year period 1995-97, Norway planned to accept3 500 refugees for permanent settlement and for temporary protection.

Persons granted collective protection are entitled to temporary work permits or residence permits, whichare granted on a collective basis. They are also entitled to family reunion irrespective of their ability to provideeconomic support. However, those granted residence permits on humanitarian grounds must prove that theyhave sufficient financial means. This requirement is removed upon obtention of a permanent residence permit(after three years’ stay in Norway).

Table II.30. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population in NorwayFigures in thousands unless otherwise indicated

1994 1995 1996 1997 1994 1995 1996 1997

Total population1 4 348.4 4 370.0 4 392.7 4 417.6 Asylum seekers by nationality 3.4 1.5 1.8 2.3% of foreigners 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.6 Somalia 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.6

Sri Lanka 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2Migratory flows of foreigners by nationality Iran 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

Inflows 17.9 16.5 17.2 22.0 Poland 0.1 0.1 0.2 –Nordic countries 4.9 4.8 5.8 8.6of which: Foreign population by region 164.0 160.8 157.5 158.0

Sweden 1.9 2.1 2.9 4.9 Europe 90.7 93.2 95.9 100.9Denmark 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.8 Asia 43.1 39.5 34.9 31.5

Other countries 12.9 11.7 11.4 13.4 Africa 11.6 10.7 10.0 9.7of which: North America 10.9 10.7 10.6 10.4

Former Yugoslavia 4.0 2.3 1.2 0.8 South America 6.0 5.1 4.6 4.2United Kingdom 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 Others 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.2

Outflows 9.6 9.0 10.0 10.0 Acquisition of nationality,Nordic countries 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.9 by previous nationality 8.8 11.8 12.2 12.0of which: Pakistan 0.6 1.0 1.5 1.6

Sweden 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.7 Turkey 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8Denmark 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.4 Former Yugoslavia 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.5

Other countries 6.5 5.6 6.7 6.2 Philippines 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4of which: Chile 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.4

Former Yugoslavia 0.8 0.5 1.0 0.7United Kingdom 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 Mixed marriages . . 2.9 3.2 3.0

% of total marriages . . 13.6 13.8 12.4Net migration 8.3 7.5 7.2 12.0

Nordic countries 1.9 1.4 2.5 4.7of which:

Sweden 1.0 1.0 1.8 3.3Denmark 0.3 –0.1 0.2 0.4

Other countries 6.4 6.1 4.7 7.3of which:

Former Yugoslavia 3.2 1.8 0.2 0.1United Kingdom –0.1 – –0.1 0.1

1. Data on 31 December of the years indicated, taken from population registers.Sources: Statistics Norway; Directorate of Immigration.

OECD 1999

Norway

185

Thus far, collective protection has been granted to nationals of Bosnia-Herzegovina: from 1992 to 1997 some13 000 Bosnian refugees benefited from this protection. This measure is still in force, which means that anyBosnians requiring protection from Norway will not have their applications examined individually, but will beextended protection on a collective basis. In November 1996, the government decided that Bosnians who hadbeen granted collective protection would not be required to return to their country of origin, but could obtaina permanent residence or work permit after four years of residence in Norway, irrespective of the situation inBosnia-Herzegovina. The government decided to adopt this position because the peace process was takingmuch longer than had been anticipated.

A comparative study carried out for the period 1995-98 assessed the local and national impact of the differ-ent policies for receiving Bosnian refugees who arrived in Nordic countries from 1992 to 1995. It also investi-gated the circumstances that led refugees to return voluntarily to their country of origin. The study examinedthe different models adopted for the reception of these refugees in Nordic countries. In Sweden and Finland,Bosnians were treated no differently from other refugees. In Denmark, the authorities thought that the situationof Bosnians was temporary and therefore postponed the normal procedure for processing asylum applicationsfor as long as two years, during which time Bosnians were placed in “refugee villages”. The collective protectionmodel adopted in Norway represents a midway solution.


Economic expansion has led to a sharp increase in employment. In 1996 employment rose by 2.5% and in1997 by 0.8%. Unemployment declined between February 1997 and February 1998, dropping from 3.7 to 2.8%.Although unemployment fell for the population as a whole, it remained higher for foreigners than for Norwegiannationals.

Thus far the domestic market has largely been able to meet labour demand, but as shortages have begunto appear it has been necessary to call on foreign workers. The positive net migration balance (nationals andforeigners) in the first half of 1998 (6 750) was double that of the first half of 1997. Immigration from Nordic coun-tries, and primarily from Sweden, was largely responsible for this increase.

By 1996, the Norwegian authorities recognised that the needs of the economy could only be met by recruit-ing foreign workers, especially in the construction and health care sectors. Since at the same time there was highunemployment in both these sectors in Sweden, measures were implemented to promote recruitment of con-struction and health workers in that country. The Directorate of Labour estimates that approximately1 000 nurses and 7 000 construction workers have been recruited from Sweden in recent years, sometimes on atemporary basis. There have also been efforts to recruit workers from Finland, as well as from other countries ofthe European Economic Area. The Directorate of Labour believed that it might be necessary to recruit as manyas 10 000 in 1998.

Those who come to Norway to work, except for nationals of the European Economic Area (EEA), must firstobtain a work permit the issuance of which is conditional on either an offer of employment evidenced by anattestation from an employer or a standard service contract. According to regulations under the Immigration Act,the applicant must be either a highly skilled worker or have a special skill not available in Norway. Nationalsfrom Nordic countries may work in Norway without a special permit, and nationals from other EEA countries areonly required to have a residence permit for a stay of longer than three months. Consequently, the figures forforeign workers, which are based on the number of work permits issued, underestimate the real size of the totalstock of foreign workers.

Temporary work permits are issued every summer for a stay of no longer than three months to work in aseasonal job in agriculture. These permits are only valid from 15 May to 31 October. Permits are issued underan annual quota system, using a simple and rapid procedure. The quota is set annually by the Directorate ofImmigration in consultation with the Directorate of Labour. For 1997, the ceiling was set at 6 800, which was 20%higher than in 1996; slightly fewer than 6 100 permits were actually issued. For 1998, the quota of seasonal work-ers was raised to 8 000. More than 90% of these seasonal workers are from Central and Eastern Europe, primarilyfrom Poland. Norway has not signed any bilateral agreements for short-term labour migration.

OECD 1999


186

Unemployment among foreigners fell again, dropping to 7.1% in May 1998 from 11.5% in May 1996, but it is stillmuch higher than the rate for Norwegian nationals, which stood at 2.2% in May 1998. All foreign groups benefitedfrom this drop in unemployment, regardless of their continent of origin. However, foreigners from Central andEastern Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America are hardest hit by unemployment, while nationals of Nordic coun-tries, Western Europe and North America have unemployment rates similar to those of Norwegians. The highunemployment rate of nationals of Central and Eastern European countries is explained in part by the size of theinflow of refugees from the former Yugoslavia in recent years. In addition, recognition of qualifications and diplo-mas from other countries is often difficult in Norway, and many foreigners hold jobs below what their educationallevel and qualifications would warrant.

Since the beginning of the 1990s, various initiatives have been taken to promote the employment of immi-grants and reduce the disparity between their qualifications and their work. Vocational and language trainingprogrammes have been organised for this purpose. As they have proven to be effective in reducing unemploy-ment, it was possible to cut back the number of these programmes in 1997. In addition, the Ministry of LocalGovernment and Regional Development has carried out a three-year study monitoring the situation of immi-grants in the labour market and the obstacles they face. An amendment to the Labour Standards Act prohibitingall racial discrimination in the labour market was adopted in April 1998.

Illegal immigration

Several amendments to the Immigration Act aimed at combating illegal immigration came into force on10 January 1997. The prison sentence for organising the illegal entry of foreigners into Norway for financial gainwas raised from a maximum of two to five years. Other measures targeted those who allow the fraudulent use oftheir passport or any other travel document to enable others to enter the country under a false identity, anoffence punishable by a maximum of two years’ imprisonment.

A central illegal immigration intelligence unit was established in the national Bureau of Crime Investigationand became operational in 1994. The unit is responsible for collecting, processing and recording information onillegal immigration provided by other authorities. In 1996, approximately 2 000 people were required to leavethe country, some 200 more than in 1995.

Although not considered to be illegal migrants or counted as such, two-thirds of the asylum seekers whoarrived in Norway in 1996 had incomplete or forged travel documents.

Policy developments

Following adoption by Parliament, a new policy on refugees was recently implemented. Under the new pol-icy, the instrument of “collective protection” will be used in the case of large-scale refugee flows and will offertemporary protection after consultation with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the affected country.In principle, those granted collective protection will be accorded the same rights as those granted refugee sta-tus, including family reunion, the right to work and the right to receive education and social security payments.As persons granted collective protection in Norway are expected to return to their country of origin when con-ditions allow, the repatriation programme has recently been reinforced. Priority will be given to projects aimingto maintain or develop the vocational and language skills of the refugees, and to the implementation of specialmeasures for children, youths and women.

The Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, in co-operation with a number of other min-istries, revised the action plan against racism and ethnic discrimination in June 1998. One of the objectives ofthis plan is to step up the legal assistance provided to persons who are victims of discrimination and raiseawareness of racial discrimination. The plan includes measures to prevent discrimination in the labour andhousing markets. It also contains measures to foster better understanding between people of different culturesby improving the training of public service employees who deal with a multicultural population. With the sameobjective in mind, the Government favours the active recruitment of qualified persons with an immigrant back-ground to posts at all levels of the public sector. Other measures targeting elementary and secondary schoolsare aimed at promoting multicultural tolerance. The various measures of this plan are being implemented by anumber of ministries.

OECD 1999

Poland

187

In 1996, the Norwegian Statistical Office conducted a study on the living conditions of individuals from theeight main immigration countries, who had resided in Norway for at least two years. The individuals surveyedwere from the former Yugoslavia (not including Bosnia), Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Somalia andChile. This survey concerned housing, family, employment, economic situation, working conditions, education,mastery of Norwegian, health care, forms of violence and discrimination experienced, social relations and lei-sure activities. Following the survey, the government announced that priority would be given to making neigh-bourhoods where immigrants live safer and to promoting greater diversity among the population there.

The Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, in co-operation with the NorwegianResearch Council, initiated a research programme on international migration and ethnic relations for 1997-2001.The objective of this programme is to measure the impact of immigration on urban centres and examine theissues at stake. In 2000 the following issues are to be addressed: international migration and the developmentof large cities; economic segregation due to ethnic background and the development of isolated communities;general communication and various levels of interaction between minorities and the majority population; and,the development of theories and methods, in particular multidisciplinary approaches, longitudinal studies andlife path analyses.

Introduction

In 1997 and 1998, GDP growth remained strong though its pace slackened a little (6.5% in 1997, and 5.9-6.2%forecast for 1998). The unemployment rate meanwhile fell for the sixth year running and has remained below10% since July 1998. Inflation continues to abate; it currently stands at 9.5%.

The 1997 parliamentary elections altered the momentum of migration policy development. In particular,the action of the Inter-Ministerial Team for Migration Affairs was to some extent put on hold. 1998 was notablefor the introduction of the new Aliens Act, which clarifies the migration policy role of the different organs of gov-ernment.

Emigration

Permanent emigration

Emigration (settling abroad for one year or more) is in principle subject to registration, although in practicemany emigrants do not notify their departure. Permanent emigration levels fluctuate considerably – a steepdrop may be followed by an equally sharp rise. Since 1990, however, the variations have been smaller than dur-ing the two previous decades. Indeed, since 1996, emigration flows appear to have stabilised, putting a halt toa brief rising trend. The 1997 figure, 20 000, is roughly the same as the quite low average recorded over theperiod 1990-92.

Germany is still the main receiving country (over 70% in 1997). Emigration, as recorded by Polish statistics,mostly involves people who have received no more than a basic education. From 1996 to 1997, however, thisclass of emigrant, like that of emigrants with a post-secondary education, was down in absolute terms, whereasemigration of the two classes in between these extremes rose.

Immigration


Permanent immigration flows (including returning Poles), after fluctuating between one and two thousandfrom the late 1960s to the late 1980s, steadily increased, reaching 8 400 in 1997 (see Chart II.12). Available data

POLAND

OECD 1999


188

make no distinction between foreigners and returning Poles. Until 1992, inflows were made up largely of Poleswho had emigrated between the mid-1970s and the late 1980s. For some years now, there have been signs thatimmigration comprises a fairly large proportion of foreigners coming to settle in Poland. The permanent immi-gration recorded since 1993, for example, is characterised by roughly equal numbers of men and women,whereas the migrants leaving Poland in the 1970s and 1980s were mostly men. Poland now records a positivemigration balance with a number of countries that are not among its traditional origin countries. The new send-ing countries include Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Russia, Vietnam and Belarus.

Going by estimates dating from 1993 of the numberof new permanent residence permits issued andthe number of naturalisations, a probable 40 000-45 000 foreigners were living legally in Poland at theend of 1997 (excluding asylum seekers, students andwork permit holders). The nationalities most repre-sented among new permanent residence permitholders are Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Vietnamese, Rus-sians and Belarusians (see Table II.31). The moststriking rise in immigration concerned Ukrainians,Russians and Kazakhs. The increase noted withregard to certain Republics of the former USSR(Kazakhstan in particular) may be explained by thefact that persons of Polish extraction had beenobliged to obtain a residency permit before apply-ing for Polish nationality. This obligation wasrescinded as from 1 January 1998, with the result thatthese people can now obtain Polish nationality uponentry. It is expected that these legislative changeswill result in a steep decline in the number of perma-nent residency permits issued in 1998. The declinewas already apparent in the figures for the first half of1998.

Temporary immigration

In 1997, Poland hosted 5 400 foreign students. Inaddition, nearly 17 500 non-permanent foreign resi-

dents were granted work permits. There are no estimates available of how many foreigners stay in Poland formore than a year on a temporary residence permit issued for reasons other than education or work.

Labour migration

Polish workers abroad

The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy estimates that about 230 000 Poles found employment abroad in1997 as a result of inter-governmental agreements. Nearly 200 000 of them performed seasonal work inGermany. The programme was set up in 1989 to promote inter-governmental co-operation with the main Centraland Eastern European countries. The stock of workers recruited by Germany, Poles for the most part, has con-tinued to expand since 1995. It may be deduced that they satisfy a structural demand. Other countries, such asthe Czech Republic, are taking in growing numbers of Polish contract workers, although their numbers are muchlower than those mentioned above. The key factor in the recruitment of these workers is the proximity of theGerman and Czech borders. It is to be noted that the Polish workers hired in Germany do not usually come fromthe poorest parts of Poland, nor from those most affected by unemployment (the centre and the East). This issomewhat in contradiction with the intention expressed by the two countries when they signed the agreement:to further economic development and thereby attenuate regional inequalities.

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1960 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

Inflows of permanent residents

Chart II.12. Permanent migratory flows in Poland,11960-1997Thousands

1. Persons who entered Poland (including returning Polish emigrants) andregistered in the Central Population Register (PESEL) after obtaininga permanent residence permit. Not all children accompanying immigrantsare registered. Outflows only cover departures of permanent residentsregistered in the Central Population Register.

Source: Central Statistical Office.

Outflows of permanent residents40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1960 65 70 75 80 85 90 95





Outflows of permanent residents40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1960 65 70 75 80 85 90 95





Outflows of permanent residents

OECD 1999

Poland

189

Foreign workers in Poland

Given the extent of “secondary” employment among the whole population, it is not easy to form an accurateidea of the volume and nature of foreign employment in Poland. Prudence is therefore needed in interpretingthe only available statistics, those on work permits, since employers and workers, in order to avoid expensiveand complicated formalities, often do not apply for them.

The substantial increase in work permits issued in 1997 (17 500 as against 12 500 the previous year) may beexplained partly by the abolition of the easily obtained business visas which, in certain cases, could replacework permits. Work permit holders hail from many countries. They are, for the most part, employed in skilledjobs. Almost 40% of new permit holders work in trade and catering (the increase being due to the abolition ofbusiness visas), one-fifth work in industry and transportation and one-tenth in education. Nearly 15% of all per-mits were issued to Ukrainians, 12% to Vietnamese, and 6 to 8% each to Belarusian, United Kingdom, Russianand German nationals. More than half live in and around Warsaw. Certain nationalities are more strongly repre-sented in particular sectors – the Chinese and Vietnamese in trade, the British, Ukrainians and Germans in edu-cation. The spread of nationalities in industry and transportation, on the other hand, is fairly even.

Documented foreign labour still tends to be strongly polarised according to occupational category. Thegreat majority of work permit holders are highly qualified white-collar workers (managers, experts, consultants,teachers, etc.). The proportion of unskilled workers has declined and now accounts for only 5% of the total.

Undocumented workers

The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy surmises that each year anywhere between 100 000 and150 000 foreigners take up work illegally in Poland. For many of them (most Africans and Asians, for example,

Table II.31. Permanent immigration and emigration, 1994-1997, PolandThousands

1994 1995 1996 1997 1994 1995 1996 1997

Permanent immigration by region Permanent emigration by regionor country of origin1 or country of destination3

Europe 4.5 4.9 5.2 5.3 Europe 21.2 21.0 17.0 16.3Germany 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.1 Germany 18.9 18.2 14.8 14.2Ukraine . . . . 0.5 0.8 Other Europe 2.3 2.8 2.2 2.1Other Europe 2.6 2.9 2.5 2.5 Americas 4.2 4.9 3.9 3.6

Americas 1.6 2.4 1.9 1.7 United States 2.8 3.2 2.5 2.2United States 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.2 Canada 1.5 1.7 1.3 1.3Canada 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.4 Other regions 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3Other America 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total 25.9 26.3 21.3 20.2

Other regions 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 of which: Women 10.7 13.0 10.4 10.0Total 6.9 8.1 8.2 8.4of which: Women 3.3 3.8 4.0 4.1

Permanent residence permits issuedby nationality2

Ukraine 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.0Kazakhstan 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.6Vietnam 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3Russian Federation 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3Belarus 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3Other countries 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.6Total 2.5 3.1 2.8 4.1

1. Persons who entered Poland (including returning Polish emigrants) and registered in the Central Population Register (PESEL) after obtaining apermanent residence permit. Counts in the table may be underestimated since not all children accompanying immigrants are registered.

2. Data on permanent residence permits issued are not linked with data from the Central Population Register and therefore are not comparable.3. Only departures of permanent residents registered in the Central Population Register are included.Sources: Central Statistical Office; Office for Migration and Refugee Affairs.

OECD 1999


190

some of whom are regularly returned to Poland after being intercepted at the German border), it is a matter offinding illegal work until they can resume their journey towards the West. For others, Poland is a destination forengaging in often well-organised smuggling activities. An investigation conducted in both Ukraine and Polandfound that the Ukrainians’ main activity was buying goods for resale in Ukraine but that meanwhile they oftendid all sorts of odd jobs in the black economy.


Since 1994, inflows of asylum seekers and refugees have increased. In 1997, over 3 500 people – nearly fourtimes more than in 1995 – applied for refugee status. Sri Lankans were the most numerous, followed by Afghans,Armenians and Pakistanis, in that order.

This recent trend (although preliminary figures for 1998 suggest a decline) is closely linked to the trend inillegal immigration. Practically all recent applicants have applied for asylum in one of the three following situa-tions – after being intercepted by the Border Guard while attempting to cross the border illegally; after beingdetained by the police for not having valid papers; after being expelled from Germany by virtue of a readmis-sion agreement. It should be noted that many applicants “vanish” as soon as they are released from custody.

Illegal migration and transit migration

Illegal immigration

Three statistical sources give an idea of the incidence and national composition of illegal immigration – Bor-der Guard figures on the numbers caught while trying to cross the border, the number of foreigners expelled bydecision of the Polish district authorities, and data on foreigners accepted or expelled pursuant to readmissionagreements.

In 1997, the number of people intercepted while attempting to cross into Poland fell for the second yearrunning. Of the 10 500 persons caught by the Border Guard in 1997, 40% were Asians, 23% Romanians or fromanother Balkan country, and 20% from a former Soviet Republic.

In 1997, 4 800 foreigners were returned to Poland under readmission agreements. Readmission decisionsaffected 1 400 foreigners in the first half of 1998. In 1997, district authorities decreed 5 200 expulsions; the cor-responding figure for the first half of 1998 was 2 100 (most being Ukrainians, Romanians and Bulgarians).

Transit migration

Poland has become one of the main transit countries for migrants heading towards Western Europe. Twomajor international routes seem to pass through Poland. One begins from the Indian sub-continent (Afghanistan,Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka), western Asia (Armenia, Iran, Iraq and Turkey) or certain Africancountries (Ethiopia, Liberia, Nigeria, Somalia and Sudan). The second starts from various places in Armenia,Moldava, Macedonia, Romania and Turkey.

Policy developments

The new Aliens Act

The Aliens Act, which had been awaiting a decision since September 1995, was finally passed by Parliamentin June 1997 and took effect at the end of December. The new Act fully replaces the 1963 Aliens Act. The oldregulations, together with all its related decrees, were too broad and sketchy. Their shortcomings includeduncertainty as to which Ministry was responsible for migration policy, lack of clearly-defined principles govern-ing the issue (or withdrawal) of permanent residence permits, improper rules on expulsion, detention andrefusal of entry, and lack of legal justification for establishing registers of aliens.

The new Act sets out clear and consistent criteria for the admission of foreigners (refugees included) andtheir stay in Poland. More particularly, it enables permission to be given to foreigners to stay for a determined

OECD 1999

Portugal

191

period or to settle permanently. It also defines the terms for such residence, its time limits and the rights andobligations of an alien while in Poland (for further details, see Trends in International Migration, OECD, 1998).

Other developments

The action taken by the Prime Minister in September 1997 to constitute an inter-ministerial team forimproving co-ordination on migration affairs in Poland was less than a success. The dispute between the Ministryof the Interior and the Government Centre for Strategic Studies over stronger border controls was one illustra-tion of this. Visa arrangements were reintroduced for countries that had not signed readmission agreementswith Poland. The main countries concerned were Belarusia and Russia. Nationals of certain countries are nowrequired to obtain invitations from permanent residents. The Government Centre for Strategic Studies pointedout that these restrictions risked slowing the non-permanent migration of small traders, who are an importantsource of foreign currency.

Poland did not conclude any new international agreements in 1998. It was possibly more concerned withpreparing its accession to the European Union. With that perspective in view, the political authorities devotedattention to two questions: i) What should be the status of Lithuanians and Ukrainians who, at present, do notrequire a visa for staying in Poland? ii) Should there be a transition period during which Polish workers wouldnot have free access to the labour markets of the other EU countries?

Introduction

At 31 December 1997, Portugal’s total resident population stood at just under 10 million. The Portugueseauthorities estimate the number of Portuguese living abroad at 4.6 million. Portugal is one of the few OECDcountries that has for a long time implemented a policy for facilitating the integration of its citizens abroad.

There was a net migration gain of 15 000 people in 1997, up from 1996 (10 000). The Alentejo was the onlyPortuguese region that experienced both a natural decrease in its population and a net migration loss. On the otherhand, the population of the Algarve rose sharply, mainly because its net migration gain was the highest in Portugal.

Emigration and Portuguese communities abroad

In the second half of the 1970s, the emigration of Portuguese nationals decreased, a trend that became agreat deal more pronounced during the 1980s. In 1980, approximately 18 000 permanent departures (for morethan one year) were recorded, compared with only 9 500 in 1988. Departure statistics after 1988 are not compa-rable, since the type of passport on which the earlier data were based was abolished at that time. The freemovement of Portuguese nationals within the European Union (EU) as of 1992 does not seem to have producedany significant upturn in permanent emigration to Member countries. Since 1993 the National Statistical Insti-tute has been conducting a sample survey to estimate outflows. According to this survey, approximately38 000 Portuguese nationals emigrated in 1997, 15 000 more than in 1996 (see Table II.32).

In 1997, two thirds of Portuguese emigrants went to Germany, France and Switzerland. The major sectorsemploying temporary migrants are agriculture, the hotel industry and construction, all of which experiencestrong seasonal and cyclical fluctuations in their labour demand. On the whole, alongside the increase in tem-porary emigration, there has been a slowdown in permanent emigration over the last decade. The trend forPortuguese migrants to return home, which started in the 1980s, continues. In 1997 there were almost than15 000 returns, 70% of which were from EU countries, mostly Germany and France.

The Portuguese community abroad totalled about 4.6 million, of whom more than a quarter are in Brazil.The data from embassies and consulates show that some 30% of Portuguese residing abroad in 1997 lived in

PORTUGAL

OECD 1999


192

Europe (26% in the EU). After Brazil, the other major countries of residence are France, followed by the UnitedStates, Canada, Switzerland, Germany and Luxembourg. Portuguese constitute one of the largest expatriategroups living inside the EU (some one million). Remittances from Portuguese emigrants remain very high,equivalent in 1996 to nearly 4% of GDP.

Immigration and the resident foreign population

Between 1996 and 1997 the foreign population rose by nearly 1.4% (an increase of 2 400), compared with a0.3% increase in the total population. According to a survey by the National Statistical Institute, nearly

Table II.32. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of total population and labour force in PortugalFigures in thousands unless otherwise indicated

1994 1995 1996 1997

Emigration of nationals1 29.1 22.6 32.8 37.8of which: women 6.9 5.9 8.8 8.8

Returns of nationals (estimates) 20.3 17.4 20.1 14.7

First requests for a permit of permanent residence by region or countryof residence 5.7 5.0 . . 3.3EU 2.3 2.5 . . 1.9of which:

United Kingdom 0.6 0.7 . . 0.3Germany 0.6 0.6 . . 0.4

Brazil . . 0.7 . . 0.3Other 3.4 1.8 . . 1.1

Foreign population2 157.1 168.3 172.9 175.3By region of residence

Region of Lisboa 85.5 92.4 95.3 96.8Region of Setubal 13.8 15.5 16.0 16.2Other regions 57.7 60.3 61.6 62.3

By group of nationalityAfrica 72.6 79.2 81.2 81.7Europe 41.8 44.9 47.3 49.7South America 24.8 25.9 27.7 25.3North America 10.7 10.9 10.8 10.6Other regions 7.1 7.5 5.9 8.0

Acquisition of Portuguese nationality 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Mixed marriages 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.3% of total marriages 2.4 2.2 1.9 2.2

Foreign labour force3 77.6 84.4 86.8 87.9By main industry division

Agriculture, forestry, fishing 18.5 19.8 20.6 21.3Mining and quarrying 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.1Manufacturing 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.5Electricity, gas and water supply 6.2 6.8 7.1 7.2Construction 5.3 6.7 7.2 7.4Retail, hotels and restaurants 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1Other4 38.7 41.8 42.4 42.4

By professional statusSelf-employed 16.2 16.6 16.7 17.0Wage earners 61.4 67.8 69.7 70.6

1. Results of a special survey (INE).2. Figures include all foreigners who hold a valid residence permit (including those who benefited from the 1992-1993 and 1996 regularisation programmes).3. Workers who hold a valid residence permit (including the unemployed). Data include workers who benefited from the 1992-1993 and 1996 regularisation

programmes.4. Including the following economic activities: Transport, Storage and communications; Financial intermediation, insurance and business services;

Community, social and personal services.Sources: Survey on outflows (INE); Labour Force Survey (INE); Ministry of the Interior.

OECD 1999

Portugal

193

3 300 immigrants made their first application for a permanent residence permit in 1997, 1 700 fewer than in 1995(see Table II.32). Over half of these people are thought to have entered Portugal for the first time in 1995. Mostof the new holders of residence permits are concentrated in the Lisbon area, the Tagus valley and the Algarve.Overall, nationals of OECD Member countries account for nearly 60% of these new residents. The other immi-grants come mainly from Brazil (14%) and from Portuguese-speaking African countries (6% for Cape Verde andthe same percentage for Angola).

In 1997 approximately 175 000 foreigners were legally resident in Portugal, or 1.8% of the total population(see Table II.32). Men (58%) outnumbered women. Over half of the foreigners lived in the area (distrito) of Lisbon.Almost 13% lived in the Faro area, followed by Setubal (9.2%) and Porto (6.1%), while Bragança had the lowestpercentage of foreigners (0.1%).

By nationality, Cape Verde nationals are the most numerous (nearly 40 000), followed by Brazilians (20 000)and Angolans (16 300). There are nearly 59 000 foreign nationals from OECD countries (75% from the EuropeanUnion), who account for one-third of the total foreign population. In 1997, some 7 900 children were born of aforeign mother and/or father in Portugal, accounting for approximately 7% of total births (113 000).

Portuguese law has allowed dual nationality since 1981, but the annual number of naturalisations remainslow. Mixed marriages accounted for just over 2% of all marriages in 1997. The majority were between Portuguesewomen and foreign men. These Portuguese women mainly married Brazilians, Germans, Venezuelans and CapeVerde nationals. The foreign wives of Portuguese men were mainly from Brazil, Cape Verde and Angola.


Having experienced an exceptional increase in the flow of asylum seekers in 1993 (about 2 000 people),with Romanians accounting for nearly two thirds of the total and Angolans for 20%, applications fell sharplythereafter.


Since May 1998 the new Employment of Foreigners Act has allowed legally resident foreigners to work inPortugal without being subject to any numerical restrictions (the previous legislation laid down that the totalnumber of foreigners employed in firms with five or more employees could not exceed 10% of the total work-force, though this rule did not apply to nationals of European Economic Area countries, nor to nationals of coun-tries which have bilateral agreements with Portugal, notably Brazil and Cape Verde).

In December 1997 the foreign labour force totalled approximately 88 000 persons, an increase of 1 100 onthe previous year. Most foreign workers are engaged in four sectors of activity: agriculture, manufacturing indus-try, building and civil engineering, and services. Europeans are employed mainly in scientific professions andservice jobs, whereas the vast majority of Africans are employed in industry and construction. Most Braziliansare employed in services (teaching, health and other scientific and technical professions). Over 80% of foreignworkers are wage earners. Of the 17 000 entrepreneurs and self-employed workers living in Portugal, Braziliannationals are most numerous, accounting for 15% of the total (see Table II.32).

At the end of 1997 there were approximately 421 000 persons unemployed in Portugal, 58% of whom werewomen. Compared with 1996, the total number of unemployed persons fell, but the number of unemployed for-eigners rose by over 10%. Unemployed foreigners (4 600) accounted for less than 1% of the total. Angolan nation-als were most vulnerable to unemployment, for though they were only 9% of the foreign labour force theyaccounted for 21% of the unemployed foreigners.

Policy developments

Migration policy in Portugal has two facets, one applicable to the Portuguese community residing abroadand the other applicable to immigrants in Portugal. The two aspects of this policy reflect coherent goals andexplain the focus on migrants’ rights, their political and social integration in the host country and objective infor-mation concerning their contribution to development.

OECD 1999


194

Links with Portuguese communities abroad

Portuguese nationals residing abroad are represented by directly elected members of Parliament. Acrossthe world there are about 2 000 associations created by migrants or by their descendants. The aim of policy withregard to emigrants is to encourage political and social integration of Portuguese in the host country whilstrespecting their national identity, and to maintain links with emigrant communities. Measures are thereforedesigned to safeguard and disseminate the Portuguese language, facilitate links between the communities, anddefend the interest and rights of Portuguese migrants. To this end, numerous approaches have been devel-oped. They include assistance for the teaching of Portuguese, grants to associations, missions and other agen-cies working with foreign-resident Portuguese, socio-cultural exchanges and vocational training programmes co-funded by the European Social Fund.

There are other forms of aid, such as financial assistance, legal, economic and social services, special bankaccounts and preferential credit through an emigrant savings scheme which makes capital loans. Further measureswere introduced in 1996, chiefly focusing on developing and modernising the services of Portuguese consulatesabroad and improving the dissemination of legal information to Portuguese communities abroad (using the Inter-net, for instance). In September 1996 Parliament unanimously passed a law setting up the Council of PortugueseCommunities, a body to advise the government on policies for emigrant communities, which represents allPortuguese people living abroad who wish to be involved. The council has one hundred elected members.

Immigration policy

As in countries of long-standing immigration, one facet of policy in Portugal seeks to control the entry offoreigners more effectively through better border control, the strengthening of the police force and more sys-tematic detection of falsified documents. The Act of 3 March 1993 sets out the conditions for the entry, residenceand departure (both voluntary and forced) of foreigners, with the goal of making all procedures clearer and moreeffective. This Act is currently under review. The Act of 8 August 1998 on the entry, residence and departure(both voluntary and forced) of foreigners was not limited to bringing Portuguese legislation into line with theeffective exterior frontier controls required under the Schengen Agreements (signed by Portugal on25 June 1991) and other conventions to which Portugal is a signatory. In this regard, Portugal expressed its desirethat European immigration policy should not be confined solely to controlling flows, but should also include aCommunity-wide objective of integrating immigrant populations. For example, the Act of August 1998 reaf-firmed the right of family reunion and favoured a policy of adapting immigration to the needs of the labour mar-ket, although priority would be given to foreign workers legally residing in Portugal.

The new Employment of Foreigners Act of 12 May 1998 concerns foreigners authorised to reside and workin Portugal. This Act ensures equal opportunities with respect to recruitment and working conditions, regardlessof national origin, and is in line with the policy upheld by the European social partners in the Florence Decla-ration of October 1995 on the prevention of racial discrimination and xenophobia and the promotion of equaltreatment in the workplace. It is also a means of combating practices of social dumping that may affect regionalintegration procedures because of unfair economic competition based on the use of undocumented immigrantswithout social protection.

Moreover, there are plans to set up temporary centres to house foreigners attempting to enter Portugal ille-gally. In May 1996 Parliament unanimously passed a law providing for an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Theamnesty exercise was conducted between June and December 1996. Eligibility was simplified compared withthe previous exercise (October 1992-March 1993), in particular concerning the foreigners’ economic circum-stances. In addition, employers’ organisations, trade unions and immigrants’ associations were widely involvedin the regularisation procedures. The initial condition to be met to qualify for regularisation was the date ofentry and residence in Portugal. Applicants who were nationals of Portuguese-speaking countries had to haveentered Portugal before 31 December 1995 and to have resided there since that time.

Individuals who had received a prison sentence of over one year were not eligible, nor were individualswho were subject to expulsion orders. According to the available data, 35 000 applications were accepted forreview and 21 800 were granted, mainly to nationals of Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea Bissau and Mozambique(see Table II.33). The officials responsible for this exercise were careful to correct one of the main difficulties

OECD 1999

Portugal

195

encountered during the previous regularisation programme, since many workers had not been able to obtainwritten proof of employment from their employer. This difficulty was resolved in 1996 since proof of employ-ment could be provided by trade unions operating in the sector in which the applicant was employed or by thelocal authorities of their place of residence.

Other non-EU foreign nationals had to haveentered Portugal before 25 March 1995, when theSchengen Agreement came into force. A further condi-tion was that applicants had to have adequate finan-cial resources to support themselves (for example,gainful employment). Nationals of Portuguese-speaking countries were subject to the same mini-mum economic conditions as those required of otherimmigrants, except for those who had enteredbefore 1 January 1986.

Integration of immigrant populations

Other measures and resolutions recentlyadopted in Portugal aim to facilitate the integrationof foreigners by guaranteeing assistance and by com-bating social exclusion. As far as their political inte-gration is concerned, the Portuguese Constitutionstates that, subject to reciprocity, foreign residentsmay be granted political rights. In September 1996Parliament unanimously passed a law enacting theEuropean Union directive on the participation of nationals of other Member States in local elections and grant-ing the same right to other resident foreigners, subject to reciprocity. Under this extension of “local citizenship”to foreign nationals residing in Portugal, nationals of Norway, Argentina and Israel have been granted the rightto vote in local elections, and nationals of EU Member States, Cape Verde, Brazil, Peru and Uruguay have beengiven both the right to vote and to stand for office in local elections.

Moreover, under the Nationality Act of 1981 Portuguese nationality can be obtained via declaration (minors,marriage), full adoption by a Portuguese national, or naturalisation (without renouncing original nationality)after at least six years’ residence in Portugal. The Act of 26 June 1996 grants all legal residents of Portugal,whether they are Portuguese or foreign nationals, the right to a guaranteed minimum income (which is a benefitfrom the non-contributory social security scheme aimed at ensuring that individuals and their families are pro-vided with means to help meet their basic needs and progressively enable them to find employment and beintegrated into society). Following a one-year experimental phase, the guaranteed minimum income systemhas been implemented nationwide.

In January 1996 a post of High Commissioner for Immigration and Ethnic Minorities was created under thedirect authority of the Prime Minister with the following principal terms of reference: to co-ordinate support forimmigrant integration at interministerial level; to help raise the living standards of immigrants in Portugal whilerespecting their identity and their own culture; to abolish any discrimination against immigrants and combatxenophobia and racism; and, to propose measures to assist immigrants and ethnic minorities. Other measuresadopted in 1996 concern the improvement of housing conditions, the extension of immigrants’ entitlement tosocial security services and, the granting to immigrant associations of the right to provide assistance in criminalproceedings arising out of racially motivated and xenophobic acts and to claim damages.

A directive of June 1996 authorises the creation of alternative education streams to ensure that immigrantsand their children have equal access to education and academic achievement. In August of the same year, anotherdirective made it possible to develop multiannual projects for priority education zones in order to improve thequality of education and promote innovative approaches. Some of these zones include areas with a high concen-tration of foreign inhabitants. A study carried out by the Secretariat of the Diocese of Lisbon on young gypsies aged16 to 25 in the communes of Amadora, Lisbon and Loures showed that approximately 80% of them would like to

Table II.33. Regularisation programmes of immigrantsin an illegal situation by country of origin, 1992-1993

and 1996, PortugalThousands

1992-1993 1996

Angola 12.5 6.8Cape Verde 6.8 5.0Guinea-Bissau 6.9 4.0Sao Tome and Principe 1.4 2.0Brazil 5.3 0.3China 1.4 . .Mozambique 0.8 . .Other 4.1 3.7

Total 39.2 21.8

Source: Ministry of the Interior.

OECD 1999


196

receive vocational training and want their children to study for occupations (such as law, medicine, teaching andnursing) different from those traditionally carried on by gypsies, even though 90% of those interviewed had nomore than a primary school education.

Migration and development

Under the heading of co-operation policy, measures have recently been taken to assist in the developmentof university structures and vocational training centres in Portuguese-speaking African countries. Supportingpeace processes and the consolidation of emerging democracies in Africa is another aspect of co-operation pol-icy, as well as the promotion of joint business ventures between Portuguese and African companies. Financialsupport is also extended to non-governmental organisations working with refugee populations or displacedpersons in Africa.

Introduction

Between 1990 and 1992 substantial numbers of Romanian citizens, both of non-Romanian and Romanianorigin, left to settle permanently abroad. Current estimates of the outflow by the Romanian authorities suggestthat it has fallen substantially and is stabilising at a relatively low level. Return migration and readmissions haveincreased during each of the last three years. However, the figure is still less than half that of estimated perma-nent emigration. Previous reports have underlined Romania’s increasing importance as a transit destination inthe East-West emigration flow, a feature linked, inter alia, to its relaxed visa regime. This continues to be a sourceof concern.

At the end of 1996 the government signalled its intention of raising the pace of the economic reform. Itannounced the adoption of a restructuring programme a key feature of which would be the privatisation or liq-uidation of large state-owned enterprises. Even though it has been implemented more slowly than originallyintended, under its impact economic activity contracted sharply in 1997; it is not expected to increase until1999. Unemployment accelerated from the second part of 1997 reaching 10% by the end of 1998. Income ine-quality has become more pronounced; the signs of serious poverty and social exclusion are becoming more vis-ible.

Emigration

Estimates of emigration made by the Ministry of the Interior are based on two sources: compulsory customsforms completed by those intending to leave the country on a permanent basis and data on those alreadyabroad who apply for the renewal of their passport at a local embassy or consulate. Over the last four years theestimated total number has averaged approximately 21 000, less than one quarter of the 1990 figure. At justbelow 20 000, the figure for 1997 was a 7% decline on 1996. For the first half of 1998 the figure was just under8 600.

In 1993, members of ethnic minorities accounted for just over half the total outflow. This proportion hassince then steadily decreased to just over 15% in 1997. Over 95% settle in OECD Member countries. There isevidence that the countries of destination are becoming more diffuse. Germany remains, however, the mostpopular destination. Receiving 30% of the total as estimated by the Romanian authorities, it accounted for halfof those accepted by the European Union. The emigration flow to Germany as recorded by German authoritiesis well over twice that of the Romanian authorities’s estimate (see Chart II.13). On the other hand, the downwardtrend recorded by the German authorities since 1993 is much more pronounced.

ROMANIA

OECD 1999

Romania

197

100

00

00 100

80

60

40

20

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

80

60

40

20

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

-18 18-25 26-40 40+

1990 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

1990 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 1990 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

1990 91 92 93 94 95 96 971990 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

1. Estimates by the Romanian Ministry of the Interior. Persons havingreported their intention to settle abroad.

2. Romanian nationals with no other declared ethnic affiliation.Source: Ministry of the Interior.

Chart II.13. Demographic characteristics of permanent emigrants,11990-1997, Romania

Percentages

Ethnic groups Destination countries

Sex

Men

Age groups

Educational attainment

Women

VocationalSecondaryPost-secondary

OtherPrimary

Hungarians FranceOtherRomanians2 Germans OtherGermany United States

100

00

00 100

80

60

40

20

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

80

60

40

20

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

-18 18-25 26-40 40+

1990 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

1990 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 1990 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

1990 91 92 93 94 95 96 971990 91 92 93 94 95 96 97




Percentages


Sex

Men

Age groups


Women


OtherPrimary


100

00

00 100

80

60

40

20

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

80

60

40

20

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

-18 18-25 26-40 40+

1990 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

1990 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 1990 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

1990 91 92 93 94 95 96 971990 91 92 93 94 95 96 97




Percentages


Sex

Men

Age groups


Women


OtherPrimary


OECD 1999


198

Labour migration

Excepting the relatively small volume arranged under the aegis of the Ministry of Labour and SocialWelfare, temporary foreign employment is registered only in the general flow of those temporarily leaving thecountry. That said, recent estimates have been made by the Israeli authorities of the sizeable contingent of doc-umented and undocumented Romanian workers employed in its country. Data on individually arranged sea-sonal work remains sketchy.

Based on an agreement between the Governments of Germany and Romania, 309 employment contractsof eighteen months duration and 4 800 contracts of three months duration were approved in 1997, respectively30% and 9% down on 1996. The beneficiaries of the very short-term contracts are young workers aged 20-35 yearsin possession of a high level of education and a solid understanding of the German language. In addition,5 000 Romanians took up seasonal work in Germany in 1997, the same number as the preceding year. Approxi-mately 2 000 went on the same basis to Hungary and 1 000 each to Greece, Italy and Turkey.

According to the Israeli Ministries of Public Security and of Labour, their State’s authorities have in recentyears granted a total of 34 000 work permits for Romanian workers. The Ministry of Labour estimates the totalnumber working in Israel to be about 60 000; the Ministry of Public Security suggests a figure in excess of 100 000.The number of undocumented Romanian workers is growing. It is expected to decline significantly, however, asa consequence of extended efforts on the part of the Romanian authorities to control the activities of privatelabour export agents.

Romanian citizens as asylum seekers

Since the beginning of the 1990s approximately 100 000 Romanian citizens have requested asylum inEuropean Union member states. Although the volume of claims has fallen considerably Romania is still one tenmost important sources of asylum claimants to the EU. Initially, the highest number of claims were registered inGermany; France has since taken that place with over 5 100 active claims in 1997, a 27% increase on 1996. Therecognition rate for claims by Romanian citizens was less than 1% in France in 1997. It would be reasonable tosuppose, therefore, that the motivating factor behind the claims is to render legitimate their residence status.

Having come to the view that basic standards of human rights were being observed in Romania, the UNCHRceased at the end of 1997 to consider Romania as a generator of refugees. Notwithstanding, the cases ofRomanian citizens who submit asylum applications abroad will be “individually and thoroughly analysed”.

Immigration

A clear trend has developed whereby due in part to return migration (particularly in the case of Greek cit-izens) and to the fact that since 1990 there has not existed an institution with the authority to grant this status,the stock of immigrants with permanent resident status continues to decline, standing at present at around1 400 (see Table II.34). A proposal to have this institutional deficiency remedied in the context of a new law onforeign citizens’ status is still awaiting approval by the Romanian Parliament.

Relatively liberal regulations governing entry to the country render futile any attempt at ascertaining thetotal number of temporary foreign residents. They can be classified into three distinct groups: geographicallymobile young Asians typically engaged in unskilled employment and market trading, both of which in the infor-mal sector; eastern Europeans who comprise in approximately equal shares students and semi-skilled workers;and, well-educated professionals from OECD Member countries working for foreign companies or internationalcorporations. Assuming full compliance with the Romanian Government Decision of May 1997 requiring foreigncitizens to acquire work permits, they numbered at the end of that year just over 500, accounting for 60% of allpermit holders.

Return migration and readmissions

In 1997 just over 8 400 repatriation applications were registered, an increase of almost 35% on 1996 (seeTable II.34). Of particular note was the significant increase in the weight of those aged between 18 and 40 yearsand of those coming from the Republic of Moldova.

OECD 1999

Romania

199

Students and trainees

In 1997, the stock of students and trainees fell back by 10% to stand at 20 400, very close to the figures for1993-95. The reduction was quite evenly spread across the nationalities with Greeks and Moldovians still dom-inating. The 1996 increase was considered as being in large part attributable to an increase in the number ofscholarships awarded by the Romanian government.


As noted in last years report, Romania has recently introduced legislation on refugees and asylum seekers.The number of claims registered more than doubled but remains low at 1 400 principal beneficiaries. Only80 applications for refugee status were accepted in 1997, a figure in line with previous years.

Naturalisations

Naturalisations remain few in number (100 in 1997). The majority (three-quarters) are obtained upon com-pletion of three years of marriage. The remainder have been granted to company proprietors and a small

Table II.34. Current migration figures in RomaniaThousands

1994 1995 1996 1997

Immigration and settlement of foreignersStock of persons with permanent residence status 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4Stock of persons with temporary residence visas1 54.1 55.2 55.7 55.0of which:

Republic of Moldova . . 6.3 7.1 6.9Greece . . 5.4 6.2 5.7Turkey . . 4.8 5.1 5.5China . . 4.2 4.4 5.4Syria . . 4.1 4.1 3.8

Stock of foreign citizens in education and training 20.9 20.8 22.7 20.4of which:

Former USSR 6.7 5.8 7.4 6.7Greece 4.9 5.3 5.8 4.9Israel 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.0

Return migration 3.3 5.5 6.3 8.4

Asylum seekers and refugeesRefugee claims submitted 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.4Refugee status granted – 0.1 0.1 0.1

Illegal immigrationNumber detected at border 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.2Number detected within borders 3.8 4.0 4.2 5.5Estimated stock of illegal migrants2 18.0 20.0 15.0 18.0

ExpulsionsRomanian citizens expelled from other countries 15.1 10.5 18.1 16.9Foreigners expelled from Romania 0.9 0.7 1.2 1.4

Romanian citizens in Germany:A. Migration flows between Romania and Germany

Ethnic Germans from Romania 6.6 6.5 4.3 1.8Inflows of Romanian nationals 31.4 24.8 17.1 14.2Outflows of Romanian nationals 44.0 25.2 16.6 13.6Asylum seekers from Romania 9.6 3.5 1.4 0.8

B. Stock of people from Romania in GermanyStock of Romanian nationals 125.9 109.2 100.7 95.2Acquisitions of German nationality by former Romanians 18.0 12.0 9.8 8.7

1. Residence permits valid for a period longer than 120 days.2. Estimates based on the number of expulsions, the number of persons detected within Romania and at the border.Sources: Romanian Ministry of the Interior; Statistiches Bundesamt (Germany).

OECD 1999


200

number of employees with permanent contracts. In almost all cases naturalised foreign citizens have retainedtheir original citizenship.

Policy developments

Romania is attempting to persuade the European Union to remove it from the blacklist of those states whosecitizens require a visa in order to enter EU Member States. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has established an inter-ministerial working group which meets on a regular basis to determine the measures which should be implementedat the national level in order to facilitate the obtention by Romanian citizens of visas enabling them to travel abroad.

A Romanian Government Ordinance of August 1997 stipulates that passport applications can be tempo-rarily rejected if the applicant has committed either in Romania or abroad a crime concerning national security(e.g., high treason), public order, morals (e.g., prostitution) or fundamental human rights and freedoms (e.g., mur-der). Passports can be withdrawn or suspended for the same reasons. In both cases, the temporary rejection orwithdrawal can last from between 3 and 12 months, depending on the seriousness of the offence.

A government Ordinance of August 1998 stipulates, inter alia, that Romanian diplomatic missions and consulateswill issue consular passports upon request to Romanian citizens abroad (who no longer have travel documents andcannot provide proof of their identity), only upon receipt of confirmation from the Passports Department of the Min-istry of Interior. In the case of repeated demands within a five year period for renewal of a passport due to its loss orrobbery, the time period for issuing a new document can be prolonged by a maximum of six months whilst thesestatements are being verified. In such situations, the person concerned must pay a financial penalty.

In order to create efficient procedures for voluntary returns and to help combat illegal migration, Romaniahas concluded readmission agreements with 16 European countries (Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic,France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy (in 1997), Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, the Slovak Republic,Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland) and India. A further 14 agreements of this type are currently being nego-tiated with European and Asian countries (Belarus, Bulgaria, China, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iran, Latvia,Lebanon, Lithuania, Portugal, Turkey, Ukraine and Yugoslavia).

Other developments of note include:

– A substantial increase in the maximum fine which can be imposed on foreigners found to be staying ille-gally in the country.

– The inclusion in the draft law on foreigners’ status currently under consideration in Parliament of the stip-ulation that foreigners be forbidden to carry out activities not contained in the work permit issued tothem by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection.

The adoption by Parliament in June 1998 of Law No. 123 accepting the International Organisation for Migra-tion’s constitution as set out in Venice in October 1953 and amended in May 1987.

Introduction

Since 1994, the Slovak economy has been performing strongly, with GDP growth at between 5-7.3% eachyear. Good progress has also been made in labour productivity and in controlling inflation. The Slovak Republicis, however, heavily dependent on foreign trade. The structure of its exports, most of which consist of labour-intensive products, could eventually hamper its development. High unemployment (compared with other cen-tral European countries) and low employment and wage growth continue to act as incentives to emigrate. TheSlovak Republic must also cope with problems stemming from unequal regional development and the ethnicdiversity of the population. The South-east part of the country is suffering most from the dismantling of the steeland defence industries and from low-yield farming.

SLOVAK REPUBLIC

OECD 1999

Slovak Republic

201

The Slovak Republic does not attract many foreign workers. Many of those who do come are from countrieswith similar (e.g. Poland) or lower (Ukraine and Russia) living standards. The trickle of immigration is not offset-ting the decline in the natural population growth rate, which fell from 4.8 per 1 000 in 1990 to 1.3 per 1 000 in1997. Moreover, the migration balance of permanent residents has been negative since 1996 (see Table II.35).

Emigration and Slovak nationals abroad

The main countries hosting Slovak nationals are the Czech Republic, Austria, Germany and Hungary. Since thebreak-up of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (CSFR), the number of Slovak workers in the Czech Republic hasrisen constantly – although it dipped slightly in 1997 owing to deteriorating labour market conditions – to 69 700 (see

Table II.35. Current migration figures, Slovak RepublicFigures in thousands unless otherwise indicated

1994 1995 1996 1997

Inflows of permanent residents 4.9 4.6 2.5 2.0Arrivals (excluding those from Czech Republic) 1.8 3.1 1.5 1.5Arrivals from Czech Republic 3.1 1.5 1.0 0.6

Outflows of permanent residents 4.1 4.1 3.6 . .Departures (excluding those to Czech Republic)1 0.1 0.2 0.1 . .Departures to the Czech Republic2 4.1 3.8 3.5 . .

Net migration 0.8 0.5 –1.1 . .

Residence permits newly granted by categoryLong-term residence permits 3.1 3.7 3.5 4.1Permanent residence permits 3.3 3.0 1.9 2.0

Family reunification 2.9 2.7 1.5 1.6Other 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4

Inflows of asylum seekers 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6

Illegal migrants caught at the border 1.9 2.7 3.3 2.8

Holders of permanent or long-term residence permit, by country of origin3

Czech Republic 2.5 4.3 5.1 5.8Ukraine 2.1 2.6 3.0 3.5Poland 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.8Former Yugoslavia 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.0Other 8.5 10.7 11.6 10.7Total 16.9 21.9 24.1 24.8

Work permit holders, by country of origin4

Ukraine 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7Poland 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.6United States 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3Other 1.6 1.8 1.8 2.2Total 2.7 2.7 3.3 3.8

Estimates of Czech workers5 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.7

Slovak citizens abroadSlovak workers in the Czech Republic 39.2 59.3 72.2 69.7

% of total foreign workers in the Czech Republic 54.4 53.0 50.4 53.3Slovak citizens in Hungary 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.7

% of total registered foreigners in Hungary 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6Slovak workers in Austria 1.8 2.8 3.7 4.0

% of total foreign workers in Austria 0.7 1.4 1.4 1.6

1. The outflow is underreported because people leaving the country are requested but not required to report their departure.2. Changes of permanent residence in the Czech Republic. The data are issued by the Czech Statistical Office.3. The data refer to the stock of permanent and long-term residents as of 31 December of the years indicated.4. The data refer to the stock of work permit holders as of 31 December of the years indicated.5. Under a bilateral agreement signed by the Czech and Slovak Republics in 1992, nationals of each Republic have free access to both labour markets. Data

on Czech workers are monitored by the National Labour Office of the Slovak Republic.Sources: Ministry of Labour and the National Labour Office of the Slovak Republic; Czech Statistical Office.

OECD 1999


202

Table II.35). They account for nearly half the foreign labour there. In Austria, about 4 000 Slovaks (some 2% of the totallabour force) hold work permits. In Germany, almost 6 000 seasonal workers of Slovak origin have been recruitedannually since 1993. After the Poles, they are the second largest national group among the seasonal workers.

The most sizeable migrant outflows to the Czech Republic were concentrated over the period 1992-1994. Whenthe CSFR was divided in two on 1 January 1993, Czech law did not allow Slovaks working in Czech territory to havedouble nationality. Many of them, in order to obtain Czech nationality, registered as permanent residents of theCzech Republic. This formality showed up in Czech Republic statistics as a large migrant inflow from the SlovakRepublic. Since 1994, Czech sources point to a considerable decline in flows of permanent migrants from the SlovakRepublic, although they remain much higher than the flows of Czech citizens coming to settle in the Slovak Republic.

Immigration

Owing to the unreliability of the available sources, it is not possible to determine the exact size of migrationflows. Since the immigration monitoring system is in the process of being overhauled, the data collected by theNational Statistics Institute and police services are still very patchy.

Trends in the number of residence permits issued – long-term (for work purposes) or permanent (generallyfor family reunion) – reveal a slight increase in the foreign population since 1993, although this presenceremains very small. The number of long-term permits issued rose from 2 000 in 1993 to over 4 000 in 1997. Overthe same period, the number of permanent permits granted wavered between 1 000 and 3 000.

Most foreigners come from neighbouring or nearby countries, namely the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Poland,Hungary, or the former Yugoslavia. At the end of 1997, these five countries together accounted for two-thirds of theforeign resident population (holders of permanent or long-term permits) (see Table II.35). In 1997, nearly10 000 foreigners held long-term permits, mostly for the purposes of work (6 700) or studies (1 600), while almost17 000 held permanent residence permits granted primarily for family reunion reasons (see Table II.35).


Flows of asylum seekers, which were negligible in 1993, have grown a little since then, reaching 645 in1997. As from that year, the criteria for awarding refugee status were tightened. As a result, the Slovak Republicreceived only 100 applications for asylum in the first half of 1998. Until June 1997, the Slovak Republic also tookin a few war refugees, who were housed in humanitarian centres. These centres have since been closed.

Illegal and transit immigration

Nearly 10 000 migrants were expelled or turned back at the border in 1996 and 1997. The Slovak Republicis a transit country. Migrants usually enter via the borders with Hungary or Ukraine and then try to reach theCzech Republic, Austria or Poland. The Slovak police have intensified their border controls over the past threeyears and adopted sterner measures towards undocumented foreigners.

Foreign population and ethnic minorities

For historical reasons, the ethnic composition of the Slovak Republic population is varied. In the last cen-sus, over 10% of residents said they were of Hungarian origin, 1.4% of Gypsy stock and 1% Czech. The Hungarianminority is concentrated in the Hungarian and Ukrainian border regions, whereas the gypsies are scattered overthe territory though are more frequently found in the country’s eastern areas.

The political weight of the Hungarian minority is considerable at both local and national levels. It also possessesa large press group. The Gypsy minority has problems in integrating into Slovak society. Its level of education is lowerthan that of the rest of society and it is more vulnerable to unemployment. The success of the active policies targetedat this group is hampered by a certain hostility on the part of the rest of the population and problems of delinquency.


Any foreigner wishing to exercise an occupation in the Slovak Republic must – with the exception of per-manent residents, refugees, Czech nationals, and other foreigners employed within the context of official inter-

OECD 1999

Slovak Republic

203

national agreements – be in possession of a work permit. Since 1997, foreigners able to prove that they of Slovakorigin (going back three generations) are also entitled to work without a permit.

The number of foreign work permit holders has varied between 2 700 and 3 800 since 1994. Over half ofthem live in or around Bratislava. Ukrainian, Polish, US and UK nationals are the most numerous (seeTable II.35). Almost a third are employed by foreign companies. The number of Czech workers, who are notrequired to have a work permit, may be deduced from the declarations sent by employers to the labour offices.They number approximately 1 700.

Policy developments

The new Act concerning the employment of foreigners in the Slovak Republic and of Slovak nationalsemployed abroad with Ministry of Labour assistance took effect on 1 January 1997. Bilateral agreements havebeen signed with Germany, the Czech Republic, Poland, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Vietnam and Switzer-land (see Table II.36). These bilateral agreements, with the exception of the one concluded with the CzechRepublic which allows free labour market access to Czech and Slovak nationals, usually provide for the recipro-cal hosting of a fixed number of workers for a limited period. Negotiations are under way with Hungary, Austriaand Romania.

Table II.36. Bilateral agreements on the employment of foreigners concluded by the Slovak Republic

Partner country Date of signature Duration of the contract Quota Reciprocity Description

Czech Republic October 1992 – – Yes Free access to labour market without workpermitResidence permits delivered on the basisof confirmation of employment by theemployer

Finland October 1998 – – Yes –

Germany March 1991 Up to 3 months 3 000 per month No Employment of seasonal workers inper year (revised annually) Germany in case that no domestic workers

are available

March 1996 12 to 18 months 700 per year No Contract labour for skilled Slovak workers(revised annually) aged 18 to 40

April 1996 Up to 3 years 1 500 per year No Employees of Slovak firms providingapproximately services in Germany on the basis of trade

contracts between Slovak and Germanentities

Luxembourg May 1998 – – Yes –

Poland June 1992 Variable No Yes Several contracts are possible : long term,according short term (up to 3 months) or trainingto the job (up to 1 month for students)

Russian Federation February 1995 6 months maximum 150 per year Yes Seasonal workers

1 year maximum 150 per year Yes Contract workers(renewable)

2 years maximum 1 200 per year Yes Employment based on trade(renewable)

Switzerland December 1995 12 to 26 months 100 per year Yes Contract workers aged 18 to 30

Ukraine February 1995 Up to 6 months 300 per year Yes Seasonal workers

12 to 18 months 200 per year Yes Contract workers

2 to 4 years 1 800 per year Yes Employment based on trade

Vietnam January 1994 Variable 50 during 1993-96 No Trainees

Source: Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family.

OECD 1999


204

Introduction

Registering a 3.8% increase in GDP in 1998, Spain experienced strong growth for a fifth consecutive year.Despite sustained employment growth, however, unemployment remains high (18%). In 1996, the key develop-ments in Spanish migration policy were the regularisation programme for undocumented foreigners and theapplication of the Schengen Agreements. In 1997, for the first time since the mid-1980s, there was a rise in theemigration of Spanish workers. Returns of immigrants of Spanish nationality or origin rose for the second con-secutive year, no doubt due to assistance measures taken in this regard. The number of residence permitsissued also increased, as did the stock of foreigners and foreign workers.

Spanish emigration and return flows

According to the records of the Directorate-General for Migration, the number of Spanish workers emigrat-ing has decreased appreciably since 1995 (see Table II.37). Emigration to non-European countries account formore than 40% of total outflows. They are, in the main, workers from Andalusia who emigrate on a temporarybasis to France, Belgium and Switzerland).

The number of Spaniards returning to Spain increased for the second consecutive year. Thus, in 1997 thenumber of individuals whose names were struck from the lists at consulates rose to 27 500 as compared to 20 600in 1995. Nearly two-thirds of the returns recorded concerned individuals previously residing in European coun-tries, primarily Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Germany and France. Emigrants returning from the Americascame mainly from Venezuela, the United States and Argentina.

Immigration and foreign population

The categories of residence permits (not required for EU nationals) were revised in 1995. Category D resi-dence permits grant the right of settlement in Spain, while categories A, B and C only authorise a short-termstay. The figures available on the number of permits issued give only an approximate indication of inflows sinceEU nationals are not counted. If all permit categories are taken into account, their number rose sharply in 1997(530 000 new authorisations compared with 380 000 the previous year). Permits allowing establishment accountfor approximately 9% of these authorisations, and their number increased substantially, from 37 700 in 1996 to47 000 in 1997. Trends for this type of inflow are determined more by changes in the policy adopted by the gov-ernment (the regularisation programme, the quota for workers) than by the business cycle or migration pres-sures in the main sending countries.

At the end of 1997, more than 600 000 foreigners held residence permits, of whom nearly 60% were eithernationals of an EU country or relatives of EU nationals (this figure does not include permits valid for less thansix months and those granted to students). At this date, the foreign population accounted for 1.5% of the totalpopulation.

The breakdown of foreigners by region and country of origin shifted somewhat as a result of the regular-isation programme for undocumented foreigners (non-EU nationals). There was an increase in the proportionof foreigners from Central and Eastern European countries (in particular Poles, Romanians, Russians,Bulgarians and Bosnians) and from Africa (nationals of Mali and Nigeria, Algeria and Morocco). Thus, in 1997for the first time the proportion of African immigrants was higher than that of Americans. In 1997 Moroccanimmigrants were the largest single group (111 100), which grew at a particularly high rate, followed by nation-als of the United Kingdom (68 000) and Germany (50 000). There were some 38 000 Portuguese and34 000 French nationals. The number of EU nationals was stable in 1997 and their share of the foreign popu-lation was slightly more than 40%. Among the Latin American nationals, the number of those from Argentinafell, while numbers from the Andean region (Peru, Colombia) and Cuba rose. Lastly, there was a dramaticincrease in the number of Chinese nationals.

SPAIN

OECD 1999

Spain

205

At the end of 1997, nearly one out of two foreigners lived in Madrid, Barcelona, Alicante or Malaga. The firsttwo cities are major economic hubs, while the last two are mainly tourist centres. But the Mediterranean coast(from Gerona to Malaga) and the Canary and Balearic Islands are the regions with the highest concentrations offoreigners. The geographic breakdown of foreigners’ locations changed somewhat with the regularisation pro-gramme, and Madrid, Almeria, Tarragona and Valencia were the cities that recorded the largest increase in theproportion of foreigners in their total populations.

In 1997 the proportion of women in the foreign population was 48.5%. But the breakdown by continent oforigin is very uneven, for although women account for much the larger share of the Latin American community(this is particularly true of women from the Dominican Republic and Colombia), they are a minority among immi-grants from Africa (especially from Senegal, Algeria, Gambia and Morocco) and Pakistan. The regularisation pro-gramme led to a higher proportion of women among African immigrants and also among Latin Americans. Thepercentage of men in the African community dropped from 74% in 1993 to 68% in 1997 and in the Latin Americancommunity from 42% to 37%. There was little change in the proportion of women among European and Asianimmigrants, which were 50 and 48% respectively.

Eight out of ten foreign nationals are aged between 15 and 64. The age distribution varies according to thecontinent of origin. The proportion of children aged under 5 is highest for Africans and nationals of Eastern Europeancountries, while the share of persons over 65 is above average for nationals of the EU and the Americas (notincluding Spanish-speaking countries). The breakdown by nationality shows that Moroccans and Chinese have

Table II.37. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of total population and labour force in SpainThousands

1994 1995 1996 1997 1994 1995 1996 1997

Outflows of nationals 12.1 14.4 9.0 . . Total work permits granted2 88.6 100.3 126.4 84.2of which: to a European country 6.6 9.1 8.1 . . of which: women 25.3 29.5 39.7 31.0

By industry divisionReturns of nationals 20.4 18.5 26.6 . . Agriculture 18.7 18.9 26.0 17.7

Industry 6.9 7.5 8.6 5.6Stock of foreign residents1 461.4 499.8 539.0 609.8 Building 9.4 10.4 12.2 7.0

By region of origin Services 50.6 57.2 72.7 51.9Europe 238.5 254.5 273.3 289.1 Not specified 3.1 6.3 6.9 2.0Africa 82.6 95.8 98.8 142.8 By region of originAmerica 103.3 108.9 121.3 127.0 Africa 49.5 57.4 70.6 42.7Asia 35.7 38.5 43.4 49.1 Central and South America 20.2 22.7 30.2 22.5Oceania 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 Asia 11.0 11.8 15.8 12.0Stateless 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.0 Europe (except EU)3 6.1 6.6 8.0 5.7Not specified – 0.9 0.8 0.8 North America 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.1

By region of residence Oceania and other 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Madrid 93.7 93.0 111.1 116.0 By type of permitBarcelona 65.1 78.0 84.5 90.7 Long term work permitsAlicante 38.8 39.5 42.7 42.6 Employees 6.6 4.6 29.6 22.3Other 263.9 289.4 300.7 360.5 Self employed 2.3 2.0 4.8 2.5

One year work permitAcquisition and recovery Employees 68.2 83.3 81.1 48.7

of Spanish nationality Self employed 9.6 8.5 7.0 2.9Applications for acquiring Other4 1.9 2.0 3.9 7.8

Spanish nationality 10.9 12.7 . . . .Grants of Spanish nationality Stock of foreign workers5 121.8 139.0 166.5 176.0

(excluding persons recoveringtheir Spanish nationality) 7.8 6.8 8.4 10.3

1. Stock of foreigners who hold a residence permit. Permits of short duration (less than 6 months) as well as students are excluded. Data refer to thepopulation on 31 December of the years indicated and include permits delivered following the 1996 regularisation programme.

2. Total permits issued, including seasonal and cross-border workers and renewals of permits. Provisional figures for 1997.3. Since 1 January 1992, the nationals of the European Union do not need a work permit.4. Seasonal and cross-border workers.5. Data are for 31 December of each year and are counts of valid work permits. Workers from the EU are not included. Data include work permits delivered

following the 1996 regularisation programme. Provisional data for 1997.Sources: General Directorate on Migration; Ministry of Labour and Social Security; Ministry of Justice.

OECD 1999


206

the highest proportion of children under the age of 15, while there is a particularly large share of people overthe age of 65 among nationals of the United Kingdom (25%) and Germany (13%).

Asylum seekers

After dropping sharply in 1995 (5 700 applications for asylum compared with 12 000 the previous year), thenumber of asylum seekers has levelled off at around 5 000 yearly. The more restrictive measures that came intoforce in mid-1994 no doubt lie behind this trend. In 1997 applicants came mainly from Romania (30% of the total,more than half of whom belonged to the gypsy minority) and to a lesser extent from Nigeria, Liberia, Cuba andAlgeria. Nearly 70% of the applications filed in 1997 were immediately rejected, and this rate is rising sharply.Moreover, during that year only 150 persons were granted refugee status. Since 1995 the acceptance rate ofrequests for asylum (calculated on the basis of applications filed and applications accepted in a given year) hasdropped sharply and stood at approximately 2.7% in 1997.

Naturalisations

For the second consecutive year, the number of individuals acquiring Spanish nationality increased(approximately 10 300 compared to 6 800 in 1995). Approximately two thirds of them were from South Americancountries. Argentina, Peru and the Dominican Republic remain the three principle countries of origin of thosenaturalised. Naturalisation of individuals of Asian origin (the Philippines) rose sharply, as did that of Moroccannationals.


In 1997 the total labour force grew by 1.1%, while the foreign labour force, measured on the basis of thechange in the stock of workers with a valid work permit, rose by 5.7%. In the sectors in which foreign workers areconcentrated, the trend in total employment varied, being downward in domestic services and agriculture andupward in construction and hotels and catering. But in these sectors the trend in the number of foreign workersdoes not always match the trend in the sector’s total employment (for example, the largest increase in the num-ber of foreign workers was in agriculture and domestic services). When this is the case, the variations (negativeor positive) in foreign employment are more marked than for total employment.

In 1997 some 176 000 valid work permits were held by foreigners (compared with 166 500 in 1996). Theseincluded permits for seasonal and cross-border workers, new permits and renewals. After following a downwardtrend since 1991, the number of permits rose by 20% in 1996 because of the regularisation programme carriedout that year and by nearly 6% in 1997. Since 1992 EU nationals are no longer required to have work permits andare therefore not included in these statistics.

Of the 176 000 foreigners holding a work permit in 1997 (or whose permit was renewed), over half came fromAfrica (primarily from Morocco) and over a quarter from Latin America (Peru and the Dominican Republic).Among the nationals of Asian countries, the Chinese and Filipinos were the most numerous, and Poles were thelargest group from non-EU European countries.

Since 1996 a new system has been in operation and a “permanent” work permit has been created. It allowsworkers to engage in a paid or self-employed activity for an indeterminate time, requiring only that the permitbe renewed every five years. A study of work permits by category shows that the share of long-term permits hasbeen rising since the beginning of the 1990s. In 1997, 56% of work permit holders held a permit valid for at least3 years (compared to 34% in 1993). This percentage is slightly lower for women (51%), no doubt because on aver-age their establishment in Spain has been more recent.

Impact of the 1996 regularisation programme on the structure of the labour force

The amnesty for undocumented immigrants decided in 1996 was carried out over a five-month period,between April and August of that year. It gave some foreigners without papers the possibility of obtaining eithera work and residence permit, or a residence permit only, depending on the individual case. The results nowavailable show that a substantial proportion of those who benefited from the programme (some 20 000 people)

OECD 1999

Sweden

207

had previously held a permit. These were individuals who had entered Spain legally, mostly during the period1986-91, but were now undocumented because their work permits had not been renewed.

An increasing feminisation of the foreign labour force can be observed, in particular since the 1996 regular-isation programme. Another effect of this programme was the increase in the share of the foreign labour forceemployed in agriculture, which seems to indicate that demand is greater than the annual quota in this sector.

In 1997 the share of African and East European workers increased, with a particularly sharp rise in the num-ber of workers from Morocco, Romania and the former Yugoslavia. As for Latin America, the largest increaseswere for Cuba and Ecuador, while the number of workers from Argentina, the Dominican Republic, Chile andBolivia fell.

The proportion of self-employed workers remained stable (at approximately 18%). It would appear that thenumber of self-employed workers was overestimated in 1997, since under the 1996 regularisation programme itwas necessary to have a job offer from an employer to obtain a work permit for paid employment. To circumventthis difficulty, a number of workers eligible for regularisation applied as self-employed persons.

The trend in the number of foreign workers was not identical across all regions. In Madrid their number fellin absolute terms, while in Barcelona it rose. The provinces of Almeria and Murcia had the largest increase inforeign workers.

Policy developments

Spain has strengthened its relations with Morocco, which now allows the readmission of undocumentedimmigrants apprehended at the southern border. Additional police and civil guards have also been stationedat Melilla and Ceuta. The number of Algerian and sub-Saharan nationals allowed entry to this area has beenincreased. A procedure was established in July 1997 specifically for nationals who entered via Ceuta or Melilla,who can be issued with a special residence and work permit.

Readmission agreements have been signed with Romania (April 1996) and Bulgaria (December 1996).

The General Electoral System Act was amended in May 1997 to enable all EU citizens residing in Spain tovote or run for office in municipal elections. A clause in the legislation provides non-EU foreign residents thesame rights, subject to reciprocity.

Introduction

At 1 January 1998, the total population of Sweden stood at 8.8 million, 6% of whom were foreigners. Unem-ployment ceased rising in 1993, the Swedish economy having begun to grow again. The beneficial effects ofrecently introduced active measures to boost the labour market were already noticeable by 1998. The unem-ployment rate at 1 January 1999 was estimated at 6.2%, down from 8% in 1993.

Migration movements and changes in the foreign population

Over the past ten years, emigration flows have remained relatively stable but immigration flows have fluc-tuated significantly. In 1997 net migration was positive at 18 100. Movements between Sweden and the Nordiccountries indicated that outflows from Sweden exceeded inflows, whereas arrivals from the former Yugoslavia,Iraq, Iran and Somalia increased, accounting for much of the net migration gain.

In 1993 and 1994 inflows of foreigners increased significantly. After peaking in 1994 (75 000), they declinedsharply (see Table II.38) to just under 33 400 in 1997. These fluctuations were largely due to the arrival of nation-als of the former Yugoslavia, with 42 000 entries in 1994, compared with only 7 000 the following year. Outflows

SWEDEN

OECD 1999


208

of foreigners have ranged from 11 000 to 16 000 since the late 1980s. In 1997 over 45% of these departures con-cerned Nordic country nationals.

Although net migration is positive, the resident foreign population has been declining steadily since 1994.This is largely because the annual number of naturalisations has exceeded the net migration of foreigners. At1 January 1998, some 522 000 foreigners were resident in Sweden (just under 6% of the total population). Finnsaccounted for 20% of the foreign population, followed by nationals from the former Yugoslavia (6%), andNorwegians, Iranians, Danes, Iraqis and Turks (just under 4% each). With the exception of Iraqis, the number ofimmigrants from all of these countries has declined over the past few years.

The overall contribution of immigration to Sweden’s total population can be evaluated by adding to thestock of foreigners resident in the country the stock of individuals born abroad and children with at least oneparent born abroad. After eliminating any double counting, the figure for 1997 amounted to around 1.7 million,meaning that in Sweden one person in five is of immigrant origin. Of the 954 000 people born abroad but resi-dent in Sweden, over half are Swedish citizens. These are people who have acquired Swedish nationality orhave at least one Swedish parent.

Table II.38. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of foreign population and labour force in SwedenFigures in thousands unless otherwise indicated

1994 1995 1996 1997 1994 1995 1996 1997

Total population1 8 816.4 8 837.5 8 844.5 8 847.6 Number of residence permits% of foreign population 6.1 6.0 6.0 5.9 by category of admission3 79.1 32.4 31.7 36.6

Family reunification 26.0 19.7 18.8 18.9Stock of foreign population1 537.4 531.8 526.6 522.0 Refugees 44.9 5.6 4.8 9.6

Nordic countries 166.4 163.7 160.8 162.2 EEA-agreement 6.0 4.7 5.2 4.6Finland 106.7 104.9 103.1 101.3 Foreign students 1.1 1.5 1.5 2.4Norway 33.0 32.3 31.7 31.0 Adopted children 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.7Denmark 26.7 26.5 26.0 25.4 Employment 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Other countries 371.0 368.1 365.8 359.8of which: Asylum seekers 18.6 9.0 5.8 9.6Former Yugoslavia 40.4 38.4 36.6 33.6 of which:Iran 32.7 29.3 27.2 26.2 Iraq 1.7 1.8 1.6 3.1Iraq 19.0 21.3 22.8 24.8 Former Yugoslavia 10.6 2.3 1.0 3.0

Inflows of foreigners by nationality Persons with foreign background4 1 598.5 1 630.1 1 656.6 1 683.7or region of origin2 74.8 36.1 29.3 33.4 Foreign-born 922.1 936.0 943.8 954.2Nordic countries 6.2 6.3 5.6 5.3 Swedish citizens 477.9 497.3 510.6 579.2

Finland 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.8 Foreigners 444.2 438.7 433.2 375.0Norway 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.5 Born in Sweden 676.5 694.0 712.8 729.0Denmark 1.8 1.8 1.4 1.0 Swedish citizens5 583.2 613.8 632.3 646.0

Other countries 68.6 29.8 23.8 28.1 Foreigners 93.2 80.2 80.5 83.0of which:

Former Yugoslavia 41.5 7.1 2.0 5.7 Stock of foreign labour6 213.0 220.0 218.0 220.0Iraq 3.5 2.3 2.1 3.7 Nordic nationals 91.0 91.0 90.0 87.0

Non-nordic nationals 122.0 130.0 128.0 133.0Net migration of foreigners

by nationality2 59.0 21.2 14.9 18.1 Acquisition of nationalityNordic countries –0.4 –0.2 –1.0 –1.1 by country of former nationality 35.1 32.0 25.6 28.9

Finland 0.2 0.1 –0.2 –0.2 Fomer Yugoslavia 6.4 3.6 2.4 6.1Norway –0.8 –0.5 –0.5 –0.6 Finland 3.0 2.1 2.0 1.9Denmark 0.2 0.2 –0.2 –0.4 Turkey 2.7 2.8 2.0 1.4

Other countries 59.4 21.4 15.8 19.3 Other countries 23.0 23.5 19.1 19.5of which: Former Yugoslavia 40.8 6.9 1.8 4.4

Mixed marriages 6.4 6.4 6.2 . .% of total marriages 17.4 17.7 17.2 . .

1. Data are from population registers and refer to the population on 31 December of the years indicated.2. Data are from population registers and refer to persons who declare their intention to stay in Sweden for longer than one year. Figures do not include asylum seekers who are

waiting for decisions and temporary workers.3. Residence permits are not required for Nordic citizens.4. Foreign background, first or second generation immigrant only.5. Young persons (up to 17) with at least one parent born abroad.6. Annual average from the Labour Force Survey.Sources: Swedish Immigration Board; Statistics Sweden.

OECD 1999

Sweden

209

The number of naturalisations, which had been declining steadily since 1993, rose between 1996 and 1997.Of 29 000 naturalisations in 1997, nationals of the former Yugoslavia accounted for over 20%, followed by Finnsand Turks, with 7 and 5% respectively.

Foreigners, other than Nordic country nationals, must have a residence permit in order to reside in Sweden.Since the late 1980s, the number of residence permits delivered has risen significantly. The two categories tohave benefited from this increase are immigrants entering for the purpose of family reunion and refugees. Theannual number of permits issued for family reunion has been around 20 000 since the early 1990s, with theexception of 1994 (26 000). That year, almost 45 000 refugees obtained a residence permit compared with under5 000 in 1996, and just under 10 000 in 1997. In 1997, a total of 36 600 residence permits was issued. Over three-quarters of these were issued to immigrants entering for the purpose of family reunion (18 900) and to refugees(9 600). The remainder, i.e. 4 600 permits, went to nationals from the European Economic Area (see Table II.38).


Applications for asylum in 1997 were up on the figure for 1996 (9 700, compared with 5 800). This increasewas largely due to the growing number of requests by citizens from Iraq and the former Yugoslavia. In 1998 theupward trend continued, with applications numbering around 13 000.

Since the early 1990s, the number of asylum seekers has fluctuated significantly, peaking in 1992 with84 000 applications. These changes were due to the political situation in the applicants’ countries of origin, butalso to the introduction of visas for nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina to enter Sweden as of June 1993. Similarmeasures were taken in the same year for nationals of Serbia-Montenegro and the former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia, and in 1994 (although these measures were later abolished) for people from Haiti, Ivory Coast, Gambia,Niger, Togo and Uganda. The decline in the number of applications since 1992 is largely due to the sharp dropin applications by nationals of the former Yugoslavia, which fell from 69 400 in 1992 to barely 1 000 in 1996.

Sweden has other forms of refugee status than that defined under the Geneva Convention, and the require-ments are less stringent. However, the terms de facto or “war-resister” disappeared in 1997 from the terminologyused to define refugee status (see below).

Following a government decision in April 1994, some 20 000 Kosovo Albanians who had entered Sweden asasylum seekers before 1 January 1993 were granted permanent resident permits on humanitarian grounds.

In 1997, 10 000 residence permits were granted to refugees. Almost two thirds were granted on humanitar-ian grounds, 14% under the Geneva Convention, 12% under refugee quotas and 8% to persons in need of assis-tance.


There were 220 000 foreign workers in the labour force in Sweden, or some 5% of the overall total, at1 January 1998. Finnish citizens were the most numerous, accounting for around one-quarter of the total labourforce, followed by nationals from the former Yugoslavia (15%) and in decreasing order of importance, byNorwegians, Danes and Iranians (this latter 5%). With just over 400 permanent resident permits issued to work-ers in 1997, immigration specifically to enter the labour market remained marginal. The said permits arerestricted to highly skilled individuals recruited in industry, self-employed workers and those in the professions.

Of the 4 600 nationals of the European Economic Area who were given permanent resident permits in 1997,some 2 000 have entered the Swedish labour market. They did not have to apply for a work permit. However,they did have to obtain permission to reside in the country, but this is given almost automatically and serves tocount the number of people in this category entering the country.

There are also temporary work permits, which are not recorded in the annual migration statistics. These areeasier to obtain than permanent permits. On the other hand, there are fewer statistics available on the annualnumber of temporary permits delivered, since many different authorities are involved. The County LabourBoards issue seasonal permits, whereas the Immigration Board, in consultation with the National Labour MarketAdministration, issues other types of temporary permit. These short-stay permits go mostly to seasonal workers.In 1996 some 8 400 temporary permits were issued, mostly in the horticultural sector.

OECD 1999


210

Policy developments

As of March 1996, the administration of migration policy and integration policy has been divided betweentwo ministries. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is now in charge of migration policy; integration policy became theresponsibility of the Ministry of the Interior.

An amendment to the Aliens Act regarding refugees came into force in January 1997. It defined refugee sta-tus more flexibly than the 1951 Geneva Convention. Individuals may be recognised as refugees even if theircountry is not one of the so-called “unsafe” countries. Refugees are foreigners who are outside the country oftheir nationality and are at risk of being persecuted in their country because of their race, nationality, member-ship of a social or religious group or political opinions. This definition applies whether the refugees are afraidof being persecuted by their government, or whether the latter is unable to provide adequate protection frompersecution. The Act also covers stateless persons.

In September 1990 Sweden ratified the United Nations Convention on Children’s Rights. This Conventionhas not been incorporated into Swedish legislation, but the government announced that the legislation on for-eigners was in compliance with the UN Convention on Children’s Rights, and that only a few clarificationsremained to be made. An important provision was included, requiring that the health, development and inter-est of the child be considered. As a result, the legal authorities must take the presence of children into accountwhen issuing a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. The measures applying to children in the Aliens Act,which previously concerned persons under the age of 16, now concern those under the age of 18.

In September 1997 the government submitted a bill to Parliament entitled “Sweden, the Future and thePlural Society – from Immigration Policy to Integration Policy”. The objectives of this policy are to ensure equalrights and opportunities for all, regardless of ethnic or cultural origin, and to promote social cohesion and devel-opment in an atmosphere of tolerance and mutual respect.

Introduction

After experiencing recession in 1996, the Swiss economy registered a 0.7% increase in GDP in 1997. How-ever, unemployment rose from 4.7 to 5.2%.

Migration and changes in the foreign population

The downward trend in inflows of foreign nationals that began in 1993 continued in 1997 (just over70 000 arrivals, compared with slightly under 74 500 in 1996, see Table II.39); the number of departuresdeclined. The number of foreigners entering Switzerland in order to work accounted for less than one-third oftotal inflows for that year, marking a clear decline.

The decrease in inflows of nationals from the former Yugoslavia (still the most numerous group, however),a trend that began in 1994, continued in 1997. The same was true of most of the other main countries of origin.Inflows from Germany remained at the same level as in 1996, whereas Portugal’s ranking in the list of sendingcountries fell for a fourth consecutive year. Inflows from Turkey and Spain also declined.

Departures of foreign nationals were down on 1996, with Italians heading the list (15.6%), followed byPortuguese (13.7%), Germans (9.2%) and Spanish (9%).

Positive net migration, i.e. the difference between immigration and emigration, has been steadily decliningsince 1992 (see Table II.39). In 1997, net migration of Italians, Spanish and Portuguese was negative for the sec-ond consecutive year. Conversely, net migration was positive for the French, Turks, Germans and nationals ofthe former Yugoslavia.

SWITZERLAND

OECD 1999

Switzerland

211

A breakdown by age reveals, as in previous years, that net migration was positive for the under 20 and 20-39age groups. This indicates that migration is, for the time being, helping to slow down the ageing of the Swisspopulation.

At 31 December 1997, the resident foreign population stood at 1 341 000 (by April 1998 the figure wasreported to have grown by some 3 500) and accounted for 19% of the total population (see Table II.39).

Holders of one-year residence permits accounted for 27% of the foreign population residing in Switzerlandin 1997. Over 80% had lived in Switzerland for over five years. Italians still comprise the majority of foreign res-idents, but their numbers have been declining steadily since 1974; they fell again in 1997. Nationals of theformer Yugoslavia accounted for just under a quarter of the total foreign resident population, an increase ofalmost 3% on 1996. Portuguese nationals accounted for 10%, Spanish for 7%, French for 4% and Austrians for 2%.

Table II.39. Current figures on the components of total population change, on migratory flowsand stocks of foreign population and labour force in Switzerland

Figures in thousands unless otherwise indicated

1994 1995 1996 1997 1994 1995 1996 1997

Population on 31 December Foreign populationof the years indicated 7 019.0 7 062.0 7 085.0 7 094.0 By main nationality1 1 300.1 1 330.6 1 337.6 1 340.8% of foreigners 18.6 18.9 19.0 19.0 Italy 364.0 358.9 350.3 342.3

Former Yugoslavia 272.4 294.2 305.0 313.5Components of foreign population Portugal 128.6 134.8 137.1 136.3

change1 39.8 30.5 7.0 3.2 Germany 89.1 90.9 92.7 94.7Net migration1 39.4 26.8 12.0 9.3 Spain 103.7 101.4 97.7 94.0Natural increase 14.2 13.3 14.1 13.4 France 52.7 53.6 54.3 55.0Acquisitions of Swiss nationality –13.8 –16.8 –19.4 –19.2 Other countries 289.5 296.7 300.5 305.0Other2 – 7.2 0.2 –0.3

Foreign workers4 911.6 895.7 869.7 847.4Migration flows of foreigners3 of which: Women 319.0 319.1 313.6 309.4

Inflows by main nationality3 91.7 87.9 74.3 70.1 Inflows by status of residenceFormer Yugoslavia 25.3 22.3 14.1 12.8 % of resident workers 81.2 81.3 81.5 81.7Germany 8.7 8.6 8.7 8.5 % of cross-border workers 16.7 16.9 16.9 16.7Italy 6.9 6.7 5.4 5.0France 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.8 Foreign resident workersPortugal 8.6 7.6 5.5 4.0 By main nationality1 740.3 728.7 709.1 692.8Other countries 37.2 37.7 35.7 35.0 Italy 224.7 214.3 202.5 189.5

Former Yugoslavia 133.0 134.6 136.2 138.3Outflows by main nationality3 64.2 67.5 67.7 63.4 Portugal 78.8 80.5 79.3 65.2

Italy 9.9 10.3 10.8 9.9 Germany 55.7 56.3 56.7 57.3Portugal 7.5 7.4 7.9 8.7 Spain 66.6 63.5 59.8 54.6Former Yugoslavia 8.0 8.7 9.0 7.2 Others 181.5 179.5 174.6 187.9Germany 6.2 6.6 6.2 5.9France 3.5 3.8 3.7 3.5 By major industry divisionOther countries 29.2 30.6 30.1 28.2 Agriculture, forestry 13.4 14.8 14.5 15.5

Extractive and manufacturingNet migration by main nationality3 27.5 20.4 6.6 6.7 industries 129.2 123.9 117.4 112.1

Former Yugoslavia 17.3 13.6 5.1 5.6 Building 96.0 94.2 87.4 80.5Germany 2.5 2.0 2.4 2.6 Trade 88.3 91.7 90.6 89.5France 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.3 Hotel, restaurants 78.6 81.3 80.4 80.0Portugal 1.1 0.2 –2.3 –4.7 Other services 334.7 322.7 318.9 315.1Italy –3.0 –3.6 –5.4 –4.9Other countries 8.0 7.0 5.6 6.8 Cross-border workers by nationality 151.9 151.0 147.0 142.0

France (% of the total) 48.6 49.0 49.5 50.2Asylum seekers 16.1 17.0 18.0 24.0 Italy (% of the total) 24.4 24.2 23.4 23.0

Germany (% of the total) 20.6 20.6 21.1 21.0Acquisition of nationality Others (% of the total) 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.8

by country of former nationality 13.8 16.8 19.4 19.2Italy 3.3 4.4 5.2 5.0Former Yugoslavia 1.8 2.5 2.8 3.0Turkey 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.8France 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0Other countries 6.8 7.9 8.9 8.4

1. Data cover only foreigners with annual or settlement permits and include conversions of seasonal work permits into annual or settlement permits.2. The introduction of a new data processing system explain the peculiarly high figure for 1995.3. Data include only foreigners who obtained an annual or settlement permit during the indicated year. Conversions of seasonal work permits into annual or settlement permits are

not included.4. Figures cover foreign workers with settlement, annual, cross-border and seasonal permits.Source: Office federal des etrangers.

OECD 1999


212

After rising in 1996, the number of people acquiring Swiss nationality levelled off in 1997 at just under19 200.This figure is equivalent to almost 1.5% of the foreign population residing permanently in the country atend-December 1997. The majority of those acquiring Swiss nationality were from EU/EFTA countries (43% of thetotal), other European countries (32%), followed by Asian and Arab countries. Of EU/EFTA nationals acquiringSwiss nationality, Italians headed the list, followed by French and Germans.


Almost 24 000 applications for asylum were made in 1997, one-third more than in 1996. The upward trendcontinued in 1998 with 40 000 applications registered. Over a third of the applications in 1998 were from citizensof the former Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Bosnia and Somalia. The number of applications in abeyance in 1997rose to over 17 000, mainly owing to the increase in the number of applications from persons originating fromKosovo.

Refugee status was granted in only 11% of all adjudicated cases. Acceptance rates varied widely by nation-ality. The rate was 3% for citizens of Sri Lanka, 30% for those of Bosnia and Herzegovina and 86% for those fromVietnam. Almost 24 000 were granted refugee status in 1997, an increase of 4% on 1996.


At the end of 1997, having fallen for the third consecutive year, the number of foreign workers stood at lessthan 850 000 (see Table II.39). Almost two-thirds of the foreign labour force were settled immigrants, a fifth heldone-year permits, 17% were cross-border workers and 1.5% seasonal workers (this type of work being at its leastavailable in December). The participation rate for the resident foreign population was almost 52% in 1997 andvaried according to nationality: 42% for Turks, for instance, and 65% for Austrians.

On average over 1997, foreign nationals accounted for almost one quarter of the total labour force. The pro-portion of foreigners in the total unemployed (almost 47% in December 1997) is much higher than the propor-tion of foreigners in the total labour force.

As in previous years a breakdown of the foreign labour force by gender reveals that men (63%) are far morenumerous than women (37%). Numbers have fallen for most nationalities, with the exception of those from theformer Yugoslavia. Foreigners are employed mainly in commerce, banking and insurance (21%), metalworkingand machine-tools (17%), the hotel and catering industry (12%) and, finally, building and civil engineering (11%).The hotel and catering industry, education, healthcare, commerce and metalworking together employ 55% ofnew immigrant workers.

The number of seasonal workers arriving in Switzerland in 1997 was down 25% on 1996, to just below 47 000.The sharp decline in conversions of seasonal permits to one-year permits continued in 1997. In line with thedecision taken by the Federal Council in 1994 to restrict the conversion of seasonal permits to EU/EFTA nation-als, the seasonal workers most affected by the decrease are those from the former Yugoslavia (4% were grantedconversions in 1997, compared with 41% in 1996). In 1997, some 60% of all seasonal permit conversions weregranted to Portuguese nationals.

In August 1997, seasonal workers accounted for 3.5% of all foreign labour. This figure, which was down on1996, is attributable to the economic slowdown in the construction and catering industries, which had hithertoemployed large numbers of seasonal workers.

Due to continued economic stagnation the number of cross-border workers declined in 1997, confirmingthe trend first recorded in 1991. Unemployment is higher in the border cantons, in particular Geneva and Ticino,than in other regions.

Policy developments

Developments in Switzerland’s migration policy in 1997 were made within a climate of conflicting politicalpressures. On the one hand, policy developments in this were contingent on the bilateral agreements at thattime in the course of negotiation with the European Union on the “free movement of persons”. On the other, apopular initiative submitted in 1995 for referendum by the year 2000 aims at limiting the proportion of foreign-

OECD 1999

Turkey

213

ers to 18% of the total population. Yet the very sharp rise in asylum applications in 1998, due mainly to the wors-ening situation in the former Yugoslavia and the fact that Switzerland is not a party to the Dublin Convention onApplications for Asylum, to some extent calls this latter objective into question.

A broad debate was launched in 1993 on the drawing up of a Migration Act; in this regard Switzerland’sadmission and integration policies were selected as priority areas. In 1996 a group of experts was asked to putforward proposals for a new migration policy; it submitted its final report in August 1997. The experts felt that aframework act on migration should be ruled out because of the legal, legislative and political problems it wouldcause. At the same time, they identified five priority areas, namely admission policy, integration policy, expul-sion and repatriation policy, foreign policy with regard to migration, and information and communications policy.

On the subject of admissions, the experts recommended replacing the three-circle model with a binary onedistinguishing only between EEA countries and the rest of the world. Such a model envisages the gradual intro-duction of freedom of movement for nationals of countries in the first circle, and a strict quota system for theothers.

The independent experts recommend greater commitment to social integration on the part of the Confed-eration. The Federal Commission for Foreigners (CFE) has carried out a consultation procedure, as part of thepreparations for a report on Switzerland’s future policy on integration, and its findings highlight the need toestablish and co-ordinate stronger structures aimed at taking practical steps to promote integration, and tomake sufficient funding available.

The bilateral negotiations between Switzerland and the European Union continued throughout 1997 and1998. They were concluded in 1999 with the signature of an agrement in Luxembourg on 21 June. The contractingparties had reached an agreement on the gradual introduction of the free movement of persons.

The Federal Council unanimously approved the report by the group of experts on a new migration policyfor Switzerland. The proposal to modify the three-circle model was incorporated into the full revision of the fed-eral law on the residence and settlement of foreigners, initiated in early 1998. A full revision of the Order limitingthe number of foreigners (OLE) is underway which is expected to lead to the suppression of the status of sea-sonal worker and the facilitation of foreigners’ family reunion as well as their geographic and professional mobil-ity. A new law on the right to asylum, approved in June 1999 created a status of war refugee which will give theright to temporary asylum on Swiss territory.

Introduction

Since the early 1980s, Turkey has undertaken far-reaching changes to its economy supported by stronggrowth (6% a year on average over the period 1980-97) and fuelled by the dynamic expansion of the industrialsector and services. The gradual opening up of the Turkish economy to the outside has played an important rolein these changes, and has picked up speed following the entry into force on 31 December 1995 of the CustomsUnion Agreement between Turkey and the European Community.

After the financial crisis of 1994, the economy has enjoyed strong growth (more than 7% in 1996 and 1997)stimulated by a rapid recovery in investments due in part to the new opportunities created by the CustomsUnion and the opening up of the CEECs and the former Soviet Union. Exports of manufactures to the EuropeanUnion, the countries of Eastern Europe and Russia have grown quickly. In 1998, the rate of growth fell to 2.8%and the forecasts for the year 2000 are lower still (2%).

In spite of the changes made, the Turkish economy continues to show recurrent weaknesses: a large andinefficient agricultural sector, a very small financial sector, chronic monetary instability and very high inflation.From end-1995 to end-1997, annual inflation (consumer prices) exceeded 80% on average. In 1998, inflation fellslightly; by April 1999 it was below 65% and could be around 50% in 1999.

TURKEY

OECD 1999


214

The government in place since mid-1997 has begun a stabilisation programme aimed at bringing inflationdown to less than 10% by the end of 2000. Other objectives of the programme are to restructure the budget,introduce the reforms required to consolidate public finances, particularly as regards social security, and accel-erate the process of privatisation.

Population, employment and unemployment

The population of Turkey is a little over 62 million. The working age population, which includes all personsaged 12 and over, is estimated at a little under 47 million. The female participation rate remains low (43% in ruralareas, but less than 16% in towns). Retirement occurs at a relatively young age. A little over half the labour forceis covered by the social security system. Nearly 30% of jobs are in the public sector. From some 20 million in1993, the labour force rose to 22.5 million in 1997, nearly half of whom were employed in the agricultural sector.Of these, almost 60% were unpaid family members.

Despite a substantial fall in real wages, unemployment, which stood at 8% after the 1994 crisis has fallenonly slightly; it was just below 7% in 1998. Unemployment among young educated people is severe (30%). Giventhat there exists no unemployment benefit system and that family workers and the self-employed constitute alarge proportion of the active population, an estimate of under-employment is as important as that of unem-ployment. The under-employment rate was estimated at a little over 6% in October 1997.

Population growth (1.6% per annum), its demographic structure (a third of the population is below 14 yearsof age) and a likely rise in the participation rate point to a rapid increase in the labour force in the years to come,which risks leading to a worsening of the general employment situation.

Emigration and trends of the Turkish population abroad

Figures relating to the Turkish population living abroad are compiled from the records of the host countriesand of the overseas representatives of the Ministries of Labour and Social Security and of Foreign Affairs. Dif-ferences in definitions, in coverage and in time-frame give rise to marked variations. Moreover, the figures arefor legal migrants only.

The number of Turks living abroad continues to increase and was estimated at a little over 3.45 million in1998, representing 5.3% of Turkey’s total resident population. The number of Turkish workers employed abroadfell, however, equivalent to 5.5% of Turkey’s total labour force in 1998.

Unemployment among Turkish immigrants

Unemployment affects mostly Turks living in European Union countries and is significantly higher not onlythan the rate for nationals but also that of other migrants despite association agreements signed in 1996between the European Community and Turkey giving Turkish workers priority for job vacancies not filled byworkers from the EU. The principal factors accounting for this phenomenon are poor command of the host coun-try’s language, insufficient formal education, the lack of occupational and technical training, difficulties in inte-grating into the host society, health problems and the ageing of the active Turkish population.

Emigration of Turkish workers

In 1997, the annual emigration of Turkish workers organised by the Turkish Employment Office concernednearly 33 500 individuals, 12% down on 1996 (see Table II.40). This figure seems relatively low compared to thenumber of candidates for emigration recorded on the “waiting list” which amounted to more than 600 000 per-sons in October 1998, demonstrating the strong propensity of the Turkish population to emigrate.

The number of Turkish workers recruited in the CIS countries, the Gulf states and Libya fell between 1996and 1997. Saudi Arabia now takes less than 15% of all Turkish workers dispatched by the Public EmploymentOffice and accounts for only 10% of the total number of Turkish workers living abroad. Given that this countryappears to have completed the bulk of its infrastructure construction, this trend is set to continue. The RussianFederation remains the principal importer of Turkish labour. However, the market for sub-contracted labourappears to have stopped growing. Moreover, Turkish sub-contractors are faced with stiff competition from the

OECD 1999

Turkey

215

member countries of the CIS which are suffering severe unemployment following the recent waves of privatisa-tion. The annual flow of Turkish workers to the European Union fell from more than 2 600 1996 to nearly 1 900 in1997, 1 800 of which were to Germany.

A Prime Ministerial Regulation dated 16 February1998 set up two committees with the task of consideringthe difficulties of Turks living abroad. The main purposeof the “Supreme Committee for nationals livingabroad”, comprising the Prime Minister, the Minister ofState responsible for migrations and the Minister forForeign Affairs, is to formulate the policies required toresolve the difficulties facing Turkish emigrants in hostcountries, to take decisions in response to theirrequests, and to draft proposals for the adoption ofappropriate legislation. The “Co-ordinating Committeefor nationals living abroad” is composed of 46 represen-tatives of Turkish communities established in twelvedifferent countries. Its main task is to identify the prob-lems facing Turks living abroad and to recommend solu-tions to the Supreme Committee.

Naturalisations

Many host countries have restrictive and changinglegislation rendering naturalisation difficult. Some-times, as in Germany, this legislation requires migrantsto renounce their nationality of origin. This did notencourage Turkish nationals abroad to apply for natu-ralisation, for this renunciation would have stripped them of the right to own property in Turkey. Moreover,males were not permitted to renounce Turkish nationality without having first performed military service.

Two amendments to Turkish law on nationality were made in 1995 making it easier for Turkish emigrants toacquire the nationality of their country of residence. The first created a “special foreign nationality”, allowingTurkish emigrants to retain their rights and property in Turkey. The second amendment allowed males under20 years of age to renounce Turkish nationality before having completed their military service.

In recent years, some host countries have made it easier for foreigners to obtain their nationality. For exam-ple in Germany, an initial relaxation adopted in 1993, coupled with the amendments to the Turkish legislation,led to an increase in naturalisation applications. The reform of the German Nationality Code, adopted in 1999,introducing certain principles of jus soli, could have similar consequences in the months to come.

Return migration

Return migration by Turkish emigrants is relatively low. For example, over the period 1984-95, fewer than11 500 Turks left France for good in order to return to Turkey. There are many reasons why Turks choose toremain in host countries. Their families have usually joined them abroad, second and third-generation childrenspeak the language of the host country fluently, and health services are more highly developed than in Turkey.Moreover, Turks wishing to return home risk finding it difficult to re-adapt, particularly so given the limitedopportunities offered by the present structure of the Turkish labour market.

Immigration in Turkey

Although Turkey is not generally considered as a destination country, political upheaval in neighbouringcountries (Bulgaria, the former Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia, Iraq and Iran, for example) coupled withstricter immigration controls in other West European countries, has led a growing number of migrants to settlethere. Foreigners working in Turkey are legally obliged to obtain an individual residence permit. However, since

Table II.40. Number of Turkish workers sent abroadby the National Employment and Placement Office,

by country or region of destination, 1994-1997, TurkeyThousands

1994 1995 1996 1997

New Independent States 41.8 35.8 25.9 17.0Saudi Arabia 13.1 14.5 5.6 7.7Israel . . 3.1 3.7 4.3EU1 2.1 2.6 2.6 1.9

Germany . . . . 2.4 1.8Libya 1.9 1.8 2.1 1.8United States . . 0.3 0.3 0.3Cyprus 0.1 . . 0.1 0.1Kuwait 0.1 0.3 – –Australia 0.1 0.2 0.1 –Romania . . 0.3 – –Other countries 2.1 0.6 0.3 0.3

Total 61.1 59.5 40.7 33.3

1. From 1995 on, the data also include the other countries of theEconomic European Area.

Source: Ministry of Labour and Social Security, General Directorate ofWorkers Abroad.

OECD 1999


216

their number remains all but negligible (just under 16 500) this requirement is not rigorously enforced. Slightlyless than half originate from the EEA and North America. They are generally highly skilled and typically accom-pany inward direct investments. By contrast, those originating from the CIS, the CEECs, the Middle East andAfrica, who together account for 40% of foreigners working in Turkey, tend to be much less qualified.

Turkey is also a transit country for many illegal immigrants, mainly from Asia and Northern Iraq. Until now,it has refused to conclude readmission agreements with European Union Member States, on constitutionalgrounds. This position makes border controls particularly difficult and uncertain. Nevertheless, Turkey recentlyintroduced a new passport system in line with the standards of the International Civil Aviation Organisation(ICAO), and optical-scanner passport controls.

Introduction

In 1998 the UK economy posted GDP growth in excess of 2.5% for a fifth consecutive year; average annualgrowth over this period exceeded 3%. Although employment growth has decelerated somewhat from the almost2% recorded in 1997 the labour market remains tight. Unemployment, having fallen below 7% in 1997, its lowestlevel since 1980, continued to decline in 1998. Companies have been reporting recruitment difficulties, espe-cially for skilled workers in the service sector.

The response of migration inflows in 1997 to this strong economic performance was positive. Although out-flows recorded by the International Passenger Survey were the highest since 1991 the inflows attained a histor-ically high level; the net gain was the second highest since 1979 (see Chart II.14). As in previous years, a net lossof British citizens was more than made up for by a net gain in the number of non-British citizens. Settlement alsocontinued at a fairly high level, the number in 1997 being the second highest figure since 1991. The stock of for-eign nationals living in the United Kingdom rose strongly as did the number in the labour force, the latter toover a million. Applications for asylum continue to rise.

Recent trends in the flow pattern

Net flows of non-UK nationals have been positive throughout the 1980s and thus far through the 1990s. Theflow pattern has broadly reflected changes in economic conditions with a lag of some 12-18 months. The amplitudeof fluctuation has been rather less than that of British citizens. A disaggregation of the flow data into EuropeanUnion (excluding Ireland whose citizens share with those of the United Kingdom a Common Travel Area) and non-EU citizens reveals that the former, having fluctuated between 5 and 15 000 during the 1980s (with the exceptionof 1986), have increased sharply since 1994 to reach 29 000 in 1997 (see Table II.41). During the 1980s and throughto 1992 the net flows of non-EU citizens fluctuated to a greater extent around a core value of approximately 40 000since which time they have increased year on year to 65 000 in 1997, the highest recorded in this data series.

The balance of immigration is very much in favour of those not in employment, the implication being thatthe bulk of recorded net migration gain consists of people who are not going to make a direct economic impacton the UK labour market. That said, the data clearly indicate that the foreign members of the labour force are onaverage more skilled than their UK counterparts. Moreover, this disparity has been increasing. Reflecting the oper-ation of the work permit system, non-EU foreign nationals are particularly likely to be highly skilled.

Enforcement and deportation

Some 14 300 “illegal” entrants – persons who entered the country using false papers or clandestinely – weredetected in 1997. This compares with 7 500 in 1994, 10 400 in 1995 and 14 500 in 1996 and thus halts the strongupward trend of recent years. One reason for this is that increasingly effective detection procedures have

UNITED KINGDOM

OECD 1999

United Kingdom

217

reduced the possibilities for illegal entry. The number of persons removed as illegal entrants, including thosewho left voluntarily following the initiation of enforcement action, increased by almost one third to 4 500.

Settlement

“Settlement”, in the context of migration in the United Kingdom, refers to the acquisition of permanent res-idence status. Most of the individuals acquiring permanent residence status have already resided in the UnitedKingdom for a considerable period of time (typically four years continuously) in order to fulfil qualifying periodsof residence. In 1997 almost 80% were accepted on the basis of family ties with other UK residents. Thoseaccepted on the basis of having held a work permit accounted for less than 5%.

As in recent years, the majority of those granted settlement in 1997 were young, with almost three quartersof those accepted aged under 35. Only 3% were aged 60 and over. Those from the Indian subcontinent continued

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

250

200

150

100

50

0

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1987 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 1987 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

1987 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

88

1. Data are from the International Passenger Survey (IPS).2. Data from the IPS adjusted to include some asylum seekers, short-term

visitors who are subsequently granted an extension of stay for otherreasons (study, marriage for example).

3. Including accompanying dependents.4. Passengers admitted to the United Kingdom, excluding European

Economic Area nationals. Data exclude visitors, passengers in transitor returning on limited leave or who previously settled. Students andau pair girls are also excluded.

5. Excluding dependents.6. Figures include holders of a first permission (long and short term) and

trainees (Training and work experience scheme, TWES). Data do notinclude EU foreign nationals.

7. Data are based on the issue of a national insurance card to all newworkers.

Sources: International Passenger Survey; Home Office.

Chart II.14. Immigration flows to the United Kingdom, 1987-1997Thousands

IPS1 IPS, adjusted figures2

Acceptances for settlement

Asylum requests3 Home Office data4

Europe Africa Asia

A. Inflows of foreignersaccording to the different available sources

B. Number of asylum seekers5

Main regions of origin

Work permits6 Labour Force Survey

International Passenger Survey

Department of Social Security7

C. Inflows of foreign workers

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

250

200

150

100

50

0

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1987 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 1987 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

1987 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

88













Europe Africa Asia








160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

250

200

150

100

50

0

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1987 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 1987 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

1987 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

88













Europe Africa Asia








OECD 1999


218

to be generally younger with about 85% of acceptances under 35, though there was a relatively higher proportionfrom that source aged 60 and over, reflecting acceptances of elderly relatives.

Citizenship and naturalisation

Although the number of applications for British citizenship has grown at an average annual rate of 11% overthe last five years, to reach 65 000 in 1997, the numbers accepted have been drifting downwards. Around 37 000were granted citizenship in 1997, a 14% fall on the previous year; nearly 5 000 applications were refused (seeTable II.41). That the number of applications decided decreased in 1997 was due to the high levels of applica-tions received and the number of progress enquiries they generated which diverted staff from processing appli-cations.

Immigration and the labour market

The Labour Force Survey is the only source of data permitting a breakdown by nationality of the stock of for-eign population and workforce in the United Kingdom. The survey includes all United Kingdom and foreign citi-zens, but the relatively small size of the sample (one sample interviewee is weighted up to approximately300 people) means that disaggregation by nationality and migrant characteristics cannot be detailed.

Stocks of foreign nationals

During the period 1992-96 stocks of foreign nationals in the United Kingdom fluctuated around the 2 millionmark. The total in 1998 was just over 2.2 million, an almost 7% increase on 1997. The rise in the previous year hadbeen just less than 5%. The number of foreign nationals working in the United Kingdom fluctuated between 850and 900 000 from 1993 to 1996, since when it has risen strongly, to exceed one million for the first time in 1998(3.9% of the total in employment). Irish workers accounted for just under half of all EU workers. Their numbershaving remained steady over the past five years the proportion of foreign workers from the EU has been declin-ing, the 1998 figure being just below 44%.

Age distribution of foreign workers

The youthful nature of newly entering foreign workers continues to be apparent. Department of SocialSecurity figures for 1996/7 show that almost 85% were under 35, virtually the same as in the previous four years.The EU continues to be especially important as a source of young workers with over nine in ten aged below 35,and just over half in the 18-24 age bracket. Those from the rest of Europe and from non-European countries tendto be older, again a pattern that has been constant throughout the 1990s. These data suggest that freedom ofmovement within the Union continues to allow substantial numbers of young people to enter the United King-dom from the rest of the EU in order to work. In all probability most of them do so on a temporary basis.

Work permits

Applications for work permits are made by the employer on behalf of the non-EEA potential employee inorder to fill a specific post. (Since 1994, EEA nationals have not required a work permit.) During 1997 there werejust over 72 000 applications (including those for first permission, extension or change of employment and train-ing), a 17% rise on the preceding year.

The total number of issues was slightly over 54 000, a 13% increase on 1996, including 7 700 extensions and2 500 changes of employment, both of which were small reductions on the previous year. Thus, the increase inissues has been in fresh additions to the foreign workforce. An analysis of the occupations for which the permitshave been accorded reveals that the work permit system is mainly operating to bring in, on a long-term basis,the highly skilled. The rise in the number of long-term work permits holders over last few years is consistentwith an increased demand for skills as the UK economy emerged strongly from recession and went into a periodof sustained growth. The data also suggest that deregulation in the UK labour market has opened it up to labourfrom outside the EEA.

OECD 1999

Un

ited

Kin

gd

om

OE

CD

199

Table II.41. Current figures on migratory flows and stocks of total population and labour force in the United KingdomThousands

1994 1995 1996 1997

44.0 40.5 43.1 37.05.2 4.6 4.7 4.32.1 1.8 1.7 1.53.1 2.9 2.9 2.84.5 4.1 4.3 3.57.9 7.9 9.2 8.0

11.3 9.9 10.8 8.54.3 3.5 3.5 2.85.1 4.8 5.2 4.11.5 1.7 1.5 1.44.2 3.9 3.9 4.3

5.9 25.7 5.5 3.4

32.8 44.0 29.6 32.5

5.4 7.1 6.5 9.117.0 22.5 11.3 9.59.5 13.0 10.0 10.91.0 1.4 1.8 2.9

ceived10.2 14.4 12.4 16.622.6 29.6 17.2 15.9

13.2 16.0 21.4 19.95.1 5.0 5.4 6.5

46.0 51.0 50.0 59.065.7 77.0 89.0 79.0

125.8 133.9 145.9 130.330.1 35.5 37.7 42.4

12.9 15.6 16.8 19.013.4 15.5 16.9 18.73.8 4.4 4.0 4.7

25 278 25 699 25 962 26 44624 411 24 835 25 095 25 497

864 862 865 949

219

9 1994 1995 1996 1997

Migration flows1 Total grants of citizenship in the United KingdomTotal inflows 253 246 272 285 by previous country or region of nationality

Inflows of non-British citizens 135 155 168 188 Europeof which: European Economic Area

EU 29 41 54 61 Other European countriesNon-EU 106 114 114 127 Americas

Inflows of British citizens 118 91 104 97 AfricaIndian sub-continent

Total outflows 191 192 216 225 Middle EastOutflows of non-British citizens 83 74 77 94 Other Asian countriesof which: Oceania

EU 22 20 24 32 Other countriesNon-EU 61 54 53 62

Outflows of British citizens 108 118 139 131 Grants of citizenship in Hong Kong, China

Net migration 62 54 56 60 Asylum seekers (Total applications received)Non-British citizens 52 81 91 94 By region of originof which: Europe

EU 7 21 30 29 AfricaNon-EU 45 60 61 65 Asia

British citizens 10 –27 –35 –34 OtherAccording to the place where the application was re

Acceptances for settlement 55.0 55.6 61.7 58.7 At portBy region of origin In country

Europe (excluding EU)2 4.6 4.2 7.5 7.7Americas 7.9 8.2 8.5 7.8 Illegal immigration statisticsAfrica 11.9 12.0 13.0 13.2 Persons against whom enforcement action takenIndian Sub-Continent 14.1 14.5 13.6 13.1 Persons removed from countryMiddle East 2.6 2.9 4.8 4.2Remainder of Asia 9.2 8.8 9.5 8.4 Available sources on inflows of foreign workersOceania 2.9 3.5 3.5 3.1 Labour Force SurveyOther 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.3 International Passenger Survey

By category of acceptance Department of Social SecurityAccepted in own right 7.7 6.4 6.7 7.6 Work permitsSpouses and dependents 43.4 44.9 48.6 46.2 of which:Other 3.9 4.3 6.5 4.9 Short-term

Long-termStock of total population3 TraineesTotal population 57 169 57 406 57 624 57 870Total number of British citizens 55 126 55 442 55 680 55 796 Total stock of employment3

Total number of foreign nationals 2 032 1 948 1 934 2 066 Total populationTotal number of British citizensTotal number of foreign nationals

Note: European Union totals from 1995 onwards include the new member countries (Austria, Finland and Sweden).1. Data are from the International Passenger Survey. Movements between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom are not recorded. Data for 1997 are provisional.2. An acceptance of settlement is not required for EU citizens.3. Data are from the national Labour Force Survey. Figures for total population include citizens for whom nationality is not stated.Sources: International Passenger Survey; Home Office Statistical Bulletin; Control of Immigration Statistics; National Labour Force Survey.


220

The major countries of origin are other advanced industrial countries, with which the United Kingdom hasdeveloped a network of expertise exchange. The United States and Japan continue to dominate the list of long-term work permit issues, as they have for many years: the United States has consistently accounted for morethan a quarter (31% in both 1996 and 1997), with Japan in second place (just under 11% in 1997 issues, down from13% in 1996). For most other countries, the number of long-term work permit issues has been no more than afew hundred.

The work permit system is characterised by a turnover of labour, though for a substantial minority it resultsin a grant of the right of settlement. Based on a comparison between the number of permit holders granted set-tlement and the number of long-term work permits issued four years previously since 1985, the propensity ofwork permit holders to settle permanently is one quarter.

Seasonal workers

The United Kingdom has one seasonal worker scheme, in agriculture. The origins of the scheme go back tothe period after the Second World War when Displaced Persons were employed as seasonal agricultural labour-ers. Systematic data on the present scheme have only been collected since 1992, however. All new recruits mustbe students in full time education abroad, and aged between 18 and 25. The period of work is of a maximum of3 months and should not extend beyond 30 November. The total number recruited each year is governed by aquota, currently set at 10 000, though the actual number is normally below this level. That said, the scheme hasbeen growing in importance with the number of workers admitted rising from less than 3 600 in 1992 to justunder 9 300 in 1997. Almost 98% of those admitted are from Central and Eastern Europe. In 1997 Polandaccounted for almost 40% of the total. The majority are male, though their proportion has been falling, from 67%in 1992 to 54% in 1997.

Corporate transfers

In 1997/98, the average number of people working abroad a year before the time of the Labour Force Surveywas 80 000, up from the average of 66 000 in 1996/97 and 61 000 in 1995/96. Of these about 33 000 (40.5%) workedfor the same employer at both times and may therefore be assumed to be corporate transferees. The majority(20 000) were foreign nationals. The numbers of corporate transferees for 1997 and 1998 are considerably higherthan in the years before and represent a substantial reversal of a fluctuating but generally slow downward trendfrom the mid-1980s. It is not clear whether the recent increases are random statistical fluctuations caused by thesampling or represent a significant change in corporate relocation practices.

Working Holiday Makers

Commonwealth citizens aged between 17 and 27 wishing to work in the United Kingdom for limited periodsdo not require a work permit. Their employment is allowed under the working holidaymakers scheme. Annualnumbers employed under this scheme have risen from 23 200 in 1990 to 33 300 in 1997, with a peak of 36 000 in1995. Source countries are dominated by the “Old Commonwealth”, with Australians the largest group, account-ing for 54% since 1990. New Zealand has accounted for a further 25% and Canada seven. The number of SouthAfricans grew rapidly following the introduction of black majority rule. Having shot up from three in 1993 to over2 300 in 1994 they have since then continued to account for over 20% of those employed under the scheme.

As these people are in the United Kingdom to both work and take a holiday it is not possible to know howmany of them will be working at any one time. Although data providing a regional breakdown of where they goto are not available, it may reasonably be expected that London and other major tourist centres would employthe bulk of them.

Asylum

The basis for granting refugee status continues to be the 1951 UN Convention and the 1967 Protocol. Appli-cants who do not fully meet the Convention criteria, but for whom it would be unreasonable to enforce theirreturn to their home country, may be granted “exceptional leave to remain” (ELR) status, renewable annually.From time to time there are special refugee programmes, normally involving people already recognised as Con-

OECD 1999

United Kingdom

221

vention refugees, in response to particular problems. These people (such as the 25 000 South East Asian refu-gees, mainly Vietnamese, accepted for settlement since 1979) are not normally included in the statistics ofasylum applications and decisions. Neither do the figures include certain cases who were allowed to remain onan exceptional basis, without applying for asylum, because of the situation in the country of origin, for instanceparticularly vulnerable individuals from the former Yugoslavia and their dependants received in the UnitedKingdom under arrangements announced on 30 November 1992 and 6 August 1995.

Applications in 1997

Having fallen back sharply in 1996 following the introduction in February of that year of restrictions on asy-lum seekers’ eligibility for social security benefits, in 1997 the number of applications (including dependants)rose again, by 4 500 to 41 500. In 1998 the number increased by almost 40%, the figure of 57 700 being the highestsince 1991.

As in previous years, the majority of asylum applications in 1997 were made from within the United Kingdomby people who had already entered in some other capacity. However, the proportion (around 50%) was well downon that for the two previous years (65 and 55% in 1995 and 1996), falling further to 48% during the first nine monthsof 1998. These falls are assumed to be the consequence of the aforementioned benefit restrictions and also theimposition of visa regimes.

Decisions in 1997

The number of initial decisions made on asylum applications in 1997, excluding dependants, was 36 000, adecrease of 7% on 1996 but nearly 25% higher than in 1995. This is the second highest number of decisions madein a single year and can be mainly attributed to the implementation of two measures. First, the expansion of theAsylum Directorate’s short procedure introduced in 15 May 1995. This has succeeded in reducing the intervalsbetween application and interview and between interview and decision. The majority of decisions are nowtaken within four or five weeks of the asylum interview. Second, the “Spend to Save” initiative introduced in1996 with the aim of reducing the backlogs of asylum cases at both the initial decision and the appeals stage ofthe asylum system continues to have an effect.

Policy developments

The major policy initiative since the last report has been publication by the Home Office in July 1998 of aWhite Paper on immigration and asylum policy entitled Fairer, Faster and Firmer – A Modern Approach to Immigrationand Asylum. Covering that part of immigration and asylum control and management that is in the remit of theHome Office it proposes an integrated approach devoted to modernising and streamlining the immigration andasylum control system as a whole. Operations and decision making are to be made better informed, more openand speedier.

The White Paper does not deal with the economic and labour market dimension to UK immigration andemigration. It is not clear that this omission is because the regulations on labour migration are perceived to beperfectly adapted and, therefore, new policy measures are not required, or whether the Home Office does notconsider the labour market implications of migration to be part of its remit.

Proposals

The key proposals outlined in the paper include: making available additional resources for dealing with thebacklog of asylum applications; reducing the number of avenues of appeal; putting firms which advise immi-grants and potential immigrants under statutory control; limiting the availability of legal aid; and, supportingthe conclusion of work on the Eurodac Convention to establish across the EU a computerised central databaseof fingerprints of asylum seekers and certain illegal immigrants. In addition, asylum-seekers are to be givenassistance in the form of food and clothing coupons rather than money. Similarly, accommodation is to be pro-vided rather than paid for and this will be done on a “no choice” basis, the object being to avoid concentrationsof applicants in particular areas.

OECD 1999


222

As a complement to the aforementioned proposals the government announced in December 1997 that asy-lum requests received prior to 1993 would be accepted provided that the applicant does not have a criminalrecord, while in the case of those received between July 1993 and December 1995, the decision would be favour-able if family ties had been created in the United Kingdom.

Other policy initiatives

In March 1998 it was announced that embarkation controls were largely ineffective and would cease, to bereplaced by “an intelligence and target-led operation, involving a partnership between enforcement agencies,carriers and port authorities”.

In response to claims that the Eurostar train service from Belgium was being used to bring inadequatelydocumented passengers into the United Kingdom, the Carrier’s Liability legislation was extended to the trainoperator in April 1998 for the route between Brussels and London. For reasons relating to French domestic leg-islation it has not been possible to extend the relevant order to the route from Paris. Following reports that hun-dreds of illegal immigrants had recently entered the country hidden in lorries the government announced inDecember 1998 that in order to encourage lorry drivers to be more vigilant it intended to extend carrier’s liabil-ity to haulage companies.

Introduction

After a sharp increase in 1996, the number of immigrants receiving legal permanent residence status fellback in 1997 to around 800 000, a fall of 13% from the previous year. Annual immigration in 1997 represented just0.3% of the total population. This lower level of immigration is only temporary and, in fact, is somewhat mislead-ing because there is an increasing backlog of persons awaiting a decision on their application to adjust their sta-tus to that of immigrant (435 000 at the end of fiscal year 1996 to 699 000 a year later). These applicants, most ofwhom will obtain permanent residence status, are either temporary residents in the United States or there ille-gally.



In the United States, an immigrant is defined as a person who has been admitted for legal permanent res-idence. The number of immigrants in a given year can thus include persons who have actually been in the coun-try for some time but were only granted the right of permanent residence in that year. Their proportion of totalimmigration was over 50% in 1997.

Family migration is the main component of permanent immigration. In 1997 this category accounted forover two-thirds of immigration. Other entries were under programmes to admit refugees (14%), to recruit work-ers (11%) or to diversify countries sending immigrants to the United States (6%).

Over the last three years a number of factors accounted for the relatively high level of permanent immigration,first and foremost the rise in family immigration and in employment-based immigration. Other factors also contrib-uted to the increase. First of these is section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which, during thethree fiscal years from 1995 to 1997, allowed certain illegal residents to apply for immigrant status from withinUnited States territory. The second factor is an indirect consequence of the legalisation programme under the 1986Immigration Reform and Control Act: nearly 2.7 million individuals obtained permanent immigrant status via thisprogramme. Many of these have subsequently acquired United States citizenship which allows them to apply forthe immigration of immediate family members without being subject to the annual ceiling that is placed on the

UNITED STATES

OECD 1999

United States

223

immigration flow of family members of permanent immigrants. Immigration of this type therefore showed amarked increase over 1995. In the future, it should account for an increasingly large proportion of total immigration.

After a sharp increase in 1996, the level of permanent immigration fell back in 1997 due to delays in pro-cessing applications for permanent status (see above) and lower quotas affecting some family immigration.Some of the latter inflows (but not immigration of spouses and children of American citizens) are subject tonumerical limits, set annually. In 1995 the quota for employment-based immigration was not fully taken up, andthe remaining visas were transferred to family immigration in 1996. In that year the ceilings for that category wereparticularly high (311 800). In 1997 no transfer was made and the ceiling was lower (226 000).

Family reunion

Family reunion is the predominant source of US immigration, accounting for two-thirds of immigration intothe United States in 1997. In volume terms, both components of family reunion – i) immediate family membersof US citizens and ii) more distant relatives of American citizens and immediate family members of immigrantsadmitted under a preference system – developed in a similar fashion. However, immediate family members ofUnited States citizens are not numerically limited whereas the more distant relatives admitted under the pref-erence system are limited.

Furthermore, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 increasedthe income level required of persons serving as guarantors for family members. Henceforth, the level requiredis at least 120% of the poverty threshold. This measure is likely to reduce the number of sponsored immigrants.

Employment-based immigration

Since 1992, the year in which the 1990 Immigration Act (IMMACT 90) came into force, 140 000 employment-based visas have been made available each year, although usage almost always falls below. Immigrants comingto work in the United States represent about 5% of total immigration. Their spouses and children account foranother 6% for a total of 11% admitted under the employment-based preference system (see Table II.42).


Under United States rules, a person fleeing persecution is either a refugee or an asylum seeker, dependingon where he/she is at the time of the application: asylum seekers are already present in the country or at theborder, whereas refugees are outside the United States. United States legislation provides that refugees mayobtain immigrant status after a one-year stay in the country which, for any given year, means a time-lag betweenthe number of refugees entering the country and those granted immigrant status. Refugee and asylum seekersgranted immigrant status fell in 1997, to 112 200, or 14% of all permanent immigrants.

Immigrants allowed to settle permanently under the programme to increase the diversity of countries sending immigrants to the United States

There has been a succession of these programmes in recent years. The current one took effect in fiscal 1995and operates like a lottery. Under the programme, 50 000 permanent visas are now granted every year to nation-als of countries which do not send many immigrants to the United States. In 1997 those benefiting from this pro-gramme accounted for only 6.2% of total inflows. However, this programme generates huge interest: 3.4 millionapplications were submitted for the allocation of permits in 1999. Of the individuals selected, approximately42% and 38% are from Europe and Africa respectively.

Breakdown by region and country of origin

The region comprising North America, the Caribbean and Central America provided the largest number ofimmigrants. This was followed by Asia. Over the last ten years, nationals from Asian countries have accountedfor a relatively stable proportion of total immigrants (around 35%). Europe (with an increase in immigration fromthe former Soviet Union, Poland and recently ex-Yugoslavia) is another important region.

OECD 1999


224

Mexico remained the leading country of origin of immigrants entering the United States (over 18% of totalinflows). The four other major sending countries were the Philippines, China, Vietnam and India.

Immigrants on waiting lists

Waiting lists apply to those immigrants entering under the preference system, which covers both workersand more distant family members. The number of applicants meeting the required conditions often exceedsthe ceilings laid down by law for each category. Thus, in January 1997 there were 3.6 million individuals on thewaiting list.

Most of those waiting are applicants sponsored by a family member, particularly the brothers and sistersof US citizens (1.5 million), and the spouses and unmarried children under 21 of permanent residents (morethan a million in total). The waiting lists for most professional categories, from whatever country, have beenabsorbed or greatly reduced due to the increase in quotas from 54 000 to 140 000 (including accompanying fam-ily members), pursuant to the Immigration Act of 1990. Generally, the only sizeable backlog is that for unskilledworkers and their families, who are subject to an annual numerical limitation of 10 000.


Refugees and asylum seekers have been a subject of concern in the United States largely because of large-scale arrivals of Asians and Cubans in the past. In September 1994 an agreement was concluded between the

Table II.42. Employment-based immigration, by preference, fiscal years 1994-1997, United StatesThousands

1994 1995 1996 1997

Total, employment 1st preference 21.1 17.3 27.5 21.8Aliens with extraordinary ability 1.3 1.2 2.1 1.7Outstanding professors or researchers 1.8 1.6 2.6 2.1Multinational executives or managers 5.0 3.9 6.4 5.3Spouses and children of 1st preference 13.0 10.6 16.5 12.7

Total, employment 2nd preference 14.4 10.5 18.5 17.1Members of the professions holding advanced degrees or persons

of exceptional ability 6.8 5.0 8.9 8.4Spouses and children of 2nd preference 7.6 5.5 9.6 8.7

Total, employment 3rd preference 77.0 50.2 62.8 42.6Skilled workers 10.1 9.1 16.0 10.6Baccalaureate holders 7.7 5.8 5.5 4.0Spouses and children of the above 28.4 23.3 29.0 19.2Chinese Student Protection Act 21.3 4.2 0.4 0.1Other workers (unskilled workers) 4.1 3.6 6.0 4.0Spouses and children of unskilled workers 5.3 4.2 5.8 4.7

Total, employment 4th preference 10.4 6.7 7.8 7.8Special immigrants 4.6 2.9 3.5 3.7Spouses and children of 4th preference 5.8 3.8 4.4 4.1

Total, employment 5th preference 0.4 0.5 0.9 1.4Employment creation, not targeted area 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Spouses and children 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2Employment creation, targeted area 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3Spouses and children 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7

Total, employment preferences, principals 62.7 37.4 51.6 40.3Total, employment preferences, dependents 60.6 47.9 65.9 50.3

Total, employment preferences 123.3 85.3 117.5 90.6% of total permanent settlers 15.3 11.8 12.8 11.3

Source: US Department of Justice, 1997 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, forthcoming.

OECD 1999

United States

225

United States and Cuba under which the US guaranteed that a minimum of 20 000 Cubans would be authorisedto immigrate legally every year, although specific conditions were laid down as to the selection of candidates.

The admission of refugees to the United States is subject to an overall ceiling subdivided into five regions.The annual ceiling is set by the President after consulting Congress, but may be re-evaluated to take account ofparticular circumstances. In fact, every year, admissions are lower than the ceilings laid down. In 1997 around70 000 refugees were admitted to the United States whereas the ceiling was set at 78 000 (provisional data for1998 are 76 500 admissions, against a ceiling of 83 000). Since 1992 the ceiling has been decreased regularly(except in 1998), and is 78 000 in 1999.

There have been several new developments regarding asylum seekers in the last three years. First of all,the number of staff dealing with asylum requests has been doubled. Then, in January 1995, the Immigration andNaturalization Service (INS) adopted new provisions concerning the processing of pending applications. A moreefficient integrated processing system has been introduced, and links between work authorisation and the asy-lum process have been removed. Work authorisation is no longer given until asylum is granted or until a claimhas remained pending for 180 days.

Since asylum reform came into effect in January 1995, the backlog of applications has fallen considerably(360 000 at 30 September 1998). During 1997 some 35 000 new asylum requests were filed.

Temporary migration

The number of temporary migrants, called “non-immigrants”, is increasing slightly every year. It stood at25 million in 1996 (including 19 million tourists). The number of temporary migrants obtaining visas which allowthem to enter the labour market is also rising. Many temporary visa holders stay in the country for more than ayear and can, in some cases, remain for much longer periods – for example, up to 6 years for H-1B professionals.There are no quotas for most visa categories. The largest groups of temporary workers are treaty traders andinvestors together with their dependants, H-1B professionals and intra-company transferees (see Table II.43).

Illegal migration

Illegal immigrants are foreigners who either enter the United States illegally or are admitted legally for atemporary period and fail to depart or violate other terms of their temporary visa. The length of stay of illegalimmigrants varies enormously: some do not remain in the United States for more than a year, while others settlepermanently. The undocumented population was estimated to be 5 million in October 1996. Mexico remainsthe leading source country (about 55%); others include the countries of Central America and the Caribbean, Can-ada and Poland.

In recent years there has been an increase in the awareness of temporary migrants staying illegally in theUnited States beyond the expiry date of their visa. According to INS estimates, around 40% of illegal immigrantsin 1996 were visa overstayers. This new awareness highlights the need for increased attention in the issuance oftemporary visas, particularly to nationals of countries with high overstay rates.

Foreign-born population

Since January 1994, the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS) of US households by the Bureau of theCensus has included, as part of its regular questionnaire, questions on the place of origin, nationality, year ofimmigration and parental place of origin. In 1998, according to this survey, the foreign-born population was esti-mated at 26.3 million, or nearly 10% of the total. In 1980 the corresponding figure was 14.1 million, just under 6%of the total population. Between 1970 and 1990 important changes took place in the geographical origin of theforeign-born: in 1970, nearly 60% had been born in Europe, compared to 22% in 1990. Central America and Mex-ico today account for the largest numbers of foreign-born, and the numbers from Asia now also exceed thosefrom Europe.

The foreign-born have played a growing role in the US labour force over the last twenty years. Accordingto CPS data, the foreign-born accounted for 12% of the labour force in 1998, compared to 5% in 1970 and 9.3%in 1990.

OECD 1999


226

Naturalisations

The number of naturalisations doubled first between 1992 and 1995 (240 000 to 488 000) and then a secondtime during 1996, to reach more than one million. The figures are expected to be around 600 000 for 1997 and475 000 for 1998. Several reasons may explain the sudden increase in 1996:

– More persons are eligible to become citizens due to high recent immigration levels and the legalisationof 2.7 million aliens under IRCA.

– A new “green card replacement programme” has provided an incentive for legal aliens to become US cit-izens rather than face the burden of renewing their card.

– Recently passed legislation denies legal immigrants access to many federally funded social programmes,thus increasing the incentive to become a United States citizen (part of this legislation was repealed in1997, see below).

Table II.43. Non-immigrants1 admitted by class of admission, fiscal years 1994-1996, United StatesThousands

1994 1995 1996

Foreign government officials, spouses and children 105.3 103.6 118.2

Temporary visitors for business 3 164.1 3 275.3 3 770.3Temporary visitors for pleasure 17 154.8 17 611.5 19 109.9Transit aliens 330.9 320.3 325.5

Students 386.2 356.6 418.1Vocational students 7.8 7.6 8.8Spouses and children of students 33.7 31.3 32.5International representatives, spouses and children 74.7 72.0 79.5

Temporary workers 450.0 464.6 533.5Registered nurses 6.1 6.5 2.0Professionals 105.9 117.6 144.5Temporary agricultural workers 13.2 11.4 9.6Temporary nonagricultural workers 15.7 14.2 14.3Industrial trainees 3.1 2.8 3.0Professional workers: North American Free Trade Agreement 24.8 23.9 27.0Workers with extraordinary ability 5.0 6.0 7.2Workers accompanying the workers with extraordinary ability 1.5 1.8 2.1Athletes and entertainers 28.1 28.4 33.6International cultural exchange 1.5 1.4 2.1Workers in non profit religious organisations 6.0 6.7 9.0Intracompany transferees 98.2 112.1 140.5Treaty traders and investors and dependents 141.0 131.8 138.6

Spouses and children of temporary workers2 43.2 46.4 53.6Spouses and children of NAFTA professionals 6.0 7.2 7.7Spouses and children of intracompany transferees 56.0 61.6 73.3

Representatives of foreign information media and dependents 27.7 24.2 33.6Exchange visitors 216.6 201.1 215.5Spouses and children of exchange visitors 42.6 39.3 41.3

Fiance(es) of US citizens 8.1 7.8 9.0Children of fiance(es) 0.8 0.8 1.0

NATO officials, their spouses and children 9.1 8.6 10.9

Unknown 0.9 0.8 0.3

Total 22 118.7 22 640.5 24 842.5

1. Non-immigrants are visitors, persons in transit or persons granted temporary residence permits. Data may be over estimated as they include multipleentries by the same person over time.

2. Excluding spouses and children of NAFTA professionals and intracompany transferees.Source: US Department of Justice, 1996 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

OECD 1999

United States

227

– The introduction, in August 1995, of a Citizenship USA programme aimed at simplifying procedures foracquiring US nationality led to a surge in the number of naturalisations during 1996.

Any legal immigrant is entitled to become a US citizen if he meets the main conditions required. He mustbe at least 18 years old, have entered the United States legally and resided there for at least five years. He must,through tests, prove that he knows the English language and history and political institutions of the UnitedStates. Naturalisation rates, as a proportion of immigrants having acquired US citizenship through naturalisa-tion, vary enormously among different immigrant groups. Refugees, young adults, especially if unmarried uponentering the United States, or immigrants from distant parts of the world often have high naturalisation rates.For example among immigrants admitted in 1982 and acquiring citizenship by 1995, Taiwanese, Vietnamese,Filipinos and immigrants from the former Soviet Union have naturalisation rates above 60%, compared withsome 13% for Canadians and 14% for Mexicans. Mexico remains, nevertheless, the leading country of origin ofnaturalised citizens: in 1996, Mexicans accounted for nearly 25% of all naturalised citizens.

Policy developments

One of the major policy developments that took place in 1997 was the restoration of immigrant eligibilityfor certain public benefits. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 restored Supplemental Security Income (SSI) andMedicaid eligibility for legal immigrants who were receiving these benefits when the 1996 Welfare Reform Billwas passed on 22 August 1996. Also, legal immigrants who were residing in the United States on 22 August 1996retain access to SSI and Medicaid benefits if they become disabled. However, the Welfare Act’s bar on foodstamps for most legal immigrants was not lifted. Nonetheless, 1998 legislation restored this benefit for thoseelderly, disabled, or under age 18 who were present in the country when the 1996 Welfare Reform Bill waspassed. In addition, an amendment passed in October 1998 made 12 000 immigrants eligible to retain SSI andMedicaid benefits.

Whether or not the United States needs to recruit immigrant workers with advanced high-tech skills hasbeen the subject of much controversy. President Clinton secured an increase in the quota ceilings for temporaryworkers holding H-1B visas, which cover the activities mentioned above and other speciality occupations(American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act, October 1998). The annual quota has been set at115 000 for 1999 and 2000, and 107 500 for 2001. The ceiling for 2002 is 65 000, similar to that of 1992-98. Busi-nesses which in the past have applied to recruit large numbers of H-1B workers, and firms which have abusedthe legislation in force (because, for instance, immigrant workers took the places of US citizens who were wrong-fully laid off, or remuneration was on a lower scale than for other employees) will be more strictly monitored.These businesses will have to attest on the Labor Condition Application that they have not laid off US workersand that they have taken steps to recruit US workers.

In 1997, some Nicaraguan and Cuban nationals who had been resident for at least two years qualified for alegalisation programme under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. Other nationals ofEl Salvador, Guatemala, the former Soviet Union and some East European countries were allowed to apply forsuspension of deportation under the more lenient rules that existed before the Illegal Immigration Reform andImmigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Haitians were not covered by these programmes. But in 1998, some50 000 Haitians residing in the United States since December 1995 or earlier, and who had applied for asylumor had held a residence permit until that date, were eligible for another legalisation programme (HaitianRefugee Immigration Fairness Act).

Last, a three-year programme was approved for Irish nationals resident in Northern Ireland or in distressedareas of the Irish Republic (areas with high unemployment or rising delinquency) to work temporarily in theUnited States. An annual quota of 4 000 Q-2 visas is available for Irish nationals under age 35, to develop theiroccupational skills. The number of Q-2 visas issued each year is deducted from the annual quota for H-2B visas.

Two proposals did not secure Congressional approval. The first would have split the INS into two parts, onedealing with enforcement and the other with services. The second failed proposal was to establish another agri-cultural guestworker programme.

OECD 1999

229

Part III*

CLANDESTINE IMMIGRATION: ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL ISSUES1

Introduction

Considered over a long period of time (since the1970s), and against a backdrop of otherwise moder-ate growth in international migration (Tapinos andDelaunay, 1998), the increase in the variety of formsof clandestine residence and the growing length ofstay of clandestine immigrants have had the effect ofvirtually reducing the debate on immigration policyto one on the issue of clandestine immigration. Thecurbing of illegal inflows and of foreigners’ irregular-ity with regard to residence and employment hasbecome one of the priorities of migration policy. Thispolicy orientation is now common to all the countriesof Europe, particularly the new countries of immigra-tion in the south (i.e. Italy, Spain, Greece and Portu-gal), as well as to North America, although the UnitedStates and Canada are still open to regular immigra-tion.

To examine the economic and political chal-lenges deriving from clandestine migration is toinvestigate whether clandestine migration possessesspecific features as compared to regular migration. Itis from such a perspective that this paper considersthe problems of measurement, the economic dimen-sion and control policies.

A. ILLEGAL MIGRATION

1. Illegal migration: a multi-faceted concept

The extent of States’ sovereignty defines thescope of clandestine migration flows. The clandes-tine nature of such migration is defined by referenceto the rules of law (and their shortcomings), therestrictions on entering and leaving a country, and

the regulations governing access to the labour mar-ket. By definition, clandestine immigration eludesregistration and statistical coverage. The first diffi-culty confronting one is that of how to define andmeasure clandestine immigration.

Convention No. 143 adopted by the 1975 ILOConference defines clandestine or illegal migrationmovements as those where migrants find themselves“during their journey, on arrival or during their periodof residence and employment [in] conditions contra-vening relevant international multilateral or bilateralinstruments or agreements, or national laws or regu-lations” (Moulier Boutang, Garson and Silberman,1986). This definition places the stress on the diverseaspects of irregularity: entry, residence in the hostcountry and the undertaking of an occupation.

In a world without restrictions on entering orleaving a country, illegal immigration would be aconcept without reference. Unless there simulta-neously exists both restrictions and a degree of toler-ance illegal immigration cannot take place. It is amanifestation of an imbalance between the effec-tively unlimited supply of candidates for emigrationand the limitations placed by recipient countries onthe acceptance of new entrants.

In countries like the United States and Canadawhich remain essentially open to immigration, illegalimmigration is an alternative entry procedure forthose who do not meet the required criteria, for thosewho would have to wait longer than they would wish inorder to obtain an immigrant’s visa, as well as for thosefor whom unauthorised immigration is less expensive.Where opportunities for entering and staying in acountry are limited, as in Europe at the present time,illegal entry is, excepting being the subject of a family

* This special chapter was written by Mr. Georges Tapinos, Professor, Institut d’études politiques de Paris, Consultant tothe OECD Secretariat. The views expressed are those of the author and do not commit either the Organisation or thenational authorities.

OECD 1999


230

reunion application or applying for asylum, the onlyoption available to candidates for migration. In thecases of both types of country, once there exists astatutory maximum length of stay, whether thisdepends on the type of visa (e.g. for tourists, studentsand temporary workers) or whether indeed there isany obligation to have a visa at all, overstaying2 placesthe person concerned outside the law.

This fundamental distinction is easier to draw inthe United States where there exists at entry a statu-tory dividing line between immigrants and non-immigrants, and where the statistical system esti-mates the number of non-immigrants by countingthose who do not amend their status after entry,whose departure from the country is not registered,and who are assumed to be still in the country afterthe expiry date of their visa.

In European countries, where no such distinc-tion is made on entry, overstaying usually occurswhen an immigrant is turned down after applying forthe obtention or renewal of a residence permit. Thissituation, the reflection of rules governing legal resi-dence, can result not only from wilfulness on the partof migrants but also from the ambiguity or incoher-ence of the rules themselves. For example, in coun-tries like Italy and Spain where there have beenfrequent regularisation programmes and where apermit obtained at the time of a regularisation exer-cise is normally limited to a period of one year, withthe possibility (non-automatic) for it to be renewed,repeated regularisations of the same people havebeen observed. By contrast, in the United States,those who benefited from the amnesty law of 1986[the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)]obtained permits enabling them to remain in thecountry until they met conditions for the obtention ofa permanent residence permit (Green Card).

Illegal immigration also has a time dimension asit can be defined by length of stay. From the immi-grant’s point of view, illegality may represent either atemporary phase in the migration cycle (as was thecase in France during the 1960s where there existedthe possibility for illegal immigrants to be regu-larised) or a permanent state (in the absence of reg-ularisation or when regularisation is exceptional andnon-renewable – which is what American regularisa-tion in 1986 and the regularisation programmesrecently undertaken in European countries areassumed to be). This distinction also holds from thepoint of view of the recipient country, which may beeither a country of first entry or one where the immi-grant intends to settle permanently. In this regard,

the situation develops over time. When Spain andItaly, emigration countries par excellence, began toaccept immigrants at a time when traditional Euro-pean immigration countries were closing their bor-ders to immigration, the authorities in thesecountries liked to think they were countries of firstentry. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, it hadbecome clear that these countries had in turnbecome settlement countries with a significant num-ber of clandestine immigrants.

The examination of clandestinity cannot bereduced to the clandestine migrant himself. Theanalysis of the phenomenon and the formulation ofpolicies to combat it should look at the whole lengthof the chain of clandestinity, which brings into play aseries of agents: the migrant, the intermediary whofacilitates his passage or placement, the company forwhom the migrant works and, according to the case,the principal contractor. One is therefore confrontedby a wide array of complex situations and circuitswhich range from the arrangement of the meetingbetween the clandestine immigrant and the employerthrough to far-reaching and powerful organisationswhich control a veritable trade in labour. In America,workers from Mexico or Central America endeavour tocross the border with the help of a smuggler, whomight also arrange their obtention of employment.Elsewhere, nationals of sub-Saharan Africa enterAlgeria by aeroplane, continue their journey by landthrough to the Spanish enclave of Melilla in Moroccoin the hope of being transported to Spain at the timeof a regularisation programme.

The organisations involved in smuggling opera-tions can be of considerable scale. In the United States,the INS dismantled in 1998 an organisation which hadarranged the passage to the United States of approxi-mately 10 000 people; in November of the same yeartwo million fake identification papers were seized inLos Angeles (INS, March 1999). The clandestine chainsometimes goes further back than the migrant himself.For example, the Moroccan youths who are known tohave entered Europe were not, as one might have sup-posed, unoccupied youths who had taken the initiativeto emigrate clandestinely, rather they had been sent bytheir parents who had elected to take advantage oftheir children’s minority which, in Europe, protectsthem against expulsion. This extreme heterogeneityshould rule out judgements on this phenomenon madeon purely humanitarian or, conversely, purely criminalbases.

These distinctions have considerable implica-tions for the measurement and characterisation of

OECD 1999

Clandestine Immigration: Economic and Political Issues

231

illegal migrants, the economic impact of illegal migra-tion, administrative effectiveness and the aspect ofcontrol policy.

2. Measurement methods

Estimating the number of people in an irregularsituation is inherently problematic. Account must betaken not only of the legal system of immigration, thesystem of statistical observation and mechanismsinvolved in undocumented living, but also, giventhat such estimates rely to varying degrees on surveyevidence, of the perception that the clandestinemigrants have of the acceptance of their clandestin-ity by the local population and of the nature of therisks that they are taking.

In that it concerns the measurement of an unob-servable event, the measurement of irregular migra-tion runs into well-known problems. The difficultiesare particularly severe in the case of clandestinemigration for whilst measurement in this field canonly be indirect, the absence of regularities in thephenomena that might be linked to this form ofmigration limits the usefulness of indirect methods.Indeed, the classic demographic distinction betweendirect and indirect methods is hard to sustain.Strictly speaking, one rarely has direct observationsat one’s disposal. At best, observations are incom-plete; in every case complementary information isrequired – which is itself often estimated – for thephenomenon to be satisfactorily understood.

Figures for apprehensions in border regions, forexample, have to be adjusted to take account of thenumber of times that individual migrants attempt tocross. Figures derived from regularisation pro-grammes need to be amended to take account ofthose excluded for failing to meet the criteria (partic-ularly those relating to the date of arrival, the obliga-tion to remain in the country continuously, and thepresentation of a work permit). Similarly, surveys thatfocus directly on the clandestine population (“snow-ball” sampling or the Delphi technique) which pre-sume to identify from the outset people who areknown to be in an irregular situation contain substan-tial biases. Measurements made in the frontier zonesof sending countries before migrants cross the fron-tier (cf. the Mexican COLEF survey) constitute anexception.

It is important first of all to know what one ismeasuring. Is it numbers (stocks) or movements(flows)? Is it workers or the whole of the population?To measure clandestine entries, is to attempt to assess

the volume of the flows of people entering the countrywithout the required legal administrative documen-tation, whether they cross the frontier with falsepapers or at a point that is not controlled. By con-trast, irregularity in respect of those who reside con-cerns stocks which comprise both the net cumulativeflows of people who have entered without authorisa-tion and are not regularised, and those who haveentered clandestinely but have lost their right of res-idence and are still in the country. It should also beconsidered as essential, in so far as the employmentstatus of those in an irregular situation will also, logi-cally, be irregular too, to attempt to measure thenumber of foreigners in irregular employment.

Defining the groups in these ways allows one todistinguish the possible estimates, those of: clandes-tine entrants (inflow of illegal migrants over a givenperiod), clandestine residence (the total foreign popula-tion residing in the country illegally at a givenmoment) and clandestine workers (the number of clan-destine workers in employment at a given moment).

Chart III.1. summarises the different entry, resi-dence and employment situations in which foreignmigrants can find themselves. It is possible to iden-tify six categories of clandestinity:

A. Migrants who have entered the countrylegally with a legal residence permit, but whoare working illegally either because the job isnot declared or because their residence per-mit does not allow them to work.

B. Migrants who have entered the countrylegally, who are living in the country illegally(either because their work permits are invalidor have expired, or because they do not haveresidence permits), and who are working ille-gally. It is assumed that a migrant without aresidence permit cannot work legally underthe legislation in force.

C. The same category as above, but coveringinactive migrants.

D. Migrants who have entered the country clan-destinely, who have no residence permit, andwho are working illegally.

E. The same category as above, but coveringinactive migrants.

F. Migrants who have entered the countryclandestinely, who have a residence permit(e.g. following regularisation, or by variation intheir status through marriage) and are workingillegally.

OECD 1999

Tre

nd

s in In

tern

atio

na

l Mig

ratio

n

232

OE

CD

1999

selves

legalntity papers

tine passage of inspection

Legal residence– Regularisation– Adjustment of residence

status (through marriage...)

F

employmentlared activityidence permitot allow to work

Inactivepopulation

Legalemployment(work permit

in order)

selves

legalntity papers




F


Inactivepopulation


in order)

selves

legalntity papers




F


Inactivepopulation


in order)

Chart III.1. Presentation of the various situations in which foreign migrants can find them

ENTRIES

ENTRY

RESIDENCE

EMPLOYMENT

Administrativelylegal

(papers in order)

Il– false ide– clandes– absence

Legal residence(residence permit in order)

Illegal residence– invalid or out-of-date residence permit– lack of residence permit

Illegal residence(lack of residence permit)

A C B D E

Illegalemployment(undeclared

activity)

Inactivepopulation

Illegal employment– undeclared activity– the residence permit

does not allow to work

Inactivepopulation


in order)


activity)

Inactivepopulation

Illegal– undec– the res

does n


ENTRIES

ENTRY

RESIDENCE

EMPLOYMENT


(papers in order)





A C B D E


activity)

Inactivepopulation



Inactivepopulation


in order)


activity)

Inactivepopulation


does n


ENTRIES

ENTRY

RESIDENCE

EMPLOYMENT


(papers in order)





A C B D E


activity)

Inactivepopulation



Inactivepopulation


in order)


activity)

Inactivepopulation


does n


233

The problem is how to go from administrativestatistics, which are marked by characteristics spe-cific to each country, to a method of measuring thephenomenon.3 Most methods rely on data from therecipient country, and they are based on two kinds oflogic with the estimate of the stock of clandestineimmigrants made either by comparing statistics onentry and modifications to status with data relating tostocks, or by using comprehensive registers of demo-graphic events such as births and deaths.

Methods of estimating the clandestine popula-tion were first developed and applied in the UnitedStates. Direct calculation, through comparing entrystatistics and modifications to status from INS (Immi-gration and Naturalization Service) data, permittedthe inference of the number of visa overstayers. Tothis component of the stock of clandestine immi-grants should be added clandestine entrants (entrieswithout inspection) estimated by means of an indirectprocedure (Warren, 1994).

“Residual” estimating is based on census data.From the total foreign-born population counted at thetime of the census, 1990 say, and the theoretical legalforeign-born population estimated for the same pointin time from INS figures, an estimate of the popula-tion of clandestine immigrants picked-up by the cen-sus can be obtained by subtracting one from theother. To be of analytical interest, the censuseswould have had to have counted a high proportion ofthe illegal migrants (Clark, Passel, Zimmermann andFix, 1995). Mention should also be made of estimatesof clandestine entries arrived at by adjusting thenumber of arrests on the basis of the likelihood ofbeing apprehended at the United States-Mexico bor-der (Espenshade, 1995).

In Europe, measurement of clandestine migra-tion has been attempted only relatively recently. Thewide range of methods contemplated and used is areflection of the similarly wide range of statisticalobservation systems employed but is above all tes-tament to the exploratory nature of these firstattempts. Tables III.1 and III.2 summarise the resultsof comparative research carried out by Eurostat insome ten European countries; its objectives were tocompile a register of methods used in the variouscountries and to suggest viable procedures in the lightof the kind of data available (Delaunay and Tapinos,1998). In practice, the measurement is based ondirect observation of the individual in a an irregularsituation or considered likely to be so, either at themoment of his crossing the border (for example dataon apprehensions and forced departures), during his

residence (for example, from regularisations andrefusals of asylum). Such information constitutes thebasis for only an imperfect measure. This is whyrecourse to indirect estimation methods is neces-sary.

Estimates based on the population of sendingcountries are really an application of classicalexpected-population and gender ratio methodsintegrating additional information derived fromdata from immigration countries. The “expectedpopulation” method involves a comparison betweenexpected and observed stocks broken down by ageand gender in two successive censuses. Starting fromthe population distribution on that date (t), andallowing for deaths and births registered or esti-mated during the period (t, t + k), the differencebetween the population actually observed and thatextrapolated in (t + k) gives an estimate of the send-ing country’s net migration during the inter-censusperiod. Evaluating clandestine migration involvescomparing this net migration estimate with variationsin stocks (or in net migration) registered world-widefor nationals of these countries which necessitatesknowledge of the stocks in recipient countries of thenationals of the country concerned. Such a method isappropriate only under the hypothesis that thenationals of the country concerned migrate to a verysmall number of countries.

The second method focuses on the high propor-tion of men among clandestine migrants; this isobserved by default in gender ratios (women appearto be in a majority) of populations counted in send-ing countries. An estimate of those missing is thenpossible if one knows the ratios of men among thoseremaining and among all nationals registered both intheir own countries and abroad. These indirect meth-ods are not reliable. A small weakness in one of thelinks of the estimating chain (e.g. in census coverage,or in measuring the death rate) can easily lead to asubstantial variation in the measure of clandestinity.Furthermore, they only provide an overall estimateof the number nationals who are living abroad; theirdistribution by recipient country would remainunknown.

In so far as clandestine immigrants work in thehidden economy, it will be possible to consider anestimate of clandestine immigration as a by-productof a measurement of the hidden economy,4 definedas those activities which evade payment of tax andsocial security contributions. This approach has twolimitations: firstly, with a few exceptions, clandestinemigrant workers account for only a small proportion

OECD 1999


234

of those clandestinely employed; secondly, themethods used to measure the hidden economyreflect concerns linked to taxation and national sta-tistics (e.g. the amount of, and growth in, GDP), andare not directly concerned with the legal status ofmigrant workers. Moreover, in the hidden economythe dividing line between clandestine employmentand registered employment tends to be very difficultto draw (see below).

The most elaborate attempts to estimate thenumber of clandestine foreigners by measuring thehidden economy have been made in Italy. They haverelied on observed divergences in the nationalaccounts between declared added value and esti-mates of added value based on average productivitythroughout a given sector and anomalies observed inchanges in participation rates.

Three concluding remarks on these measure-ment methods:

It is not possible to place on the same plane, onthe one hand, the innumerable guestimates (guessestimates) that tend rather to reflect the feeling ofanxiety (or the need to give reassurance) that theirauthors feel with regard to clandestine immigrationand, on the other hand, the difficult and imperfect

attempts, conducted in conformity with the proce-dures of scientific research, to arrive at a statisticalmeasurement. Most certainly, there is no guaranteethat the measurements arrived at on the latter basiswill more closely correspond to reality than thosebased on the former approach. However, that theirmethod of calculation, the field covered, the hypoth-eses used and statistical biases are all explicit doespresent a considerable advantage. Such anapproach, in offering the possibility of subjecting tocomparison the results obtained through a variety ofstatistical methods, is the sole means of coming closeto an accurate estimate.

The issue is not so much the number of clandes-tine immigrants but rather the characteristics and themechanisms of the reproduction of clandestinity:these give real meaning to the estimate of the stockobtained. The stock of clandestine immigrantsresults from the difference between their inflow andoutflow and depends therefore on the averagelength of time spent in the state of clandestinity. It isof some importance to know the relative extents towhich a change in the stock of clandestine immi-grants is due to a change in inflows and a change inthe average duration of clandestine stay.5

Table III.1. Typology of the methods used to estimate clandestinity

Direct measures

Administrative statistics

Statistics on refusals

Visas/entries 1Political asylum 2Residence and work permits 3

Infractions

Entry/border 4Stay 5Work or job 6

Regularisations

Mass 7Exceptionnal 8

Surveys

Without sample Delphi “method” 9

With sample

“Snowball” technique 10At the time of the regularisation 11On employment 12On mobility/border flows 13Biographical 14

Indirect estimates

Comparison of sources

Expected populations 15Pairing of files 16

Inferences from secondary events

Sex-ratio 17Common law crimes 18Births and deaths 19Statistics on school attendance 20Social/health benefits 21

Work statistics National data 22

Source: Delaunay, Tapinos, 1998.

OECD 1999


235

Irregular migration is by definition a breach ofimmigration law, and we have long pretended that itwas an exceptional phenomenon. This allowed us tobelieve that we were dealing with a problem to whichwe had to find a solution. This confusion betweennormative and positive had the effect of concealingthe need to put in place a statistical apparatus thatwould provide for both measurement and the carry-ing out of longitudinal surveys with a view to under-standing the mechanisms of migration and thecharacteristics of clandestine migrants. Clandestineimmigration is not an exceptional, non-renewableevent. It is an inevitable phenomenon, one that islikely to grow as globalisation, economic transitionand inter-ethnic conflict continue.

B. THE ECONOMIC IMPACT

Is there an economic dimension that is specificto illegal migration as compared to legal migration?To what extent are the economic implications of ille-

gal labour immigration linked to the foreign workers’legal status?

In the standard model of the labour market, theincidence of immigration, legal or illegal, depends onthe nature of the migration process and the degree towhich immigrants and nationals complement or sub-stitute one another. In this way, one may contrast thesituation according to which immigration derivesfrom an economy-wide or sectoral labour shortageand may therefore be seen as endogenous, with thatwhere immigration is exogenous and likely to engen-der competition with the pre-existing domesticlabour supply. Under this latter hypothesis, whichstandard labour market theory assumes to be thecase, the equilibrium wage falls; the quantitativeimpact on the employment of nationals depends onthe (downward) elasticity in the supply of nationals’labour compared with the (upward) elasticity ofemployers’ total labour demand. A significant dis-placement effect is only observed where a lowerequilibrium wage rate leads to a substantial with-

Table III.2. Tested or concieved methods to estimate clandestinity

Method

Eu

rop

e

Un

ite

d K

ingd

om

Be

lgiu

m

Fra

nce

Gre

ece

Ne

the

rlan

ds

Ital

y

Po

rtu

gal

Cze

ck R

ep

.

Sw

itze

rlan

d

Entry/Exit

Visa refusals 1

Entry refusals 1

Passenger cards

Apprehensions at border 4

Biographical inquiries 14

Surveys on flows 13

Residence

Breaches of residence regulations 5

Refusals of residence permits 3

Refusals of political asylum 2

Regularisations 8

Common law crimes 18

Comparison of sources 16

Deaths and births 19

Expected populations 15

Sex-ratio 17

School, social assistance 21

Delphi Method 10

Surveys by stage 11

Work

National data 22

Employment infraction 6

Surveys on irregular employment 12

Methods being applied

Collaborators' proposals

OECD 1999


236

drawal by nationals from the labour market without asignificant increase in labour demand.

The empirical scope of such a prediction isdependent on the extent to which we can determinethe elasticity of the various segments of the work-force’s labour supply (e.g. with regard to age, gender,marital status and skills) and the nature of changes inlabour supply (e.g. variations in participation rates,hours worked, etc.). Another school of thought seeslabour market segmentation as a key factor underly-ing the resort to immigrant workers. Layard, Nickelland Jackman (1991) suggest, given the differing char-acteristics of jobs in the primary and secondary sec-tors, that a fall in wage rates in the primary sectorcauses labour demand to rise, whereas a fall in wagerates in the secondary sector causes labour supply tofall. This could be expected to have a positive impacton the employment of foreigners in the latter sector.

Could the anticipated effects be extended toirregular immigration? The highlighting of an effectthat is specific to irregular immigration or irregularemployment would necessitate an examination ofthe behaviour of labour supply and demand and theinstitutional variables that influence it (in particularthe existence of an informal sector) and the specificimpact of illegal immigration at a macroeconomiclevel with regard to resource allocation, distributionand taxation.

1. The behaviour of labour supply and demand

For the migrant, there can be advantages in clan-destine employment, but illegality is rarely the resultof choice.6 When a regularisation exercise is inprogress, the eagerness of most people who meet thecriteria to file an application shows that illegal workershave a marked preference for legal status.7 However,the argument that clandestine workers (who areassumed to be more interested in financial gain thanin working conditions) are prepared to accept longerworking hours needs qualification. In an attempt toisolate the sole impact of incentives and constraintson working hours, Dunn (1960) sought to assess theextent to which pay rates match the marginal rate ofsubstitution between income and leisure. To that end,he compared the results obtained from three samplesdistinguished by the existence and amount ofbonuses linked to long working hours and the fixedcosts linked to obtaining employment. It appearedthat in agriculture, the economic sector that comesclosest to the hypothesis of economic theory (i.e. theabsence of overtime bonuses, low fixed job-obtention

costs, plentiful information on wages, and competitionbetween employers), there was no differencebetween the working hours of legal and illegal work-ers. From this, the author concluded that preferencesin respect of working hours are independent of aworker’s legal status.

The advantages of illegal migration tend to beon the employers’ side. In that the migrant’s illegalstatus vis-à-vis his residence or employment placeshim in a situation of marked dependence renderinghim more willing to accept a very low wage, oftenbelow the legal minimum, the employer mightexpect to benefit. The threat of being caught weigh-ing on the migrant is for the employer a source of pro-tection against being penalised himself. Andconversely, legal residence status combined withsemi-clandestine employment status can representfor the employer an advantage in so far as they allowa part of the work undertaken by the migrant to goundeclared or for the migrant to be considered as anindependent worker. The monograph recently pub-lished by Iskander (1999) on the garment fabricationsector in Paris and the Parisian suburbs shows thatemployers’ preference for one or the other of thesesituations depends on whether the firm’s strategy isoriented more towards producing a quality productor to the minimisation of wages. There exists for theemployer, leaving aside the cost of sanctions againstunauthorised employment (this issue is examinedbelow), three reasons for preferring clandestine for-eign workers: differences in pay, differences in socialcharges, and flexibility in the production process.

For the employer to benefit from lower labourcosts, undocumented migrants have to accept wagesbelow the current market rate. Taking into account dif-ferentials in pay, standards of living and job opportu-nities in the sending and host countries, both legaland illegal migrants normally have a lower reservewage. Do clandestine migrants have a lower reservewage than documented migrants?

On the one hand, those embarking on clandes-tine emigration have to evaluate the expected costsof their illegality; these mainly comprise the cost ofentering the country (e.g. the likelihood of beingarrested in the course of each attempted entry, theaverage number of attempts made before a success-ful entry, brokerage fees) and similarly the expectedcost of being penalised for taking up clandestineemployment. On the other hand, the threat of beingcaught coupled with the desire, perhaps obligation,to pay back rapidly the monies spent on entering thecountry limit the incentive for prolonging job-search

OECD 1999


237

efforts. Clandestine immigrants are therefore inclinedto accept a lower rate of pay than nationals and regularimmigrants of the same skill category.

As far as social charges and non-wage costs areconcerned, ceteris paribus, the advantage for employ-ers in hiring undocumented workers increases in linewith the proportion of labour costs that would other-wise be accounted for by mandatory deductions andconformity with health and safety regulations. In thiscontext, we might talk of a “welfare magnet”, but in aquite different sense from how it is normally under-stood. Moreover, given the precariousness of his sit-uation and weak negotiating power, clandestinestatus also renders him more susceptible to discrim-inatory practices.

2. Undocumented migrant workers and the hidden economy

The structure of the labour market and the hid-den economy constitute for both the employer andthe worker the critical element in their decision mak-ing processes. It is by no means true to say that thehidden economy and clandestine foreign employ-ment cover one and the same domain, but equallythey are not unrelated given that the hidden econ-omy is the only way for foreigners in an illegal situa-tion and with no work permits to enter the labourmarket. Clandestine work by foreigners is the pointat which two domains converge: on one side, irregu-lar migration (which is located within the dynamic ofinternational migration) and, on the other, the hid-den economy (which is linked to changes in thelabour market, but cannot be simply reduced to thework of foreigners in an irregular situation) (Moulier-Boutang, 1991). For clandestine foreign workers, thesetwo domains are superimposed upon one another.Work carried out by foreigners in an irregular situationis therefore located in the overall dynamic of thelabour market, independent of the dynamics of inter-national migration. The emergence of a hiddeneconomy is part of a complex process of labour mar-ket hierarchisation and the bypassing regulationsdirected at responding to competition through achiev-ing greater flexibility in production and pay. It is alsoaccompanied by formal “desalarisation” and frequentmovement from employee status to non-employee sta-tus (from salaried employment to self-employment, forexample in the building industry), and the activation ofcommunity (i.e. family, ethnic and political) links inemployment relations. These strategies for managingwork are particularly important in highly seasonal jobs

that demand a rapid response to variations in demandand changing tastes.8

These ‘atypical’ jobs are performed by differentcategories of the labour force: young school-leavers andstudents, women looking for a second job, home helps,and foreigners in a precarious situation (whetherregular or otherwise in terms of residence status)are the most commonly employed on such a basis.9

Irregularly employed foreigners constitute one ofthe elements of the hidden economy; they are notthe cause of its existence. However, the existence ofa hidden economy that is broadly tolerated by soci-ety as a whole makes the recruitment of unautho-rised migrants more likely, particularly as networks ofmigrants make it easier to hire undocumented work-ers in this sector.10 However, though the recourse toclandestine foreign labour can regarded as an ele-ment of a flexibility strategy, were precariousness tobe extended to other segments of the labour forcethe relative advantage of hiring clandestine foreignlabour would diminish (Iskander, 1999).

Clandestine employment is also observedamong sole traders (such as door-to-door salesmenand people who sell goods in underground railwaystations). In such cases, clandestinity can be both anecessity and a choice for immigrants.11 It wouldappear that these activities are more the conse-quence of an exogenous inflow than a response to ademand for labour in the host country. That said, itcannot be denied in that the ‘African’ products soldby Senegalese street-sellers in Italy are in fact pro-duced locally within the informal sector.

There is an interrelationship between declaredand undeclared employment, that reflects both theprohibition/tolerance dialectic of control policy andthe complementarily/substitutability debate on thelabour market. Whether it involves legal activities thatbreach tax and employment legislation or illegal activ-ities (e.g. the sale of prohibited goods), the informalsector develops from the formal sector in the sameway as immigration is a consequence of the existenceof a system of legal immigration. The informal sectorresults from institutional rigidities in the formal sector(e.g. tax regulations and working time rules) and couldnot thrive unless tolerated by society.

3. Impact on the labour market. Empirical results

To what extent does the employment of clan-destine immigrants affect the employment andwages of nationals and legal immigrants? What dif-ferences in wages are observed between nationals,

OECD 1999


238

legal migrants and illegal migrants? For otherwiseidentical individuals, are these differences the out-come of market adjustments or an expression of dis-criminatory practices?

Ten years of scholarly debate on the subject inthe United States from the end of the 1970s through tothe end of the 1980s have highlighted the problemsone encounters when one attempts to isolate the spe-cific effect of migrants’ legal status and the difficultiesone meets when attempting to reconcile apparentlycontradictory results. One requires, in fact, data whichallow one to take into account self selection effects(age, sex, marital status, education, time spent in theUnited States, social capital, etc.), the self selection ofthose who return and also unobservable events (forexample, attitude towards risk). The kind of data thatwe have at our disposal rarely allow us to exploit thesophisticated statistical techniques that might elimi-nate these biases. The research undertaken by Massey(1987) on four Mexican communities observed theUnited States and in Mexico is exemplary in thisregard. It shows that the resulting status of inequalitydoes not of itself lead to a lower wage but does exertan indirect influence in the sense that it is associatedwith interrupted periods of residence and to shortertotal periods of stay. Experience in the United Statesis consequently limited and the workers tend to beconfined to badly paid jobs, factors which have theeffect of diminishing wages, be the persons legal orillegal. One of the earliest studies in the United Stateson the relative impact of illegal and legal immigrantson the wages of nationals shows that illegal migrantshave a smaller negative impact (Bean, Lowell andTaylor, 1988). The explanation for this outcome may liein the fact that most legal immigrants enter the countryirrespective of labour market conditions in the UnitedStates, whereas illegal migrants respond more to anendogenous demand for labour in that country. Otherstudies concluded that the results obtained should besubject to some qualification. On the whole, theresults are not clear-cut, and the impact, if there is one,is moderate.

In Europe, in the absence of appropriate datathe results have been more fragmentory and con-trasted.12

In addition to the methodological problemsalready mentioned, these divergences may beexplained by the heterogeneity of the forms of illegalmigration, differing contexts, as well as by the differ-ing dynamics underlying the process of unauthorisedmigration. In France during the 1960s, for example,when regularisation programmes were frequent,

enterprises had a two-tier strategy whereby theydirectly recruited irregular workers who were alreadyin the country whilst at the same time, as an insur-ance mechanism for times when they might findthemselves unable to recruit such labour, they alsowent through legal procedures to hire migrant work-ers (Tapinos, 1973).

For migrants, too, it was a short-cut comparedwith the legal recruitment system; it enabled them tocut down their waiting time and, in some cases, eventhe cost of migration. Illegal immigrants would acceptthe first job they were offered, and usually at the low-est rates of pay. As soon as they were regularised,they had little difficulty, at a time of substantialindustrial growth and labour shortages, in findingjobs that were sometimes better paid than those ofthe legal immigrants who continued to accept mini-mum wage rates.

The impact of a migrant’s legal status can also bemeasured indirectly by looking at how migrants’wages have changed following their regularisation.Figures are generally lacking, and where they existthey come from cross-country surveys that containbiases and are therefore difficult to interpret. Anexception to this has been the exploitation of twoAmerican surveys, the Legalised Population Survey(LPS) and the Current Population Survey (CPS) whichincorporate a longitudinal follow-up (Tienda &Singer, 1995). This analysis seeks to break down sal-ary variation since regularisation into what can beattributed to characteristics at entry that are specificto illegal workers (e.g. younger, more likely to comefrom non-English-speaking countries, lower standardof education, a shorter period of residence in theUnited States), and to factors that may have influ-enced increases in their wage in the United States(e.g. education, command of English, professionalexperience, changes in the labour market, entrycohort, the first sector of activity, economic indicatorsin the geographical area of activity, and changes inthe economic situation in the United States). Resultspoint to a substantial rise in the wage of workers fol-lowing regularisation, correlated with the year ofentry and the duration of residence, with major vari-ations according to country of origin.

4. The macroeconomic impact, distribution and taxation

What, then, is the total macroeconomic impactspecifically attributable to the employment of illegalforeign labour on distribution and taxation. Accord-

OECD 1999


239

ing to standard economic theory, immigrationreduces the equilibrium wage, increases totalemployment (i.e. nationals and immigrant workers)and alters the distribution of income between labourand capital. The greater the fall in wages rates due toimmigration, the higher is the surplus and return oncapital investment. Do variations in the amount ofsurplus and its distribution depend on the legal sta-tus of the migrant workers? Insofar as the effects ofillegal immigration are linked to a reduction in labourcosts and the equilibrium wage rate, illegal immigra-tion, by offering the possibility of labour costs lowerthan would be the case under legal migration, has cet-eris paribus a more pronounced positive effect on GDPthan legal migration.

However, it is also important to take account ofthe characteristics of migrants, their skills, the sectorsand branches in which they are employed, the condi-tions of supply and demand for nationals, and thetime horizon in question. For example, Djajic pre-sents an open economy model with full employmentin two sectors: unskilled workers, both nationals andunauthorised migrants, are employed in brancheswhose product is an input for branches where onlynationals are employed. The effects on wages andflexibility in a sector brought about by the employ-ment of undocumented workers increase the totalproduct and per capita product for the workforce as awhole. In the long term, the employment of illegalforeign workers may promote the acquisition of skillsand the upward mobility of the domestic labourforce, and thereby raise incomes for society as awhole (Djajic, 1997). However, results are linked tomigrants’ skill levels and to their exclusive concen-tration in a branch or sector, rather than to their ille-gal status. A structure of this type provides anequally good description of both legal and illegalmigration in Europe during the 1960s and early 1970s(Lutz, 1963; Tapinos, 1973).

By contrast, given the current situation in Europe,particularly in southern Europe where the laboursupply and unemployment are both high, substantialnon-wage labour costs in the formal sector and theshortage of capital can lead to a displacement of capi-tal and workers towards the low-cost informal sector.This is an undesirable consequence in the longterm (Dell’Aringa and Neri, 1989). It is a hypothesisthat needs checking; the detailed sectoral analy-ses required for this have yet to be carried out(cf. Venturini, 1997).

The most sensitive area concerns the effects ofundocumented migration on the most disadvan-

taged workers in society. Insofar as immigrationincreases the total product, specific groups affectedby immigration could receive compensation. Theminimum wage and other forms of guaranteedincome seek to meet this redistributive objective forthe most disadvantaged. However, such measurescan themselves encourage illegal immigration. Theargument is not that undocumented migrants areattracted by the “welfare magnet”, but rather that byraising the reserve wage of nationals, welfare-statepolicies increase the return for employers on the useof illegal immigrant workers and, to a lesser extent,on the use of legal immigrant workers.

It is precisely considerations of this type that areadduced in support of restrictive policies. However,restrictions on legal and illegal immigration that aimto protect the least skilled groups on the labour mar-ket have to be compared in an open economy witheffects on the same groups that would result from anequivalent increase in labour-intensive imports.Potential migrants unable to leave their countrieswould specialise in the production and export oflabour-intensive products; the employment andearnings of unskilled workers in what would other-wise have been immigration countries would therebybe affected.

The fear of a crowding-out effect on nationalsand legal migrants is reinforced when illegal immi-gration occurs during situations of rising unemploy-ment. According to a neo-classical approach, anincrease in unemployment would be analysed as afurther voluntary withdrawal by nationals and legalimmigrants from the labour market, their reservewages being higher than the now lower equilibriumwage brought about by the employment of illegal for-eign workers. Though what exactly voluntary unem-ployment and reserve wage mean in such a model is,to say the least, somewhat ambiguous, particularly inan open economy with the possibility of temporarylabour migration.

Let us imagine a large inflow of undocumentedforeigners ready to accept jobs at a wage 50% belowthe market rate – a movement that could lead to amassive withdrawal of nationals from the labour mar-ket. To consider these nationals as voluntarily unem-ployed because their reserve wage is too high wouldbe to render the notion of a reserve wage meaning-less. The reserve wage is established in relation tocertain expectations that workers have with regard totheir standard of living – taking into account time andplace, to use the academic definition of the rightprice. Migrants are prepared to accept wages which,

OECD 1999


240

given the constraint of an irreducible level consump-tion in the country where the jobs are, provide a stan-dard of living desired for family members who stayedbehind through remittances that increase in valuewith improvements in the terms of trade. The reservewages of residents of immigration countries and ofpotential migrants are associated with different refer-ence spaces and life styles. Differentials may explainwhy people resort to unauthorised immigration, butthey also pose the problem of an inter-personal com-parison of utilities.

The question of labour market competitionneeds to be examined together with concerns for thefiscal impact of illegal immigration. This brings usback to an examination of the extent to which deduc-tions and benefits are linked to territoriality, nation-ality and regularity in respect of residence.

In terms of taxation, whatever calculation tech-nique is used to itemise the expenditures andresources put into immigration as a whole (it is a cal-culation that cannot be simply reduced to a cross-sectional analysis, and has aroused a debate notablefor its extremely divergent positions), the fiscalimpact of unauthorised foreign workers and theirfamilies is generally positive as far as the nationalbudget is concerned: illegal migrants pay indirecttaxes in the same way as all other consumers andalthough they avoid paying income tax their reve-nues are generally such that the loss to the publicexchequer cannot be significant and is unlikely toexceed what they obtain in return, given that theiruse of community services tends to be even lowerthan their incomes. The only real “cost” linked toirregularity is for services the use of which is notdetermined by the legality of residence status; thesemainly concern the education of children of illegalimmigrants.

As far as social protection is concerned, contri-butions and entitlements are linked to regularity inrespect of residence and work. On the hypothesisthat regular migrants realise a net gain from the socialprotection system, a relative increase in the propor-tion of illegal immigrants in the immigrant popula-tion who do not contribute – but do not draw benefitseither – actually reduces the cost of the system. Onthe hypothesis that the contributions of regularmigrants are greater than the benefits they receive,which is usually the case, a similar relative increase inthe proportion of illegal immigrants represents a lossto the system. Whichever of these hypotheses isretained, the claim that the money that illegalmigrants take out of the social protection system is

the determining factor behind their decision tomigrate should be treated with caution. There is,however, an argument in favour of reallocatingresources between the various administrative tiers inorder to pay for higher charges at the local level.

The research by McCarthy and Vernez (1997)that reports on the results of surveys conducted bythe Rand Corporation in California can be cited as anexample. According to United States law, illegalimmigrants are not eligible for certain assistance pro-grammes, although they do qualify for education andfor food programmes. Children qualify for assistancein the same way as all children born in the UnitedStates. In fact, the drawing of social benefits dependsmore on migrants’ socio-economic status rather thanon their legal status. However, it is noteworthy that:a) hospitalisation is higher among children born inthe United States of illegal immigrants; b) many ille-gal immigrants qualify for access to certain social pro-grammes (e.g. AFDC, food stamps and Medicaid)insofar as their children born in the United States areeligible or one of the parents has the status of legalimmigrant; and, c) illegal immigrants tend not toapply for reduced tax liability.

The final element to be considered in this calcu-lation is the cost of control, which can indeed be veryhigh. Entry control seeks to counter a wide range ofillegal activities including drug trafficking and terror-ism. Not all the costs incurred in entry control can beattributed to illegal migration. Moreover, the specificcost of applying laws (e.g. frontier controls, the impo-sition of penalties on employers, and the investiga-tion and sending back of foreigners lacking theproper documents) are an integral part of generalimmigration policy and as such is the price to be paidfor operating a legal migration regime – unless, thatis, we were to imagine a totally open-frontier system.In other words, for illegal immigration to represent afiscal burden, it would have to be assumed that thecost of control (properly adjusted) exceeded thepositive net balance of fiscal revenues less socialexpenditures attributable to it. That is a highlyunlikely outcome given the extent of illegal immigra-tion’s positive impact on GDP.

In conclusion, in order for the phenomenon ofclandestine immigration to be comprehended it isessential that its economic dimension be taken intoaccount. It would appear however that economicanalyses of the labour market have not identifiedand incorporated within its models the specific fea-tures of clandestine immigration. This explains whythe majority of the studies of illegal immigration, in

OECD 1999


241

particular to the Unites States, analyse the employ-ment of illegal immigrants as if it were coterminouswith that of unskilled legal immigrants. The differ-ence in the economic incidence of illegal and legalimmigration appear then as a matter of degree ratherthan of nature

C. COMBATING CLANDESTINE IMMIGRATION

Before turning to an examination of the administra-tive effectiveness of controls, the questions of the legit-imacy of restrictions on movement and settlement andtheir economic efficiency, from both the world andnational point of view, naturally pose themselves.

With regard to economic efficiency, as definedby some criterion of world or national welfare, thereare arguments in favour of both an open frontier anda control policy. Using very restrictive hypotheses,particularly an otherwise fixed national supply oflabour, it is possible to demonstrate that total worldwelfare would increase were all frontiers opened up(Hamilton and Whalley, 1984). At a national level, onemay more realistically say that, for the recipientcountry, immigration has distributive and “free rider”effects in that it allows new entrants to benefit fromthe past accumulation of capital and technologicalprogress, the cost of which has been borne by previ-ous generations. However, looking over the longterm, there are too many non-measurable parame-ters. That is why immigration policies are usuallyfounded on short-term economic arguments, or onarguments of political philosophy that have nothingto do with the issue of economic impact.

In this regard, two observations can be made.First, in a democratic society, whilst the regulation ofinflows and the definition and implementation ofrules for accepting new members of the communityare seen as forming part of the legitimate attributesof a nation-state, the issue of sending immigrantsback against their will is much more problematic.There is an asymmetry here which, for the individual,recalls the asymmetry between the right to leaveone’s country and the absence of an equivalent rightto enter another. Liberal societies have also made acommitment not to close their frontiers to refugeesand asylum seekers. What, then, in these conditions,are the options for the State?

The combating of clandestine immigration iseffected by measures that attempt to control inflowsand length of stay, and curb the clandestine employ-ment of foreign labour. These two elements areclosely linked: curbing the clandestine employment

of foreign labour aims to limit clandestine inflowsand residence; the main justification for the controlof flows is to protect the domestic workforce fromunfair competition thought to come from the clan-destine employment of foreign labour. To these twoadministrative activities, we must add free trade andco-operation policies that seek to reduce the pro-pensity to emigrate.

1. Frontier control and controlling the length of stay

To measure the effectiveness of administrativemeasures requires that the policy’s objective hasbeen clearly defined. If the objective is to reduceillegal immigration and settlement in the country, arethe entry restrictions efficient, do they represent thebest option? To answer this question, we need totake account not only of the direct effects on inflows,but also of the effects on net migration. However,entry control is only one of the possible ways of lim-iting inflows and settlement in the country. It follows,therefore, in relation to the established objective,that we need to compare the cost-effectiveness offrontier controls with other indirect methods, forexample the imposition of penalties on the employ-ers of clandestine foreign workers or policies of co-operation with origin countries.

The policy of controlling inflows responds to gen-eral principles of immigration policy regarding thenumber and characteristics of legal migrants. In set-tlement countries, in particular the United States,this involves defining immigration criteria and mea-sures for combating clandestine immigration; in theEuropean Union, it takes the form of severelyrestricting labour immigration from non-membercountries. Whether they limit access to the countrythrough a policy of visas or prevent the clandestinecrossing of frontiers, these policies of controllingmigration flows have revealed their effectiveness butalso their limitations. Although they have reducedthe number of entries of the categories concerned,they have also led to their substitution, to somedegree, by those categories whose entry continues tobe possible and/or less controlled, and who havesubsequently transformed themselves into clandes-tine residents. Clearly, policies for controlling inflowscannot on their own hope to regulate immigration.The international opening of economies, the volumeof cross-border movements, the maintenance(indeed the heightening) of economic imbalancesbetween rich and poor countries, and the existenceof networks sustained by the presence of estab-

OECD 1999


242

lished foreign communities ensure that control is notsimply a matter of visas and frontier police.

In the context of globalisation, entry control pre-sents a real problem for developed countries. First,outside a closed system (such as that of the SovietBloc or the Berlin Wall), and in a democratic environ-ment, a selective, partial system of control is difficultto implement. Moreover, it is generally the case thatcountries that attract migrants are often those thatalso attract entrants of all kinds, mainly tourists andfamily visitors. The problem is how to distinguishclearly at the point of entry between potentialmigrants and other flows. No administrative measure[e.g. visa policies that distinguish between differentcategories of inflow, the insistence on special condi-tions for tourists such as the obligation to have areturn ticket and/or a certain amount of money, andthe recently withdrawn French system of an “accom-modation certificate” (certificat d’hébergement)] hasproved itself sufficient to meet the problem.13

In this context, the United States’ migrationpolicy, which focuses mainly on entry (i.e. the visasystem)14 and the surveillance of land frontiers,provides a particularly good illustration. How effec-tive is the threat of being apprehended by the Immi-gration and Naturalization Service (INS)? Researchby Espenshade (1995) does not offer a firmresponse.15 There is a 30% chance of being appre-hended each time an attempt is made to enter theUnited States, but of course migrants can simplykeep trying until they succeed. There is a 1-2%chance of being apprehended on American soil. It isclear that, when migrants reach the American border,they will cross it eventually, and once they are insidethe country, there is very little likelihood of theirbeing arrested. It appears, then, that there is no linkbetween the perceived risk of being arrested at theborder and the total number of illegal immigrants inthe United States. However, Espenshade concludesthat implementation of INS policies “does havesome dissuasive effect”. Over recent years, althoughthe strengthening of INS controls has increased therisk of apprehension it has also been accompaniedby an enlargement in the number of crossing points.

Assessing the administrative effectiveness ofcontrol policy by its impact on flow reduction can bedeceptive as soon as there exists ambiguity in thepolicy’s objective. In North America and Europe, thestepping up of controls does not rule out a degree ofacceptance of irregular entries. In the United States, atleast until 1994, the declared control policy at theMexican border was exercised somewhat selectively.16

In Europe, after frontiers were closed the admissionof asylum seekers was for a time and without callingthe principle of closure into question an indirect andmore efficient means of selecting entries.

Control over entry in no way guarantees controlover the length of stay. The strengthening of externalcontrols, however effective they may be as far asinflows are concerned, does have an impact on therate of migration return, on length of stay and, there-fore, on the stock of illegal immigrants in these coun-tries. In the United States, where the risk of beingapprehended at the frontier has increased overrecent years, migrants have tried to compensate forthe additional cost by crossing the border less oftenand spending more time in the United States. InEurope, the closing down of frontiers has had theeffect of slowing down the rate at which labourmigrants return home (with marked differences bynationality), consolidating the family reunion pro-cess, and extending the length of stay.

Democratic and liberal states face a range ofpolitical, legal and administrative difficulties. Sendingback long-standing foreign residents, particularly ifthey are in employment is, irrespective of their legalstatus, open to question. Among developed coun-tries, no recipient country has introduced plans for amass-scale repatriation. Public opinion is in favour ofrestrictive measures at entry but is much more reluc-tant to accept coercive repatriation measures. Thereare also legal and technical difficulties that hinder theimplementation of forced departure measures. Thelaw requires compliance with strict conditions forrepatriation or expulsion: these take the form of indi-vidual legal or administrative decisions, notifying theforeigner of the decision personally, and the possibil-ity of verifying the individual’s identity and citizen-ship. There is no shortage of examples of peopleagainst whom decisions have been taken, but whichhave proved impossible to carry out: these includeindividuals who have had their identity papers takenaway from them and cannot be expelled or escorted tothe border, and cases where, despite strong evidenceof a person’s nationality, it has been necessary, in theabsence of formal proof, to obtain acknowledgementof citizenship from the consulate in the country of ori-gin, the latter’s co-operation in such matters beinglinked to considerations outside the field of migration.Readmission agreements are specifically aimed atdealing with this type of problem.

The asylum applications system is a typical illustra-tion of the limitations affecting the control of inflowsand length of stay. The asylum system seeks to guar-

OECD 1999


243

antee legal protection for asylum seekers in situationswhere they are few in number and where there existsan indisputable means of assessing personal risk inthe country of origin. In the late 1980s and early 1990s,the use of the asylum procedure by candidates formigration, when all other means were out of the ques-tion or more difficult, has been reflected in a substan-tial growth in the number of asylum seekers in westernEurope, particularly Germany – to the point ofseverely hampering the functioning of the system.This crisis has led to reform of national legislation.

Let us take the case of someone entering a coun-try and applying for asylum. He files an applicationbut, because of the large number of requests out-standing, the processing can take months, sometimeslonger than two years. In most cases, the request isrejected in the first instance and the application goesthrough to appeal, a procedure designed to ensure sofar as possible that no legitimate request for refugeestatus is turned down. The appeal procedure is sus-pensive; the person can therefore stay in the countryfor the duration of the procedure. During this time, thecountry has to decide between the following alterna-tives: either the asylum seeker obtains a work permit,which means that if the appeal is rejected (which iswhat usually happens), the asylum seeker is to allintents and purposes settled and the implementationof the judicial decision (which should involve sendinghim to a foreign country) turns out to be technicallyand humanely out of the question; or the country doesnot grant the asylum seeker a work permit, and thisinvolves giving him financial assistance and enablinghim to qualify for social security benefits while heawaits the final decision. In the latter case, the chargeincreases over time and becomes increasingly difficultto justify, especially so given that some asylum seek-ers manage to find jobs in the hidden economy.17

Countries faced with this dilemma have initiallychosen to speed up the process by increasing thebudgets of the government departments responsi-ble for refugees. This has been effective. However, itultimately proved necessary to make the asylumscheme more restrictive: in Germany, this resulted inan amendment to Article 16 of the Basic Law; inEurope more generally, it took the form of imple-menting the Dublin Convention whereby candidatesmay make only one application in the EuropeanUnion. These measures have led to a significantreduction in the number of asylum seekers. Yet,greater financial resources and stronger controlshave only a limited effect on the principle of the asy-lum system; there is therefore reason to believe that

the asylum route will continue to be a one of the keycomponents of migration flows. The asylum proce-dure, which is specific with regard to entry, illustratesthe general difficulty of controlling the length of stay.

It appears therefore that there is an inter-relation-ship between entry control and the regulation of migra-tion return. A country which makes entry more difficultthereby reduces the incentive to leave for thosealready present. However, when confronted with thedifficulty of exerting control over length of stay, coun-tries react by raising barriers to entry, often going fur-ther than the degree of closure that was initiallyplanned and seen by the country as desirable. Immi-gration control can only be carried out at entry, but theeconomic, social and political problems of immigrationare more the result of the settlement of migrants.

As soon as unauthorised migration is, in theabsence of reliable data, assumed to reach propor-tions deemed “large”, governments face a dilemma:either they apply the existing legislation and therebycreate a group of marginalised individuals, or theydecide on an amnesty which has to be presented andperceived as an exceptional and “one-off” operation.In the latter instance efforts are made in the hope ofensuring that the amnesty does not attract newinflows,18 and in particular that it does not stimulateexpectations of another amnesty.

The European experience, particularly since1973-74, and the American experience (IRCA, 1986)show that no regularisation exercise has ever put anend to the presence of clandestine immigrants, inthe sense that none have affected the decisive fac-tors and mechanisms underlying illegal migration.This does not mean that regularisation programmesshould be ruled out, rather that it is important to rea-lise that amnesties (partly) efface the past, but haveno effect on the future. However, the American exam-ple shows that, even in the absence of any prospectof a new amnesty, illegal migration has once againincreased; this makes it quite clear that there doesnot need to be the prospect of a new amnesty for thestock of clandestine immigrants to increase. Recentexperience in Europe shows that it is not an option todecide whether to have an amnesty or not; rather, thechoice is between repeated amnesties and discreetamnesties carried out on a case-by-case basis.

2. Employment controls and penalties against employers

The imposition of penalties against employerswho use clandestine labour, that is to say the second

OECD 1999


244

form of control, aims to influence the determiningfactors of unauthorised migration but, like regularisa-tion, it is a means after the fact of dealing with theproblem.

In the light of the most recent European andAmerican experiences, sanctions against employerswould appear to be of very limited effectiveness.There are a number of reasons for this. First, there areintrinsic difficulties in implementing such a system;some are legal or technical, while others are linked tothe socio-cultural environment. In most cases, employ-ers are not asked (or, more accurately, they cannot beasked) to check the validity of documents producedby migrant workers. As a result, even if the employeris under a duty to check on a worker’s status, he canonly be punished for not ensuring that the docu-ments were valid. More importantly, the system ofsanctions can only be effective if it is perceived bysociety, particularly at local level, as a legitimate ele-ment of labour market intervention.

In reality, there is usually quite a gap betweenbeing found breaking the law and being found guiltyin a court of law. It is hardly surprising, therefore, thatthe legal process comes to a halt somewherebetween the two as a result of local considerationsand political pressures that highlight the difficultiesthat enterprises would face if they had to pay forlabour at the current market rate and the risks that acessation of activities would have on the employ-ment of nationals.

Sanctions against employers also have an eco-nomic dimension. The effectiveness of the system ofsanctions depends on the extent to which a sanctionreduces the demand for unauthorised workers byadding a risk premium to their wage. This effective-ness also depends on the extent to which sanctionsencourage the replacement of clandestine immi-grants by nationals or legal immigrants therebyreducing clandestine entries. There is a price thatentrepreneurs are prepared to pay to be able to hireunauthorised workers; the problem may be formu-lated within the theory of optimal taxation (Hill andPearce, 1990). Entrepreneurs will risk employingunauthorised foreigners for as long as the expectedcost of being penalised (a function of the expectedsize of the penalty and the likelihood of beingcaught) is lower than the difference between thelabour costs of illegal and legal migrants.

The unknown element for the employer is thelikelihood of being checked up on. It can however becalculated, or at least its determinants can be

assessed on the basis of such factors as the amount ofmoney invested by the competent governmentdepartment (the INS, for example), the degree of geo-graphical and sectoral concentration of illegal workers,and the size and location of the company. This eco-nomic analysis needs qualification in the case of Euro-pean countries. The vision of the market economyignores the shame that can go with being found guiltyof employing illegal workers. Clandestine workers canbe hired by small enterprises in the formal and infor-mal sectors, but not by large firms. These latter pos-sess, however, the political influence to recruit themigrants they need through other, more widelyaccepted, means. It follows that the perceived concen-tration of illegal workers in certain jobs, and in firmsmarked by certain characteristics, can be deceptive.

There remains the question of the discrimina-tory effect that employer sanctions have on legalmigrant workers. An honest employer who does notseek to hire illegal migrants might refuse to hireworkers who display characteristics that point to ahigh probability of their being clandestine (e.g. a lowlevel of skills, or a poor command of the language).Paradoxically, law-abiding employers who have nointention of discriminating are more likely to operateon this basis thereby actually discriminating againstlegal workers. However, this legitimate concern mustnot be used as an excuse for relaxing a system ofsanctions that aims to prevent unfair competitionamong unskilled workers (North, 1994). In any case,that administrative effectiveness is limited does notjustify the conclusion that there should be no con-trols at all. After all, that the police will never succeedin completely stamping out criminality would not jus-tify disbanding their force.

The significance and scope of these measuresalso depend on the context in which they operateand on the importance attached to the socio-economic and legal dimensions of the offence. InEuropean countries such as France, the combating ofthe employment of foreigners in an irregular situa-tion forms part of the wider campaign against clan-destine employment. It aims above all to securecompliance with employment legislation with a viewto preventing the unfair competition that wouldresult from hiring clandestine labour. The penaltiesare directed at employers, not at workers. To thisend, drawing upon the lessons learned from applyingthe law, in particular the variety of legal devices usedwith the aim of evading employment and taxationregulations, attempts have been made to strengthenand reposition control provisions (i.e. focus on pre-

OECD 1999


245

vention), the justification for which goes beyondadministrative and economic efficiency. The ques-tion of the efficiency of sanctions, notably with regardto how much they reduce clandestine immigrationand what impact they have at the macroeconomiclevel, has been accorded rather less attention.

The perspective in the United States is different.The imposition of penalties on employers seeks toreduce clandestine entry and residence; it is not firstand foremost a legal instrument of regulating thelabour market. Here, as a result of experienceacquired since 1986, less effort has been made toalter labour market regulation in response to theinventiveness of clandestine workers and theiremployers. Instead, questions have been askedabout the relative efficiency of implementing lawsagainst employers as compared with measuresaimed directly at curbing clandestine inflows at fron-tiers. Taken to their logical conclusion, were it to beshown that, by comparison with legal immigration,illegal immigration is of greater benefit to the econ-omy then such considerations of economic efficiencywould lead to the conclusion that implementing lawsagainst employers has a negative economic impact.

This means that sanctions are efficient only ifthey reflect society’s view of the legitimacy andnecessity of combating clandestine employment andform part of a more general policy directed to thisend. Real control is social control, as the Swiss exam-ple testifies. It necessitates at the local level a con-sensus on the need to combat the phenomenon andimplement sanctions against employers. The newstrategic orientation adopted by the INS, which pro-poses to associate local communities and the imple-menting agencies in its actions in order to “identifyand define the problems linked to illegal immigra-tion” is in line with such an view (INS, March 1999).

3. Policies designed to reduce the propensity to emigrate

In a world where demographic and economicimbalances produce a supply of emigrants out of allproportion to the reception capacities and demand indeveloped countries, it has become necessary to re-sit-uate migration in the context of development, and topromote a strategy of trade liberalisation, incentives forprivate investment, aid and co-operation, from whichone might eventually hope to see a reduction ininequalities between nations and less incentive toemigrate. The realism of this approach, and theconfidence we can have in it, depend on the

answers to two lines of inquiry: What effect can theliberalisation of national economies and tradeliberalisation be expected to have on growth inrevenues and employment? and, What effect canstronger economic growth in origin countries beexpected to have on the incentive to emigrate(Tapinos, 1999)?

The impact of external opening on the growth ofeconomies is highly debatable. The analysis mainly(and often solely) focuses on the impact on exportsand imports and on growth in the economy; it is morediscreet about the effects on employment andincome distribution.19

The relationship between economic growth andemigration is even more uncertain. Economic theoryand empirical observation suggest two possibleapproaches. If the explanation for migration is mainlyto be found in income differentials (this is the onlyscenario produced by the theory of internationaltrade that assumes full use of factors of production)and employment (the neo-classical theory of alloca-tion of factors), and if the opening up to trade andmovements of capital is likely to encourage growth inthe revenues and well-being of all trading partnersand stronger growth among the less developed coun-tries, it is possible to predict that the surplus work-force will be absorbed and that there will beconvergence in wages.

A reduction in the incentive to emigrate followsfrom this; free trade and development aid are thenan alternative to population movements. On theother hand, if it is true that the origin of migration liesin the breakdown of the demographic-economicequilibrium, which results notably from the take-offof the development process, then an increase ininternal mobility, which is inherent to this process,normally extends outside the confines of the country.According to this hypothesis, development andinternational migration go hand in hand (Tapinos,1974; Diaz Briquets and Weintraub, 1991, Massey,1988). This hypothesis finds confirmation in empiri-cal studies of the American and European cases. Thetwo viewpoints may be reconciled through the intro-duction of a time dimension. In the medium term, thekind of development fostered by trade liberalisationstrengthens the incentive to emigrate; in the longterm, improved standards of living make emigrationless advantageous for potential candidates.

The decrease in clandestine migration is envis-aged in this way as the consequence of a fall in thegeneral propensity to emigrate. However, the selec-

OECD 1999


246

tive character of migration needs to be taken intoaccount. If those who are disposed to migrate clandes-tinely are different from other potential migrants,whether these characteristics be observable or other-wise, then the question of the specific impact of devel-opment and trade liberalisation will remain open. Apartial indication in this context was provided byHanson and Spilimbergo (1996), who showed thatillegal migration as measured by apprehensions is afunction of wage differentials between Mexico and theUnited States, but that it is more responsive to varia-tions in real wages in Mexico than to variations in realwages in America. Generalisation on the basis of thisobservation would not, of course, be warranted.

Conclusion

What lessons can we draw from this examinationof the economic and political issues of internationalmigration in the light of experiences in North Americaand Europe? What is the scope for public interven-tion in the context of accelerating globalisationalongside the persistence of demographic and eco-nomic disequilibria between the rich and poor coun-tries and the instability resulting from intra- andinter-national conflicts?

The phenomenon of clandestine migration is notconfined to any one migration regime in particular.Neither a regime open to regular migration such asthat in North America nor one of closed borders suchas that prevailing in Europe guarantees the contain-ment of clandestine entries and the prevention ofunauthorised residence by foreigners in an irregularsituation. The diversity of the potential forms of clan-destinity, the multiplicity of the objectives in the fightagainst clandestine immigration, the conflicts of inter-est between different groups in recipient countriesand the ambivalence of public opinion necessitate theimplementation of a range of measures. The effective-ness of these measures rests on the assumption that

migration is a process with inflows and outflows. It isthe obstacles to entry which have the effect of ulti-mately inducing an increase in the number of illegalimmigrants greater than would be the case under amore liberal system of entering and leaving.

The problem of the control of migration flowsshould not be viewed as being uniquely bilateral. Theemergence of new geographic areas for migrationimposes on governments forms of co-operation rang-ing from the exchange of experiences through to co-ordination in the methods they employ to regulatemigration flows.20 Yet in a world increasingly open tothe circulation of goods and capital, where the reduc-tion in transport costs leads to considerable cross-border movements linked to tourism, to the acquisi-tion of tertiary education and professional training andto business travel it is anachronistic to conceive ofimmigration control exclusively in terms of sovereignty.

A distinction needs to be made between move-ment, the expression of the human right to come andgo, and settlement which is conditional on the legitimateprerogative of societies to decide the extent to andthe conditions under which they are ready to acceptnew members. For all that, the difficulty of managingthe risk that incomers will remain beyond the durationof their visa cannot legitimise the imposition of restric-tions on the circulation of persons for this would bedetrimental to the majority of them who desire merelyand with honest intent to undertake a brief stay.

It should be noted also that migrants belong nei-ther to their country of origin nor to their country ofdestination. It is an illusion to imagine that irregularmigration can be eliminated solely by state interven-tion and improved co-operation between the originand destination countries. Clandestine migration, aswell as being a breach of the law is also a manifesta-tion of individual liberty. Between the inspector whocarries out his duty and the migrant in search of hisdestiny, the issues are not of the same nature. This isthe root of the problem.

OECD 1999

247


NOTES

1. The OECD and the Dutch authorities with the supportof the United States organised a seminar on prevent-ing and combating the employment of foreigners in anirregular situation. The seminar took place in TheHague on 22-23 April 1999. The seminar was a continu-ation of the work carried out since 1995 by the OECDSecretariat under the auspices of the Working Party onMigration. This work has facilitated the study of illegalimmigration in several OECD Member countries inrelation to labour market and other programmes toregularise foreigners in an irregular situation. The sem-inar comprised three sessions. The first session analy-sed the impact of irregular migration on the economyand the labour market. The second session was dedi-cated to the comparative analysis and the evaluationof measures undertaken to prevent and combat theemployment of foreigners in an irregular situation. Thethird session was composed of two round tables. Par-ticipants in the first round table included OECD policymakers, representatives of governmental administra-tions in charge of the implementation of sanctionsagainst labour traffickers, dishonest employers andforeigners in an irregular situation. Representatives ofTrade Unions also contributed to the discussions onthe difficulties encountered in implementing sanc-tions at national levels and proposals for actions toovercome these difficulties. The second round tablewas devoted to the extension and improvement ofinternational co-operation directed at effectively pre-venting and combating the employment of foreignersin an irregular situation. The proceedings of the semi-nar as well as the conclusions and recommendations ofthe OECD Secretariat will be published by the OECDin January 2000. The document presented at the semi-nar by Georges Tapinos (Irregular migration: economicand political issues) has been chosen for the SpecialChapter of this edition of the annual report "Trends inInternational Migration".

2. The relative proportion of these two components inthe number of illegal migrants varies from country tocountry. In the United States, it has been estimatedthat illegal entries (entries without inspection) andoverstayers each account for 50% of total illegal immi-gration (Warren, 1994). A more recent estimate by theINS puts the figures at 60% and 40% respectively.

3. One can not always distinguish these different catego-ries in the administrative statistics. Indeed, theserecord either legal movements or infractions which,when they are penalised, measure clandestinity at thevery moment that it has ceased to exist. Moreover,

administrative statistics, çross-sectional by nature,record the events or migrants affected by the eventswithout, in general, it being possible to attach theevents to a reference population. Further, there is dis-tinction to be drawn as to the reliability of the informa-tion: between administrative records which caninclude a fiscal dimension or an element of sanctionwhich might incite inexact declarations, and data whichrespond to a desire for socio-economic knowledgesuch as censuses and some surveys; they do not nec-essarily have the same utility when one seeks to deter-mine the number of clandestine immigrants. Whenclandestine immigration is tolerated, it is quite possi-ble that a census will record a non-negligible propor-tion of the clandestine immigrants.

4. It is a gross over-simplification, but we can identifythree overlapping types of procedure. Firstly, there aresurveys that have the advantage of including charac-teristics of economic sectors and the workers con-cerned, but do not identify variations over time. Then,there are numerical methods that focus on anomaliesbetween observed and assumed developments; thevariables customarily used are participation rates, thedisparity between national revenue and expenditures,the proportions of expenditure using cash and large-denomination notes, and household electricity con-sumption. These methods need a departure point atwhich time it is reasonable to assume that the hiddeneconomy is, to all intents and purposes, non-existent.It is then possible to identify growth in the hiddeneconomy over time. A more ambitious econometricprocedure uses a theoretical model of the informaleconomy that involves the introduction of a series ofvariables defining determiners (e.g. fiscal pressure orregulations covering employment) and indicators ofthe hidden economy (e.g. participation rates). Becauseof the wide variety of procedures used and specificfeatures of the statistical factors requested and thefield covered, it is difficult to make comparisons. As apercentage of GDP, estimates range between 2% and4%, with particularly high levels for certain sectors suchas building, hotels and catering, domestic services andagriculture.

5. Despite the multiplicity of conceivable procedures, formost of the countries concerned we do not have a sin-gle estimate worthy of the name. For the Europeancountries, one is obliged to content oneself with verypartial measurements, typically estimates inferredfrom the number of asylum or regularisation applica-tions refused. In the United States, however, the civil

OECD 1999


248

service furnishes one of the most reliable estimates ofthe stock of clandestine immigrants. The number inOctober 1996 was put at 5 million, there having takenplace between 1992 and 1996 an annual growth of275 000 (US Statistical Abstract 1996 and GAO,April 1999).

6. This can vary for nationals and established regularmigrants. Although there is certainly more of an incen-tive for nationals to work in the informal economy thanfor undocumented foreigners, the advantages for theformer outweigh the risk; this is not so for illegal work-ers. Contini (1982) cites the example of Fiat whose staffbetween the mid-1960s and the early 1970s left foremployment with smaller enterprises where there wasmore work and higher capitalisation and profits. Regu-lar migrants, too, have accepted restrictions that lim-ited their mobility.

7. However, it should be pointed out that there are caseswhere undocumented migrant workers have lost theirjobs following regularisation; they are less likely torepeat the experience another time.

8. The decision to sub-contract part of production rein-forces, and often conditions, the opportunity to reducewages and avoid mandatory deductions (i.e. taxes andsocial security).

9. Sub-contracting, a practice that responds to a logic ofefficiency, also allows artificially created companiesto expand by employing unauthorised labour. Forexample, a French legal judgement refers to a sub-contractor who employed eight people, five of whomhad no residence permits or work permits, and one ofwhom had no work permit. Work was supervised by acharge-hand from the main company, the workers werelodged in huts hired by the same company, and all theequipment and materials used for production were alsothe property of the main company. Sub-contractingenabled the main company to avoid paying taxes andsocial charges (Pupier, 1992).

10. Unauthorised migrants often have a better under-standing of conditions in the informal labour marketthan nationals and immigrants who have been in thecountry for a long time, particularly in the services sec-tor. This gives them a comparative advantage.

11. For example, some Sri Lankans who had no real inten-tion of settling, applied for asylum in order to takeadvantage of the slow pace at which the applicationprocess is conducted, and used the time to build uptheir savings before returning home (Costes, 1991).

12. We have indeed very little research material of the sta-tistical quality necessary to make an assessment. Oneof the monographs worthy of note, that by Venturini(1997) measured the elasticity of regular employmentcompared with unauthorised, irregular employmentand threw doubt on the hypothesis that there is com-petition from irregular foreign labour. Using ISTAT dataon the hidden economy during the period 1980-1994,she showed in 14 branches in 5 sectors (agriculture,industry, construction, tradable services and non-tradable services) that there are variations between

sectors, in particular that the depressive effect is morepronounced in agriculture, but that the overall impactis small. However, in another context, other studiesshow that the pay of undocumented workers is lowerthan that of nationals (allowing for different levels ofproductivity), and that they perform lowly regardedjobs with few differences in pay determined by quali-fications, gender or age (Lianos, Sarris and Katseli,1996; Markova and Sarris, 1997).

13. However, as statistics on flows into European countriesshow, it would be wrong to under-estimate the impactof the visa policy.

14. Under American law, obtaining a visa from an Americanconsulate abroad does not remove the right of immi-gration officers to refuse entry at the point of entry.

15. n 1993, the INS spent $US 362m on implementing thepolicy; to this sum, we must add the $US 12.2m spenton equipment used in achieving the same objective.That year, 1 282 000 apprehensions were carried out byborder patrols; another 45,000 were made inside theUnited States. In 1998, the INS spent around $US 900mfor the Budget Authority for Border Patrol (cf. Tight-ened Controls and Changing Flows: Evaluation the INSBorder Enforcement Strategy by R. Suro in ResearchPerspectives on Migration, Vol. 2, n°1, 1999).

16. This has been well documented by the Zapata CanyonProject (Bustamante, 1990). Illustrations of this includethe fact that most migrants do not choose to cross thefrontier where the geographical conditions are leastdangerous, but where there is a large labour market onthe American side (e.g. the Tijuana-San Diego border),and the large number of 'illegal commuters'.

17. It is interesting to note that countries choosing the formeroption (e.g. France) have subsequently gone for the latter,and countries choosing the latter (e.g. Germany) havesubsequently adopted the former.

18. This assumes that provision is made for deadlines,proof that the applicant is indeed residing in the coun-try, and possibly further proof that he has a job.

19. Given the wide range of experiences, it is particularlyinteresting to identify the factors likely to influence thedirection of variations and to measure their effects. In areview of the literature, Edwards (1993) selects five ele-ments: liberalisation measures, in particular the distinc-tion between, on the one hand, the removal of quotaand tariff barriers and, on the other, devaluation that canbecome necessary as a result of the opening; the time-tabling and speed of the opening; the stage of develop-ment that the country has reached; the internationalenvironment; and labour market distortions.

20. Hence the lifting of internal controls within theEuropean Union and the drafting of common regula-tions for external border control (the Schengen inter-governmental agreement and the Dublin Conventionon asylum seekers). For all this, none of the countriesconcerned has ruled out the possibility of applyingspecial conditions to certain categories of would-beentrants.

OECD 1999

249


BIBLIOGRAPHY

BAGANHA, M.I. (1998),“Immigrant involvement in the informal economy: thePortuguese case”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,Vol. 24, No. 2, April, pp. 367-385.

BEAN, F.D., LOWEL, B.L. and TAYLOR, L.J. (1988),“Undocumented Mexican immigrants and the earningsof other workers in the United States”, Demography,Vol. 25, No. 1, February, pp. 35-52.

BENEDETTI, L. (1991),“Le travail clandestin entre le travail choisi et le travailpossible”, in Montagne-Villette, S. (ed) Espace et travailclandestin, Masson, Paris, pp. 65-70.

BERANEK, W. (1982),“The illegal alien work force, demand for unskilledlabour and the minimum wage”, Journal of LabourResearch, Vol. III, No. 1.

BHAGWATI, J.N. (1981),“Alternative theories of illegal trade: economic conse-quences and statistical detection”, WeltwirtschaftlichesArchiv., 117, pp. 409-427.

BOND, E.W. and CHEN, T.J. (1987),“The welfare effects of illegal immigration”, Journal ofInternational Economic, 14, pp. 315-328.

BORJAS, G., FREEMAN, R.B. and KATZ, L.F. (1986),“Searching for the effect of immigration on the labormarket” in American Economic Review, May, pp. 246-251.

BRATSBERG, B. (1995),“Legal vs. illegal U.S. immigration and source coun-try characteristics”, Journal of International Economics,pp. 715-726.

BUCCI, G.A. and TENORIO, R. (1996),“On financing the internal enforcement of illegal immi-gration policies”, Journal of Population Economics, Vol. 9,pp. 65-81.

BUSTAMANTE, J. (1990),“Undocumented migration from Mexico to the UnitedStates: preliminary findings of the Zapata canyon Project”in Undocumented Migration to the United States. IRCA and theExperience of the 1980s, Santa Monica, Calif., Rand Corpora-tion, Washington, D.C., The Urban Institute.

CHISWICK, B.R. (1986),“Illegal aliens: a preliminary report on employee-employer survey”, American Economic Review, Vol. 76,No. 2, May, pp. 253-257.

CHISWICK, B.R. (1986),Illegal Aliens: Their Employment and Employers, WE UpjohnInstitute for Employment Research.

CHISWICK, B.R. (1988),“Illegal immigration and immigration control”, Journal ofEconomic Perspectives, Vol. 2, pp. 101-115.

CLARK, R.L., PASSEL, J.S., ZIMMERMANN, W.N. and FIX, M.with MANN, T.L. and BERKOWITZ, R.E. (1995),Fiscal Impacts of Undocumented Aliens: Selected Estimates for SevenStates, The Urban Institute, Washington D.C., January.

COBB-CLARK, D. A., SHIELLS, C. R. and LOWELL, B. L. (1995),“Immigration reform: the effects of employer sanctionsand legalization on wages”, Journal of Labor Economics,Vol. 13, No. 3, July, pp. 472-498.

COMMISSION FOR THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONALMIGRATION AND COOPERATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOP-MENT (1990),Unauthorized Migration: An EconomicDevelopment Response,Report, July.

CONTINI, B. (1982),“The second economy of Italy” in Tanzi V. (ed.), TheUnderground Economy in the United States and Abroad, DCHeath and Co., Boston, pp. 199-208.

COSTES, L. (1991),“Immigrés et travail clandestin dans le métro” inMontagne-Villette, S. (ed) Espaces et travail clandestins,Masson, Paris.

CORNELIUS, W.A., MARTIN, P.L. and HOLLIFIELD, J.F. (1994), Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective, Stanford Uni-versity Press, Tanford, California.

DELL’ARINGA, C. and NERI, F. (1989),“Illegal migrants and the informal economy in Italy” inGordon, I. and Thirwall, A.P. (eds) European Factor Mobil-ity (Trends and Consequences), Basingstoke (Macmillan),pp. 133-147.

DELAUNAY, D. and Tapinos, G. (1998)La mesure de la migration clandestine en Europe. Vol. : Rapportde synthèse, Eurostat Working Paper (Population etconditions sociales).

DJAJIC, S. (1997),“Illegal immigration and resource allocation”, InternationalEconomic Review, Vol. 38, No. 1, February, pp. 97-117.

DJAJIC, S. (1997),“Dynamics of immigration control”, CEPR Worshop,14-15 February, Athens.

DONATO, K.M., DURAND, J. and MASSEY, D.S. (1992),“Stemming the tide? Assessing the deterrent effects ofImmigration Reform and Control Act”, Demography,Vol. 29, No. 2, May, pp. 139-157.

OECD 1999


250

DUNN, L. F. (1990),“An empirical study of labour market equilibriumunder working hours constraints”, Review of Economics andStatistics, Vol. 72, No. 2, May, pp. 250-258.

ESPENSHADE, T.J. (1995),“Using INS border apprehension data to measure theflow of undocumented migrants crossing the U.S.-MexicoFrontier”, International Migration Review, 29, pp. 545-565.

ETHIER, W.J. (1986),“Illegal immigration. The host country problem”, TheAmerican Economic Review, Vol. 76, pp. 57-71.

ETHIER, W.J. (1986),“Illegal immigration”, The American Economic Review,Vol. 76, No. 2, May, pp. 258-262.

GARSON, J.P. and THOREAU, C. (1997),“Lessons from regularisation programmes and measurestaken to combat employment of foreigners in irregularsituations”, CEPR Workshop, 14-15 February, Athens.

GONZALES, J.G. (1994),“Illegal immigration in the presence of labor unions”,International Economic Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 57-70.

GROSSMAN, J.B. (1984),“Illegal immigrants and domestic employment”, Indus-trial and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 37, No. 2, January,pp. 240-251.

HAMILTON, B. and WHALLEY, J. (1984),“Efficiency and distributional implications of globalrestrictions on labour mobility”, Journal of DevelopmentEconomics, 14, pp. 61-75.

HANSON, G. H. and SPILIMBERGO, A. (1996),“Illegal immigration, border enforcement, and relativewages: evidence from apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico Border”, NBER Working Paper n° 5592, May.

HAUT CONSEIL A L’INTÉGRATION (1992),L’emploi illégal des étrangers (rapport particulier).

HILL, J.K. and PEARCE, J.E. (1990),“The incidence of sanctions against employers of ille-gal aliens”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 98, No. 1,pp. 28-44.

ISKANDER, N. (1999),“Immigrant workers in an irregular situation: the case ofthe garment industry in Paris and its suburbs”, TheHague Seminar, OECD, 22-23 April.

KARAMESSINI, M. (1996),“Labour flexibility and segmentation of the Greek labourmarket in the eighties: sectoral analysis and typology”,European Association of Labour Economists, 8e con-férence annuelle, Crete, 12-22 September.

LAYARD, R., NICKELL, S. and JACKMAN, R. (1991),Unemployment, Macroeconomic Performance and the LabourMarket, Oxford University Press.

LEVINE, P. (1995),“The welfare economics of legal and illegal migration”,CEPR Workshop, 14-16 September, Halkidiki.

LIANOS, T. P., SARRIS, A. and KATSELI, L.T. (1996),“Illegal migration and local labour markets. The case ofNorthern Greece”, International Migration, Vol. XXXIV,No. 3, pp. 449-484.

LUTZ, V. (1963),“Foreign workers and domestic wage levels, with anillustration from the Swiss case”, Banca Nazionale delLavoro Quarterly Review, March, pp. 3-68.

McCARTHY, K. F. and VERNEZ, G. (1997)Immigration in a Changing Economy – California’s Experience,RAND, Santa-Monica.

MARIE, C.V. (1994),La verbalisation du travail illégal, les chiffres de l’année 1994,MILUTMO, Mission de liaison interministérielle pourla lutte contre le travail clandestin, l’emploi nondéclaré et les trafics de main-d’œuvre, Paris.

MARIE, C.V. (1997),“La loi du 11 mars 1997 sur le travail illégal : les don-neurs d’ordre en ligne de mire”, Regards sur l’actualité,No. 235, November, pp. 31-53.

MARKOVA, E. and SARRIS, A. H. (1997),The Performance of Bulgarian Illegal Immigrants in the GreekLabour Market, Department of Economics, Athens Uni-versity, February.

MASSEY, D. S. (1987),“Do undocumented migrants earn lower wages thanlegal immigrants? New evidence from Mexico”, Interna-tional Migration Review, Vol. XXI, No. 2, pp. 236-274.

MASSEY, D.S. (1998), “Economic development and international migration” inPopulation and Development Review, September, pp. 383-413.

MIGRATIONS-SOCIÉTÉ (1995)“Marché de l’emploi et clandestinité”, Vol. 7, No. 39,May-June, pp. 30-91 (Suite d’articles).

MOULIER-BOUTANG, Y., GARSON, J.P. and SILBERMAN, R.(1986),Économie politique des migrations clandestines de main-d’œuvre,Publisud, Paris.

MOULIER-BOUTANG, Y. (1991),“Dynamique des migrations internationales et écono-mie souterraine : comparaison internationale et pers-pectives européennes”, in Espaces et travail clandestin,Montagné-Vilette (S.), Paris, Masson, pp. 113-121.

NORTH, D. (1994), “Enforcing the minimum wage and employer sanc-tions”, Annals AAPSS, Vol. 534, pp. 58-68.

NORTH, D. and HOUSTON, M. (1976),The Characteristics and Role of Illegal Aliens in the U.S. LaborMarket: an Exploratory Study, Report, U.S. Department ofLabour, Washington D.C.

OECD (1990), “Comparative analysis of regularisation experience inFrance, Italy, Spain and the United States” in SOPEMI,Paris, pp. 65-101.

PALLIDA, S. (1990),“L’immigration entre l’économie ethnique et l’écono-mie souterraine”, in Abou Sada, G., Courault, B. etSeboulou, Z. (ed) L’immigration au tournant, CIEMII,L’Harmattan, Paris.

PHILIBERT, J.P. and SAUVAIGO, S. (1996),Rapport sur l’immigration clandestine et le séjour irrégulierd’étrangers en France, Commission d’enquête; Rapport

OECD 1999


251

n° 2699 de l’Assemblée nationale, Tome 1 : Rapport,Tome 2 : Audition, Paris.

PORTES, A., CASTELLS, M. and BENTON, L. A. (eds.) (1989), The Informal Economy – Studies in Advanced and Less Devel-oped Countries, The Johns Hopkins University Press,Baltimore and London.

PUPIER, A. (1992),“La fausse sous-traitance dans le bâtiment et les travauxpublics”, Sociétés contemporaines, No. 10, pp. 153-170.

REYNOLDS, C.W. and MCCLEERY, R.K. (1988),“The political economy of immigration law: impact ofSimpson Rodino on the United States and Mexico”,Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 117-131.

RICCA, S. (1984),“Administering migrant workers in an irregular situa-tion in Greece, Italy and Spain”, Working PaperNo. 11E, ILO, Geneva.

ROBIN, S. and MARIE, C. V. (1995), “A comparative analysis of legislation in several Euro-pean countries aimed at the illegal employment of for-eigners”, OECD Working Party on Migration, Paris.

ROTHMAN, E.S. and ESPENSHADE, T.J. (1992),“Fiscal impact of immigration to the United States”,Population Index, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 381-415.

SLIMANE, L. (1995),L’immigration clandestine de la main-d’œuvre dans la régionbruxelloise, Bruylant, Brussells.

TANZI, V. (ed.) (1982),The Underground Economy in the United States and Abroad,Lexington Books, Lexington (Mass.).

TAPINOS, G. (1973),L’ économie des migrations internationales, Fondation natio-nale des Sciences politiques/Armand Colin, Paris.

TAPINOS, G. (1992),“La pression migratoire : sentiment d’inquiétude ouconcept analytique ?”, in Tapinos, G. and Keely, C.B.La migration internationale : deux approches, Programmemondial pour l’emploi, Document de travail, ILO,Geneva, May, pp. 1-14.

TAPINOS, G. (1999), “Migration, trade and development.The European Union and the Maghreb countries”, inEldorado or Fortress? Migration in Southern Europe, editedby Russel King, Gabriella Lazaridis and C. Tsardanidis,Mac Millan, London.

TAPINOS, G. (en collaboration avec de RUGY, A.) (1993),“The macroeconomic impact of immigration. Review of

the literature published since the mid-1970” in Trendsin International Migration, OECD, Paris.

TAPINOS, G., LACROIX, P. and RUGY, A. de (1996),Les méthodes d’évaluation de l’immigration clandestine dans cer-tains pays étrangers, Fondation nationale des Sciencespolitiques, December, Paris.

TAPINOS, G. and DELAUNAY, D. (1999),“Can one really talk of the globalisation of migrationflows?” in Globalisation, Migration and Development, OECD,Paris.

TIENDA, M. and SINGER, A. (1995),“Wage mobility of undocumented workers in theUnited States”, International Migration Review, Vol. XXIX,No. 1, Spring, pp. 112-138.

TODARO, M.P. and MARUSZCO, L. (1987), “Illegal migration and U.S. immigration reform”, Popula-tion and Development Review, Vol. 13, No. 1, March.

UNITED NATIONS (1998),World Population Monitoring, 1997: International Migrationand Development, United Nations, New York (Economicand Social Affairs).

UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (1997)Illegal Immigration Southwest Border Stragegy Inconclusive:More Evaluation Needed, GAO, December.

UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTRIG OFFICE (1999)Illegal Aliens-Significant Obstacles to Reducing UnauthorizedAlien Employment Exist, GAO, April.

US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (1999),Backgrounder, Immigration and Naturalization Service,Interior Enforcement Stragegy, March.

VAN HAMERSFOORT, H. (1996), “Migration: the limits of governmental control”, NewCommunity, Vol. 22, No. 2, April, pp. 243-257.

VENTURINI, A. (1997), “Do immigrants working illegaly reduce the natives’slegal employment? Evidence from Italy”, Paper pre-sented for the CEPR Seminar on Illegal Migrants, Athens.

WARREN, R. (1994),“Estimates of the unauthorized immigrant popula-tion residing in the United States by country oforigin and state of residence”, October, P.A.A.Meeting, April 1995.

YOSHIDA, C. (1996),“The global welfare of illegal immigration – no discern-ment case”, Indian Journal of Economics, Vol. LXXVI,No. 303, April, pp. 537-550.

OECD 1999

253

STATISTICAL ANNEX

Data on the flows and stocks of migrants and relatedissues, such as their performance in the labour market, arederived from a wide variety of sources and the nature ofthese sources varies across countries. This makes the appli-cation of standardised definitions difficult and hence partic-ular attention needs to be paid to the characteristics of thedata, especially in the context of international comparisons.Section A of this annex describes the sources and methodsused to generate migration statistics and is followed by pre-sentation of data in Section B. These data are a selectionfrom the OECDs’ database of migration statistics.

Some preliminary remarks are required concerning thenature of the OECDs’ migration data. Most of the data aretaken from the individual contributions of correspondentsappointed by the OECD Secretariat with the approval ofnational governments. In this regard it should be noted that:

– As noted in the Foreword to this report, the ContinuousReporting System on Migration (SOPEMI) coversalmost all of the Member countries of the OECD.

– The coverage of countries in the data and the abilityto construct time-series is to a certain extent affectedby the dates at which countries became members ofthe SOPEMI network. Recent participants to SOPEMIdo not necessarily provide historical data in theirreports and, in addition, further clarification is some-times required before data can be published.

– SOPEMI has no authority to impose changes in datacollection procedures. It has an observatory rolewhich, by its very nature, has to use existing statis-tics. However, it does play an active role in suggest-ing what it considers to be essential improvementsin data collection and makes every effort to presentconsistent and well documented statistics.

A. SOURCES AND COMPARABILITY OF MIGRATION STATISTICS

Compared to some other areas of statistics, such aslabour force data, there exists little international standardis-ation of migration statistics. Consequently there are varyingdegrees of comparability between countries. One reason forthis is that relatively few sources have as their raison d’être therecording of migration. Population registers, a commonsource of migration statistics, are used for a number of otheradministrative and statistical purposes. As a result, tailoringregisters such that migration data conform to an interna-tional standard is made more difficult. Comparability is alsoproblematic if data are based on residence or work permits.The data reflect migration systems and the policies ofnational governments and so, once again, it can be difficult

to generate harmonised data. Hence, although there hasbeen some development and agreement in the definitionand classification of migration for statistical purposes (seeBox 1), these standards have proved difficult to implement.

Aside from problems relating to international compa-rability, there are other difficulties with migration statistics,most notably the problem of measuring illegal immigra-tion. Estimation is difficult and the figures that exist shouldbe viewed, therefore, with some scepticism (see OECD,1989). For this reason, explicit estimates of illegal immi-grants have not been included in this annex. However,some stock and flow data partially incorporate illegalmigration, therefore the phenomenon does not necessarilygo completely unmeasured. For example, individuals mayremain on population registers after their permits haveexpired, residing as illegal (or “undocumented”) immi-grants. Finally, it should be noted that those achievinglegal status under “regularisation programmes” are some-times included in inflow data and must be taken intoaccount when analysing trends. In addition, regularisationprograms may be followed by an additional wave of immi-gration depending on the extent to which the acquisition oflegal status allows family reunification.

The following provides a brief review of the sources ofmigration statistics (A); this is followed by a discussion ofthe techniques used for measuring migration flows (B), andof data issues relating to stocks of migrants and the immi-grant population (C).

1. Sources of migration statistics

The principle sources of migration statistics are popu-lation registers, residence or work permits, censuses andsurveys. However, a wide variety of other data sources(e.g. special surveys, counts at border crossings, analysis oflanding cards) may sometimes be used. Table 1 providesan overview of data sources and shows that population reg-isters are commonly used as a source of flow and stock dataon migration, especially in northern Europe. In other coun-tries, data on residence permits and census data are themost common means of measuring flows and stocks ofinternational migrants.

Population registers

Population registers are accounts of residents within acountry. They are typically maintained via the legal require-ment that both nationals and foreigners residing in the coun-try must register with the local authorities. Aggregation ofthese local accounts results in a record of population andpopulation movement at the national level. As a result, the

OECD 1999


254

registers can provide data on all migrant flows (inflows andoutflows of both nationals and foreigners) as well as data onstocks of foreigners and nationals. For this reason they tendto be widely used. However there are some drawbacks: indi-viduals often fail to record their departures and thereforedata on outflows can be less reliable. Also, there are differ-ences in the type of migrants counted which must be takeninto account in international comparisons.

Permit data

Residence and work permit data commonly form thebasis of flow statistics for countries which do not have pop-ulation registers. The data are necessarily more limited inscope as they do not capture all flows and it can be difficultto use them to generate stock and outflow data as theserequire careful accounting of the number of permits bothissued and expired.

Census and household survey data

Census data enables comprehensive, albeit infre-quent analysis of the stock of immigrants (censuses aregenerally conducted every 5 to 10 years). In addition, manylabour force surveys now include questions about national-ity and place of birth, thus providing a source of annual

stock data. However, some care has to be taken withdetailed breakdowns of the immigrant population fromsurvey data as sample sizes can be very small. Inevitably,both census and survey data may under-representmigrants, especially where they tend not to be registeredfor census purposes, or where they do not live in privatehouseholds (labour force surveys do not usually coverthose living in institutions, such as reception centres andhostels for immigrants).

2. Measurement of migration flows

The inflows and outflows included in this annex are allbased either on population registers or on permit data.The types of flow measured differ quite markedly betweenthese two sources and there are also differences to accountfor between different registers and the different types ofpermit used to generate the statistics.

Flows derived from population registers

Population registers can usually produce inflow andoutflow data for both nationals and foreigners, howeverthere are differences in the type of flows measured due todifferences in the way migrants are defined in the registers.In this regard, a key condition used to define immigrants is

Box 1. Definitions of migration flows and immigrantpopulations developed by the United Nations

Migration flows

The United Nations has endeavoured to encourage the standardisation of migration statistics through establishingdata collection procedures and defining the resultant data (UN, 1989, pp. 28-30). The UN’s aim is to account for all cat-egories of persons crossing international borders, regardless of their place of residence. Taking this very general defi-nition, the criterion of residence allows an initial distinction between migrants and "non-migrants", i.e. tourists, short-term business travellers, visitors and "special categories" (seasonal workers, students, refugees, diplomatic and con-sular representatives, etc.).

According to the United Nations recommendations, migrants consist of four categories: a) long-term immigrants(or emigrants); b) short-term immigrants (or emigrants); c) residents returning after (or leaving for) a period workingabroad, i.e. short-term emigrants returning (or leaving); and d) nomads.

The United Nations define long-term migrants as follows (these definitions apply equally to all populationcategories, whether nationals or not, foreign-born or not):

– long-term emigrants are residents or persons who have resided continuously in the country for more than oneyear and who are departing to take up residence abroad for more than one year;

– long-term immigrants are non-residents or persons who have arrived for a length of stay of more than one yearbut have not yet continuously lived in the country for more than one year.

Whilst this definition has not been widely adopted and is difficult to apply, it continues to provide a useful bench-mark and focus for further efforts towards harmonisation. The UN is currently working on a new method of definingmigration flows which is aimed at increasing the viability of harmonised statistics.

Immigrant population

The immigrant population is usually measured either as the part of the resident population who are foreignnationals, or as the part of the foreign-born in the resident population. In the latter case there are situations whereindividuals are difficult to classify due to changes in national boundaries. The United Nations recommends that the‘foreign-born’ be defined as those born outside the country or area where the ‘country or area of birth’ is based oncurrent national boundaries (or, more precisely, those that existed at the time the data were collected) (UN, 1989,pp. 103).

OECD 1999

Sta

tistical A

nn

ex

OE

CD

199

Foreign and foreign-born labour force

Inflows Stocks StocksSeasonal

of foreign of foreign-born of foreignworkers

workers workers workers

R A SR R RR RR A C

R F

R A SR R A

R RR SR R R

R

R RA AR F

RR R

SR R RR A SR R C

255

9 Table 1. Summary table on the sources of migration statistics

Foreign and foreign-born population

Stocks StocksInflows Outflows Asylum

of foreign-born of foreign Naturalisationof foreigners of foreigners seekers

population population

Australia P A C AAustria F A F ABelgium F F A F ACanada P A C ACzech Republic A FDenmark F F A F F AFinland F F A F AFrance R A C AGermany F F A F AGreece AHungary F A F AIreland A SItaly A R AJapan F F F AKorea F ALuxembourg F F A F ANetherlands F F A F F ANorway F F A F F APoland APortugal A RSpain A R ASweden F F A F F ASwitzerland F F A F AUnited Kingdom A A S AUnited States P A C, S C A

F Population register or register of foreignersR Residence or work permits (renewable)P Acceptances for permanent settlementC CensusS Labour Force SurveyA Other administrative sources


256

intention to reside for more than a specified length of time.In addition, foreigners who register may have to indicatepossession of an appropriate residence and/or work per-mit. Emigrants are usually identified by a stated intentionto leave the country, however a period of (intended)absence is not typically specified.

Key features of migration data derived from popula-tion registers are as follows:

– Departures tend to be less well recorded than arriv-als, often because registration results in certainrights and benefits to the individual, whereas thereis less incentive to inform authorities of departure.In order to provide more accurate figures, somecountries use additional information such as host-country estimates to generate emigration data.

– The rules governing entry into the register and whois defined as a migrant vary across countries. Nota-bly, the minimum duration of stay for individuals tobe defined as immigrants varies between threemonths and one year, implying that for some coun-tries the data include short as well as longer termmigration flows.

– Asylum seekers are included in some register databut excluded from others. Inclusion typically occurswhen the asylum seekers live in private households(as opposed to reception centres and hotels). In thedata presented in this annex, some asylum seekersare included in the data for Belgium, Germany, theNetherlands, and Norway.

Despite these qualifications, population registers aregenerally regarded as a good source of migration data andare used in preference to other sources, especially in thegeneration of annual estimates.

Flows derived from residence and work permits

Countries which do not have population registers use avariety of sources to generate flow data. Inflows for Australia,the United States, Canada, and France are based on resi-dence and/or work permits. Data for the United Kingdom arebased on information from landing cards. Note that permitdata usually represent the number of permits issued in agiven period and have the following general characteristics:

– The nature of the flows measured obviously dependson the type of permit(s) used to generate the statistic.Inflows for the so-called “settlement countries”(Australia, Canada and the United States) are calcu-lated as the number of permanent residence permits(also known as “acceptances for settlement”) issued.In the case of France, a sum of various types of permitissued (all of limited duration) is used.

– Flows of nationals are not recorded in the data andsome flows of foreigners may also not be recorded,depending on the type of permit used as a basis forthe statistic and also on the nature of free-circulationagreements. In France, some inflows from other EUcountries are included in the data as permanent workpermits are still required for EU nationals (this is a for-mality rather than a means of restricting entry).

– Permit data do not necessarily reflect physical flowsor actual lengths of stay since: i) permits may be

issued overseas but individuals may decide not touse them, or delay their arrival; ii) permits may beissued to persons who have in fact been resident inthe country for some time, the permit indicating achange of status, or a renewal of the same permit.The data for Australia do not include those who havebeen accepted for permanent settlement whilst res-ident in Australia, whereas data for Canada and theUnited States include all issues of permanent settle-ment permits.

– Permit data may be influenced by the processingcapacity of government agencies. In some instancesa large backlog of applications may build up andtherefore the true demand for permits may onlyemerge once backlogs are cleared.

Estimation of net migration

From the preceding discussion on flow data it is evi-dent that some countries have readily available means tocalculate net migration (e.g. through population registers)whilst others face greater difficulties and estimates mustbe made on the basis of a variety of sources. This annexcontains data for the net migration of foreigners. Notethat for some countries, figures for total net migration(i.e. including the movement of both foreigners and nation-als) are presented in the Country Notes. The OECD alsopublishes a series of total net migration figures in LabourForce Statistics. These are calculated as a residual from dataon annual population change and natural increase.


Asylum seekers are usually allowed to remain in thecountry whilst their applications are processed. The timetaken to process applications varies and it is therefore dif-ficult to determine whether they should be counted asmigrants or not. In practice, asylum seekers are not gener-ally counted in migrant inflows unless they are subse-quently granted asylum. However there are some countrieswhere they are partially, or wholly included in the data. Forexample, asylum seekers often enter population registersbecause they have been resident for some time and liveoutside reception centres.

Statistics on asylum seekers and the numbers grantedasylum are usually readily available from administrativesources, however there are some differences in the type ofdata made available. In a number of countries, asylum seek-ers are only counted when their application has beenapproved, in which case they appear in the statistics, notaccording to the date of arrival but according to the date ofapproval (note that approval of application simply means thatthe application will be considered by the authorities andallows the individual certain rights as an asylum seeker whilsttheir application is being processed). For some countries(e.g. Switzerland), the data include the dependants of theprincipal applicant; for certain others (e.g. France), they donot, since dependants are admitted under other provisions

In addition to asylum seekers entering under the usualadministrative channels there are some cases where individ-uals are allowed entry under exceptional circumstances andwho are given other forms of status. For example, in the early

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

257

1990s, a number of European countries (e.g. Austria, and theNordic countries) granted temporary residence to those flee-ing conflict in the former Yugoslavia. To date, evidence sug-gests that these individuals have largely been allowed toremain in these countries through renewal of permits andtherefore effectively represent a group of de facto refugees.

3. Stocks of migrants and characteristics of the immigrant population

Time series of stocks are used in conjunction withflow data to examine trends in migration. In addition,data which include socio-economic variables can beused to examine differences between immigrants andnative populations. In both cases, there are differencesin how ‘immigrants’ are defined.

Definition of the immigrant population

In data, the immigrant population is usually definedin one of two ways. Some countries have traditionallyfocused on producing data that represents foreign nation-als (European countries, Japan and Korea) whilst othersrefer to the foreign-born (Australia, Canada and theUnited States). This difference in focus relates in part to thenature and the history of immigration systems and legisla-tion on citizenship and naturalisation (see Box 2).

The foreign-born population can be viewed as repre-senting first-generation migrants, and may consist of bothforeign and national citizens. The size and composition ofthe foreign-born population is influenced by the history ofmigration flows and mortality amongst the foreign-born.For example, where inflows have been declining over time,the stock of the foreign-born will tend to age and representan increasingly established community.

The population of foreign nationals may represent sec-ond and higher generations as well as first-generations ofmigrants. The characteristics of the population of foreignnationals depend on a number of factors: the history ofmigration flows, natural increase in the foreign populationand naturalisations. Higher generations of immigrants arisein situations where they retain their foreign citizenshipeven when native-born. The nature of legislation on citi-zenship and the incentives foreigners have to naturaliseboth play a role in determining the extent to which thisoccurs in practice.

A more comprehensive view of the immigrant popula-tion is possible when both nationality and birthplace areknown. This type of data is becoming increasingly availablefor some OECD countries and allows four sub-populationsto be examined: the foreign-born who are foreign citizens;the foreign-born who are nationals; the native born who areforeign nationals and the native born who are nationals.The first three of these groups represent the “immigrantpopulation”, as defined either by nationality or by place ofbirth. Note that in some countries, such as the UnitedStates, those who are native-born but who are foreignnationals are a non-existent or negligible group as legisla-tion is such that birth within the country usually entitlesindividuals to citizenship.

Time series of stocks of immigrant population

Time series of stocks are generally derived either frompopulation registers or from labour force survey or censusdata. In this annex, the figures for Australia, Canada France,Ireland, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom and theUnited States are based on survey, census or permit data,data for all other countries are from population registers(see Table 1).

Impact of naturalisation on the development of the immigrant population

Naturalisations must be taken into account in the analy-sis of the populations of foreigners and nationals. Also, dif-fering approaches to naturalisation between countries mustbe considered when making international comparisons. InFrance and Belgium, for example, where foreigners can fairlyreadily acquire the nationality of the country, increases inthe foreign population through immigration and births caneventually contribute to a significant rise in the native pop-ulation. In Germany and Switzerland (see OECD, 1995), onthe other hand, where naturalisation is more difficult,increases in immigration and births amongst foreigners man-ifest themselves almost exclusively as rises in the foreignpopulation. In addition, changes in rules regarding naturali-sation can have significant numerical effects, for exampleduring the 1980s, a number of countries made naturalisationeasier and this resulted in noticeable falls in the foreignpopulation (and rises in the population of nationals).

However, host-country legislation is not the only factoraffecting naturalisation. For example, where naturalisationinvolves forfeiting citizenship of the country of origin, theremay be incentives to remain as a foreign citizen. Where thedifference between remaining a foreign citizen or becom-ing a national is marginal, naturalisation may largely beinfluenced by the time and effort required to make theapplication for naturalisation and the symbolic and politi-cal value individuals attach to being citizens of one countryor another.

Data on naturalisations are usually readily available fromadministrative sources. As with other administrative data,resource constraints in processing applications may result ina backlog of unprocessed applications which are not reflectedin the figures.

B. STATISTICAL SERIES

Introduction to the statistical Annex tables

The Tables are divided into two series. The A seriestables provide aggregate data on stock and flow statisticsas well as administrative data on asylum seekers and natu-ralisations. The B series tables present data disaggregatedby country of origin (as defined either by country of birth orby nationality). As is evident from the preceding discussionon the sources and methods used to generate migrationstatistics, the presentation of the tables in a relatively stan-dard format should not lead users to think that the datahave been fully standardised and are comparable at aninternational level. In order to facilitate understanding ofthe data, detailed notes on the sources and definitions arepresented at the end of the Statistical Annex.

OECD 1999


258

A number of general comments apply to the tables:

a) The tables provide annual series for the ten mostrecent years (in general 1988-1997). However datarelating to the stock of foreigners by nationality(Tables B.1.6 and B.2.2) are only given for certainyears (in general 1985, 1990, 1995 and the mostrecent available year).

b) Up to 1994 (inclusive), European Union (unlessstated otherwise) refers to the following 12 countries:Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland,

Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spainand the United Kingdom, members of the EuropeanUnion at 31 December 1994. From 1995 onwards,European Union also includes the following threecountries: Austria, Finland and Sweden.

c) The A series tables are presented in alphabeticalorder by the name of the country in English. In theother tables, the nationalities or countries areranked by decreasing order of the stocks for the lastyear available. In series B.1.3. (Net migration of for-eigners by nationality), net migration has been

Box 2. Migration systems

Historically, migration systems developed alongside the evolution of nation-states and the concomitant desireto enumerate and sometimes influence the size and composition of the resident population. The need to implementimmigration control is also linked to the increased numbers of individuals who are aware of attractive economic andsocial conditions elsewhere and able to afford the expense and risk associated with a long-term, or permanent moveoverseas. In some areas of the world, immigration control has also developed at an international as well as nationallevel, creating zones of free movement, the most notable example being the European Union.

Whether operating at a national or an international level, most migration systems have the following features:

– The opportunity to enter the country and remain there for a limited length of time (often three months).Depending on the nationality of the entrant, a visa may or may not be required. Generally, the regulations aredesigned to encourage movements of individuals which provide economic benefits. Such movements include,inter alia, tourism and business travel. However, there are situations where entry may be strictly monitored. Thistype of movement is not regarded as migration as such and is commonly referred to as “short-term movement”.

– A mechanism for spouses and close relatives of citizens or permanent residents to enter the country on a perma-nent basis. They may arrive as “accompanying family” at the same time as the migrant, or at a later date under whatis often called “family reunification”.

– A means for individuals who claim social and political persecution in their country of origin to apply for asylum.Such “asylum seekers” are usually treated on a case-by-case basis and may also have the right to remain in thecountry whilst their application is being processed.

– Mechanisms for individuals to enter largely for the purpose of employment and business. Policies governingthis type of migration may reflect purely economic considerations such as perceived labour shortages or adesire to encourage international business links. However, policy may also be influenced by diplomatic consid-erations as well as policies and agreements in international trade.

– Means by which foreign citizens can acquire national citizenship (“naturalisation”). The ease with which thismay be achieved and the incentives to do so vary across countries and may also depend on the implicationsof a change in legal status in the country of origin (see OECD, 1995, pp. 157-181).

Beyond these general features of immigration systems, it is common to distinguish between “temporary permit”systems and “permanent residence” systems (for a more detailed classification, see OECD, 1994). In temporary res-idence systems, characteristic of most OECD countries, initial entry to the country is typically made on the basis of atemporary residence permit and permanent status can only be granted after several years stay in the country. Onlycertain special groups (e.g. close relatives, refugees) are able to acquire permanent residence status on entry into thecountry. In permanent residence systems, typified by settlement countries (e.g. Australia, Canada and the UnitedStates), there are more channels available for individuals to enter with permanent resident status, beyond thosecatering for special groups. This reflects the historical, if not always current, use of migration policy as a means forpopulating the country. The additional channels available to immigrants take a variety of forms but are generallybased on attracting individuals with certain characteristics, such as high levels of skill or experience in certain occu-pations.

There are differences between these systems in the type of migration statistics commonly used. “Permanent res-idence” type countries tend to focus on acceptances for permanent settlement as an indication of inflows and on thepopulation of foreign-born as an indication of the stock of immigrants. “Temporary permit” type countries, coinciden-tally, tend to have population registers and use these to focus on inflows and stocks of foreign citizens (as distinctfrom the foreign-born). Two notable exceptions are France and the United Kingdom who do not have population reg-isters and rely on other sources of data.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

259

calculated for the fifteen principal immigrationcountries; the countries are listed in the same orderas that of series B.1.1. (Inflows of foreigners bynationality). Countries for which emigration data arenot available do not feature in the table.

d) In the tables by country of origin (series B) only themain 15 countries are shown and only when thisinformation is available. “Other countries” is a resid-ual calculated as the difference between the totalforeign population and the sum of the nationalitiesindicated in the table. For some nationalities, data

are not available for all years and this is reflected inthe residual entry of “Other countries”. This must beborne in mind when interpreting changes in thiscategory.

e) The rounding of entries may cause totals to differslightly from the sum of the component entries.

f) The symbols used in the tables are the following:

.. Data not available.

– Nil, or negligible.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OECD (1989), Trends in International Migration, Annual Report 1989, Paris.

UN (1991), 1989 Demographic Yearbook, New York.

OECD (1994), Migration and Development; New Partnerships for Co-operation,Paris.

OECD (1995), Trends in International Migration, Annual Report 1994,Paris.

OECD (1997), Trends in International Migration, Annual Report 1996,Paris.

OECD (1998),Trends in International Migration, Annual Report 1997, Paris.

OECD 1999

TABLES OF THE STATISTICAL ANNEX


262

Table A.1.1. Inflows of foreign population into selected OECD countriesThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Inflow data based on population registers:Belgium 38.2 43.5 50.5 54.1 55.1 53.0 56.0 53.1 51.9 49.2Denmark 13.8 15.1 15.1 17.5 16.9 15.4 15.6 33.0 24.7 . .Finland . . 4.2 6.5 12.4 10.4 10.9 7.6 7.3 7.5 8.1Germany 648.6 770.8 842.4 920.5 1 207.6 986.9 774.0 788.3 708.0 615.3Hungary 23.5 33.7 37.2 23.0 15.1 16.4 12.8 13.2 12.8 13.4Japan 234.8 237.4 223.8 258.4 267.0 234.5 237.5 209.9 225.4 274.8Luxembourg 8.2 8.4 9.3 10.0 9.8 9.2 9.2 9.6 9.2 9.7Netherlands 58.3 65.4 81.3 84.3 83.0 87.6 68.4 67.0 77.2 76.7Norway 23.2 18.5 15.7 16.1 17.2 22.3 17.9 16.5 17.2 22.0Sweden 44.5 58.9 53.2 43.9 39.5 54.8 74.7 36.1 29.3 33.4Switzerland 76.1 80.4 101.4 109.8 112.1 104.0 91.7 87.9 74.3 72.8

Inflow data based on residence and work permits:Australia 143.5 145.3 121.2 121.7 107.4 76.3 69.8 87.4 99.1 85.8Canada 161.9 192.0 214.2 230.8 252.8 255.8 223.9 212.9 226.1 216.0France 44.0 53.2 102.4 109.9 116.6 99.2 91.5 77.0 75.5 102.4United Kingdom . . . . . . . . 203.9 190.3 193.6 206.3 216.4 236.9United States 643.0 1 090.9 1 536.5 1 827.2 974.0 904.3 804.4 720.5 915.9 798.4

Note: Data from population registers are not fully comparable because the criteria governing who gets registered differ from country to country.Counts for the Netherlands, Norway and especially Germany include substantial numbers of asylum seekers. For more details on sources, referto the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table A.1.2. Outflows of foreign population from selected OECD countriesThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Belgium 32.3 27.5 27.0 35.3 28.1 31.2 34.1 33.1 32.4 23.5Denmark 5.3 4.8 4.6 5.2 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.3 6.0 . .Finland . . 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 3.0 1.6Germany 359.1 438.3 466.0 497.5 614.7 710.2 621.5 561.1 559.1 637.1Japan 183.7 204.8 166.1 181.3 204.8 200.5 204.2 194.4 160.1 176.6Luxembourg 5.3 5.5 5.5 5.9 5.6 5.0 5.3 4.9 5.6 5.8Netherlands 21.4 21.5 20.6 21.3 22.7 22.2 22.7 21.7 22.4 21.9Norway 9.3 10.6 9.8 8.4 8.1 10.5 9.6 9.0 10.0 10.0Sweden 11.8 13.1 16.2 15.0 13.2 14.8 15.8 15.4 14.5 15.3Switzerland 55.8 57.5 59.6 66.4 80.4 71.2 64.2 67.5 67.7 63.4

Note: Data are from population registers. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table A.1.3. Net migration of foreign population in selected OECD countriesThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Belgium 6.0 16.1 23.4 18.8 26.9 21.8 21.9 20.0 19.5 25.8Denmark 8.5 10.3 10.5 12.3 12.1 10.5 10.5 27.7 18.8 . .Finland . . 3.2 5.6 11.2 8.9 9.4 6.1 5.8 4.5 6.6Germany 289.5 332.5 376.4 423.0 592.9 276.6 152.5 227.2 148.9 –21.8Japan 51.1 32.6 57.7 77.1 62.2 34.0 33.3 15.5 65.3 98.2Luxembourg 2.9 2.8 3.8 4.1 4.2 4.2 3.9 4.7 3.7 3.9Netherlands 36.9 43.9 60.7 63.0 60.3 65.4 45.7 45.3 54.8 54.8Norway 13.9 8.0 5.9 7.7 9.1 11.8 8.3 7.5 7.2 12.0Sweden 32.7 45.8 37.0 28.9 26.3 40.0 59.0 20.7 14.9 18.1Switzerland 20.3 22.9 41.8 43.3 31.7 32.8 27.5 20.4 6.6 9.3

Note: Data are derived from Tables A.1.1. and A.1.2. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

263

Table A.1.4. Inflows of asylum seekers into selected OECD countriesThousands

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Australia 0.5 3.8 17.0 4.1 4.6 4.2 5.1 6.0 9.3 7.8Austria 21.9 22.8 27.3 16.2 4.7 5.1 5.9 7.0 6.7 13.8Belgium 8.2 13.0 15.4 17.6 26.5 14.7 11.7 12.4 11.8 22.0Canada 19.9 36.7 32.3 37.7 21.1 21.7 25.6 25.7 22.6 22.6Czech Republic . . 1.8 2.0 0.9 2.2 1.2 1.4 2.2 2.1 4.1Denmark 4.6 5.3 4.6 13.9 14.3 6.7 5.1 5.9 5.1 5.7Finland 0.2 2.7 2.1 3.6 2.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.0 1.3France 61.4 54.8 47.4 28.9 27.6 26.0 20.4 17.4 21.4 21.8Germany 121.3 193.1 256.1 438.2 322.6 127.2 127.9 116.4 104.4 98.7Greece 6.5 4.1 2.7 2.0 0.8 1.3 1.4 1.6 4.4 2.6Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 7.4Ireland . . 0.1 – – 0.1 0.4 0.4 1.2 3.9 4.6Italy 2.3 4.7 31.7 2.6 1.3 1.8 1.7 0.7 1.9 4.7Luxembourg 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.6Netherlands 13.9 21.2 21.6 20.3 35.4 52.6 29.3 22.9 34.4 45.2Norway 4.4 4.0 4.6 5.2 12.9 3.4 1.5 1.8 2.3 8.3Poland . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.8 3.2 3.5 2.9Portugal 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 2.1 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3Spain 4.1 8.6 8.1 11.7 12.6 12.0 5.7 4.7 5.0 6.5Sweden 30.0 29.4 27.4 84.0 37.6 18.6 9.0 5.8 9.6 13.0Switzerland 24.4 35.8 41.6 18.0 24.7 16.1 17.0 18.0 24.0 41.2United Kingdom 16.8 38.2 73.4 32.3 28.0 42.2 55.0 37.0 41.5 57.7United States 101.7 73.6 56.3 104.0 144.2 146.5 154.5 128.2 79.8 50.8

Note: For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table A.1.5. Stocks of foreign-born population in selected OECD countriesThousands

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Australia . . 3 753.3 . . . . . . . . 3 908.3 . .% of total population . . 22.3 . . . . . . . . 21.1 . .

Canada . . 4 342.9 . . . . . . . . 4 971.1 . .% of total population . . 16.1 . . . . . . . . 17.4 . .

Denmark . . . . 207.4 215.0 222.1 244.5 259.2 276.8% of total population . . . . 4.0 4.1 4.3 4.7 4.9 5.2

Netherlands 1 217.1 . . . . 1 375.4 1 387.4 1 407.1 1 433.6 1 549.0% of total population 8.1 . . . . 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.2 . .

Norway . . 195.7 . . 216.2 233.4 240.3 246.9 257.7% of total population . . 4.6 . . 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.8

Sweden . . . . 834.5 869.1 922.1 936.0 943.8 954.2% of total population . . . . 9.6 9.9 10.5 10.5 11.0 11.0

United States 19 767.3 . . . . . . 22 600 23 000 24 600 . .% of total population 7.9 . . . . . . 8.7 8.8 9.3 . .

Note: Data are from censuses for Australia, Canada and the United States and from population registers for the other countries. For more details onsources, see the notes at the end of the Annex.

OECD 1999


264

Table A.1.6. Stocks of foreign population in selected OECD countriesThousands and percentages

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Austria 344.0 387.2 456.1 532.7 623.0 689.6 713.5 723.5 728.2 732.7% of total population 4.5 5.1 5.9 6.8 7.9 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1

Belgium 868.8 880.8 904.5 922.5 909.3 920.6 922.3 909.8 911.9 903.2% of total population 8.8 8.9 9.1 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.0 9.0 8.9

Czech Republic . . . . . . . . 41.2 77.7 103.7 158.6 198.6 209.8% of total population . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.9 2.0

Denmark 142.0 150.6 160.6 169.5 180.1 189.0 196.7 222.7 237.7 249.6% of total population 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.8 4.2 4.7 4.7

Finland 18.7 21.2 26.3 37.6 46.3 55.6 62.0 68.6 73.8 80.6% of total population 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6

France . . . . 3 596.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .% of total population . . . . 6.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Germany 4 489.1 4 845.9 5 342.5 5 882.3 6 495.8 6 878.1 6 990.5 7 173.9 7 314.0 7 365.8% of total population 7.3 7.7 8.4 7.3 8.0 8.5 8.6 8.8 8.9 9.0

Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . 137.9 139.9 142.2 143.8% of total population . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4

Ireland 82.0 78.0 80.0 87.7 94.9 89.9 91.1 96.1 118.0 114.4% of total population 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.2 3.1

Italy 645.4 490.4 781.1 863.0 925.2 987.4 922.7 991.4 1 095.6 1 240.7% of total population 1.1 0.9 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.7 2.0 . .

Japan 941.0 984.5 1 075.3 1 218.9 1 281.6 1 320.7 1 354.0 1 362.4 1 415.1 1 482.7% of total population 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2

Korea 45.1 47.2 49.5 51.0 55.8 66.7 84.9 110.0 148.7 176.9% of total population 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 . .

Luxembourg 105.8 106.9 113.1 117.8 122.7 127.6 132.5 138.1 142.8 147.7% of total population 27.4 27.9 29.4 30.2 31.0 31.8 32.6 33.4 34.1 34.9

Netherlands 623.7 641.9 692.4 732.9 757.4 779.8 757.1 725.4 679.9 678.1% of total population 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.1 5.0 4.7 4.4 . .

Norway 135.9 140.3 143.3 147.8 154.0 162.3 164.0 160.8 157.5 158.0% of total population 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.6

Portugal 94.7 101.0 107.8 114.0 123.6 131.6 157.1 168.3 172.9 175.3% of total population 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8

Spain 360.0 249.6 278.7 360.7 393.1 430.4 461.4 499.8 539.0 609.8% of total population 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.5

Sweden 421.0 456.0 483.7 493.8 499.1 507.5 537.4 531.8 526.6 522.0% of total population 5.0 5.3 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.8 6.1 5.2 6.0 6.0

Switzerland 1 006.5 1 040.3 1 100.3 1 163.2 1 213.5 1 260.3 1 300.1 1 330.6 1 337.6 1 340.8% of total population 15.2 15.6 16.3 17.1 17.6 18.1 18.6 18.9 18.9 19.0

United Kingdom 1 821 1 812 1 723 1 750 1 985 2 001 2 032 1 948 1 934 2 066% of total population 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.6

United States . . . . 11 770.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .% of total population . . . . 4.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note: Data are from population registers or from register of foreigners except for France and the United States (Census), Portugal and Spain(residence permits), Ireland and the United Kingdom (Labour Force Survey) and refer to the population on the 31 December of the yearsindicated unless otherwise stated. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

265

Table A.1.7. Acquisition of nationality in selected OECD countriesThousands and percentages

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Countries where national/foreigner distinction is prevalentAustria 8.2 8.5 9.2 11.4 11.9 14.4 16.3 15.3 16.2 16.3

% of foreign population 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.2

Belgium . . . . . . 8.5 46.4 16.4 25.8 26.1 24.6 31.7% of foreign population . . . . . . 0.9 5.0 1.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 3.5

Denmark 3.7 3.3 3.0 5.5 5.1 5.0 5.7 5.3 7.3 5.5% of foreign population 2.7 2.3 2.0 3.4 3.0 2.8 3.0 2.7 3.3 2.3

Finland 1.1 1.5 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.4% of foreign population 6.0 8.1 4.2 4.7 2.3 1.8 1.2 1.1 1.4 2.0

France 74.0 82.0 88.5 95.5 95.3 95.5 126.3 92.4 109.8 116.2% of foreign population . . . . . . 2.7 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Germany 40.8 68.5 101.4 141.6 179.9 199.4 259.2 313.6 302.8 271.8% of foreign population 1.0 1.5 2.1 2.7 3.1 3.1 3.8 4.5 4.2 3.7

Hungary . . 1.1 3.2 5.9 21.9 11.8 9.9 10.0 12.3 8.7% of foreign population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 8.8 6.1

Italy . . . . . . 4.5 4.4 6.5 6.6 7.4 7.0 9.2% of foreign population . . . . . . 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8

Japan 5.8 6.1 6.8 7.8 9.4 10.5 11.1 14.1 14.5 15.1% of foreign population 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.1

Korea 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.4 . .% of foreign population 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.1 1.3 . .

Luxembourg 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7% of foreign population 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5

Netherlands 9.1 28.7 12.8 29.1 36.2 43.1 49.5 71.4 82.7 59.8% of foreign population 1.5 4.6 2.0 4.2 4.9 5.7 6.3 9.4 11.4 8.8

Norway 3.4 4.6 4.8 5.1 5.1 5.5 8.8 11.8 12.2 12.0% of foreign population 2.7 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.6 5.4 7.2 7.6 7.6

Spain 8.1 5.9 7.0 3.8 5.3 8.4 7.8 6.8 8.4 10.3% of foreign population 2.4 1.6 2.8 1.3 1.5 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.7 1.9

Sweden 18.0 17.6 16.8 27.7 29.3 42.7 35.1 32.0 25.6 28.9% of foreign population 4.5 4.2 3.7 5.7 5.9 8.5 6.9 6.0 4.8 5.5

Switzerland 11.4 10.3 8.7 8.8 11.2 12.9 13.8 16.8 19.4 19.2% of foreign population 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.4

United Kingdom 64.6 117.1 57.3 58.6 42.2 45.8 44.0 40.5 43.1 37.0% of foreign population 3.5 6.4 3.2 3.4 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.0 2.2 1.9

Countries where native-born/foreign-born distinction is prevalentAustralia 81.2 119.1 127.9 118.5 125.2 122.1 112.2 114.8 111.6 108.3

Canada 58.8 87.5 104.3 118.6 116.2 150.6 217.3 227.7 . . . .

United States 242.1 233.8 270.1 308.1 240.3 314.7 407.4 445.9 1 044.7 600.0

Note: Statistics cover all means of acquiring the nationality of a country, except where otherwise indicated. These include standard naturalisationprocedures subject to age, residency, etc. criteria, as well as situations where nationality is acquired through a declaration or by option(following marriage, adoption, or other situations related to residency or descent), recovery of former nationality and other special means ofacquiring the nationality of a country. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex. The naturalisation rate (‘‘% offoreign population’’) indicates the number of persons acquiring the nationality of the country as a percentage of the stock of the foreignpopulation at the beginning of the year.

OECD 1999


266

Table A.2.1. Inflows of foreign workers into selected OECD countriesThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

AustraliaPermanent settlers1 34.8 43.8 42.8 48.4 40.3 22.1 12.8 20.2 20.0 19.7Temporary workers1 . . . . . . . . 14.6 14.9 14.2 14.3 15.4 12.5

Austria 17.4 37.2 103.4 62.6 57.9 37.7 27.1 15.4 16.3 15.2Belgium 2.8 3.7 . . 5.1 4.4 4.3 4.1 3.0 2.2 2.5Canada . . 289.2 229.5 233.8 230.4 185.6 172.9 . . . . . .Denmark 3.1 2.7 2.8 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.8 3.1France

Permanents 12.7 15.6 22.4 25.6 42.3 24.4 18.3 13.1 11.5 11.0APT 1.9 3.1 3.8 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.5 4.8 4.7

Germany 60.4 84.8 138.6 241.9 408.9 325.6 221.2 270.8 262.5 285.4Hungary . . 25.3 51.9 41.7 24.6 19.5 18.6 18.4 14.5 19.7Ireland . . 1.2 1.4 3.8 3.6 4.3 4.3 4.3 3.8 4.5Italy . . . . . . 125.5 123.7 85.0 99.8 111.3 129.2 166.3Luxembourg 12.6 14.7 16.9 16.9 15.9 15.5 16.2 16.5 18.3 18.6Spain 9.6 14.1 16.0 81.6 48.2 7.5 15.6 29.6 31.0 23.2Switzerland 34.7 37.1 46.7 46.3 39.7 31.5 28.6 27.1 24.5 25.4United Kingdom

Long term 10.4 13.3 16.1 12.9 12.7 12.5 13.4 15.5 16.9 18.7Short term 11.8 12.2 13.8 12.6 14.0 13.3 12.9 15.6 16.8 19.0Trainees 3.8 4.2 4.8 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.8 4.4 4.0 4.7Total 26.0 29.7 34.6 29.0 30.1 29.3 30.1 35.5 37.7 42.4

United StatesPermanent settlers 58.7 57.7 58.2 59.5 116.2 147.0 123.3 85.3 117.5 90.6Temporary workers 113.4 141.3 144.9 169.6 175.8 182.3 210.8 220.7 254.4 . .

Note: For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Including accompanying dependents.

Table A.2.2. Inflows of seasonal workers in selected OECD countriesThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Australia . . 32.0 38.0 36.7 25.2 25.6 29.6 35.4 40.3 50.0Austria . . 24.3 26.3 17.6 20.4 15.8 . . . . . . . .Canada . . . . . . . . 11.1 11.2 10.4 10.9 . . . .France 70.5 61.9 58.2 54.2 13.6 11.3 10.3 9.4 8.8 8.2Germany – – – – 212.4 181.0 155.2 192.8 220.9 226.0Italy . . . . . . . . 1.7 2.8 5.8 7.6 8.9 8.4Netherlands . . . . . . . . 1.0 0.9 0.5 – – –Norway . . . . 4.3 4.3 4.7 4.6 4.5 5.0 5.4 6.1Switzerland 154.0 156.4 153.6 147.5 126.1 93.5 83.9 72.3 62.7 46.7United Kingdom . . . . . . . . 3.6 4.2 4.4 4.7 5.5 9.3United States . . . . . . . . 16.4 16.3 13.2 11.4 9.6 . .

Note: For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

267

Table A.2.3. Stocks of foreign and foreign-born labour force in selected OECD countriesThousands and percentages

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Stocks of foreign labour forceAustria 160.9 178.0 229.5 277.2 295.9 304.6 316.5 325.2 328.0 326.3

% of total labour force 5.4 5.9 7.4 8.7 9.1 9.3 9.7 9.9 10.0 9.9

Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328.3 341.7 333.0% of total labour force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 8.2 7.9

Denmark 65.1 66.9 68.8 71.2 74.0 77.7 80.3 83.8 88.0 . .% of total labour force 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.1 . .

France 1 557.0 1 593.8 1 549.5 1 506.0 1 517.8 1 541.5 1 593.9 1 573.3 1 604.7 1 569.8% of total labour force 6.4 6.6 6.2 6.0 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.3 6.1

Germany 1 910.6 1 940.6 2 025.1 2 179.1 2 360.1 2 575.9 2 559.6 2 569.2 2 559.3 2 521.9% of total labour force 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.5 8.0 8.9 8.9 9.0 9.1 . .

Hungary . . . . 31.7 33.4 15.7 17.6 20.1 21.0 18.8 20.4% of total labour force . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Ireland 35.0 33.0 34.0 39.3 40.4 37.3 34.5 42.1 52.4 51.7% of total labour force 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.9 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.9 3.5 3.4

Italy . . . . . . 285.3 296.8 304.8 307.1 332.2 . . . .% of total employment . . . . . . 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.7 . . . .

Japan . . . . . . . . 85.5 95.4 105.6 88.0 98.3 107.3% of total labour force . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2

Luxembourg 69.4 76.2 84.7 92.6 98.2 101.0 106.3 111.8 117.8 124.8% of total employment 39.9 42.4 45.2 47.5 49.2 49.7 51.0 52.4 53.8 55.1

Netherlands 176 192 197 214 229 219 216 221 218 208% of total employment 3.0 3.2 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.9

Norway 49.5 47.7 46.3 46.3 46.6 47.9 50.3 52.6 54.8 59.9% of total employment 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.8

Portugal 45.5 48.7 51.8 54.9 59.2 63.1 77.6 84.3 86.8 87.9% of total labour force 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.8

Spain 58.2 69.1 85.4 171.0 139.4 117.4 121.8 139.0 166.5 176.0% of total labour force 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

Sweden 220 237 246 241 233 221 213 220 218 220% of total labour force 4.9 5.2 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.2

Switzerland 607.8 631.8 669.8 702.5 716.7 725.8 740.3 728.7 709.1 692.8% of total labour force 16.7 17.0 18.9 17.8 18.3 18.5 18.9 18.6 17.9 17.5

United Kingdom 871 914 882 828 902 862 847 899 878 949% of total employment 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.0 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.6

Stocks of foreign-born labour forceAustralia . . . . . . 2 182.3 . . 2 194.9 2 164.1 2 138.8 2 238.8 2 251.6

% of total labour force . . . . . . 25.7 . . 25.3 24.8 23.9 24.6 24.8

Canada . . . . . . 2 681.0 . . . . . . . . . . . .% of total labour force . . . . . . 18.5 . . . . . . . . . . . .

United States . . . . 11 564.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .% of total labour force . . . . 9.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


OECD 1999


268

Table B.1.1. AUSTRALIA, inflows of permanent settlers and temporary residents by country or region of birthThousands

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

A. Permanent settlers1

New Zealand 23.5 11.2 7.5 7.2 6.7 7.8 10.5 12.3 13.1 14.7United Kingdom 23.9 23.5 20.7 14.5 9.5 9.0 10.7 11.3 9.7 9.2Former Yugoslavia 2.9 2.0 1.9 2.5 4.2 4.9 6.7 7.7 5.3 5.2China 3.8 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.0 2.7 3.7 11.2 7.8 4.3South Africa 3.0 2.4 2.1 1.3 1.0 1.7 2.8 3.2 3.2 4.3Hong Kong (China) 7.3 8.1 13.5 12.9 6.5 3.3 4.1 4.4 3.9 3.2India 3.1 3.0 5.1 5.6 3.6 2.6 3.9 3.7 2.7 2.8Philippines 9.2 6.1 6.4 5.9 3.7 4.2 4.1 3.2 2.8 2.8Vietnam 8.0 11.2 13.2 9.6 5.7 5.4 5.1 3.6 3.0 2.3Chinese Taipei 2.1 3.1 3.5 3.2 1.4 0.8 0.8 1.6 2.2 1.5United States 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.3 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.3Sri Lanka 2.9 2.2 3.3 2.8 1.6 1.4 2.0 2.0 1.4 1.3Lebanon 2.8 2.2 2.9 1.6 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.1Fiji 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.1Former USSR 1.0 1.7 0.9 2.0 3.2 2.0 2.3 1.7 1.8 1.0Other countries 47.0 37.0 33.1 31.0 22.2 20.3 26.3 28.7 24.8 21.3

Total 145.3 121.2 121.7 107.4 76.3 69.8 87.4 99.1 85.8 77.3

B. Temporary residentsUnited Kingdom and Ireland 51.2 53.6 47.0 34.9 26.5 35.7 42.1 42.8 49.1 60.7Northern Europe 15.8 15.6 15.5 14.4 12.7 15.9 16.9 17.7 18.9 22.1Southern Europe 4.4 3.4 3.9 2.7 2.9 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.7 3.2Asia (excluding Middle East) 40.9 39.5 38.0 34.9 26.1 30.6 30.4 33.1 41.6 46.8Middle East 1.2 1.2 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.3United States and Canada 33.2 32.8 29.5 26.1 20.8 24.1 26.1 27.9 25.3 29.7South and other America 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.0 0.8 1.4 1.3Africa 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.9 2.2 1.8 4.1 5.8Oceania 2.7 0.9 1.7 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.6Other and not stated 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.8

Total 151.4 149.0 139.0 117.8 93.2 115.2 124.4 130.2 147.12 173.22

Note: Data refer to fiscal years (July to June of the given year). For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Counts include both principal applicants and their accompanying dependents, if any.2. Including 17 049 and 51 998 holders of a Temporary Business Entry (TBE) visa (Long stay) in 1996/1997 and 1997/98 respectively. This new visa

was introduced on 1 November 1995.

Table B.1.1. BELGIUM, inflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

France . . . . . . 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.2 6.2 6.6 7.0Netherlands . . . . . . 6.2 6.6 6.7 4.3 6.5 7.8 6.3Morocco 2.0 2.3 2.6 3.4 3.3 3.4 4.8 3.6 4.0 3.9United States . . . . . . 2.9 3.1 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.1Germany . . . . . . 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.1Italy 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.8 1.9 2.6 2.7 2.8United Kingdom . . . . . . 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7Portugal 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.9 3.2 2.1 1.2 1.7 1.8 1.6Turkey 1.4 1.8 2.4 2.9 2.7 2.5 3.6 2.5 2.5 1.4Spain 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2Poland . . . . . . 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.1Japan . . . . . . 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8Zaire . . . . 1.8 1.9 2.7 2.3 2.2 1.0 0.8 0.6Greece 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.8 0.7 0.6 0.6China . . . . . . 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6Other countries 29.6 33.5 37.7 17.3 15.3 14.6 17.9 16.1 12.7 12.4

Total 38.2 43.5 50.5 54.1 55.1 53.0 56.0 53.1 51.9 49.2of which: EU 19.8 22.5 24.6 24.8 27.1 26.4 27.0 26.6 28.7 27.6

Note: Data are from population registers. Asylum seekers awaiting a decision are excluded from 1995 on. For details on definitions and sources, referto the notes at the end of the Annex.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

269

Table B.1.1. CANADA, inflows of permanent settlers by region or country of originThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Asia and the Pacific 70.0 76.5 89.6 97.6 120.9 130.8 128.2 112.9 124.8 117.1Hong Kong (China) 23.3 19.9 29.3 22.3 38.9 36.6 44.2 31.8 30.0 22.1India 10.4 8.8 10.6 12.8 12.7 20.5 17.2 16.3 21.3 19.6China 2.8 4.4 8.0 13.9 10.4 9.5 12.5 13.3 17.5 18.5Chinese Taipei 2.2 3.4 3.7 4.5 7.5 9.9 7.4 7.7 13.2 13.3Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 4.0 7.8 11.2Philippines 8.3 11.4 12.0 12.3 13.3 19.8 19.1 15.2 13.2 10.9Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 3.7 5.8 7.5Sri Lanka 2.4 2.4 3.1 6.8 12.6 9.1 6.7 8.9 6.2 5.1Vietnam 6.3 9.4 9.1 9.0 7.7 8.3 6.2 4.0 2.5 1.8Other Asian countries 14.3 16.7 13.8 15.9 17.9 17.2 8.5 8.1 7.4 7.1

Europe 40.7 52.1 51.9 48.1 44.9 46.6 38.6 41.3 40.0 38.7United Kingdom 9.2 8.4 8.2 7.5 7.1 7.2 6.0 6.2 5.6 4.7Bosnia Herzegovina . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 4.9 6.3 5.1 3.8Poland 9.2 16.0 16.6 15.7 11.9 6.9 3.4 2.3 2.1 1.7Other European countries 22.3 27.7 27.1 24.8 25.9 29.7 24.3 26.6 27.3 28.5

Africa and the Middle East 22.3 31.0 38.3 41.6 41.6 36.5 29.4 32.9 36.5 37.8Lebanon 3.1 6.2 12.5 12.0 6.5 4.7 2.6 1.9 1.8 1.2Other African countries 19.2 24.9 25.8 29.7 35.1 31.9 26.8 31.0 34.7 36.5

America 29.0 32.4 34.5 43.5 45.4 41.9 27.6 25.7 24.7 22.5United States 6.6 6.9 6.1 6.6 7.5 8.0 6.2 5.2 5.9 5.0El Salvador 2.7 2.8 4.3 7.0 5.6 2.9 1.2 0.7 0.7 . .Other American countries 19.7 22.6 24.1 29.9 32.3 31.0 20.3 19.7 18.2 17.4

Total 161.9 192.0 214.2 230.8 252.8 255.8 223.9 212.9 226.1 216.0

Note: Counts include both principal applicants and their accompanying dependents, if any. Figures include backlog clearance. For details ondefinitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.1. DENMARK, inflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Somalia . . . . . . . . 1.3 1.5 2.5Turkey 1.1 1.8 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.8 1.2Iceland 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.2 1.2Germany 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.2Iraq 0.4 0.5 1.3 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.1Norway 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0United Kingdom . . . . . . . . 1.1 0.9 1.0Sweden 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9United States 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6Iran 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.5Netherlands 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5France 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4Thailand . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.3 0.4Poland 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4Pakistan 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4Other countries 8.6 9.8 9.6 8.7 6.1 22.2 11.5

Total 15.1 17.5 16.9 15.4 15.6 33.0 24.7of which: EU1 2.3 2.6 2.7 3.0 3.7 4.4 3.9

Note: Entries of foreigners staying in Denmark more than one year. Asylum seekers and refugees with a provisional residence status are not included.For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

1. Including Finland and Sweden from 1995 on.

OECD 1999


270

Table B.1.1. FINLAND, inflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Former USSR 2.9 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.4Sweden 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7Estonia 2.1 2.0 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.6Iraq 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.5Somalia 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5Iran 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3Turkey 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2Former Yugoslavia 0.1 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2United Kingdom 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2United States 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2China 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1Germany 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1Vietnam 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1Thailand 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Ukraine . . 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1Other countries 2.5 2.0 1.8 2.1 2.0 1.8

Total 10.4 10.9 7.6 7.3 7.5 8.1

Note: Entries of foreigners intending to stay in Finland for longer than one year. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the endof the Annex.

Table B.1.1. FRANCE, inflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Algeria 4.9 6.3 13.8 12.9 12.3 13.1 9.7 8.4 7.8 12.2Morocco 10.8 13.6 18.0 18.2 16.4 13.8 8.1 6.6 6.6 10.3Turkey 4.7 5.3 7.0 9.2 9.2 6.8 4.7 3.6 3.4 5.1Tunisia 2.9 3.2 4.0 4.3 4.0 3.5 2.3 1.9 2.2 3.6Zaire . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 1.3 0.9 0.9 2.9China . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 0.9 0.7 2.8Haiti . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 1.9 1.4 0.8 1.9Former Yugoslavia 0.6 0.6 1.2 1.1 1.2 4.0 1.3 1.6 1.3 1.5Japan . . . . 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2Poland 0.9 1.4 2.9 2.5 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.8Vietnam . . . . 3.5 3.1 1.3 1.3 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7Russian Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.7Lebanon . . . . 6.4 4.4 1.8 . . 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.7Cambodia . . . . 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6Romania . . . . 0.7 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6Other countries 19.2 22.8 42.3 50.3 66.1 47.0 33.9 27.1 27.1 35.1

Total1 44.0 53.2 102.4 109.9 116.6 99.2 69.3 56.7 55.6 80.9of which: EU . . . . 11.3 11.7 25.9 14.4 10.8 7.9 7.1 6.4

Total2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.5 77.0 75.5 102.4

Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Up to 1989, inflows include permanent workers, holders of provisional work permits and persons admitted under family reunification. From 1990

on, spouses of French nationals, parents of French children, refugees, the self-employed and others eligible for a residence permit are alsoincluded. Provisional work permits, on the other hand, are not included.

2. Figures include estimates of some unregistered flows (inflows of family members of European Economic Area citizens for example).

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

271

Table B.1.1. GERMANY, inflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Poland 207.8 260.3 200.9 128.4 131.7 75.2 78.6 87.2 77.4 71.2Turkey 78.4 85.7 83.6 81.9 80.6 67.8 63.9 73.6 73.2 56.0Italy 41.8 40.2 36.9 35.4 30.1 31.7 38.7 48.0 45.8 39.0Former Yugoslavia 55.7 61.5 65.2 221.0 341.3 141.6 63.2 54.1 42.9 31.2Portugal 3.6 5.3 7.0 10.7 10.1 12.9 26.5 30.5 32.0 26.4Russian Federation1 . . . . . . . . 24.6 29.4 33.4 33.0 31.9 24.8Greece 33.0 29.5 26.5 28.3 23.6 18.3 18.9 20.3 18.8 16.4United States . . . . . . . . 21.3 17.6 15.8 16.0 16.3 15.1Romania 11.2 14.2 78.2 61.4 109.8 81.6 31.4 24.8 17.1 14.2Hungary . . . . 15.9 24.9 27.9 24.2 19.3 18.8 16.6 11.2Croatia2 . . . . . . . . 38.6 26.0 16.7 14.9 12.3 10.0Spain 3.9 4.4 4.4 5.1 5.4 5.8 6.0 7.2 7.8 7.8Bosnia Herzegovina3 . . . . . . . . . . 107.0 68.3 55.2 11.1 6.9Bulgaria . . . . . . . . 31.4 27.2 10.4 8.0 6.3 6.3Former USSR . . 32.6 37.0 39.0 15.2 13.3 7.8 2.3 2.3 4.4Other countries 213.2 237.1 286.8 284.4 315.8 307.1 275.0 294.5 296.0 274.2

Total 648.6 770.8 842.4 920.5 1 207.6 986.9 774.0 788.3 708.0 615.3of which: EU4 140.1 142.0 139.6 147.4 140.8 136.7 155.8 177.2 172.5 151.5

Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Included in Former USSR until 1991.2. Included in Former Yugoslavia until 1991.3. Included in Former Yugoslavia until 1992.4. European Union 15 for all years.

Table B.1.1. HUNGARY, inflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 19971

Romania 17.8 26.6 29.6 10.9 6.5 6.1 4.3 4.7 4.0 4.3Ukraine 0.7 0.6 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.9China – 0.1 0.7 2.1 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.2 1.7 1.5Former Yugoslavia2 0.4 0.4 0.4 3.6 3.2 5.0 2.3 1.4 0.9 1.1Germany 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6Russian Federation 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4Slovak Republic 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3Greece 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2Poland 1.2 1.3 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2Croatia 0.1 0.1 – 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2Israel – 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2Norway – – – – – – 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2Austria – 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1United Kingdom 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1Vietnam 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1Other countries 1.9 2.2 2.8 2.5 2.0 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.0

Total 23.5 33.7 37.2 23.0 15.1 16.4 12.8 13.2 12.8 13.4of which: EU3 0.8 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.6

Note: Data are from the Register of long-term residence permits. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Data are estimates.2. Excluding Croatia.3. European Union 15 for all years.

OECD 1999


272

Table B.1.1. JAPAN, inflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

China 71.4 53.1 29.9 35.6 52.4 45.2 38.9 38.8 45.6 53.3Philippines 48.1 48.0 48.8 63.8 57.5 48.2 58.8 30.3 30.3 43.2Brazil 3.1 5.3 11.6 17.3 19.2 14.6 11.8 11.9 16.4 39.6United States 28.5 28.6 30.8 29.8 29.3 27.4 27.6 27.0 27.9 27.7Korea 13.5 21.0 23.1 26.6 26.0 21.3 21.3 18.8 17.1 17.9United Kingdom 6.4 6.9 7.5 6.1 6.7 5.9 6.6 6.4 6.4 6.9Thailand 5.9 6.1 7.0 8.3 7.7 6.5 6.8 6.5 6.6 6.4Chinese Taipei 6.8 6.5 7.3 7.6 6.0 5.2 4.7 4.7 4.4 5.1Canada 2.5 3.1 3.8 4.2 4.2 3.8 4.1 4.1 4.6 4.8Germany1 4.2 3.7 4.3 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.0 3.7 4.2 4.3Peru 0.6 4.3 2.8 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.7 2.4 3.1Other countries 43.8 50.8 46.9 53.9 52.9 51.3 51.9 55.9 59.6 62.6

Total 234.8 237.4 223.8 258.4 267.0 234.5 237.5 209.9 225.4 274.8

Note: New entry except temporary visitors. Re-entry are excluded. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Data for 1988 relate to western Germany.

Table B.1.1. NETHERLANDS, inflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Turkey 10.4 11.0 12.6 12.4 9.1 7.8 4.3 4.8 6.4 6.5Germany 4.4 4.6 5.6 6.8 7.1 7.4 6.1 4.7 5.7 5.7Morocco 8.2 8.4 9.4 8.9 7.2 5.9 3.2 3.1 4.3 4.5United Kingdom 4.0 4.2 5.4 6.0 6.5 5.0 3.5 3.7 4.3 4.3United States 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.9 2.6 2.2 2.2 3.1 3.1Suriname 2.9 4.4 6.8 6.7 6.9 7.8 2.9 1.7 2.8 2.6Belgium 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.9 2.2France 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.5 1.4 . . 1.7 2.1China . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 1.0 . . 1.3 1.6Former Yugoslavia . . . . . . . . 4.9 8.9 8.4 7.3 3.4 1.6Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6Poland 0.7 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.3 0.8 . . 1.4 1.4Somalia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 1.3Italy 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 . . 1.2 1.2Other countries 20.9 24.6 32.3 34.4 32.0 35.2 31.9 38.2 38.7 35.6

Total 58.3 65.4 81.3 84.3 83.0 87.6 68.4 67.0 77.2 76.7of which: EU1 15.6 15.7 18.6 20.8 22.3 19.7 16.0 14.8 19.2 20.3

Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. European Union 15 for all years.

Table B.1.1. LUXEMBOURG, inflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Portugal 3.0 2.9 3.4 3.5 2.4 2.9 2.4 2.4 2.0 1.9France 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.7Belgium 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.2Germany 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7Italy 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5Netherlands 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3United States 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2Spain . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1Other countries 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.9 3.9 2.5 2.6 2.9 2.8 3.0

Total 8.2 8.4 9.3 10.0 9.8 9.2 9.2 9.6 9.2 9.7of which: EU1 7.0 6.9 7.6 7.8 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 . . . .

Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. European Union 15 for all years.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

273

Table B.1.1. NORWAY, inflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Sweden 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.9 4.9Denmark 3.2 2.2 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.8United States 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0United Kingdom 1.5 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0Germany 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8Iran 1.7 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.6Bosnia Herzegovina1 . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 3.2 1.7 1.0 0.6Pakistan 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5Somalia 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5Sri Lanka 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4Turkey 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4Philippines 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.3Poland 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2Former Yugoslavia 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0 2.5 1.7 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.2Other countries 8.8 7.1 6.5 6.5 6.5 5.9 5.9 6.2 6.6 8.5

Total 23.2 18.5 15.7 16.1 17.2 22.3 17.9 16.5 17.2 22.0of which: EU2 6.0 4.1 3.4 3.6 3.9 4.0 3.9 6.6 7.7 10.8

Note: Data are from population registers. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Included in former Yugoslavia before 1993.2. European Union 15 from 1995 on.

Table B.1.1. SWEDEN, inflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Former Yugoslavia 1.1 1.7 2.2 2.0 1.8 3.3 15.8 2.5 0.8 3.9Iraq 1.3 1.4 2.0 2.5 3.8 4.6 3.5 2.3 2.1 3.7Finland 5.4 4.5 4.1 3.0 2.7 2.4 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.8Bosnia Herzegovina1 . . . . . . . . . . 20.7 25.7 4.6 1.2 1.8Iran 8.1 7.0 4.5 3.8 3.6 1.9 1.5 1.1 0.8 1.7Norway 3.2 8.7 7.3 2.6 1.9 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.5Somalia . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 0.5 0.4 1.1Denmark 2.3 4.5 3.1 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.4 1.0United States 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.9Turkey 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.1 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.8United Kingdom 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8Poland 1.5 1.7 2.0 1.6 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6Chile 2.9 5.9 1.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3Ethiopia 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3Lebanon 0.6 1.8 2.0 1.6 1.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3Other countries 13.7 16.9 19.2 19.6 17.7 14.7 14.6 14.0 13.5 11.9

Total 44.5 58.9 53.2 43.9 39.5 54.8 74.8 36.1 29.3 33.4of which: EU2 10.6 11.6 10.2 7.2 6.2 5.8 7.0 . . . . . .

Note: Data are from population registers. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Included in former Yougoslavia before 1993.2. EU 15 for all years.

OECD 1999


274

Table B.1.1. SWITZERLAND, inflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Former Yugoslavia 13.5 15.9 21.9 27.0 33.6 34.2 25.3 22.3 14.1 12.8Germany 8.1 8.4 9.8 9.9 9.6 8.6 8.7 8.6 8.7 8.5Italy 8.4 7.9 8.8 8.3 8.3 7.3 6.9 6.7 5.4 5.0France 4.6 4.9 5.4 4.9 5.1 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.8Portugal 8.4 9.5 13.8 14.1 13.3 10.0 8.6 7.6 5.5 4.0Turkey 3.6 4.0 6.0 6.7 5.3 4.8 3.8 3.8 3.4 3.4United States 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.7United Kingdom 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.4Spain 5.1 4.8 5.6 4.6 3.9 3.1 2.3 2.7 2.0 1.8Austria 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3Netherlands 1.7 1.6 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.1Canada 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8Other countries 15.7 16.2 20.4 24.2 23.4 22.8 22.3 22.0 21.6 24.1

Total 76.1 80.4 101.4 109.8 112.1 104.0 91.7 87.9 74.3 72.8of which: EU . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.8 39.3 35.7 34.4

Note: Data are from the register of foreigners. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Tableau B.1.1. UNITED KINGDOM, inflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

United States 43.9 37.3 38.2 39.4 43.2 42.5Australia 25.0 21.5 27.2 26.6 25.1 26.5India 9.2 8.9 9.9 11.6 13.0 16.1South Africa 2.3 2.6 5.6 11.1 12.9 13.0New Zealand 10.6 9.3 12.1 12.0 11.0 12.1Japan 10.4 9.4 10.4 10.1 10.8 10.4Pakistan 8.3 7.5 6.6 7.2 7.8 9.6Canada 6.4 5.8 6.7 6.7 7.4 8.3Philippines 2.6 3.3 5.2 6.5 6.8 7.5Poland 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 5.4Korea . . 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.2 4.2Bangladesh 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.8 3.3 4.0Russian Federation . . . . 3.5 4.2 3.6 4.0Malaysia 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.6China 1.8 2.3 2.7 3.2 3.2 2.5Other countries 73.6 71.2 53.4 55.6 58.3 67.3

Total 203.9 190.3 193.6 206.3 216.4 236.9

Note: Passengers, excluding European Economic Area nationals, admitted to the United Kingdom. Data exclude visitors, passengers in transit orreturning on limited leave or who previously settled. Students and au pair girls are excluded. For details on definitions and sources, refer to thenotes at the end of the Annex.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

275

Table B.1.1. UNITED STATES, inflows of permanent settlers by region or country of birthThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

North and Central America 250.0 607.4 957.6 1 211.0 384.0 301.4 272.2 231.5 340.5 307.5Mexico 95.0 405.2 679.1 946.2 213.8 126.6 111.4 89.9 163.6 146.9Cuba 17.6 10.0 10.6 10.3 11.8 13.7 14.7 17.9 26.5 33.6Dominican Republic 27.2 26.7 42.2 41.4 42.0 45.4 51.2 38.5 39.6 27.1El Salvador 12.0 57.9 80.2 47.4 26.2 26.8 17.6 11.7 17.9 18.0Jamaica 21.0 24.5 25.0 23.8 18.9 17.2 14.3 16.4 19.1 17.8Haiti 34.8 13.7 20.3 47.5 11.0 10.1 13.3 14.0 18.4 15.1Other North or Central

American countries 42.4 69.4 100.1 94.4 60.4 61.6 49.6 43.0 55.5 49.1

Asia 264.5 312.1 338.6 358.5 357.0 358.0 292.6 267.9 307.8 265.8Philippines 50.7 57.0 63.8 63.6 61.0 63.5 53.5 51.0 55.9 49.1China 28.7 32.3 31.8 33.0 38.9 65.6 54.0 35.5 41.7 41.1Vietnam 25.8 37.7 48.8 55.3 77.7 59.6 41.3 41.8 42.1 38.5India 26.3 31.2 30.7 45.1 36.8 40.1 34.9 34.7 44.9 38.1Korea 34.7 34.2 32.3 26.5 19.4 18.0 16.0 16.0 18.2 14.2Pakistan 5.4 8.0 9.7 20.4 10.2 8.9 8.7 9.8 12.5 13.0Other Asian countries 92.9 111.7 121.5 114.7 113.0 102.3 84.1 79.2 92.6 71.8

Europe 64.8 82.9 112.4 135.2 145.4 158.3 160.9 128.2 147.6 119.9Former USSR1 2.9 11.1 25.5 57.0 20.4 28.2 27.2 22.5 22.0 16.7Russian Federation . . . . . . . . 8.9 12.1 15.2 14.6 19.7 16.6Ukraine . . . . . . . . 14.4 18.3 21.0 17.4 21.1 15.7Other European countries 61.8 71.8 86.9 78.3 101.8 99.7 97.5 73.7 84.8 70.8

South America 41.0 58.9 85.8 79.9 55.3 53.9 47.4 45.7 61.8 52.9

Africa 18.9 25.2 35.9 36.2 27.1 27.8 26.7 42.5 52.9 47.8

Oceania 3.8 4.4 6.2 6.2 5.2 4.9 4.6 4.7 5.3 4.3

Total 643.0 1 090.9 1 536.5 1 827.2 974.0 904.3 804.4 720.5 915.9 798.4

Note: Data refer to fiscal years (October to September of the given year). Since 1989, approximately 2.9 millions of immigrants obtained a permanentresidence permit following legalization under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. For details on definitions and sources, refer to thenotes at the end of the Annex.

1. Excluding Russian federation and Ukraine from 1992 on.

Table B.1.2. BELGIUM, outflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Netherlands . . . . . . 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.9 3.9 4.1 3.8France . . . . . . 4.4 3.3 3.4 4.0 4.2 4.3 2.8United States . . . . . . 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.5United Kingdom . . . . . . 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.0 2.7 2.6 2.1Germany . . . . . . 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.0Italy 3.0 2.5 2.5 3.6 2.0 2.0 0.7 2.1 1.9 1.6Spain 1.5 1.2 1.2 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.1 0.9Portugal 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.9Japan . . . . . . 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8Greece 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.4 2.7 0.7 0.7 0.4Poland . . . . . . 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4Morocco 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.3Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3Turkey 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.3China . . . . . . 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2Other countries 24.6 21.4 20.9 9.3 7.8 9.8 11.1 8.9 8.8 4.5

Total 32.3 27.5 27.0 35.3 28.1 31.2 34.1 33.1 32.4 23.5of which: EU 16.8 15.6 15.5 20.7 15.7 16.6 19.1 20.0 19.7 15.4

Note: Data are from population registers. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

OECD 1999


276

Table B.1.2. DENMARK, outflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

United Kingdom . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.6 0.6Norway 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5Germany 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4Sweden 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4Iceland 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4United States 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4France 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Netherlands 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2Somalia . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2Finland 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2Turkey 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1Italy 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Iran 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Pakistan 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Poland 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Other countries 1.8 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.5 1.7 1.9

Total 4.6 5.2 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.3 6.0of which: EU1 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.7 2.2 1.8

Note: Departures of foreigners for more than one year. Departures of asylum seekers and refugees with a provisional residence status are notincluded. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

1. Including Finland and Sweden from 1995 on.

Table B.1.2. FINLAND, outflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Sweden 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4Estonia – 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1Former USSR 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.1United States 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1United Kingdom 0.1 0.1 – 0.1 0.2 0.1Somalia – – – 0.1 0.1 0.1Germany 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1China – – – – 0.1 –Other countries 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 1.2 0.6

Total 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 3.0 1.6

Note: Data are from population registers. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

277

Table B.1.2. GERMANY, outflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Bosnia Herzegovina1 . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 16.5 15.7 27.2 83.9Poland 99.3 142.5 157.7 115.3 109.5 101.8 65.8 70.7 71.7 70.2Turkey 39.9 37.7 35.1 36.1 40.3 45.5 46.4 43.2 43.5 46.0Former Yugoslavia 26.1 36.0 38.3 53.0 99.4 73.5 62.1 40.4 34.3 44.5Italy 37.2 38.5 34.1 36.4 32.7 31.0 32.1 33.5 36.8 37.9Portugal 1.9 2.8 2.9 4.1 4.9 6.3 14.3 20.5 25.4 26.5Greece 12.8 14.6 14.3 15.4 16.2 17.5 19.2 19.3 20.1 21.8Croatia2 . . . . . . . . 28.5 25.0 28.5 22.0 17.3 18.9Hungary . . . . 8.7 14.9 21.2 25.1 22.0 18.8 17.0 15.1Romania 3.4 3.5 15.8 30.2 51.9 101.9 44.0 25.2 16.6 13.6Russian Federation3 . . . . . . . . 6.2 7.8 12.3 13.5 12.6 11.2Spain 6.0 6.4 6.1 6.2 6.5 7.2 7.6 7.2 8.2 9.2Bulgaria . . . . . . . . 10.8 34.9 17.8 10.3 7.0 6.3United States . . . . . . . . 16.2 16.9 17.2 16.0 16.0 5.6Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 5.5 3.8 3.0Other countries 132.6 156.3 153.0 185.9 170.4 205.6 210.5 199.3 201.7 223.3

Total 359.1 438.3 466.0 497.5 614.7 710.2 621.5 561.1 559.1 637.1of which: EU5 96.9 104.9 100.9 114.6 111.8 116.4 133.4 139.6 153.9 159.3

Note: Data are from population registers. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Included in Former Yugoslavia until 1992.2. Included in Former Yugoslavia until 1991.3. Included in Former USSR until 1991.4. Included in Former Yugoslavia until 1993.5. European Union 15 for all years.

Table B.1.2. JAPAN, outflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Philippines 42.6 . . 40.3 50.7 57.2 43.2 50.7 44.2 16.3 31.4United States 27.0 . . 26.5 25.0 26.0 25.7 25.6 24.9 24.8 24.3China 38.3 . . 14.5 12.7 17.0 23.0 20.9 21.7 21.8 23.6Brazil 2.4 . . 3.7 6.9 13.8 20.7 19.7 16.8 14.0 14.1Korea 10.3 . . 16.1 18.2 18.9 16.6 16.5 14.5 12.4 12.4United Kingdom 6.1 . . 6.7 4.9 5.8 5.1 5.9 5.5 5.0 5.4Thailand 4.7 . . 5.9 6.7 6.8 6.1 5.4 5.5 5.3 4.7Germany1 3.1 . . 4.1 3.8 4.1 4.1 3.8 3.6 3.9 3.9Chinese Taipei 5.8 . . 6.1 5.9 5.2 4.4 4.2 4.0 3.2 3.5Canada 2.1 . . 2.7 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.5Peru 0.3 . . 0.8 0.8 2.1 1.8 1.4 0.9 0.8 0.6Other countries 41.0 . . 38.7 42.6 44.6 46.6 46.9 49.5 49.3 49.2

Total 183.7 204.8 166.1 181.3 204.8 200.5 204.2 194.4 160.1 176.6

Note: Data are from the register of foreigners. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Data for 1988 relate to western Germany.

Table B.1.2. LUXEMBOURG, outflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Portugal 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3France 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0Belgium 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6Germany 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5United States 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3Italy 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3Netherlands 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3Spain 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Other countries 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.3 1.5

Total 5.3 5.5 5.5 5.9 5.6 5.0 5.3 4.9 5.6 5.8

Note: Data are from the Central Population Register. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

OECD 1999


278

Table B.1.2. NETHERLANDS, outflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Germany 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.2 2.9 3.5 3.1United Kingdom 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.5 2.3United States 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.9 2.2Belgium 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.3 0.9 1.2 1.1Turkey 3.5 3.0 2.3 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.1Japan . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 0.9 . . 1.1 1.1Morocco 1.5 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.8France 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 . . 0.8 0.8Italy 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 . . 0.5 0.5Poland . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.2 . . 0.3 0.4Former Yugoslavia . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.3 0.3 . . 0.4 0.4Suriname 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3China . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.2 . . 0.2 0.2Other countries 7.0 7.7 7.9 8.4 9.1 6.5 7.4 10.4 7.2 7.6

Total 21.4 21.5 20.6 21.3 22.7 22.2 22.7 21.7 22.4 21.9of which: EU1 9.1 9.7 8.9 9.6 10.0 10.5 10.4 10.0 10.7 10.0

Note: Data are from population registers. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. European Union 15 for all years.

Table B.1.2. NORWAY, outflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Sweden 1.6 1.7 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.7Denmark 2.6 2.6 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.4United States 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9United Kingdom 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.1 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8Bosnia Herzegovina1 . . . . . . . . . . – 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.6Germany 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.1Sri Lanka – – 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1Pakistan 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1Philippines – – – 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Chile – 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1Former Yugoslavia 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1Iran – 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 – 0.1 0.1Other countries 2.7 2.9 3.0 2.7 2.8 3.7 3.4 3.1 3.5 3.6

Total 9.3 10.6 9.8 8.4 8.1 10.5 9.6 9.0 10.0 10.0of which: EU2 4.7 5.4 4.5 3.6 3.0 3.5 3.3 5.0 5.1 5.5

Note: Data are from population registers. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Included in former Yugoslavia before 1993.2. European Union 15 from 1995 on.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

279

Table B.1.2. SWEDEN, outflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Finland 5.2 5.4 5.4 4.5 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.0Norway 1.6 2.0 3.9 4.1 3.4 2.9 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.0Denmark 1.0 1.8 2.4 2.2 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.4United States 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8United Kingdom 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6Iran 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.4Former Yugoslavia 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.3Chile 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.3Greece 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3Poland 0.1 0.1 . . . . 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2Turkey 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2Other countries 2.3 2.3 2.9 2.8 3.2 4.5 5.2 6.5 5.5 5.9

Total 11.8 13.1 16.2 15.0 13.2 14.8 15.8 15.4 14.5 15.3of which: EU1 7.5 8.5 9.2 7.9 6.2 6.0 6.1 . . . . . .

Note: Data are from population registers. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. European Union 15 for all years.

Table B.1.2. SWITZERLAND, outflows of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Italy 12.2 11.6 11.7 11.5 15.3 11.7 9.9 10.3 10.8 9.9Portugal 3.9 4.2 4.7 6.3 10.1 8.7 7.5 7.4 7.9 8.7Former Yugoslavia 4.7 5.2 5.9 6.4 7.5 7.0 8.0 8.7 9.0 7.2Germany 6.1 6.2 6.2 7.2 7.1 7.3 6.2 6.6 6.2 5.9Spain 6.1 6.6 7.2 7.9 11.6 8.1 6.1 6.1 6.3 5.8France 3.4 3.6 3.8 3.9 4.0 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.7 3.5Turkey 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.3Austria 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.2Other countries 15.4 16.1 16.0 18.9 20.2 20.0 18.9 20.5 20.1 19.0

Total 55.8 57.5 59.6 66.4 80.4 71.2 64.2 67.5 67.7 63.4of which: EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.3 42.6 41.7

Note: Data are from registers of foreigners. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.3. BELGIUM, net migration of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

France . . . . . . 1.4 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.0 2.3 4.2Netherlands . . . . . . 2.8 3.3 3.2 0.4 2.6 3.8 2.5Morocco 0.9 1.6 1.9 2.5 2.8 2.7 4.2 2.7 3.2 3.5United States . . . . . . –0.2 0.1 –0.3 – 0.1 0.2 0.6Germany . . . . . . 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.2Italy –0.5 0.2 0.2 –1.0 0.6 0.8 1.1 0.4 0.8 1.2United Kingdom . . . . . . 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.7Portugal 0.9 1.3 1.2 1.1 2.6 1.2 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8Turkey 0.3 1.1 1.8 2.2 2.2 1.9 2.8 1.9 2.0 1.2Spain –0.8 –0.4 –0.4 –1.3 – – –0.2 –0.4 –0.1 0.3Poland . . . . . . 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7Japan . . . . . . – –0.1 0.2 0.3 – –0.1 –Zaire . . . . 0.9 0.9 2.2 1.7 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.5Greece 0.1 0.1 0.2 –0.3 0.2 0.4 –0.8 – –0.1 0.2China . . . . . . 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4Other countries 5.1 12.2 17.7 9.0 8.1 5.5 8.0 8.1 4.6 7.8

Total 6.0 16.1 23.4 18.8 26.9 21.8 21.9 20.0 19.5 25.8of which: EU 3.0 6.9 9.1 4.1 11.3 9.8 8.0 6.5 9.0 12.2

Note: Data are derived from Tables B.1.1. and B.1.2. For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

OECD 1999


280

Table B.1.3. DENMARK, net migration of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Somalia . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4Turkey 1.0 1.6 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.6 1.1Iceland –0.1 – –0.1 0.1 0.4 1.0 0.8Germany 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8Iraq 0.4 0.5 1.3 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.0Norway 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5United Kingdom . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.3 0.4Sweden 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4United States 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2Iran 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4Netherlands 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3France 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2Thailand . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.4 0.4Poland 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3Pakistan 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3Other countries 6.6 7.5 7.5 6.5 5.6 21.8 9.4

Total 10.5 12.3 12.1 10.5 10.5 27.7 18.8of which: EU1 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.3 2.1

Note: Data are derived from Tables B.1.1. and B.1.2. For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Including Finland and Sweden from 1995 on.

Table B.1.3. FINLAND, net migration of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Former USSR 2.8 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.6 2.3Sweden 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3Estonia 2.1 1.9 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.5Iraq . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.5Somalia 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4Iran 0.2 0.1 0.2 . . 0.1 0.3Turkey 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2Former Yugoslavia . . 1.7 0.1 . . 0.1 0.2United Kingdom 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 – 0.1United States 0.1 – – 0.1 – 0.1China 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 – 0.1Germany – – – 0.1 – 0.1Vietnam . . 0.2 . . . . – 0.1Thailand 0.1 . . 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Ukraine . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.1Other countries 2.5 2.0 1.6 2.2 0.9 1.3

Total 8.9 9.4 6.1 5.8 4.5 6.6


OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

281

Table B.1.3. GERMANY, net migration of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Poland 108.5 117.8 43.1 13.1 22.2 –26.6 12.9 16.5 5.7 1.0Turkey 38.5 48.0 48.5 45.8 40.3 22.3 17.6 30.4 29.7 10.0Italy 4.6 1.7 2.8 –1.0 –2.7 0.7 6.6 14.5 9.0 1.1Former Yugoslavia 29.6 25.5 26.9 168.0 241.9 68.1 1.0 13.8 8.6 –13.3Portugal 1.7 2.5 4.1 6.6 5.2 6.6 12.2 10.0 6.6 –0.1Russian Federation1 . . . . . . . . 18.4 21.7 21.1 19.5 19.3 13.6Greece 20.2 14.9 12.2 12.9 7.4 0.7 –0.3 0.9 –1.2 –5.3United States . . . . . . . . 5.1 0.7 –1.3 – 0.4 9.5Romania 7.8 10.7 62.4 31.2 58.0 –20.2 –12.6 –0.3 0.4 0.7Hungary . . . . 7.2 10.0 6.8 –0.8 –2.7 – –0.4 –3.9Croatia2 . . . . . . . . 10.1 1.0 –11.8 –7.1 –5.0 –8.9Spain –2.1 –2.0 –1.7 –1.1 –1.1 –1.3 –1.6 – –0.4 –1.5Bosnia Herzegovina3 . . . . . . . . . . 96.7 51.8 39.4 –16.1 –77.0Bulgaria . . . . . . . . 20.6 –7.6 –7.5 –2.3 –0.7 0.1Former USSR . . 22.3 25.6 26.9 11.9 9.2 4.8 0.5 0.8 3.1Other countries 80.6 91.1 145.2 110.6 148.7 105.7 62.3 91.6 92.0 49.2

Total 289.5 332.5 376.4 423.0 592.9 276.6 152.5 227.2 148.9 –21.8of which: EU4 43.2 37.1 38.7 32.8 29.0 20.3 22.4 37.7 18.6 –7.8

Note: Data are derived from Tables B.1.1. and B.1.2. For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Included in Former USSR until 1991.2. Included in Former Yugoslavia until 1991.3. Included in Former Yugoslavia until 1992.4. European Union 15 for all years.

Table B.1.3. JAPAN, net migration of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

China 33.1 . . 15.4 22.9 35.4 22.2 18.0 17.1 23.8 29.7Philippines 5.5 . . 8.5 13.1 0.3 5.0 8.1 –13.9 14.0 11.8Brazil 0.7 . . 7.9 10.4 5.4 –6.1 –7.9 –4.9 2.4 25.5United States 1.5 . . 4.3 4.8 3.3 1.7 2.0 2.1 3.1 3.4Korea 3.2 . . 7.0 8.4 7.1 4.7 4.8 4.3 4.7 5.5United Kingdom 0.3 . . 0.8 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.5Thailand 1.2 . . 1.1 1.6 0.9 0.4 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.7Chinese Taipei 1.0 . . 1.2 1.7 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.7 1.2 1.6Canada 0.4 . . 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.8 1.3 1.3Germany1 1.1 . . 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4Peru 0.3 . . 2.0 0.3 –1.2 –0.8 –0.4 0.8 1.6 2.5Other countries 2.8 . . 8.2 11.3 8.3 4.7 5.0 6.4 10.3 13.4

Total 51.1 32.6 57.7 77.1 62.2 34.0 33.3 15.5 65.3 98.2

Note: Data are derived from Tables B.1.1. and B.1.2. For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Data for 1988 related to western Germany.

OECD 1999


282

Table B.1.3. LUXEMBOURG, net migration of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Portugal 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.2 1.0 1.7 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.6France 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8Belgium 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7Germany 0.1 0.1 – 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2Italy – –0.1 – 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Netherlands – – 0.1 – – 0.1 – – – –United States –0.1 – – –0.1 0.1 – – – –0.1 –0.1Spain . . . . . . . . . . – 0.1 – – 0.1Other countries 0.5 0.4 0.9 1.5 2.5 1.3 1.4 1.9 1.5 1.5

Total 2.9 2.8 3.8 4.1 4.2 4.2 3.9 4.7 3.7 3.9


Table B.1.3. NETHERLANDS, net migration of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Turkey 6.9 8.0 10.3 10.7 7.3 6.0 2.7 3.2 4.9 5.4Germany 2.1 2.1 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.4 3.0 1.8 2.2 2.6Morocco 6.7 7.1 8.4 7.8 6.1 4.8 2.0 2.0 3.2 3.7United Kingdom 1.5 1.7 2.9 3.5 4.1 2.4 0.7 0.7 1.9 2.0United States 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.7 1.2 0.9Suriname 2.4 3.9 6.3 6.1 6.2 7.2 2.4 1.3 2.4 2.3Belgium 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.1France 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.6 . . 0.9 1.3China . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 0.9 . . 1.1 1.4Former Yugoslavia . . . . . . . . 4.6 8.6 8.1 . . 3.0 1.2Poland . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.5 . . 1.1 1.0Italy 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 . . 0.7 0.7Other countries 14.6 18.0 25.7 27.5 24.4 27.8 23.6 35.2 31.4 31.2

Total 36.9 43.9 60.7 63.0 60.3 65.4 45.7 45.3 54.8 54.8of which: EU1 6.4 6.0 9.7 11.1 12.2 9.2 5.6 4.8 8.6 10.3

Note: Data are derived from Tables B.1.1. and B.1.2. For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. European Union 15 for all years.

Table B.1.3. NORWAY, net migration of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Sweden 0.4 –0.6 – 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.8 3.3Denmark 0.6 –0.4 –0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 –0.1 0.2 0.4United States 0.2 –0.1 – 0.2 0.2 –0.1 – –0.1 –0.1 0.1United Kingdom 0.5 –0.6 –0.8 –0.2 0.2 –0.1 –0.1 – –0.1 0.1Germany 0.2 – 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4Iran 1.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6Bosnia Herzegovina1 . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 3.1 1.4 0.1 –Pakistan 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4Sri Lanka 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3Philippines 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.2Former Yugoslavia 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.6 1.9 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1Other countries 7.8 6.0 4.5 5.1 4.7 3.1 3.2 3.8 3.9 5.9

Total 13.9 8.0 5.9 7.7 9.1 11.8 8.3 7.5 7.2 12.0of which: EU2 1.3 –1.3 –1.0 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.6 1.6 2.6 5.4

Note: Data are derived from Tables B.1.1. and B.1.2. For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Included in former Yugoslavia before 1993.2. European Union 12 for all years.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

283

Table B.1.3. SWITZERLAND, net migration of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Former Yugoslavia 8.8 10.7 16.0 20.6 26.1 27.2 17.3 13.6 5.1 5.6Germany 2.0 2.2 3.6 2.7 2.5 1.4 2.5 2.0 2.4 2.6Italy –3.8 –3.7 –2.8 –3.1 –7.1 –4.4 –3.0 –3.6 –5.4 –4.9France 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.0 1.1 0.8 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.3Portugal 4.5 5.3 9.0 7.8 3.2 1.3 1.1 0.2 –2.3 –4.7Turkey 1.0 1.5 3.4 4.0 2.4 1.8 0.8 1.1 0.8 1.1Spain –1.0 –1.8 –1.6 –3.3 –7.7 –4.9 –3.7 –3.4 –4.3 –4.0Austria 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 – 0.2 – 0.1 0.2Other countries 7.2 7.0 12.0 13.3 10.9 9.7 10.7 9.4 8.9 12.2

Total 20.3 22.9 41.8 43.3 31.7 32.8 27.5 20.4 6.6 9.3of which: EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –3.0 –7.0 –7.3


Table B.1.4. FRANCE, inflows of asylum seekers by nationalityThousands

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Romania 3.3 2.4 2.2 2.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.1China 0.8 2.4 2.1 0.4 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.7Sri Lanka 2.5 3.4 4.0 2.8 1.7 1.1 . . 1.6Turkey 11.8 9.7 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.2 1.4Zaire 5.8 4.3 3.1 2.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2Former Yugoslavia 0.4 0.9 2.4 2.5 1.9 1.4 0.9 1.0Former USSR 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.6 1.0Algeria 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.1 2.4 1.8 0.6 0.9Pakistan . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7India . . . . . . . . 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5Mauritania . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3Mali . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2Angola . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2Guinea . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1Cambodia 1.1 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.4 . .Other countries 28.8 22.8 11.7 13.4 8.0 4.3 5.0 5.5

Total 54.8 47.4 28.9 27.6 26.0 20.4 17.4 21.4


Table B.1.3. SWEDEN, net migration of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Former Yugoslavia 0.9 1.5 2.0 1.8 1.6 2.7 15.1 2.3 0.6 3.6Finland 0.2 –0.9 –1.3 –1.5 –0.4 –0.4 0.2 0.2 –0.2 –0.2Iran 8.0 6.8 4.3 3.6 3.4 1.4 0.8 0.9 0.6 1.3Norway 1.6 6.7 3.4 –1.5 –1.5 –1.4 –0.8 –0.5 –0.5 –0.6Denmark 1.3 2.7 0.7 –0.5 –0.5 –0.4 0.2 0.2 –0.2 –0.4United States 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.2 – 0.2 0.3 0.1Turkey 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.7United Kingdom 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.3Poland 1.4 1.6 . . . . 1.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.4Chile 2.8 5.7 1.4 0.4 0.1 –0.1 –0.3 – 0.1 –Other countries 14.6 19.5 23.9 24.2 20.3 36.2 41.9 15.4 12.4 12.9

Total 32.7 45.8 37.0 28.9 26.3 40.0 59.0 20.7 14.9 18.1of which: EU1 3.1 3.2 1.0 –0.7 – –0.2 0.9 . . . . . .

Note: Data are derived from Tables B.1.1. and B.1.2. For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. European Union 15 for all years.

OECD 1999


284

Table B.1.4. GERMANY, inflows of asylum seekers by nationalityThousands

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Turkey 20.0 22.1 23.9 28.3 19.1 19.1 25.5 23.8 16.8Former Yugoslavia 19.4 22.1 74.9 122.7 74.1 30.4 26.2 18.1 14.8Iraq . . . . . . . . 1.2 2.1 6.9 10.8 14.1Afghanistan 3.7 7.3 7.3 6.4 5.5 5.6 7.5 5.7 4.7Sri Lanka . . 4.4 5.6 . . 3.3 4.8 6.0 5.0 4.0Iran 5.8 7.3 8.6 3.8 2.7 3.4 3.9 4.8 3.8Armenia . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 3.4 3.5 2.5Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 3.1 2.6 2.3Zaire . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 3.0 1.9India . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 2.8 1.9Bosnia Herzegovina . . . . . . 6.2 21.2 7.3 4.9 3.5 1.7Vietnam 1.0 9.4 8.1 12.3 11.0 3.4 2.6 1.1 1.5Nigeria . . 5.4 8.4 . . . . . . . . 1.7 1.1Togo . . . . . . . . 2.9 3.5 . . 1.0 1.1Lebanon 6.2 16.2 . . 5.6 . . . . . . 1.1 1.0Other countries 65.2 98.8 119.3 252.9 181.6 43.4 32.6 27.9 31.2

Total 121.3 193.1 256.1 438.2 322.6 127.2 127.9 116.4 104.4


Table B.1.4. NETHERLANDS, inflows of asylum seekers by nationalityThousands

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Iraq 0.4 0.7 0.8 3.2 2.9 2.4 4.4 9.6Afghanistan 0.6 0.3 0.4 1.5 2.5 1.9 3.0 5.9Former Yugoslavia 0.6 2.7 5.6 10.2 13.4 6.1 2.0 3.8Former USSR 0.2 1.0 0.6 1.6 4.5 1.9 1.7 2.0Sri Lanka 3.0 1.8 1.0 1.9 1.8 1.3 1.5 1.5Somalia 1.7 1.7 4.2 4.3 5.4 4.0 1.5 1.3Iran 1.7 1.7 1.3 2.6 6.1 2.7 1.5 1.3China . . . . . . 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.5 1.2Turkey 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.1Sudan . . . . 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.7Zaire . . . . . . 1.3 2.2 0.8 0.4 0.6Algeria . . . . . . 0.3 1.4 0.7 0.4 0.5Liberia 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.5Romania 2.2 1.7 1.0 1.1 2.8 0.4 0.1 0.1Other countries 9.8 8.7 4.3 4.9 7.5 5.0 3.9 4.5

Total 21.2 21.6 20.3 35.4 52.6 29.3 22.9 34.4


OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

285

Table B.1.4. SWEDEN, inflows of asylum seekers by nationalityThousands

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Iraq 2.0 2.2 3.2 2.3 1.7 1.8 1.6 3.1Former Yugoslavia 2.3 13.2 69.4 29.0 10.6 2.4 1.1 3.0Somalia 2.4 1.4 2.7 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.4 0.4Iran 4.3 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4Russian Federation . . . . . . 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2Turkey 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2Afghanistan . . . . . . 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2Syria 1.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 . . . . . . 0.1Lebanon 3.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 . . . . . . 0.1Ethiopia 2.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 – – 0.1 0.1Romania 2.7 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 –Peru . . 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.1 –Uganda . . . . . . 0.5 0.1 – – –Cuba . . . . . . 0.2 1.2 0.3 – . .Other countries 7.9 7.8 5.6 2.8 2.4 1.9 1.6 1.9

Total 29.4 27.4 84.0 37.6 18.6 9.0 5.8 9.6


Table B.1.4. SWITZERLAND, inflows of asylum seekers by nationalityThousands

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Former Yugoslavia 0.8 1.4 5.6 14.2 . . 12.1 7.5 9.0 7.5 6.9Albania . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 . . . . . . 3.1Sri Lanka 1.5 4.8 4.8 7.3 . . 1.7 1.5 1.0 2.0 2.1Turkey 9.7 9.4 7.3 4.3 . . 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.4Somalia . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 . . . . 0.7 0.9Angola . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 0.5 . . 0.3Lebanon 0.5 2.5 5.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2Romania . . . . . . 2.7 . . . . . . . . . . . .Other countries 4.2 6.4 12.6 13.1 18.0 5.5 5.1 5.2 6.5 9.1

Total 16.7 24.4 35.8 41.6 18.0 24.7 16.1 17.0 18.0 24.0


Table B.1.4. UNITED KINGDOM, inflows of asylum seekers by nationalityThousands

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Former Yugoslavia – – 0.3 5.6 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.0 2.3 8.0Somalia 1.9 2.3 2.0 1.6 1.5 1.8 3.5 1.8 2.7 4.7Sri Lanka 1.8 3.3 3.8 2.1 2.0 2.4 2.1 1.3 1.8 3.5Former USSR – 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.4 2.0 2.8Afghanistan . . . . . . 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.7 1.1 2.4Turkey 2.4 1.6 2.1 1.9 1.5 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.4 2.0Pakistan 0.3 1.5 3.2 1.7 1.1 1.8 2.9 1.9 1.6 2.0China . . . . 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.9 1.9Poland . . . . . . 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.2 0.9 0.6 1.6Nigeria – 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.7 4.3 5.8 2.9 1.5 1.4Iraq 0.2 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3Algeria – – – 0.2 0.3 1.0 1.9 0.7 0.7 1.3India 0.6 1.5 2.1 1.5 1.3 2.0 3.3 2.2 1.3 1.0Kenya – 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.1 1.4 1.2 0.6 0.9Zaire 0.5 2.6 7.0 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7Other countries 4.0 12.2 22.2 6.9 8.5 11.9 14.6 9.6 11.2 10.6

Total (excluding dependents) 11.6 26.2 44.8 24.6 22.4 32.8 44.0 29.6 32.5 46.0

Total (including dependents) 16.8 38.2 73.4 32.3 28.0 42.2 55.0 37.0 41.5 58.0


OECD 1999


286

Table B.1.4. UNITED STATES, inflows of asylum seekers by nationalityThousands

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

El Salvador – 6.8 14.6 18.6 75.9 65.6Guatemala – 43.9 34.2 34.4 23.2 13.9Mexico – 0.6 6.4 9.3 9.7 9.7India – 3.2 5.7 4.5 3.4 4.7Haiti – 5.4 10.9 9.5 2.6 4.4China – 3.5 14.5 10.9 5.0 3.5Former USSR 63.2 4.5 0.4 0.1 2.4 2.4Nicaragua – 2.1 3.2 4.7 1.9 2.0Honduras – 1.1 2.8 4.4 3.2 1.8Philippines – 4.0 4.0 2.4 1.0 1.7Pakistan – 3.3 4.5 3.3 2.5 1.4Mauritania – . . . . . . . . 1.3Somalia 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.2Ethiopia 4.9 1.0 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.1Bangladesh – 1.0 3.8 3.7 1.9 1.0Other countries 54.9 23.3 37.9 39.7 20.8 12.5

Total 123.5 104.0 144.2 146.5 154.5 128.2

Note: Data refer to fiscal years (October to September of the given year). For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.5. AUSTRALIA, stock of foreign-born population by country of birth,census results of 1986, 1991 and 1996

Thousands

1986 1991 1996

United Kingdom 1 083.1 1 122.4 1 072.5New Zealand 211.7 276.1 291.4Italy 261.9 254.8 238.2Former Yugoslavia1 150.0 161.1 175.5Vietnam 83.0 122.3 151.1Greece 137.6 136.3 126.5China2 37.5 78.8 111.0Germany 114.8 114.9 110.3Philippines 33.7 73.7 92.9Netherlands 95.1 95.8 87.9India 47.8 61.6 77.5Malaysia 47.8 72.6 76.2Lebanon 56.3 69.0 70.2Hong Kong (China) 28.3 59.0 68.4Poland 67.7 68.9 65.1Other and not stated 791.0 986.0 1 093.5

Total 3 247.4 3 753.3 3 908.3% of total population 20.8 22.3 21.1

Note: For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. In 1996, data include Croatia (47 000), former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (42 200), Bosnia Herzegovina (13 600), Serbia (9 000), Slovenia

(6 700) and former Yugoslavia (57 000) without further description.2. Excluding Chinese Taipei.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

287

Table B.1.5. CANADA, stock of foreign-born population by country of birth,census results of 1986, 1991 and 1996

Thousands

of which: Women1986 1991 1996

1986 1991 1996

United Kingdom 793.1 717.7 655.5 425.8 385.6 352.2Italy 366.8 351.6 332.1 173.0 165.5 158.0United States 282.0 249.1 244.7 160.8 141.4 139.8Hong Kong (China) 77.4 152.5 241.1 38.7 77.3 124.3India 130.1 173.7 235.9 63.5 84.8 117.0China 119.2 157.4 231.1 62.6 81.5 122.2Poland 156.8 184.7 193.4 78.0 92.8 100.1Philippines 82.2 123.3 184.6 48.1 73.2 111.7Germany 189.6 180.5 181.7 80.9 92.8 95.2Portugal 139.6 161.2 158.8 68.6 79.8 79.3Vietnam 82.8 113.6 139.3 38.5 53.8 69.7Netherlands 134.2 129.6 124.5 64.1 62.4 60.9Former Yugoslavia 87.8 88.8 122.0 41.7 42.4 59.3Jamaica 87.6 102.4 115.8 49.5 58.6 67.3Former USSR 109.4 99.4 106.4 56.3 52.0 57.1Other and not stated 1 069.5 1 357.4 1 704.2 545.6 669.0 851.4

Total 3 908.0 4 342.9 4 971.1 1 995.7 2 212.9 2 565.7% of total population 15.4 16.1 17.4


Table B.1.5. DENMARK, stock of foreign-born population by country of birthThousands

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Former Yugoslavia 9.3 9.5 9.7 24.2 27.6Turkey 24.0 24.4 24.7 25.3 26.3Germany 21.6 21.7 21.8 21.9 22.3Sweden 11.9 11.9 11.8 11.9 12.9Norway 11.8 11.8 11.9 13.0 12.3Lebanon 10.4 10.8 10.9 11.0 11.2Iran 9.6 9.8 9.9 10.0 10.3United Kingdom 9.0 9.4 9.8 9.9 10.2Poland 9.3 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8Pakistan 8.4 8.5 8.7 8.9 9.1Somalia 2.0 3.2 4.4 5.7 7.9Vietnam 6.9 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.6Iraq 4.1 4.9 5.5 6.3 7.2Sri Lanka 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.0United States 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.4Other countries 58.9 61.7 65.1 68.1 73.0

Total 207.4 215.0 222.1 244.5 259.2% of total population 4.0 4.1 4.3 4.7 4.9


OECD 1999


288

Table B.1.5. NETHERLANDS, stock of foreign-born population by country of birthThousands

of which: Women1990 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

1997

Suriname 162.9 182.9 180.9 181.0 181.6 182.2 97.1Turkey 149.5 166.0 166.0 167.5 169.3 172.7 60.9Indonesia 186.1 183.7 180.4 177.7 174.8 172.1 93.5Morocco 122.9 139.4 139.8 140.7 142.7 145.8 64.1Germany 128.7 129.4 131.2 130.1 128.0 126.8 77.0Former Yugoslavia 15.2 29.7 37.2 43.8 46.1 46.7 22.9Belgium 42.2 44.0 43.2 43.3 43.3 44.0 25.3United Kingdom 38.3 44.8 43.3 42.3 41.7 42.3 19.5Somalia 3.6 11.9 14.9 17.2 19.8 20.6 8.7Iraq 1.5 4.8 7.4 10.2 14.4 20.4 7.7United States 14.7 17.0 17.1 17.4 17.9 18.5 9.3Iran 6.3 10.8 12.7 14.9 17.3 18.5 7.6China 11.8 15.2 15.2 16.1 16.9 18.0 9.2Spain 17.3 17.5 17.5 17.4 17.4 17.6 8.4France 13.7 15.3 15.4 15.4 15.8 16.5 9.4Other countries 302.5 362.9 365.3 372.1 386.6 486.4 226.7

Total 1 217.1 1 375.4 1 387.4 1 407.1 1 433.6 1 549.0 747.1% of total population 8.1 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.9


Table B.1.5. NORWAY, stock of foreign-born population by country of birthThousands

1989 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Sweden 18.1 20.0 23.2 24.3 26.0 29.3Denmark 20.5 20.5 21.2 20.9 20.9 21.1United States 15.0 14.7 15.4 15.2 15.0 15.0United Kingdom 14.3 13.4 13.7 13.6 13.5 13.6Pakistan 10.5 11.4 11.6 11.8 12.1 12.4Bosnia Herzegovina1 . . 5.1 8.1 10.8 11.1 11.1Vietnam 7.5 10.4 10.6 10.8 10.8 10.9Germany 8.1 8.4 9.3 9.5 9.7 10.1Iran 5.2 6.9 7.1 7.1 7.3 7.7Former Yugoslavia 4.2 9.0 8.9 7.9 7.3 7.2Sri Lanka 4.7 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.5 6.7Turkey 5.0 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.6Korea 4.7 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7Poland 4.3 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5Chile 5.5 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.3Other countries 55.6 69.0 76.5 79.9 84.1 89.6

Total 183.3 216.2 233.4 240.3 246.9 257.7% of total population 4.3 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.8

Note: For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Included in former Yugoslavia in 1989.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

289

Table B.1.5. SWEDEN, stock of foreign-born population by country of birthThousands

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Finland 209.5 207.8 205.7 203.4 201.0Former Yugoslavia 70.5 112.3 119.5 72.8 70.9Iran 48.1 48.7 49.0 49.2 49.8Bosnia Herzegovina1 . . . . . . 46.8 48.3Norway 47.1 45.9 53.9 43.8 42.7Poland 38.5 39.0 39.4 39.5 39.6Denmark 41.1 40.9 40.5 39.8 38.9Germany 36.6 36.5 36.5 36.5 36.8Iraq 20.2 23.4 26.4 29.0 32.7Chile 27.7 27.2 27.0 26.9 26.7Lebanon 21.2 21.6 . . 21.6 21.4Hungary 15.0 14.8 14.7 14.7 14.5United States 13.8 13.7 13.8 13.8 14.0United Kingdom 12.5 12.6 12.7 13.1 13.3Ethiopia 13.2 13.4 13.4 13.4 13.3Other countries 254.1 264.3 283.5 279.5 290.3

Total 869.1 922.1 936.0 943.8 954.2% of total population 9.9 10.5 10.5 11.0 11.0

Note: For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Included in former Yugoslavia until 1995.

Table B.1.5. UNITED STATES, stock of foreign-born population by place of birth,census results of 1970, 1980 and 1990

Thousands

1970 1980 1990

Mexico 759.7 2 199.2 4 298.0Philippines 184.8 501.4 912.7Canada 812.4 842.9 744.8Cuba 439.0 607.8 737.0Germany 833.0 849.4 711.9United Kingdom 708.2 669.1 640.1Italy 1 008.7 831.9 580.6Korea 88.7 289.9 568.4Vietnam . . 231.1 543.3China 172.2 286.1 529.8India 51.0 206.1 450.4Former USSR 463.5 406.0 398.9Poland 548.1 418.1 388.3Dominican Republic . . 169.1 347.9Jamaica . . 196.8 334.1Other and not stated 3 550.0 5 375.0 7 581.1

Total 9 619.3 14 079.9 19 767.3% of total population 4.7 6.2 7.9


OECD 1999


290

Table B.1.6. BELGIUM, stock of foreign population by nationalityThousands

of which: Women1985 1990 1995 1997

1997

Italy 252.9 241.2 210.7 205.8 92.0Morocco 123.6 141.7 140.3 132.8 62.0France 92.3 94.3 100.1 103.6 53.3Netherlands 59.6 65.3 77.2 82.3 36.5Turkey 74.2 84.9 81.7 73.8 36.7Spain 51.2 52.2 48.3 47.4 22.9Germany 24.3 27.8 31.8 33.3 16.2United Kingdom 20.8 23.3 26.0 26.1 12.0Portugal 9.5 16.5 23.9 25.3 12.5Greece 19.3 20.9 19.9 19.2 8.9United States 11.0 11.7 12.0 12.6 6.4Zaire 8.9 12.0 12.2 12.1 6.0Algeria 10.0 10.7 9.5 8.9 4.0Poland . . 4.9 5.4 6.0 4.0Tunisia 5.9 6.4 5.3 4.7 1.8Other countries1 83.0 90.5 105.6 109.2 55.1

Total 846.5 904.5 909.8 903.2 430.3of which: EU 538.1 551.2 554.5 562.1 264.1Total women 386.5 417.5 429.7 430.3

Note: Data are from population registers and refer to the population on 31 December of the years indicated. For details on definitions and sources,refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

1. Including refugees whose stock is not broken down by nationality. In 1997, 19 700 refugees were registered.

Table B.1.6. CZECH REPUBLIC, stock of foreign residents by nationalityThousands

1992 1995 1997

Slovak Republic1 . . 39.7 52.2Ukraine . . 28.2 43.4Poland 12.7 23.1 25.0Vietnam 2.6 14.2 21.0Russian Federation . . 4.4 8.9Bulgaria 2.9 4.3 6.6Germany 1.5 5.6 5.9China 1.4 4.2 4.5United States 1.5 4.4 3.8Romania 0.2 1.6 2.4Austria . . 2.2 2.3United Kingdom . . 1.9 . .Former Yugoslavia 2.4 4.8 . .Other 16.1 20.0 33.8

Total 41.2 158.6 209.8

Note: Data are from registers of foreigners and refer to the population on 31 December of the years indicated. For details on definitions and sources,refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

1. Up to 1 January 1993, Slovak permanent residents were registered in the National Population Register. Since the split of the Czech and SlovakRepublics, Slovak citizens residing in the Czech Republic are subject to the same rules as any other foreign resident and they are registered in theCentral Register of Foreigners.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

291

Table B.1.6. DENMARK, stock of foreign population by nationalityThousands

of which: Women1985 1990 1996 1997

19961

Turkey 20.4 29.7 36.8 37.5 18.1Former Yugoslavia 7.9 10.0 32.2 33.9 15.6United Kingdom 9.7 10.2 12.5 12.8 4.5Norway 9.8 10.2 11.5 11.9 6.6Somalia . . 0.6 9.7 11.9 4.4Germany 8.2 8.4 11.4 11.9 5.2Sweden 8.1 8.2 9.4 10.0 5.4Iraq 0.7 2.8 8.1 9.4 3.5Pakistan 6.6 6.2 6.7 6.9 3.6Iran 4.7 9.0 7.0 6.8 3.0Iceland 3.3 3.0 5.6 5.9 . .Poland 2.2 4.7 5.3 5.5 . .Sri Lanka 0.6 5.1 5.4 5.4 . .Vietnam 3.7 3.7 5.1 5.2 . .United States 4.3 4.5 5.1 5.2 2.3Other countries 26.7 44.2 65.8 69.4 45.2

Total 117.0 160.6 237.7 249.6 117.3of which: EU2 37.3 38.2 48.9 . . . .Total women 54.0 75.2 117.3 . .

Note: Data are from population registers and refer to the population on 31 December of the years indicated. For details on definitions and sources,refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

1. Breakdown by sex is not available for 1997.2. European Union 15 for all years.

Table B.1.6. FINLAND, stock of foreign population by nationalityThousands

of which: Women1985 1990 1995 1997

1997

Former USSR1 1.6 4.2 15.9 19.0 11.6Estonia1, 2 . . . . 8.4 9.7 5.8Sweden 4.9 6.1 7.0 7.5 3.4Somalia . . . . 4.0 5.2 2.4Former Yugoslavia . . . . 2.4 2.8 1.2Iraq . . . . 1.3 2.4 1.0Vietnam . . . . 2.1 2.2 1.1Germany 1.6 1.6 1.7 2.0 0.7United Kingdom 1.1 1.3 1.9 1.9 0.5United States 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.9 0.9Iran . . 0.1 1.3 1.7 0.7Turkey . . 0.2 1.3 1.7 0.4China . . . . 1.4 1.6 0.8Bosnia Herzegovina3 . . 0.9 1.4 0.7Thailand . . . . 0.8 1.0 0.8Other countries 6.6 11.8 16.4 18.7 7.6

Total 17.0 26.6 68.6 80.6 39.5of which: EU . . . . 13.7 14.9 . .Total women . . 11.5 32.8 39.5

Note: Data are from population registers and refer to the population on the 31 December of the years indicated. For details on definitions andsources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

1. Figures include Ingrians (ethnic Finns).2. Included in former USSR until 1990.3. Included in former Yugoslavia until 1991.

OECD 1999


292

Table B.1.6. FRANCE, stock of foreign population by nationalityThousands


1990

Portugal 758.9 767.3 649.7 304.2Algeria 710.7 805.1 614.2 253.9Morocco 260.0 441.3 572.7 250.7Italy 462.9 340.3 252.8 108.0Spain 497.5 327.2 216.0 103.7Tunisia 139.7 190.8 206.3 84.8Turkey 50.9 122.3 197.7 87.5Former Yugoslavia 70.3 62.5 52.5 24.5Cambodia 4.5 37.9 47.4 22.6Poland 93.7 64.8 47.1 28.9Senegal 14.9 32.3 43.7 17.0Vietnam 11.4 33.8 33.7 15.3Laos 1.6 32.5 31.8 15.0Other countries 365.4 456.1 631.0 298.0

Total 3 442.4 3 714.2 3 596.6 1 614.3of which: EU 1 869.9 1 594.8 1 311.9 613.9Total women 1 381.6 1 594.6 1 614.3

Note: Data are from the population censuses. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.6. GERMANY, stock of foreign population by nationalityThousands

of which: Women1

1985 1990 1995 19971997

Turkey 1 401.9 1 694.6 2 014.3 2 107.4 666.0Former Yugoslavia2 591.0 662.7 797.7 721.0 232.3Italy 531.3 552.4 586.1 607.9 191.7Greece 280.6 320.2 359.5 363.2 136.7Poland 104.8 242.0 276.7 283.3 113.6Bosnia Herzegovina3 . . . . 316.0 281.4 99.4Croatia3 . . . . 185.1 206.6 86.4Austria 172.5 183.2 184.5 185.1 78.3Portugal 77.0 85.5 125.1 132.3 46.3Spain 152.8 135.5 132.3 131.6 56.3United Kingdom 88.1 96.5 112.5 115.2 42.2Iran 51.3 92.2 107.0 113.8 34.9Netherlands 108.4 111.7 113.1 112.8 48.6United States 85.7 92.7 108.4 110.1 42.6France 74.8 85.1 99.1 103.9 52.0Other countries 658.7 988.3 1 656.5 1 790.2 644.5

Total 4 378.9 5 342.5 7 173.9 7 365.8 2 571.7of which: EU4 1 539.0 1 632.6 1 811.7 1 850.0 702.1Total women 1 867.4 2 330.7 2 459.8 2 571.7

Note: Data are from population registers and refer to the population on 31 December of the given year. For details on definitions and sources, refer tothe notes at the end of the Annex.

1. Women aged 16 years and over.2. From 1993 on, Serbia and Montenegro.3. Included in former Yugoslavia until 1992.4. European Union 15 for all years (except Swedish citizens before 1991).

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

293

Table B.1.6. HUNGARY, stock of foreign population by nationalityThousands

of which: Women1994 1995 1996 1997

1997

Romania 68.3 65.7 61.6 57.4 26.4Former Yugoslavia 14.5 15.5 14.9 16.0 6.7Ukraine 11.1 11.5 12.0 12.2 7.2Germany 7.4 7.8 8.3 8.4 5.2China 3.5 4.3 6.7 7.9 2.8Russian Federation 3.7 3.7 4.1 5.4 3.3Poland 4.6 4.5 4.3 4.5 1.9Slovak Republic 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.7 2.6Greece 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.8Vietnam 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.8 0.8Bulgaria 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.7 0.8United Kingdom 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 0.4Austria 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 0.3Israel 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.3Syria 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1Other 14.6 16.0 18.5 18.6 7.2

Total 137.9 139.9 142.5 143.8 66.7of which: EU 11.8 13.0 14.7 15.9 7.9Total women 65.0 65.6 66.1 66.7

Note: Data are from registers of foreigners and refer to the population on 31 December of the years indicated. For details on definitions and sources,refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.6. ITALY, stock of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1985 1990 1995 1997

Morocco 2.6 78.0 94.2 131.4Albania . . . . 34.7 83.8Philippines 7.6 34.3 43.4 61.3United States 51.1 58.1 60.6 59.6Tunisia 4.4 41.2 40.5 48.9Former Yugoslavia1 13.9 29.8 56.1 44.4Germany 37.2 41.6 39.4 40.1Romania . . 7.5 24.5 38.1China 1.6 18.7 21.5 37.8Senegal 0.3 25.1 24.0 34.8Poland . . 17.0 22.0 31.3France 23.7 24.4 27.3 28.3Sri Lanka 2.5 11.5 20.3 28.2United Kingdom 27.9 26.6 27.7 26.8Egypt 7.0 19.8 21.9 26.2Other countries 243.1 347.6 433.4 519.7

Total 423.0 781.1 991.4 1 240.7of which: EU . . 148.6 164.0 168.1


1. Excluding the data for Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Bosnia Herzegovina.

OECD 1999


294

Table B.1.6. JAPAN, stock of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1985 1990 1995 1997

Korea 683.3 687.9 666.4 645.4China1 74.9 150.3 223.0 252.2Brazil 2.0 56.4 176.4 233.3Philippines 12.3 49.1 74.3 93.3United States 29.0 38.4 43.2 43.7Peru 0.5 10.3 36.3 40.4Thailand 2.6 6.7 16.0 20.7United Kingdom 6.8 10.2 12.5 14.4Indonesia 1.7 3.6 7.0 11.9Vietnam 4.1 6.2 9.1 11.9Canada 2.4 4.9 7.2 8.8Iran . . . . 8.6 7.9India . . . . 5.5 7.5Australia 1.8 4.0 6.0 6.9Bangladesh . . . . 4.9 6.1Other countries 5.8 47.3 65.9 78.3

Total 827.2 1 075.3 1 362.4 1 482.7

Note: Data are based on registered foreign nationals which include foreigners staying in Japan for more than 90 days and refer to the population onthe 31 December of the years indicated. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

1. Including Chinese Taipei.

Table B.1.6. KOREA, stock of foreign population by nationalityThousands

of which: Women1986 1990 1995 1997

1997

China – 0.1 19.2 35.4 14.7of which: Chinese with Korean descents – – 7.4 11.8 4.1United States 8.4 14.0 22.2 27.9 12.9Chinese Taipei 24.8 23.6 23.3 23.2 10.7Japan 3.0 5.3 9.4 13.7 8.7Indonesia – 0.1 3.4 13.6 2.6Vietnam – – 5.7 13.5 4.6Philippines 0.2 0.6 9.0 13.1 5.2Bangladesh – – 2.7 7.9 0.0Canada 0.4 0.6 3.0 4.2 1.9Sri Lanka – 0.1 1.7 3.7 1.2Uzbekistan – – 0.8 2.2 0.2Thailand – 0.1 0.5 1.9 0.5Pakistan – – 0.8 1.7 0.0Germany 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.3 0.4United Kingdom 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.2 0.4Other 3.5 3.6 6.6 12.4 4.8

Total 41.6 49.5 110.0 176.9 68.8of which: EU 3.1 3.0 3.6 4.8 1.8Total women . . 22.6 47.0 68.8


OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

295

Table B.1.6. LUXEMBOURG, stock of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1985 1990 1995 1997

Portugal 29.0 39.1 51.5 54.5Italy 20.7 19.5 19.8 19.9France 12.6 13.0 15.0 16.5Belgium 8.5 10.1 11.8 13.2Germany 8.9 8.8 9.7 10.0Spain 2.2 2.5 2.8 . .Other countries 16.0 20.1 27.5 33.6

Total 97.9 113.1 138.1 147.7


Table B.1.6. NETHERLANDS, stock of foreign population by nationalityThousands

of which: Women1985 1990 1995 1997

1997

Morocco 116.4 156.9 149.8 135.7 62.8Turkey 156.4 203.5 154.3 114.7 55.5Germany 41.0 44.3 53.9 53.9 26.7United Kingdom1 38.5 39.0 41.1 39.2 15.9Former Yugoslavia 11.7 13.5 33.5 28.4 13.6Belgium 22.8 23.6 24.1 24.4 12.8Italy 17.8 16.9 17.4 17.4 5.8Spain 19.0 17.2 16.7 16.6 7.7Portugal 7.5 8.3 9.1 8.7 4.0Greece 3.8 4.9 5.4 5.3 1.8Tunisia 2.6 2.6 1.9 1.5 0.5United States 10.5 11.4 12.8 . . . .Other countries 104.5 150.3 205.4 232.3 113.7

Total 552.5 692.4 725.4 678.1 320.8of which: EU2 166.4 173.9 191.1 190.2 87.9Total women 239.8 311.1 335.4 320.8


1. Including Hong Kong (China).2. European Union 15 for all years.

OECD 1999


296

Table B.1.6. NORWAY, stock of foreign population by nationalityThousands

of which: Women1985 1990 1996 1997

19961

Sweden 10.0 11.7 17.3 20.6 8.1Denmark 15.7 17.2 18.1 18.4 9.1Bosnia Herzegovina2 . . . . 11.5 11.6 5.9United Kingdom 12.5 11.8 10.9 10.8 4.5United States 10.0 9.5 8.7 8.6 4.6Pakistan 8.4 11.4 8.6 7.5 4.5Former Yugoslavia 1.7 4.2 6.0 5.7 2.7Germany 3.7 4.3 5.1 5.4 2.7Sri Lanka 1.0 5.2 4.4 3.8 2.3Vietnam 5.3 6.9 4.6 3.5 2.3Iran 0.3 5.9 3.8 3.5 1.6Turkey 3.4 5.5 3.9 3.4 1.9Netherlands 2.4 2.6 3.1 3.2 1.5Chile 1.1 5.4 3.2 2.8 1.5India 2.3 3.5 2.4 2.2 1.3Other countries 23.7 38.2 45.9 46.8 25.5

Total 101.5 143.3 157.5 158.0 79.9of which: EU3 52.9 55.9 64.1 69.1 33.0Total women 48.1 66.5 79.9 . .


1. Breakdown by sex is not available for 1997.2. Included in former Yugoslavia until 1992.3. All figures include the 15 countries of the European Union.

Table B.1.6. PORTUGAL, stock of foreign population by nationalityThousands

of which: Women1988 1990 1995 1997

1997

Cape Verde 27.1 28.8 38.7 39.8 15.8Brazil 9.3 11.4 19.9 20.0 9.2Angola 4.4 5.3 15.8 16.3 6.5Guinea-Bissau 3.1 4.0 12.3 12.8 3.4United Kingdom 7.1 8.5 11.5 12.3 5.7Spain 7.1 7.5 8.9 8.8 4.7United States 6.1 6.9 8.5 8.4 3.6Germany 4.1 4.8 7.4 8.3 3.6France 2.8 3.2 4.7 5.4 2.6Mozambique 2.8 3.2 4.4 4.4 2.0Sao Tome and Principe 1.7 2.0 4.1 4.3 2.1Venezuela 4.8 5.1 4.5 3.8 1.3Netherlands 1.5 1.8 2.7 3.1 1.4China 1.0 1.2 2.2 2.4 0.8Canada 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.2 0.9Other countries 9.5 11.9 20.3 22.8 9.6

Total 94.7 107.8 168.3 175.3 73.1of which: EU 25.3 28.8 41.5 46.0Total women . . . . 69.9 73.1

Note: Figures include all foreigners who hold a valid residence permit. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of theAnnex.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

297

Table B.1.6. SPAIN, stock of foreign population by nationalityThousands

1985 1990 1995 1997

Morocco 5.8 11.4 74.9 111.1United Kingdom 39.1 55.5 65.3 68.3Germany 28.5 31.2 41.9 49.9Portugal 23.3 22.8 37.0 38.2France 17.8 19.7 30.8 34.3Italy 10.3 10.8 19.8 22.6Peru 1.7 2.6 15.1 21.2Dominican Republic 1.2 1.5 14.5 20.4Argentina 9.7 12.1 18.4 17.2China 1.6 2.8 9.2 15.8Netherlands 10.9 11.7 13.0 14.5United States 12.2 11.0 14.9 13.3Philippines 6.2 5.1 9.7 11.4Cuba 5.0 3.5 . . 10.5Belgium 7.4 8.2 8.9 10.5Other countries 61.2 68.9 126.6 150.7

Total 242.0 278.8 499.8 609.8of which: EU 143.5 164.6 235.6 260.6

Note: Numbers of foreigners with a residence permit. Data refer to the population on the 31 December of the years indicated. For details ondefinitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.6. SWEDEN, stock of foreign population by nationalityThousands

of which: Women1985 1990 1995 1997

1997

Finland 138.6 119.7 104.9 101.3 56.4Former Yugoslavia 38.4 41.1 38.4 33.6 16.2Norway 26.4 38.2 32.3 31.0 16.2Iran 8.3 39.0 29.3 26.2 12.8Denmark 25.1 28.6 26.5 25.4 10.9Iraq 3.5 7.7 21.3 24.8 11.0Turkey 21.5 25.5 20.3 18.4 9.3Poland 15.5 15.7 16.0 15.8 10.8Germany 12.0 13.0 13.4 14.4 6.8Chile 9.2 19.9 13.0 11.9 5.6United Kingdom 8.9 10.1 11.2 11.7 4.0United States 6.4 8.0 9.2 9.4 4.2Iceland 3.4 5.3 4.9 4.5 2.2Greece 9.4 6.5 4.6 4.4 1.7Italy 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 1.3Other countries 58.0 101.4 182.5 215.1 94.5

Total 388.6 483.7 531.8 552.0 263.9Total women 192.7 237.5 256.5 263.9


OECD 1999


298

Table B.1.6. SWITZERLAND, stock of foreign population by nationalityThousands

of which: Women1985 1990 1995 1997

1997

Italy 392.5 378.7 358.9 342.3 147.0Former Yugoslavia 69.5 140.7 294.2 313.5 147.1Portugal 30.9 85.6 134.8 136.3 65.4Germany 81.0 83.4 90.9 94.7 43.3Spain 108.4 116.1 101.4 94.0 42.6Turkey 50.9 64.2 78.6 79.6 36.7France 47.1 50.0 53.6 55.0 26.1Austria 29.2 28.8 28.1 28.0 12.3United Kingdom 15.4 16.7 18.4 18.3 7.9Netherlands 10.8 11.9 13.6 13.9 6.6United States 9.1 9.7 11.4 11.6 5.5Belgium 4.8 5.6 6.3 6.6 3.2Greece 8.7 8.3 7.1 6.4 2.8Vietnam 6.8 7.2 6.1 5.1 2.5Sweden 3.8 4.6 5.1 5.0 2.6Other countries 70.8 88.7 121.9 130.7 68.5

Total 939.7 1 100.3 1 330.6 1 340.8 620.2of which: EU 702.7 760.2 824.9 807.1 368.6Total women 419.1 483.7 608.7 620.2


Table B.1.6. UNITED KINGDOM, stock of foreign population by country or region of nationalityThousands

of which: Women1985 1990 1995 1998

1998

Ireland 569 478 443 448 252India 138 156 114 139 76United States 86 102 110 120 68Central and Eastern Europe1 68 58 75 100 58Western Africa 43 37 87 90 43Italy 83 75 80 89 39Caribbean and Guyana 135 82 82 79 45Germany 36 41 51 75 43France 27 38 60 74 43Pakistan 49 56 81 69 35Bangladesh 41 38 53 69 39Turkey . . 12 29 63 26Australia 28 44 47 50 25Eastern Africa 28 39 40 47 25Jamaica . . . . 46 43 23Other countries 400 467 550 652 323

Total 1 731 1 723 1 948 2 207 1 163of which: EU 796 731 902 857 473Total women . . 910 1 036 1 163

Note: Estimated from the annual Labour Force Survey. Fluctuations from year to year may be due to sampling error. The symbol ‘‘–’’ indicates thatfigures are less than 10 000. For details on definitions and sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

1. Including former USSR.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

299

Table B.1.6. UNITED STATES, stock of foreign population by country of birthThousands

1990

Mexico 3 328.3Philippines 420.5El Salvador 393.9Cuba 361.0Canada 341.9Korea 337.5United Kingdom 322.3Vietnam 311.5China 296.4India 293.2Dominican Republic 252.0Japan 208.3Jamaica 205.9Colombia 203.3Germany 199.9Other 4 294.4

Total 11 770.3

Note: Data are from 1990 population census and refer to the foreign population born overseas. For details on definitions and sources, refer to thenotes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.7. AUSTRALIA, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

United Kingdom 42 883 39 495 36 488 41 963 39 876 36 401 36 134 35 431 27 294 23 080China 2 911 3 342 1 743 5 018 4 872 5 242 5 971 4 250 16 173 21 053New Zealand 6 995 7 538 6 562 8 502 9 772 7 786 9 033 11 724 9 982 8 764Vietnam 9 815 8 256 6 723 9 697 12 406 10 713 7 772 7 741 5 083 4 685Former Yugoslavia1 3 999 4 726 3 679 3 487 2 972 3 043 3 534 5 188 3 207 4 088Philippines 5 024 9 504 9 275 6 763 6 633 6 600 5 408 4 021 3 815 3 688India 1 547 1 933 1 960 2 130 2 645 2 836 3 107 2 638 2 563 3 358Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 591 2 877Bosnia Herzegovina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 637 2 728Sri Lanka 2 113 2 516 2 576 2 003 2 104 1 691 1 730 1 644 1 620 2 049Fiji . . . . . . . . . . 2 018 2 204 1 815 1 721 1 934South Africa 3 211 3 029 2 569 2 006 1 781 1 595 1 324 1 262 1 578 1 880United States . . . . . . . . . . 1 634 1 912 2 272 1 701 1 565Lebanon 3 115 4 090 3 405 2 585 2 976 2 122 1 392 1 105 1 076 1 364Cambodia 1 798 1 686 4 584 1 259 577 . . . . . . 1 149 1 233Others 35 729 41 742 38 946 39 745 35 471 30 505 35 236 32 546 28 076 27 997

Total 119 140 127 857 118 510 125 158 122 085 112 186 114 757 111 637 108 266 112 343

Note: For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Excluding Bosnia Herzegovina from 1997 on.

OECD 1999


300

Table B.1.7. AUSTRIA, acquisition of nationality by country or region of former nationality

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Turkey 509 723 1 106 1 809 1 994 2 688 3 379 3 209 7 499 5 068Former Yugoslavia 1 731 2 323 2 641 3 221 4 337 5 791 5 623 4 538 3 133 3 671Central and Eastern Europe 1 985 1 664 2 118 2 413 1 839 1 858 2 672 2 588 2 083 2 898Germany 1 125 886 517 455 410 406 328 202 140 164Others 2 883 2 874 2 817 3 496 3 340 3 659 4 268 4 772 3 388 4 473

Total 8 233 8 470 9 199 11 394 11 920 14 402 16 270 15 309 16 243 16 274

Note: Figures include naturalisations granted to persons living abroad. For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.7. BELGIUM, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Morocco 2 091 6 862 5 500 8 638 9 146 7 912Turkey 879 3 886 3 305 6 273 6 572 6 609Italy 762 22 362 1 431 2 326 2 096 1 940Algeria 191 932 543 714 780 556France 514 2 179 532 618 608 539Zaire 185 454 410 474 452 442Tunisia 96 486 416 573 537 406Spain 110 1 795 196 281 246 261Netherlands 217 1 179 222 335 336 259Greece 104 940 170 312 294 253Poland 151 237 174 239 176 175China 64 113 101 181 170 166India 179 165 119 159 148 158Lebanon 58 103 81 158 137 150Former Yugoslavia 211 386 353 417 416 . .Others 2 645 4 289 2 823 4 089 4 015 4 755

Total 8 457 46 368 16 376 25 787 26 129 24 581

Note: Data cover all means of acquiring the nationality. From 1992 on, following a change in nationality law a significant number of foreigners wheregranted Belgian nationality. For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.7. CANADA, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Hong Kong (China) 2 888 3 502 5 556 9 845 13 347 11 717 17 109 14 978Poland 2 808 3 674 5 853 6 270 7 155 11 528 16 384 14 011Philippines 2 525 3 235 3 932 5 988 6 776 9 388 11 508 12 953China 2 736 3 995 4 574 4 982 4 706 7 777 14 228 12 878India 2 456 3 284 3 893 4 297 4 946 6 306 8 953 11 677United Kingdom 7 710 11 015 8 908 11 257 9 131 10 012 12 620 11 173Sri Lanka 570 1 034 2 645 2 609 2 164 2 848 5 768 10 154Lebanon 880 1 750 2 518 3 925 2 992 6 772 15 875 9 802Iran 1 185 1 621 2 462 2 214 2 329 3 229 5 124 6 457Vietnam 3 469 5 884 8 527 3 744 2 623 3 833 5 223 6 426El Salvador 1 081 2 111 2 883 2 677 2 014 3 140 5 314 5 943Jamaica 1 763 2 574 3 509 3 604 3 122 3 341 4 159 5 258United States 1 223 1 999 1 729 3 521 3 266 4 334 5 244 4 812Portugal 2 189 2 871 3 084 3 122 3 093 3 937 4 797 4 464Somalia . . . . . . . . 271 567 2 420 3 925Stateless and others 25 327 38 929 44 194 50 575 48 266 61 841 82 594 92 809

Total 58 810 87 478 104 267 118 630 116 201 150 570 217 320 227 720


OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

301

Table B.1.7. DENMARK, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Turkey 437 195 107 376 502 560 915 797 917 1 036Iran 23 21 73 989 1 083 710 491 531 829 553Sri Lanka 19 14 19 84 179 370 515 635 765 376Former Yugoslavia 117 133 130 128 78 138 806 413 629 291Iraq 14 9 20 181 236 241 166 177 339 244Lebanon 16 12 16 44 109 234 237 216 314 160Pakistan 394 611 433 551 265 192 203 145 220 149Sweden 189 143 131 163 177 188 154 149 135 144Germany 240 175 167 231 158 134 140 118 126 138Norway 175 158 188 165 174 164 163 143 151 132Poland 166 120 152 317 278 219 151 175 237 130Vietnam 650 583 501 568 209 169 125 137 200 126Morocco 181 109 114 202 167 168 136 122 201 110United Kingdom 118 121 106 133 109 85 94 82 98 96Others 1 005 854 871 1 352 1 380 1 465 854 1 420 2 122 1 797

Total 3 744 3 258 3 028 5 484 5 104 5 037 4 296 5 260 7 283 5 482


Table B.1.7. FINLAND, acquisition of nationality by country or region of former nationality

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Europe 686 1 000 539 736 506 450 342 335 365 509of which:

Former USSR . . . . 85 142 232 158 48 149 198 254Nordic countries 331 404 240 306 162 114 94 104 111 106

Asia 152 201 130 200 140 214 152 144 328 489Africa 63 80 70 101 104 67 56 81 120 180North America 44 107 46 57 7 5 11 1 5 6South America 43 37 41 45 48 39 32 27 30 46Oceania 9 14 4 10 4 1 – 2 1 2Stateless and unknown 66 65 69 87 66 63 58 78 132 207

Total 1 063 1 504 899 1 236 875 839 651 668 981 1 439


OECD 1999


302

Table B.1.7. FRANCE, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 19941 19951 19961 19971

Morocco 4 435 5 393 7 741 10 289 12 292 13 131 22 676 12 249 15 452 16 365Algeria 3 256 4 070 5 355 6 631 7 410 7 909 10 868 9 499 13 218 13 488Tunisia 2 347 2 538 3 076 4 375 4 991 5 370 9 248 4 182 5 109 5 420Portugal 7 984 7 027 6 876 7 126 5 575 5 233 6 908 3 775 4 644 4 997Turkey 690 921 914 1 124 1 296 1 515 3 197 2 143 3 447 3 977Cambodia 1 511 1 724 1 827 1 729 1 701 1 847 3 319 2 445 2 950 2 896Vietnam 2 012 2 478 2 326 2 139 1 888 1 775 2 660 1 950 2 773 2 432Lebanon . . . . 1 287 1 390 1 508 1 568 2 445 1 689 2 390 2 104Former Yugoslavia 1 015 1 249 1 405 1 367 1 400 1 652 2 278 1 499 1 722 1 549Laos 1 294 1 305 1 468 1 343 1 305 1 187 1 991 1 496 1 647 1 539Italy 3 081 2 576 1 869 1 475 1 117 936 1 370 1 022 1 255 1 353Poland 1 298 1 587 1 446 1 230 873 755 1 047 892 1 164 1 270Haiti . . . . 626 714 678 744 1 351 962 1 202 1 174Cameroon . . . . 618 625 707 729 1 271 809 973 1 027Spain 4 460 3 320 2 868 2 317 1 528 1 385 1 514 780 924 885Others 12 968 15 142 14 664 15 781 14 977 14 271 20 939 16 492 21 108 23 200

Total2 46 351 49 330 54 366 59 655 59 246 60 007 93 082 61 884 79 978 83 676

Total (estimates)3 74 000 82 000 88 500 95 500 95 300 95 500 126 337 92 410 109 823 116 194

Note: For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. From 1994 onwards, data broken down by nationality include children acquiring French nationality as a consequence of the parent’s

naturalisation.2. Data exclude people automatically acquiring French nationality upon reaching legal majority (this procedure was in effect until 1993) as well as

people born in France to foreign parents who declared their intention to become French in accordance with the legislation of 22 July 1993.3. Data include estimates of people acquiring French nationality upon reaching legal majority until 1993 as well as the number of people born in

France to foreign parents who declared their intention to become French in accordance with the legislation of 22 July 1993.

Table B.1.7. GERMANY, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Kazakhstan1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 000 94 961 88 583Russian federation1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 000 60 662 62 641Turkey 1 243 1 713 2 034 3 529 7 377 12 915 19 590 31 578 46 294 40 396Former USSR 4 810 13 557 33 339 55 620 84 660 105 801 43 086 35 477 21 457 8 966Romania 10 881 11 868 14 410 29 011 37 574 28 346 17 968 12 028 9 777 8 668Poland 13 958 24 882 32 340 27 646 20 248 15 435 11 943 10 174 7 872 5 763Former Yugoslavia 2 119 2 076 2 082 2 832 2 326 5 241 4 374 3 623 2 967 2 244Italy 618 548 437 679 1 218 1 154 1 417 1 281 1 297 1 176Austria 756 659 537 793 959 810 772 493 605 582Others 6 398 13 223 16 198 21 520 25 542 29 741 160 020 57 952 56 938 52 754

Total naturalisations 40 783 68 526 101 377 141 630 179 904 199 443 259 170 313 606 302 830 271 773of which: naturalisations

by discretionarydecision 16 660 17 742 20 237 27 295 37 042 44 950 26 295 31 888 37 604 37 534

Note: Data include naturalisations on the basis of a claim, which concern essentially ethnic Germans. For details on sources, refer to the notes at theend of the Annex.

1. Including in former USSR until 1994.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

303

Table B.1.7. HUNGARY, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Romania 2 568 5 274 20 480 10 589 6 943 7 055 8 549 5 229 3 842Former Yugoslavia 222 12 153 272 852 1 132 1 999 1 610 1 082Former USSR 228 271 788 567 1 585 1 182 1 227 788 713Other 152 336 459 378 525 651 491 1 030 799

Total 3 170 5 893 21 880 11 805 9 905 10 021 12 266 8 658 6 435


Table B.1.7. ITALY, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Romania 112 194 446 521 577 639 811Switzerland 335 385 472 423 638 514 768Morocco 126 141 235 295 333 323 586Dominican Republic 89 133 245 375 390 468 544Brazil 128 123 175 225 191 215 131Former USSR 112 179 325 260 435 2821 1061

Poland 228 211 262 211 313 302 96Argentina 278 432 570 392 286 260 73Albania – – – – – 198 72Iran 113 64 95 73 131 168 39Philippines 164 169 222 139 177 162 32Egypt 222 152 246 169 223 228 28Vietnam 80 154 115 88 243 162 23Other countries 2 555 2 071 3 077 3 442 3 505 3 040 5 928

Total 4 542 4 408 6 485 6 613 7 442 6 961 9 237

Note: For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Russian Federation.

Table B.1.7. JAPAN, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Korea 4 595 4 759 5 216 5 665 7 244 7 697 8 244 10 327 9 898 9 678China 990 1 066 1 349 1 818 1 794 2 244 2 478 3 184 3 976 4 729Others 182 264 229 305 325 511 424 593 621 654

Total 5 767 6 089 6 794 7 788 9 363 10 452 11 146 14 104 14 495 15 061


OECD 1999


304

Table B.1.7. LUXEMBOURG, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Italy 162 113 191 123 147 151 169 209 193 192France 126 98 106 75 75 89 71 78 85 79Belgium 105 78 79 76 86 63 75 67 65 64Germany 104 84 97 54 68 78 64 70 55 60Netherlands 29 31 30 11 13 18 16 15 20 17Others 236 200 245 243 220 279 344 363 361 337

Total 762 604 748 582 609 678 739 802 779 749

Note: Minor children acquiring nationality as a consequence of the naturalisation of their parents are excluded. For details on sources, refer to thenotes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.7. NETHERLANDS, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Turkey 820 3 280 1 950 6 110 11 520 18 000 23 870 33 060 30 700 21 190Morocco 1 190 6 830 3 030 7 300 7 990 7 750 8 110 13 480 15 600 10 480Suriname 830 3 570 1 640 4 010 5 120 4 990 5 390 3 990 4 450 3 020Former Yugoslavia 110 520 240 520 1 060 2 090 1 880 1 700 2 240 2 830United Kingdom 860 1 880 620 900 670 490 460 820 1 170 690Germany1 270 670 190 380 380 330 310 500 780 560Egypt . . . . 20 30 30 350 540 810 1 080 550Italy 90 150 50 90 90 100 140 200 280 330Portugal 70 220 120 140 110 130 140 190 300 300Greece 40 90 40 60 80 90 80 150 250 230Belgium 110 250 100 140 160 120 110 170 290 180Spain 50 100 40 60 60 50 90 120 160 140France 30 100 30 50 70 60 70 110 160 120Stateless 400 510 270 360 210 180 170 610 820 680Others 4 240 10 560 4 450 8 960 8 690 8 340 8 090 15 530 24 420 18 530

Total 9 110 28 730 12 790 29 110 36 240 43 070 49 450 71 440 82 700 59 830

Note: For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Western Germany until 1989, Germany as a whole from 1990 onwards.

Table B.1.7. NORWAY, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Pakistan 428 582 899 778 1 054 664 616 997 1 530 1 583Vietnam 457 940 1 039 1 082 931 746 710 727 1 446 1 276Turkey 281 280 304 474 238 393 752 793 836 837Iran 10 23 15 39 72 317 1 287 1 419 1 154 834Former Yugoslavia 109 160 111 140 201 274 659 754 554 520Chile 105 127 106 82 81 117 310 923 531 416Philippines 203 219 294 235 298 213 243 343 315 360China 31 51 48 76 95 149 148 235 383 348Morocco 111 124 128 280 299 275 257 248 318 294Poland 105 332 264 234 215 265 275 374 267 282India 141 131 149 166 220 242 251 346 313 274Sweden 75 117 72 103 108 153 150 130 112 167Denmark 144 200 156 108 108 119 187 102 91 143United Kingdom 65 100 96 93 107 106 136 110 162 142Colombia 131 211 199 270 221 217 204 143 144 130Others 968 1 025 877 895 884 1 288 2 593 4 134 4 081 4 431

Total 3 364 4 622 4 757 5 055 5 132 5 538 8 778 11 778 12 237 12 037


OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

305

Table B.1.7. SPAIN, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Argentina 806 732 1 096 639 944 1 532 1 690 1 314 1 387 1 368Dominican Republic . . . . 156 105 146 298 393 499 833 1 257Peru 209 154 242 136 212 246 468 658 1 150 1 159Morocco 3 091 2 122 1 675 427 597 986 897 785 687 1 056Philippines 236 192 318 188 283 380 340 281 455 583Portugal 584 404 496 234 447 424 503 372 452 524Colombia . . . . 260 174 247 433 383 364 457 478Cuba 285 144 163 119 146 . . 172 169 250 442Chile 487 342 440 249 344 725 335 317 425 428Uruguay . . . . 266 147 187 268 246 217 260 279Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 217China . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 74 109 180Guinea-Bissau . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 118 183 . .Venezuela 220 136 237 139 183 373 211 130 133 . .India . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 111 128 . .Others 2 219 1 692 1 684 1 195 1 544 2 747 1 811 1 347 1 396 2 338

Total 8 137 5 918 7 033 3 752 5 280 8 412 7 802 6 756 8 433 10 309

Note: Persons recovering their former (Spanish) nationality are not included. For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.1.7. SWEDEN, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Former Yugoslavia 1 197 1 318 1 152 2 832 3 969 10 940 6 352 3 550 2 416 6 052Finland 4 294 4 611 3 532 4 208 3 805 3 070 2 974 2 125 2 009 1 882Turkey 1 173 832 832 1 358 1 569 4 201 2 742 2 836 2 030 1 402Chile 633 667 663 1 323 1 305 1 762 1 446 946 707 545Poland 2 260 1 397 1 205 1 309 1 294 1 164 998 895 636 523Denmark 542 574 397 407 418 283 345 318 272 296Norway 512 671 480 539 445 291 450 363 276 186Germany 209 188 130 169 141 155 137 128 154 117Greece 478 669 457 783 377 464 244 140 113 68United Kingdom 161 135 102 143 138 101 107 96 90 60Spain 75 73 62 74 49 34 38 33 23 20Others 6 432 6 417 7 758 14 518 15 816 20 194 19 251 20 563 16 826 17 716

Total 17 966 17 552 16 770 27 663 29 326 42 659 35 084 31 993 25 552 28 867


Table B.1.7. SWITZERLAND, acquisition of nationality by country of former nationality

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Italy 2 558 2 479 1 995 1 802 1 930 2 778 3 258 4 376 5 167 4 982Former Yugoslavia 556 528 552 607 936 1 454 1 821 2 491 2 783 2 956Turkey 189 238 211 333 614 820 966 1 205 1 432 1 814France 979 1 025 684 677 809 862 935 871 1 045 985Germany 1 799 1 404 1 144 971 1 099 890 657 706 675 644Spain 613 560 401 408 353 319 305 432 453 481Portugal 135 160 170 146 101 89 119 175 262 291Former CSFR 462 344 352 362 338 415 370 385 465 272United Kingdom 247 183 141 135 307 347 263 278 299 269Austria 676 579 431 478 465 413 256 261 248 223Hungary 270 277 202 186 223 207 243 297 278 206Netherlands 226 149 153 111 90 76 57 52 55 71Others 2 646 2 416 2 222 2 541 3 943 4 258 4 507 5 266 6 213 5 976

Total 11 356 10 342 8 658 8 757 11 208 12 928 13 757 16 795 19 375 19 170


OECD 1999


306

Table B.1.7. UNITED KINGDOM, acquisition of nationality by country or region of former nationality

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Africa 7 452 7 877 7 940 9 162 8 018Europe 5 475 5 165 4 615 4 650 4 330

EEA (excluding Ireland) 2 177 2 058 1 755 1 722 1 546Ireland 100 100 200 100 85Other European countries 3 198 3 007 2 660 2 828 2 699

Middle East and Turkey 5 000 5 000 4 200 4 400 3 951America 4 828 4 531 4 096 4 266 3 544

North America 2 100 2 000 1 800 1 900 1 646West Indies 1 900 1 800 1 600 . . 1 213Other American countries 828 731 696 2 366 685

British Dependent Territories citizens 1 900 2 200 2 000 2 100 2 225Oceania 1 452 1 539 1 666 1 542 1 443Others 19 684 17 721 15 999 16 949 13 499

Total 45 791 44 033 40 516 43 069 37 010

Acquisitions of nationality in Hong Kong (China) 41 800 5 900 25 700 5 500 3 406


Table B.1.7. UNITED STATES, acquisition of nationality by country or region of former nationality

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Mexico 22 085 18 520 17 564 22 066 12 880 23 630 39 310 67 238 217 418Cuba 11 228 9 514 10 291 9 554 7 763 15 109 15 896 16 994 62 168Vietnam 21 636 19 357 22 027 29 603 18 357 22 427 26 833 28 074 47 625Philippines 24 580 24 802 25 936 33 714 28 579 33 864 37 304 33 634 45 210Former USSR 5 304 3 020 2 847 2 822 1 648 2 763 6 708 16 172 36 265El Salvador 2 291 2 001 2 410 3 653 2 056 3 057 4 998 11 505 33 240China 10 509 11 664 13 563 16 783 13 488 16 851 20 828 20 009 30 656India 9 983 9 833 11 499 12 961 13 413 16 506 20 454 17 880 28 932Dominican Republic 5 842 6 454 5 984 6 368 8 464 12 274 11 399 9 892 27 293Colombia 5 021 4 736 5 540 5 513 6 439 9 976 12 067 12 333 26 115Korea 13 012 11 301 10 500 12 266 8 297 9 611 11 389 14 170 24 693Haiti 2 350 3 692 5 009 4 436 3 993 5 202 7 982 7 855 24 556Jamaica 6 441 6 455 6 762 6 838 6 765 7 976 12 173 10 949 24 270Africa 7 122 7 209 8 770 10 230 9 628 11 293 15 327 17 020 21 842United Kingdom 7 042 7 865 8 286 9 935 7 800 10 158 15 003 14 143 20 052Others 87 617 87 354 113 113 121 316 90 682 113 984 149 727 147 985 374 354

Total 242 063 233 777 270 101 308 058 240 252 314 681 407 398 445 853 1 044 689


OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

307

Table B.2.1. AUSTRALIA, immigrant labour force by place of birth, selected yearsThousands

of which: Women1986 1991 1996 1998

1998

Europe 1 319.2 1 342.4 1 220.8 1 209.2 482.9United Kingdom and Ireland 670.2 703.6 660.1 667.7 278.7Italy 153.0 139.5 95.5 105.4 34.9Former Yugoslavia 106.6 109.7 110.2 98.0 36.3Germany 69.9 70.4 59.8 59.9 24.6Greece 86.4 81.2 59.7 59.2 20.9Netherlands 62.9 55.8 45.0 43.6 16.7Poland 28.9 . . . . . . . .Malta 28.1 . . . . . . . .Others 113.2 182.2 190.5 175.4 70.8

Asia 267.5 342.7 428.2 490.3 224.6Vietnam . . 60.6 82.9 100.0 39.9China1 . . 59.3 55.5 70.4 29.5Philippines . . 44.2 55.9 67.2 41.5India . . 40.0 48.8 61.5 24.3Malaysia . . 43.4 50.8 47.7 21.9Others 267.5 95.2 134.3 143.5 67.5

New Zealand 138.1 187.8 208.6 219.1 91.1

America 55.4 76.1 96.7 102.7 45.8

North Africa and the Middle East2 93.6 94.4 103.7 89.1 27.1Lebanon 23.6 37.0 35.3 32.6 9.2Others 70.0 57.4 68.4 56.5 17.9

Other and not stated 26.7 138.9 180.8 183.5 73.6

Total 1 900.5 2 182.3 2 238.8 2 293.9 945.1% of total labour force 25.4 25.7 24.6 24.8 23.5

Note: For details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Excluding Chinese Taipei.2. Africa (excluding North Africa) in 1986.

Table B.2.1. CANADA, immigrant labour force by place of birth, 1991 census resultsThousands

1991

United Kingdom 422Italy 214United States 144India 127Germany 115Portugal 111Hong Kong (China) 96China 90Poland 89Netherlands 82Other countries 1 191

Total 2 681% of total labour force 18.5


OECD 1999


308

Table B.2.1. UNITED STATES, immigrant labour force by place of birth, census results of 1990

Thousands

Mexico 2 630.9Philippines 629.0Cuba 459.2Germany 378.3Canada 371.8United Kingdom 349.4Korea 328.7China 313.6El Salvador 308.8India 308.6Vietnam 303.7Italy 266.0Jamaica 232.3Dominican Republic 195.4Colombia 192.5Other countries 4 296.4

Total 11 564.6% of total labour force 9.4


Table B.2.2. AUSTRIA, stock of foreign labour by nationalityThousands

Of which: Women1988 19901 1995 1998

1998

Former Yugoslavia 83.1 110.5 108.0 79.2 33.5Turkey 34.2 50.6 55.7 49.3 12.9Bosnia Herzegovina2 . . . . 22.8 32.2 11.8Croatia3 . . . . 16.0 22.4 8.1Poland . . . . 10.8 8.8 2.3Hungary . . . . 9.6 8.7 1.8Romania . . . . 9.3 7.8 2.5Slovenia . . . . 5.8 6.1 1.5Czech Republic . . . . 3.6 4.0 1.2Slovak Republic . . . . 2.9 4.0 1.2Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia2 . . . . 1.9 3.8 0.6China4 . . . . 2.0 1.6 0.5Bulgaria . . . . 1.5 1.2 0.5Philippines . . . . 2.1 1.2 0.8India . . . . 1.8 1.1 0.3Other countries 33.6 56.5 15.9 9.3 2.4


Total including foreign unemployed5 160.9 236.0 325.2 . . . .

Note: Annual average. Data by nationality are from valid work permits. Figures may be over-estimated as a result of persons holding more than onepermit. The self-employed are excluded. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

1. Data not corrected (data for Table A.2.3. have been corrected. See the note attached to the series).2. Included in Former Yugoslavia until 1993.3. Included in Former Yugoslavia until 1991.4. Including Chinese Taipei.5. From 1994 on, data on employed foreigners are stock of workers registered with Social Security offices (including EEA nationals).

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

309

Table B.2.2. DENMARK, stock of foreign labour by nationalityThousands

of which: Women1985 1990 1995 1996

1996

Turkey 10.1 12.8 13.5 13.6 5.2United Kingdom 5.9 6.2 7.2 7.5 2.2Former Yugoslavia 4.2 4.9 6.3 7.3 2.9Germany 4.8 5.1 5.9 6.2 2.5Norway 5.7 5.8 6.0 6.2 3.5Sweden 4.7 4.6 5.0 5.2 2.9Iceland 1.4 1.3 2.3 2.7 1.2Pakistan 2.5 2.2 2.4 2.4 0.9Finland 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7Other countries 16.1 25.0 34.2 35.9 14.9

Total 56.5 68.8 83.8 88.0 37.0of which: EU 14.8 16.7 26.5 21.5 . .Total women 23.6 28.3 35.2 37.0

Note: Data are from population registers and give the count as of the end of the given year (end of November until 1991, end of December from 1992).For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.2.2. BELGIUM, stock of foreign labour by nationalityThousands


1997

Italy 90.5 107.8 96.9 32.5France 37.2 40.2 40.4 16.0Morocco 44.7 36.2 38.5 8.4Netherlands 32.6 34.5 35.8 11.7Spain 23.3 19.8 20.9 8.1Turkey 19.6 22.3 19.1 5.0Others 80.4 80.9 81.4 30.3

Total 328.3 341.7 333.0 111.9of which: EU 225.7 254.2 249.5 88.9


Table B.2.2. FRANCE, stock of foreign labour by nationalityThousands

of which: Women1985 1990 1995 1998

1998

Portugal 456.8 428.5 375.0 316.0 140.5Algeria 279.0 248.5 245.6 241.6 84.0Morocco 186.4 168.1 197.5 229.6 68.7Spain 117.8 108.5 82.1 88.2 31.4Tunisia 75.1 74.7 81.0 84.4 22.4Turkey 41.6 53.9 66.4 79.0 22.3Italy 125.9 96.9 76.6 72.9 21.5Former Yugoslavia 44.1 29.6 32.3 30.0 13.0Poland 14.2 15.1 7.1 12.6 6.5Other countries 308.3 325.6 409.6 432.5 176.9

Total 1 649.2 1 549.5 1 573.3 1 586.7 587.4of which: EU1 771.6 716.2 629.1 575.5 232.3Total women 495.8 484.7 553.6 587.4

Note: Data are derived from the Labour Force Survey and refer to the month of March. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end ofthe Annex.

1. European Union 12 for all years.

OECD 1999


310

Table B.2.2. GERMANY, stock of foreign labour by nationalityThousands

of which: Women1985 1990 1995 1997

1997

Turkey 589.0 680.2 752.0 745.2 232.9Former Yugoslavia 324.9 339.0 468.9 348.0 131.3Italy 232.8 199.8 245.1 246.5 70.9Greece 115.4 117.8 139.4 134.2 52.2Portugal 38.3 45.5 58.1 58.9 20.9Spain 73.7 66.3 56.4 52.5 19.9Other countries 449.3 576.5 849.4 936.5 335.2

Total 1 823.4 2 025.1 2 569.2 2 521.9 863.3Total women 578.5 668.6 873.8 863.3

Note: Data are for 30 September of each year and include cross-border workers but not the self-employed. Data cover only western Germany for allyears. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.2.2. HUNGARY, stock of foreign labour by nationalityThousands

1990 1995 1998

Romania 26.2 9.8 10.6China . . 2.6 2.8Slovak Republic . . 0.7 1.1Former USSR 3.0 1.4 1.0Poland . . 1.4 1.0Former Yugoslavia . . 0.9 0.5Vietnam . . 0.2 0.3Other 2.5 4.0 5.2

Total 31.7 21.0 22.4


Table B.2.2. ITALY, stock of foreign labour by nationalityThousands

of which: Women1991 1995

1995

Morocco 46.4 47.9 5.2Philippines 24.6 27.7 19.0Tunisia 21.3 19.5 1.4Albania 14.8 18.2 2.5Former Yugoslavia 12.5 17.7 4.0Senegal 12.3 13.6 0.3Sri Lanka 7.4 11.5 3.7China 9.0 10.0 3.2Egypt 10.1 9.7 0.4Ghana 6.0 7.6 2.0Poland 3.7 5.2 3.0Somalia 3.4 4.3 3.1India 3.0 4.1 0.6Pakistan 2.9 3.3 0.0Ethiopia 3.4 3.3 2.5Other countries 104.6 128.4 60.3

Total 285.3 332.2 111.2Total women 83.6 111.2

Note: Figures refer to number of foreigners with a valid work permit (including the self-employed). Data exclude unemployed. EU citizens do not needa work permit. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

311

Table B.2.2. JAPAN, stock of foreign labour by nationalityThousands

1992 1995 1997

China1 17.1 23.3 29.7Philippines 21.3 13.7 20.3United States 18.3 17.5 17.8Korea 5.5 6.4 6.9United Kingdom 5.2 5.6 6.8Canada 3.3 4.1 5.0Australia 2.0 2.4 3.0India 1.3 1.7 2.5France 1.3 1.4 1.6Germany 1.3 1.3 1.5Other 8.8 10.6 12.1

Total 85.5 88.0 107.3

Note: Foreigners whose activity is restricted according to the Immigration Act (revised in 1990). For more details on sources, refer to the notes at theend of the Annex.

1. Including Chinese Taipei.

Table B.2.2. LUXEMBOURG, stock of foreign labour by nationalityThousands

1985 1990 1995 1997

France 11.2 21.2 33.2 39.7Portugal 15.7 22.8 27.3 28.3Belgium 8.9 14.6 19.6 22.4Germany 5.5 9.1 12.7 14.6Italy 8.5 8.5 7.7 7.7Former Yugoslavia 0.7 1.2 1.7 1.5Spain 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0Other countries 3.6 6.3 8.6 9.6

Total 55.0 84.7 111.8 124.8of which: EU 52.3 79.8 105.4 118.0Total women 18.4 29.4 39.9 44.8

Note: Data are for 1 October of each year and cover foreigners in employment, including apprentices, trainees and cross-border workers. Theunemployed are not included. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.2.2. NETHERLANDS, stock of foreign labour by nationalityThousands

of which: Women1985 1990 1995 1997

1997

Morocco 25 27 32 35 8Turkey 35 41 39 29 4Belgium 21 24 22 23 10United Kingdom 15 18 22 23 8Germany 16 18 15 14 4Spain 8 8 7 11 3Other countries 45 61 84 73 29

Total 166 197 221 208 66of which: EU 65 88 98 96 36Total women 40 53 69 66

Note: Estimates are for 31 March and include cross-border workers, but exclude the self-employed, family workers and the unemployed. From 1990onwards, foreigners legally residing in the Netherlands but working abroad are excluded. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at theend of the Annex.

OECD 1999


312

Table B.2.2. NORWAY, stock of foreign labour by nationalityThousands

1988 1990 1995 1997

Sweden 6.2 5.5 7.8 10.8Denmark 9.2 8.6 9.0 9.5United Kingdom 5.1 4.6 5.2 5.6United States 3.1 2.8 3.1 3.3Germany 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.7Finland 1.8 1.5 1.9 2.3Pakistan 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.7Netherlands 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.6Sri Lanka 1.5 1.9 2.0 1.6Chile 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.2Turkey 1.6 1.4 1.0 1.0India 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.9Poland 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6Other countries 12.1 11.4 14.2 17.2

Total 49.5 46.3 52.6 59.9

Note: Data are for the 2nd quarter (except for 1995 and 1996: 4th quarter). The unemployed and the self-employed are not included. For more detailson sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.2.2. PORTUGAL, stock of foreign labour by nationalityThousands

1991 19951 1997

Cape Verde 16.9 21.8 22.1Brazil 5.4 9.6 9.7Angola 1.7 7.9 8.2Guinea-Bissau 2.3 7.0 7.2United Kingdom 4.2 5.4 5.8Spain 3.9 4.7 5.3Germany 3.0 4.1 4.6France 2.1 2.8 3.3United States 2.7 3.0 3.2Mozambique 1.6 1.8 1.9Venezuela 1.0 0.7 0.6Other countries 10.1 15.5 16.2

Total 54.9 84.3 87.9

Note: Workers who hold a valid residence permit (including the unemployed). For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Figures include workers benefiting from the 1992-1993 regularisation procedure.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

313

Table B.2.2. SPAIN, stock of foreign labour by nationalityThousands

of which: Women1988 1990 1995 1997

1997

Morocco 5.0 8.8 51.6 67.7 11.4Peru 0.6 0.9 11.4 14.7 9.6Dominican Republic 0.5 0.7 9.7 12.1 10.3China 1.3 1.7 6.2 9.1 2.9Philippines 3.3 4.1 7.1 8.2 5.4Argentina 3.5 6.3 7.5 6.6 2.4Senegal . . . . 3.4 4.2 . .Colombia 0.8 1.2 3.1 3.7 2.5Algeria . . 0.2 2.7 3.7 . .Poland . . . . 2.6 3.5 1.1Gambia . . 0.9 2.7 3.2 . .Ecuador . . . . 1.4 3.1 2.2Chile 1.3 1.7 2.5 2.6 1.2India 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.4 . .United States 2.3 3.5 2.3 . . 0.8Other countries 38.1 53.6 22.4 31.3 11.0

Total 58.2 85.4 139.0 176.0 60.9of which: EU 31.4 34.8 . . . . . .Total women 21.5 29.8 46.1 60.9

Note: Data are for 31 December of each year and are counts of valid work permits. From 1992 onwards, workers from the EU are not included. Formore details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

Table B.2.2. SWEDEN, stock of foreign labour by nationalityThousands

of which: Women1985 1990 1995 1997

1997

Finland 85 72 56 54 31Former Yugoslavia 22 21 15 31 13Norway 14 20 19 18 9Denmark 15 17 13 13 6Iran . . . . 15 10 4Poland . . 8 9 7 5Turkey . . 11 7 7 2Other countries 79 97 86 80 31

Total 216 246 220 220 101Total women 100 114 98 101

Note: Annual average. Estimates are from the annual Labour Force Survey. For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

OECD 1999


314

Table B.2.2. SWITZERLAND, stock of foreign labour by nationalityThousands

of which: Women1985 1990 1995 1997

1997

A. Resident workers1

Italy 228.7 234.3 214.3 191.7 63.7Former Yugoslavia 47.2 84.4 134.6 138.2 49.7Portugal 20.9 55.2 80.5 77.4 32.8Germany 46.8 53.6 56.3 57.3 21.0Spain 68.7 75.1 63.5 56.4 22.0Turkey 26.0 33.2 35.6 33.1 11.8France 27.2 31.5 32.3 30.7 12.1Austria 19.7 20.9 19.4 18.2 6.5United Kingdom 7.6 9.2 9.9 9.7 2.9Netherlands 5.6 7.0 8.1 8.0 3.2United States 3.8 4.8 5.4 7.4 1.9Other countries 47.1 60.5 68.7 64.6 27.8

Total 549.3 669.8 728.7 692.8 255.1of which: EU . . 476.1 499.2 462.5 169.9Total women 185.1 228.7 261.3 255.1

B. Seasonal workers2

Portugal 26.2 40.5 23.8 18.0 4.7Italy 17.8 13.5 6.1 4.1 0.5Spain 21.9 14.6 4.1 2.5 0.4Germany 1.9 2.4 2.3 2.0 1.0France 2.0 2.5 2.0 1.7 0.7Austria 1.9 2.5 1.6 1.2 0.7Former Yugoslavia 29.7 44.5 12.2 – –Turkey 0.2 – – – –Other countries 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.4 0.7


Note: For more details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.1. Data as of 31 December of each year and are counts of the number of foreigners with an annual residence permit or a settlement permit

(permanent permit), who engage in gainful activity. Cross-border workers and seasonal workers are excluded.2. Data as of 31 August of each year, when seasonal work is at its peak.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

315

Table B.2.2. UNITED KINGDOM, stock of foreign labour by country or region of nationalityThousands

of which: Women1985 1990 1995 1998

1998

Ireland 269 268 216 221 116Africa 51 59 83 108 41India 66 84 60 71 29United States 37 50 49 63 30Italy 56 48 43 52 18France 17 24 34 49 28Germany 18 22 27 39 21Caribbean and Guyana 77 48 17 35 20Central and Eastern Europe1 25 20 23 32 21Australia2 23 39 34 31 13New Zealand . . . . 19 30 10Portugal – 11 18 23 12Pakistan3 27 27 20 20 –Spain 14 16 17 18 –Bangladesh . . . . – 16 –Other countries 128 166 239 231 112

Total 808 882 899 1 039 471of which: EU 382 419 441 454 232Total women . . 393 421 471

Note: Estimates are from the labour force survey. The unemployed are not included. The symbol ‘‘–’’ indicates that figures are less than 10 000. Formore details on sources, refer to the notes at the end of the Annex.

1. Including former USSR.2. Including New Zealand until 1991.3. Including Bangladesh until 1991.

OECD 1999


316

Notes related to tables A.1.1. to A.1.3. and B.1.1. to B.1.3.Migratory flows in selected OECD countries

Flow data based on Population Registers

Types of migrant recorded in the data Other comments Source

Belgium Criteria for registering foreigners: Until 1994, some asylum seekers Population Register,holding a residence permit were included in the population Institut national de la statistique.and wishing to stay in the country register. Since 1995 then they havefor at least 3 months. been recorded in a separateOutflows include administrative register.corrections.

Denmark Criteria for registering foreigners: Excluded from inflows are asylum Central population register,holding a residence permit seekers, and all those with Danmarks Statistik.and wishing to stay in the country temporary residence permitsfor at least 3 months. However, (this includes some war refugees).the data only count immigrantsonce they have lived in the countryfor 1 year.Outflows include administrativecorrections.

Finland Criteria for registering foreigners: Inflows of those of Finnish origin Central population register,holding a residence permit are included. Finnish Central Statistical Office.and wishing to stay in the countryfor at least 1 year.

Germany Criteria for registering foreigners: Includes asylum seekers living Population register,holding a residence permit in private households. Excludes Statistisches Bundesamt.and wishing to stay in the country inflows of ethnic Germans.for at least 3 months. The figures represent Germany

as a whole from 1991.

Hungary Criteria for registering foreigners: Data for 1997 are preliminary. Register of long-term residenceholding a long-term residence permits, Ministry of the Interior.permit (valid for up to 1 year).

Japan Criteria for registering foreigners: Excluding temporary visitors Register of foreigners, Ministryremaining in the country for more and re-entries. of Justice, Immigration Office.than 90 days.

Luxembourg Criteria for registering foreigners: In 1997, flows of foreigners were Central population register,holding a residence permit deduced with reference to the total Service central de la statistiqueand wishing to stay in the country flows by making the assumption et des etudes economiques.for at least 3 months. that flows of nationals did not

change between 1996 and 1997.

Netherlands Criteria for registering foreigners: Inflows include some asylum Population registers,holding a residence permit seekers (except those staying Central Bureau of Statistics.and wishing to stay in the country in reception centres).for at least 6 months.Outflows include administrativecorrections.

Norway Criteria for registering foreigners: From 1987 includes asylum seekers Central population register,holding a residence permit waiting decisions on their Statistics Norway.and wishing to stay in the country application for refugee status.for at least 6 months.

Sweden Criteria for registering foreigners: Asylum seekers and temporary Population register,holding a residence permit workers are not included Statistics Sweden.and wishing to stay in the country in inflows.for at least 1 year.

Switzerland Criteria for registering foreigners: Inflows do not include conversions Register of foreigners,holding a permanent or an annual from seasonal permits Federal Foreign Office.residence permit. to non-seasonal permits.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

317

Notes related to tables A.1.1. to A.1.3. and B.1.1. to B.1.3.Migratory flows in selected OECD countries (cont.)

Inflow data based on residence and work permits

Types of migrant recorded in the data Other comments Source

Australia A. Permanent migrants: issues Data refer to the fiscal year Department of Immigrationof permanent residence permits (July to June of the year indicated). and Population Research.(including accompanying Data do not include those personsdependents). granted permanent residence

B. Temporary residents: entries whilst already temporary residentsof temporary residents in Australia.(i.e. excluding students).In 1997, data include17 049 holders of a TemporaryBusiness entry (TBE) visa(long stay).

Canada Issues of permanent residence Data include those already present Statistics Canada.permits. in Canada, and also those granted

residence in a programmeeliminating a backlogof applications.

France – Until 1989 the data consist Entries from the EU Office des migrationsof those entering as permanent are not counted, except permanent internationales.workers, those with provisional workers (including entries fromwork permits and those entering the EEA since 1994) whounder family reunification. are included through declarations.

– Since 1990, those with Made by employers to theprovisional work permits are not authorities. From 1994 on, figuresincluded. Those entering as self include estimates of someemployed and additional permits unregistered flows (inflowsrelating to family reunification of family members of EEA citizenshave been added to the figures. for example).

United Kingdom Passengers, excluding EEA Data exclude visitors, passengers Home Office.nationals, admitted in transit or returning on limitedto the United Kingdom. leave or who previously settled.

Students and au pair girlsare excluded.

United States Issues of permanent residence The figures include those persons US Department of Justice.permits. already present in the United

States: those who changed statusand those benefiting from the 1986legalisation program. Data coverthe fiscal year(October to September of the yearindicated).

OECD 1999


318

Notes related to tables A.1.4. et B.1.4. Inflows of asylum seekers

Comments Source

Australia Excluding accompanying dependents. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Austria Excluding de facto refugees from Bosnia Herzegovina. Osterreichisches Statistisches Zentralamt.

Belgium – Institut national de statistique, Office des etrangers,Commissaire general aux refugies et aux apatrides.

Canada – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Czech Republic – Ministry of the Interior.

Denmark – Danmarks Statistik.

Finland – Ministry of the Interior.

France Excluding accompanying dependents. Office francais de protection des refugieset des apatrides.

Germany – Bundesministerium des Innern.

Greece – Ministry of the Interior.

Hungary – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Ireland – Department of Justice.

Italy Excluding accompanying dependents. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Luxembourg – Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Justice.

Netherlands – Ministry of Justice.

Norway – Immigration Directorate.

Poland – Department for Migration and Refugee Affairs,Ministry of the Interior.

Portugal – Ministry of the Interior.

Spain Excluding accompanying dependents. Officine de Asilo y Refugio.

Sweden – Swedish Immigration Board.

Switzerland – Office federal des refugies.

United Kingdom Breakdown by country excludes accompanying Home Office.dependents.

United States Excluding accompanying dependents. Fiscal years US Department of Justice.(October to September of the years indicated).From 1993 on, figures include applications reopenedduring year.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

319

Notes related to tables A.1.5. et B.1.5. Foreign-born population

Comments Source

Australia – Quinquennial censuses, Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Canada – Quinquennial censuses, Statistics Canada.

Denmark Coverage: ‘‘Immigrants’’ defined in Danish statistics Danmarks Statistik.as foreign-born citizens to parents born abroador in the country.

Netherlands Reference date: 31 December. Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS).

Norway Reference date: 31 December. Statistics Norway.

Sweden Reference date: 31 December. Statistics Sweden.

United States Coverage: Persons born overseas whose parents Decennial censuses, US Department of Commerce,are US citizens are not included in the 1980 Bureau of the Census.and 1990 census figures. Note that estimates Current Population Survey (1994-96)by country of birth are not sufficiently accurate Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.in the Current Population Survey and are not shownin the tables.

OECD 1999


320

Notes related to tables A.1.6. et B.1.6. Foreign population

Comments Source

Austria Coverage: Stock of foreign citizens recorded in population register. Population Register,Reference date: Annual average Osterreichisches StatistischesOther comments: The data were revised following the 1991 census. Zentralamt.A breakdown by nationality is not available.

Belgium Coverage: Stock of foreign citizens recorded in population register. Population register,Until 1994, asylum seekers were included in the population register. Institut national de la statistique.Since 1995 then they have been recorded in a separate register.Reference date: 31 December.Other comments: There are two breaks in the series between 1984-85and 1991-92, due to important changes in the law on nationality in June1984 and September 1991.

Czech Republic Coverage: Holders of a permanent residence permit (mainly for family Register of foreigners,reasons) or a long-term residence permit (1-year permit, renewable). Ministry of the Interior.Reference date: 31 December.Other comments: 1992 data cover former Czech and Slovak FederalRepublic.

Denmark Coverage: Stock of foreign citizens recorded in population register. Central population register,Excludes asylum seekers and all those with temporary residence permits Danmarks Statistik.(this includes some war refugees).Reference date: 31 December.

Finland Coverage: Stock of foreign citizens recorded in population register. Central population register,Includes inflows of those who are of Finnish origin. Finnish Central Statistical Office.Reference date: 31 December.

France Coverage: Foreigners with permanent residence in France. Comprises Census (25 per cent sample),of permanent workers, trainees, students and their dependent families. Institut national de la statistiqueSeasonal and frontier workers are not included. et des etudes economiques.Reference dates: 4 March 1982, 6 March 1990.

Germany Coverage: Stock of foreign citizens recorded in population register. Central population register,Includes asylum seekers living in private households. Excludes foreign Statistisches Bundesamt.citizens of German origin (ethnic Germans).Reference date: 31 December.Other comments: Since 1992, disaggregation by sex and nationality coversonly those aged 16 and over. Figures represent Germany as a wholefrom 1991.1987-89 figures are adjusted to take into account resultsof the 1987 census.

Hungary Coverage: Holders of a permanent or a long-term residence permit. Register of foreigners,Reference date: 31 December. Ministry of the Interior.

Ireland Coverage: Special Survey. Labour Force Survey,Other comments: The only significant distinction between nationalities Central Statistical Office (CSO).is between EU/non-EU and the United States (not publishedin this Annex).

Italy Coverage: Holders of residence permits on population register. Minors Ministry of the Interior.registered in the permits of their parents are not counted in the figures.Figures include results of the 1987-88, 1990 and 1995-96 regularisationprogrammes.Reference date: 31 December.Other comments: The falls in stocks in 1989 and 1994 are the resultof a clean-up of the register of foreigners.

Japan Coverage: Foreigners staying in Japan more than 90 days and registered Register of foreigners,in population registers as stated by the law. Ministry of Justice,Reference date: 31 December. Office of Immigration.

Korea Coverage: Foreigners staying in Korea more than 90 days and registered Ministry of Justice.in population registers as stated by the law.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

321

Notes related to tables A.1.6. et B.1.6. Foreign population (cont.)

Comments Source

Luxembourg Coverage: Stock of foreign citizens recorded in population register. Population register,Does not include visitors (less than three months) or frontier workers. Service central de la statistiqueReference date: 31 December. et des etudes economiques.Other comments: Figures have been revised from 1987 on to take intoaccount the effects of the change in the legislation on naturalisationwhich took place at the end of 1986.

Netherlands Coverage: Stock of foreign citizens recorded in population register. Population register,Figures include administrative corrections and asylum seekers Central Bureau of Statistics(except those staying in reception centres). (CBS).Reference date: 31 December.Other comments: The fall in stocks between 1994 and 1995is due to revision of estimates. Figures for 1997 are provisional.

Norway Coverage: Stock of foreign citizens recorded in population register. CPR, Statistics Norway.From 1987 includes asylum seekers waiting decisions on their applicationfor refugee status.Reference date: 31 December.

Portugal Coverage: Holders of a valid residence permit. Data take into account Ministry of the Interior.the 1992-93 and 1996 regularisation programmes.

Spain Coverage: Holders of residence permits. Does not include those Ministry of the Interior.with temporary permits (less that six months duration) and students.The figures for 1992 include 108 372 permits issued followinga regularisation program held in 1991.Reference date: 31 December.Other comments: The fall in figures between 1988 and 1989is due to a clean-up of the population register.

Sweden Coverage: Stock of foreign citizens recorded in population register. Population register,Reference date: 31 December. Statistics Sweden.

Switzerland Coverage: Stock of all those with annual or settlement permits. Register of Foreigners,Does not include seasonal or frontier workers. Federal Foreign Office.Reference date: 31 December

United Kingdom Coverage: Foreign residents. Those with unknown nationality from Labour force survey, Home Office.the New Commonwealth are not included (around 10 to 15 000 persons).Reference date: 31 December.Other comments: Figures are rounded and not publishedif less than 10 000.

United States Coverage: Foreign-born persons who are not American citizens. 1990 census,Table B.1.6. gives a breakdown by country of birth. US Department of Commerce,Reference date: April 1990. Bureau of the Census.

OECD 1999


322

Notes related to tables A.1.7. et B.1.7. Acquisition of nationality

Comments Source

Australia – Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

Austria – Osterreichisches Statistisches Zentralamt.

Belgium Significant numbers of foreigners were naturalised Institut national de statistique and Ministryas a result of changes to the law on nationality in June 1984 of Justice.and September 1991.

Canada – Statistics Canada.

Denmark – Danmarks Statistik.

Finland Includes naturalisations of those of Finnish origin. Central Statistical Office.

France Excludes minors who were automatically naturalised Ministere de l’Emploi et de la Solidarite.on reaching adulthood under legislation existing priorto 1 January 1994 and those under new legislation(July 1993) requiring minors to state their intentionto become French citizens.

Germany Includes naturalisations of those of German origin. Statistisches Bundesamt.

Hungary Including ethnic Hungarians mainly from former Yugoslavia Ministry of the Interior.and Ukraine.

Italy – Ministry of the Interior.

Japan – Ministry of Justice, Civil Affairs Bureau.

Korea – Ministry of Justice

Luxembourg Excludes children acquiring nationality as a consequence Ministry of Justice.of the naturalisation of their parents.

Netherlands – Central Bureau of Statistics.

Norway – Statistics Norway.

Spain Excludes individuals recovering their former (Spanish) Ministry of Justice and Ministry of the Interior.nationality.

Sweden – Statistics Sweden.

Switzerland – Office federal des etrangers.

United Kingdom – Home Office.

United States Data refer to fiscal years (October to September US Department of Justice.of the year indicated).

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

323

Notes related to tables A.2.1. Inflows of foreign workers

Types of workers recorded in the data Source

Australia A. Permanent settlers Department of Immigration,Skilled workers including the following categories of visas: Local Government and Ethnic Affairs.Employer nominations, Business skills, Occupational SharesSystem, Special talents, Independent. Including accompanyingdependents.

Period of reference: fiscal years (July to June of the given year).B. Temporary workers

Skilled temporary resident programme (including accompanyingdependents). Including Long Stay Temporary Business Programmefrom 1995/96. Including accompanying dependents.

Period of reference: fiscal years (July to June of the given year).

Austria Data for all years cover initial work permits for both direct inflows Ministry of Labour,from abroad and for first participation in the Austrian labour market Health and Social Affairs.of foreigners already present in the country. Seasonal workersare included.

Belgium Work permits issued to first-time immigrants in wage and salary Ministere de l’Emploi et du Travail.employment. Citizens of European Union (EU) Member statesare not included, except for those of Greece until 1987, and of Spainand Portugal until 1992.

Canada Grants of work permits. Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

Denmark Residence permits issued for employment. Nordic and EU citizens Danmarks Statistik.are not included.

France 1. Permanent workers Office des migrations internationales.‘‘Permanents’’ are foreign workers subject to control by the Officedes migrations internationales (OMI). Certain citizensof EU Member states employed for short durations maynot be included.Resident family members of workers who enter the labour marketfor the first time are not included.

2. Provisional work permits (APT)Provisional work permits (APT) cannot exceed six months,are renewable and apply to trainees, students and other holdersof non-permanent jobs.

Germany New work permits issued. Data include essentially newly entered Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit.foreign workers, contract workers and seasonal workers.Citizens of EU Member states are not included, except thoseof Greece until 1987, and of Spain and Portugal until 1992.Data refer to western Germany up to 1990, to Germany as a wholefrom 1991 on.

Hungary Grants of work permits (including renewals). Ministry of Labour.

Ireland Work permits issued (including renewals). EU citizens do not need Ministry of Labour.a work permit.

Italy New work permits issued to non-EU foreigners. Ministry of Labour and ISTAT.

Luxembourg Data cover both arrivals of foreign workers and residents admitted Inspection generale de la Securitefor the first time to the labour market. sociale.

Spain Data include both initial ‘‘B’’ work permits, delivered for 1 year Ministry of Labour and Socialmaximum (renewable) for a specific salaried activity and ‘‘D’’ work Security.permits (same type of permit for self employed).Since 1992, EU citizens do not need a work permit.

Switzerland Data cover foreigners who enter Switzerland to work and who obtain Office federal des etrangers.an annual residence permit, whether the permit is renewableor not (e.g. trainees).The data also include holders of a settlement permit returningto Switzerland after a short stay abroad. Issues of an annual permitto persons holding a seasonal one are not included.

OECD 1999


324

Notes related to tables A.2.1. Inflows of foreign workers (cont.)

Types of workers recorded in the data Source

United Kingdom Grants of work permits. Most long-term permits are delivered Department of Employment.to highly qualified workers. Short duration permits are for studentsdoing temporary or part-time jobs, or taking training with a firm.Citizens of EU Member states are excluded. ‘‘First permissions’’(issued to foreigners already residents and now entering the labourmarket) are included.

United States A. Permanent settlers US Department of Justice.Prior to fiscal year 1992, data include members of the professionsor persons of exceptional ability in the sciences and arts, skilledand unskilled workers in short supply, and special immigrant visas.Data include immigrants issued employment-based preferencevisas from fiscal year 1992 on.

Period of reference: fiscal years (October to September of the givenyear).B. Temporary residence permits

Including trainees, excluding intra-company transferees and treatytraders/investors.

Period of reference: fiscal years (October to Septemberof the given year). Figures may be overestimated because of multipleentries by the same person.

Notes related to tables A.2.2. Inflows of seasonal workers

Comments Source

Australia WHM programme (Working Holiday Makers) for young Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.persons aged 18 to 25. The duration of stay is restrictedto 1 year (not renewable).Period of reference: fiscal year (July to June of the givenyear).

Austria Initial work permits issued for less than 6 months. Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs.

Canada Caribbean and Mexican Seasonal Agricultural Workers Citizenship and Immigration CanadaProgramme.

France Number of contracts with the Office des migrations Office des migrations internationales.internationales (OMI). European Union nationalsare not subject to OMI control.

Germany Workers recruted under bilateral agreements. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit.From 1991 on, data cover Germany as a whole.

Italy Agricultural seasonal workers entered in Italy with a work Ministry of Labour.authorisation.

Netherlands – CBS.

Norway Not renewable work permits granted. Issued for 3 months Statistics Norway.mostly to Polish nationals.

Switzerland – Office federal des etrangers.

United Kingdom Seasonal workers under the special Agricultural Workers Department of Employment.Scheme. Including readmissions.

United States Agricultural workers holding a H-2A visa (non-immigrants) US Department of Justice.

OECD 1999

Statistical Annex

325

Notes related to tables A.2.3., B.2.1. and B.2.2. Foreign and foreign-born labourForeign labour

Comments Source

Austria Annual average. The unemployed are included and the self-employed Ministry of Labour,are excluded. Health and Social Affairs.Data on employment by nationality are from valid work permits.Figures may be overestimated as a result of persons holding morethan one permit. In Table A.2.3., data for 1990 and 1991 have beenadjusted to correct for a temporary over-issue of work permits relativeto the number of jobs held by foreigners, between August 1990and June 1991.From 1994 on, data on employment are from Social Security recordsand include EEA nationals.

Belgium Estimates are from the Labour Force Survey. INS

Denmark Data are from population registers Danmarks Statistik.Reference date: 30 November until 1991; 31 December from 1992 on.

France Labour Force Survey. Institut national de la statistiqueReference date: March of each year. et des etudes economiques.

Germany Number of work permits. Including cross-border workers Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit.but not self-employed. Figures cover western Germany for all years.Reference date: 30 September.

Hungary Number of valid work permits Ministry of Labour.Reference date: 31 December.

Ireland Estimates are from the Labour Force Survey. Central Statistical Office.

Italy Figures refer to number of foreigners with a valid work permit ISTAT.(including self-employed). Data exclude unemployed.EU citizens do not need a work permit.

Japan Foreigners whose activity is restricted according to the Immigration Ministry of Justice,Act (revised in 1990). Permanent resident, spouse or child of Japanese Service of Immigration.national, spouse orchild of permanent resident and long term residenthave no restriction imposed to the kind of activities they can engagein Japan and are excluded from these data.

Luxembourg Number of work permits. Data cover foreigners in employment, Inspection generale de la Securiteincluding apprentices, trainees and cross-border workers. sociale.The unemployed are not included.Reference date: 1 October.

Netherlands Estimates include cross-border workers, but exclude Central Bureau of Statistics.the self-employed, family workers and the unemployed.From 1990 onwards, foreigners legally residing in the Netherlandsbut working abroad are excluded.Reference date: 31 March.

Norway Data are from population registers. Excluding unemployed Statistics Norway.and self-employed.Reference date: second quarter of each year (except in 1995 and 1996:4th quarter).

Portugal Workers who hold a valid residence permit (including Ministry of the Interior.the unemployed). Including foreign workers who benefited fromthe 1992-93 and 1996 regularisation programmes.Reference date: 31 December.

Spain Number of valid work permits. From 1992 on, EU workers Ministry of Labour and Socialare not included. Security.From 1991 to 1993, the data include work permits delivered followingthe 1991 regularisation programme. The data for 1997 are provisional.Reference date: 31 December.

Sweden Annual average from the Labour Force Survey. Statistics Sweden.

OECD 1999


326

Notes related to tables A.2.3., B.2.1. and B.2.2. Foreign and foreign-born labour (cont.)Foreign labour

Comments Source

Switzerland Data are counts of the number of foreigners with an annual residence Office federal des etrangers.permit or a settlement permit (permanent permit), who engagein gainful activity.Reference date: 31 December (resident workers); 31 August(seasonal workers).

United Kingdom Estimates are from the Labour Force Survey. The unemployed Employment Department.are not included.

Foreign-born labour

Comments Source

Australia Labour force aged 15 and over. Labour Force Survey (ABS).Reference date: August 1986; June 1993; June 1994; August 1995;August 1996.

Canada Labour force aged 15 and over. 1991 Census.

United States Coverage: Labour force aged 15 and over. Foreign-born citizens 1990 Censuswith American parents are not included in the immigrant population (US Department of Commerce).(foreign-born).

OECD 1999

327

LIST OF SOPEMI CORRESPONDENTS

Mr. A. RIZVI Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Canberra, Australia

Ms G. BIFFL Austrian Economic Institute, Vienna, Austria

Ms A. SIPAVICIENE Lithuanian Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Vilnius, Lithuania

Mr. T. LHOIR Ministère de l’Emploi et du Travail, Brussels, Belgium

Ms D. BOBEVA Black Sea Trade and Development Bank, Thessalonika, Greece (BulgarianCorrespondent)

Ms E. RUDDICK Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Ottawa

Ms J. MARESOVA University of Prague, Czech Republic

Ms K. STEEN Directorate General for Employment, Placement and Vocational Training,Copenhagen, Denmark

Mr. S. LARMO Ministry of Labour, Helsinki, Finland

Mr. A. LEBON Ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité, Paris, France

Ms B. FRÖHLICH Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, Berlin, Germany

Mr. N. PETROPOULOS Pedagogical Institute of Greece, Athens, Greece

Ms J. JUHASZ Hungarian Central Statistical Office, Budapest, Hungary

Mr. J.J. SEXTON The Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, Ireland

Ms C. COLLICELLI CENSIS, Rome, Italy

Mr. F. AROSIO CENSIS, Rome, Italy

Mr. Y. SENOO Ministry of Labour, Tokyo, Japan

Mr. S. IWATANI Ministry of Justice, Tokyo, Japan

Mr. Soo-Bong UH Korea Labour Institute, Seoul

Mr. P. JAEGER Commissaire du gouvernement aux étrangers, Luxembourg

Mr. J.A. BUSTAMANTE El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Tijuana, Mexico

Mr. P. MUUS ERCOMER, University of Utrecht, Netherlands

Mr. M. HOLTER Royal Ministry of Local Government and Labour, Department of Immigrant andRefugee Affairs, Oslo, Norway

Mr. M. OKOLSKI University of Warsaw, Institute for Social Studies, Poland

Mr. J. ROSARIO Ministère des Affaires étrangères, Secrétariat d’État aux Communautésportugaises, Lisbon, Portugal

Mr. D. GEORGHIU National Commission for Statistics, Bucarest, Romania

Ms M. LUBYOVA Slovak Academy of Sciences, Institute of Forecasting, Bratislava, SlovakRepublic

Mr. A. IZQUIERDO ESCRIBANO Faculté des Sciences politiques et de sociologie, La Coruña, Spain

Ms B. ORNBRANT Ministry of the Interior, Stockholm, Sweden

Mr. P. CHATELAIN Office fédéral des étrangers, Berne, Switzerland

OECD 1999


328

Mr. A. GOKDERE University of Ankara, Turkey

Mr. J. SALT University College London, Department of Geography, London, United Kingdom

Mr. R. KRAMER US Department of Labor, Bureau for International Labor Affairs, Washington,United States

OECD 1999

OECD PUBLICATIONS, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16

PRINTED IN FRANCE

(81 1999 06 1 P) ISBN 92-64-17078-2 – No. 50779 1999

Documents

OECD 1999 Trends in International Migration