Migration data

There is increasing policy interest in the European Union to better plan and prepare for future migration flows. This is reflected in the growing number of reports that use expert knowledge to anticipate migration trends and develop migration scenarios. In this report, the IOM’s Global Migration Data Analysis Centre (GMDAC), in partnership with the Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI), examines the potential and limitations of using expert opinion to predict future migration. This pilot study combines two approaches, namely, migration scenarios and Delphi expert surveys, to assess the implications and uncertainty of immigration scenarios for the European Union in 2030. The results demonstrate the high level of uncertainty and disagreement among experts about how basic drivers of migration – such as multilateralism and economic convergence – might shape future immigration to the European Union. While expert advice is useful for stimulating strategic, long-term thinking and discussion, the results highlight the limitations of using experts to improve operational preparedness.

The Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) is a unique tool which measures policies to integrate migrants. The MIPEX aims to address this by providing a comprehensive tool which can be used to assess, compare and improve integration policy. The index is a useful tool to evaluate and compare what governments are doing to promote the integration of migrants in all the countries analysed. The tool allows you to dig deep into the multiple factors that influence the integration of migrants into society and allows you to use the full MIPEX results to analyse and assess past and future changes in policy. The MIPEX includes 38 countries in order to provide a view of integration policies across a broad range of differing environments. Countries included are all EU Member States, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and the USA. 167 policy indicators have been developed to create a rich, multi-dimensional picture of migrants’ opportunities to participate in society. MIPEX addresses 8 policy areas of integration: Labour Market Mobility, Family Reunion, Education, Political Participation, Long-term Residence, Access to Nationality, Anti-discrimination and Health. Thanks to the relevance and rigor of its indicators, the MIPEX has been recognised as a common quick reference guide across Europe. Policymakers, NGOs, researchers, and European and international institutions are using its data not only to understand and compare national integration policies, but also to improve standards for equal treatment.

The book illustrates the results of the new edition of the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX). MIPEX is a unique tool which measures policies to integrate migrants in countries across five continents, including all EU Member States (including the UK), other European countries (Albania, Iceland, North Macedonia, Moldova, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine), Asian countries (China, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, and South Korea), North American countries (Canada, Mexico and US), South American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile), and Australia and New Zealand in Oceania. MIPEX analyses integration policies in the following eight areas of integration: Labour market mobility; Family reunification; Education; Political participation; Permanent residence; Access to nationality; Anti-discrimination; and Health. To cite: Solano, Giacomo & Huddleston, Thomas (2020). Migrant Integration Policy Index 2020. Barcelona/ Brussels: CIDOB and MPG. ISBN: 978-84-92511-83-9

The Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) is a useful tool that measures policies to integrate migrants in all EU Member States, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and the USA. 167 policy indicators have been developed to create a rich, multi-dimensional picture of migrants’ opportunities to participate in society. The index is a tool to evaluate and compare what governments are doing to promote the integration of migrants in the countries analysed.

From the sheer numbers of migrants to the complex processes that set people on the move and the multiple changes they bring to both origin and destination countries, international migration suffers considerable deficits of knowledge. As international migration connects each country of the world with all the others, addressing knowledge gaps will require international consensus on definitions and methods of data collection. There is a long way to go before this most challenging objective will be reached. The current study describes some of the steps that need to be taken. Defining international migration A proper assessment of international migration data at the world level must be based on a systematic inventory of what exists and what does not in each country. For lack of such an inventory, this report provides an overview assessment of the various criteria used by public administrations to define and produce data on international migration. Documenting international migration Data are generally collected by national administrations to serve their own needs and not those of scientific research or evidence-based policymaking, with the result that data on international migration are too often insufficient and lacking in quality. Policymakers often lack the minimal statistical evidence necessary to make informed decisions, while academics lack the basic data needed for scientific research. This report identifies key issues that should be addressed to improve migration data for policymaking and scientific research. These include: disentangling migrants from travellers and differentiating between short-term mobility and migration; matching entry and exit data; counting emigrants, i.e. absent individuals; counting circular, seasonal and temporary migrants; and measuring irregular migration. These issues often require ad hoc measurement methods such as specialized surveys. Mapping research on international migration Research addresses the causes of international migration, the process of migration itself as well as its consequences; it does so in the countries of origin and destination, as well as in the transnational space spanning origin and destination. This paper outlines 7 priority areas for research on international migration: Determinants of migration in countries of origin; Pull factors in countries of destination; Linkages between countries of origin and destination; Migration stages; Emigrants, as actors of change in countries of origin; The inclusion of migrants and their contribution to development in destination countries; And finally, the global consequences of migration. Conclusions To significantly improve our understanding of international migration, including its multiple determinants, complex processes and diverse impacts, the following challenges need to be addressed: All countries should acknowledge that international migration is defined; by border crossing. Equating immigrants with foreign citizens confuses a geographic notion with a legal one and indirectly serves policies of exclusion; All countries should agree on producing population data by detailed country of birth using the same unified list of world countries; International organizations should make all possible efforts to extend the coverage of migration surveys to all the countries that host sizeable migrant populations in the Global North as well as in the Global South; The scientific community should organize itself at a global level to develop and disseminate methodologies to fill the huge knowledge gaps that are the result of the currently patchy, mostly administrative data.

This paper reviews the comparative multi-level quantitative research on the links between integration policies, the integration situation of immigrants and a wide range of individual and contextual factors. Twenty-one reviewed studies and additional supporting articles indicate that a number of individual and contextual variables explain most of the variation between countries in terms of immigrants’ labour market integration, educational attainment, naturalisation and political participation. Thanks to the use of MIPEX and similar indices, some evidence is emerging that certain integration policies can be related to the specific integration outcomes that they aim to address. So far, only certain general and targeted employment policies can be directly associated with better labour market outcomes for immigrants and a lower incidence of employment discrimination. More indirectly, facilitating naturalisation, a secure residence and a secure family life seems to have positive effects on boosting labour market outcomes for certain immigrants. In the area of employment, studies rarely focus on a specific policy or properly match it to its specific intended target group and outcome. In the area of education, the inclusiveness of the school and education system seems to matter most for immigrant and non-immigrant pupils. Although targeted immigrant education policies adopted at national level do not display consistent results across countries in terms of pupils’ tests scores, most studies conclude that inclusive schools and education systems are more successful when they also target the specific needs of immigrant pupils. Several studies on the acquisition of nationality find that naturalisation policies are perhaps the strongest determinant of the naturalisation rates for immigrants from developing countries. Further research can explore which specific elements of naturalisation policies most help or hinder naturalisation. The few studies on political participation find that targeted policies and the acquisition of nationality may boost participation rates for certain immigrant groups. The fact that studies find no link between the general integration policy (i.e. MIPEX overall score) and a specific labour market outcome (i.e. employment rates for foreign-born) does mean that no causal relationship exist between integration policies and outcomes across countries. Considering that this multi-level research is still in infancy, studies have great room for improvement in terms of their use of databases and methodological tools. A more robust methodological approach using new international datasets can better explore the nuanced links between policies and societal outcomes. Future research needs to pay greater attention to linking a specific integration policy with its actual target group and target outcomes. Studies must also take into account time-sensitive contextual factors and general policies. International surveys can improve their measurement of integration policy outcomes in terms of longterm residence, family reunification, anti-discrimination, language learning, and, to some extent, political participation.

MIPEX is a unique tool to compare and evaluate governments’ integration policies in all EU Member States and several non-EU countries (Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and the USA). 167 policy indicators have been developed to create a rich, multi-dimensional picture of migrants’ opportunities to participate in society. The index is a useful tool to evaluate and compare what governments are doing to promote the integration of migrants in all the countries analysed.

This the Citizenship Regime Inclusiveness Index (CITRIX) mainly builds on selected and partly modified indicators of the Migration and Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) strand on the Access to Nationality. It also uses the citizenship indicators of Fitzgerald et al. (2014) as well as the resources offered by DEMIG and GLOBALCIT as further cornerstones for data collection. Covering a total of 23 OECD countries from 1980 to 2014 (805 country-year observations), CITRIX zooms in on four fundamental components of citizenship regimes relating to the acquisition of nationality by immigrants and their children: (1) the residence duration requirement for ordinary naturalization; (2) the toleration of dual citizenship in naturalization; (3) further naturalization requirements, namely language and citizenship tests as well as economic and criminal record condition; and (4) the strength of jus soli.

In the framework of the EU-funded project CrossMigration, the Migration Policy group produced a set of indicators to comparative analyse migration and integration policies, similar to the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX). The set of indicators allows researchers and policy makers to compare policies in different areas of migration and integration policies and different countries on that. To allow for a cross-country comparative and longitudinal analysis, the dataset included 39 countries (EU28 and other European countries) for 2014 and 2019. The indicators cover eight policy areas: Family reunion; Citizenship; Permanent residence; Labour market; Education; Political participation; Anti-discrimination; Health.

Governments, news media and public opinion in Europe are increasingly preoccupied with refugees seeking access to Western Europe. Public opinion is split (if not negative) and generally un- or misinformed (amalgamation across ‘groups’ being one of the problems), and integration policies cannot respond to the needs (see cross-country MIPEX results). This project aims to investigate the dynamic interplay between media representations of the current non-EU immigrant situation with a specific emphasis on the refugee situation on the one hand and the governmental and societal (re)actions on the other. The IM²MEDIATE project combines four complementary multi-stakeholder group perspectives: 1. Analysis of news media content and journalism culture. 2. Study of societal reactions of the general public. 3. Study of push/pull factors in migration from a refugee perspective. 4. Policy analysis into national governmental (re)actions. It is the project’s ultimate goal to inventory the multiple public, policy and media voices heard in Belgium on this crucial issue, while learning from practices abroad (with a focus on Sweden), and to formulate recommendations towards a more encouraging integration policy, while lowering anti-immigration and anti-refugee sentiment.

Circular migration of population in the most simple way be identified as a ?? process of leaving and then returning to one?s place of origin? (Newland, 2009, p.6). As experts note, this process is not new, but ?? it is newly on the policy agenda of governments? (Newland, 2009, p.6), as it causes remarkable challenges for both donor?s and destination?s countries. This concerns Georgia as well. Emigration is a new phenomenon for Georgia. It first manifested itself at the beginning of 1990s by the large-scale emigration flows for permanent residence in other countries triggered by war and economic crisis in Georgia. Emigration patterns later transformed into temporary migration flows of working age population that left Georgia to have higher earnings abroad. Hence, as a typical post-Soviet country Georgia was seriously affected by out-migration after its independence in 1991. The last 2002 population census in Georgia registered a drop of some 20 percent compared to the population registered in the 1989 census (State Department for Statistics of Georgia, 2003).

Key available data are presented on **population and housing** based on the decennial census rounds 1981-2011. Separate tables cover: - Population by sex and major age group - Population by educational attainment - Population by activity status - Population by citizenship - Households by household size - Occupied conventional dwellings by number of rooms Data availability varies between census rounds. The countries covered by the data vary between different census rounds. There are also differences in definitions and disaggregations between countries and between census rounds. The following statistics are related to migration: Table codeDescription cens_01naiscoEmployed persons aged 15 and over by sex, age group, citizenship and occupation (ISCO-88) cens_01nanacEmployed persons aged 15 and over by sex, age group, citizenship and economic activity (NACE Rev.1) cens_01nelevPopulation by sex, age group, citizenship and educational attainment level cens_01nhctzcompPrivate households by composition and citizenship cens_01nhfstctzPopulation by sex, citizenship, family status and type of housing cens_01nhsizePopulation in private households by sex, age group, citizenship and size of household cens_01nscbirthPopulation by sex, age group and country of birth cens_01nsctzPopulation by sex, age group and country of citizenship cens_01nsresPopulation by sex, age group, citizenship and place of residence one year prior to the census cens_01ractzEmployed persons aged 15 and over by sex, citizenship, economic activity (NACE Rev. 1), status in employment and NUTS 3 regions cens_01ramigrTotal and active population by sex, age, employment status, residence one year prior to the census and NUTS 3 regions cens_01rsctzPopulation by sex, citizenship and NUTS 3 regions cens_hnctzPopulation by sex, age and citizenship

Is immigration on the Bolivian political agenda? If we only analyze the official census figures and focus on laws, decrees and public policy initiatives, we should probably answer ‘no’. However, as we shall see, we have to consider another reality after integrating various statistical estimates that increase official numbers and after acknowledging the work of some governmental departments as well as non-governmental social research and advocacy organizations and Bolivian migrants associations abroad. To understand the difference in the response to migration questions in Bolivia, we now present the policy and institutional foundations on which the immigration debate is held in Bolivia. Some public policy, civil right defense and research initiatives have been proposed and established, but these initiatives would be best judged after considering how much political and economic support they will receive in future.