UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT
Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Statistics Division
ESA/STAT/AC.119/7
November 2006
English only
__________________________________________________________________________________
United Nations Expert Group Meeting on
Measuring international migration: Concepts and methods
4–7 December 2006
United Nations, New York
Using register data to monitor the immigration
and emigration of immigrants *
Prepared by
Vebjørn Aalandslid
Statistics Norway
________________________
* This document is being reproduced without formal editing.
Using register data to monitor the immigration and emigration of immigrants 1
1.
This paper aims at describing the Central Register of Population (CPR) in Norway and elaborates
on its many advantages in producing reliable migration statistics. Focusing on immigration and
emigration of immigrants to Norway, we will show how historic statistics, based on data from the CPR,
can say something about the current and maybe future flows of migrants to Norway. As an illustration of
the use of the CPR, we show how this system can examine net migration of immigrants to Norway. Most
other studies focus on all migrations or the migration of foreign citizens, this article takes a different
perspective focusing solely on the migration (and emigration) of immigrants. The CPR enables us to
follow the immigrants in Norway over time in order to see who stays and who chooses to emigrate.
2.
The long-term trend from 1990 and onwards is an increase both in immigration and emigration.
During this period, around twice as many persons moved to Norway as compared to those that left. The
net immigration has gradually been increasing from an average of approximately 7,000 persons per year
at the beginning of the 1990s, via more than 10,000 at the end of the 1990s, to the current net immigration
level of around 13,000 persons per year. The net immigration in the last 5 years has been greater in scope
and broader in composition than previously. Only 5 of the 10 largest net immigration countries to
Norway during the period 2000-2004 are found in the overview of the largest country groups in the
immigrant population today. For the “older” immigration countries, emigration has gradually grown
considerably, and balances out the immigration for certain years. This is a development that can also be
seen for some “newer” immigration countries in recent years.
3.
The Central Register of Population - Statistics is not the primary objective … The main
source for Norwegian migration statistics, both on stocks and flows, is information from the CPR. Most
demographic statistics in Norway is based upon the CPR; although the register was established primarily
for administrative, not statistical purposes (Østby 2002). This is important, as this determines many
aspects of the quality of the statistics that may be produced.
4.
The CPR was established in 1964, based on the Population Census of 1960. Between 1964 and
1990, it was located within Statistics Norway, and run jointly by the tax authorities and Statistics Norway,
with all municipal offices being run by the tax authorities. From its inception, the CPR has included all
persons who were registered as being settled in Norway at the time of the Census as well as all registered
population movements, and assigned them a unique Personal Identification Number (PIN-code). The PINcode is essential in linking the persons registered in the CPR to information about them in other
administrative registers for the purpose of statistical descriptions and analysis.
5.
Based on information in the CPR each person resident is classified as belonging to the immigrant
population if they have an intention to stay in the country for more than six months and a) are born abroad
by two foreign born parents (first generation immigrants) or b) born in Norway by two foreign born
parents (descendents).
6.
The requirements for a residence permit are different for Norwegian and other Nordic citizens
(they do not need a permit), other European Economic Area (EEA) citizens (they must apply, but will
normally be granted a permit) and other citizens. In relation to the definition of immigration, however,
this is not significant. The national registration system makes decisions on the specific relocation cases in
accordance with the legislation on population registration and its directives.
1
This paper builds on Østby (2002) and Aalandslid (2005). For more detailed information on the CPR see Østby
(2002). Aalandslid (2005) was a contribution to Statistics Norway’s projections of the immigrant population in
Norway.
2
7.
When persons die or emigrate, a PIN-code is never re-assigned, and all relevant information is
kept in the historical archives. The person will stay in the register "for ever", but one status variable will
be given a value that excludes these persons for statistical purposes, like making population stock
statistics. This means that the PIN-code can be used for linking all the various registers that are based on
this system, but only those relevant for each purpose will be linked. It has been a common policy for
Norwegian governments of different backgrounds that all individual-based registers shall be integrated in
this system. The use of the registers has been regulated in the Statistical Acts (from 1907, and 1989), and
in the laws regulating the registration of individual information. These laws give Statistics Norway access
to all official registers, and the right to use them for statistical and research purposes, given that protection
of individual privacy is taken care of properly.
8.
All children born alive to parents resident in Norway are included in the register as are the live
births to immigrants who have been granted a permit to stay. Their inclusion is based on the UN
definition of usual place of residence2 (UN Recommendations on Statistics of International Migration
1998), but linked to an intention to stay for at least six months as opposed to the UN recommendation for
actual stay of at least one year. All vital events (births, deaths, marriages, national and international
migration etc.) and demographic characteristics like age, marital status, citizenship, number of children,
place of birth, national background (including parental country of birth), and year of first immigration are
registered against this PIN. From this information it is possible to reconstruct individual demographic
biographies for the period over which the register has existed. In addition, a number of registers in the
private and governmental sectors also use the same PIN. To mention just a few from the governmental
sector: school attendance, educational attainment, labour market participation, registers of income and
wealth based on tax returns, social security, criminality and driving licenses. The PIN code is required to
open a bank account or to apply for a loan.
Quality of data
9.
As the information from the register system is so widely used, we may reasonably assume that all
serious quality problems have been uncovered, although not necessarily solved. The most serious
problems are linked to place of residence of young persons, mainly students, where the registration rules
are not in accordance with the principles for population statistics. However during the last years there has
been done substantial work in order to get better unity between students’ actual place of residence and
their reported residence. The great majority of immigrants are included, if not always on their exact date
of arrival, because it is very difficult to live in Norway for any length of time without being registered.
Those given a PIN will normally be legally resident immigrants – immigrants without the necessary
permits are not to be included in the register. The number of persons living in Norway illegally is difficult
to gauge precisely but police estimates give a maximum of 5,000. The majority are probably persons who
have overstayed a visa or temporary permit, and not illegally resident immigrants who intend to remain
permanently in Norway.
Unregistered emigration poses a bigger problem than immigration
10.
One problem is linked to the emigration of immigrants. Many of these are unaware of their
obligation to notify the register upon departure, and even if they knew, they might not see any reason for
doing so. For some foreign workers it might be in their employers’ or their own interest not to de-register,
and such cases can obviously affect the reliability of the statistics on both stocks and flows. Estimates
2
The fundamental principle for whether a person shall be registered as immigrated in the Central Population
Register or not is whether he intends to stay in Norway for at least 6 months and has a permit to do so.
3
made around 1990 indicated that between 10,000 and 15,000 foreigners had left the country without being
de-registered. The majority of these were from origin countries of oil-workers such as, for instance, the
UK and the USA, with fewer third world migrants than might have been expected. Since then, the system
for de-registration has been improved. Whenever personal rights and other interests depend on register
status, e.g. voting rights or ownership rights, these pose risks to register quality.
During the period March 1987 to January 1994, the regulations stated that asylum seekers could be
registered as immigrated prior to their application being granted, but now they are dealt with in line with
other persons who need a residence permit in order to be registered as domiciled. For statistics purposes,
this means that many are counted in a later year than they actually arrived in the country. Applicants who
are rejected are not included in the immigration statistics.
Net migration of immigrants
11.
Statistics Norway’s annually published figures on immigration to Norway are normally based on
two main variables; immigration by citizenship or immigration by country of origin3. A total of 36,482
persons immigrated to Norway in 2005, of which 27,864 were foreign nationals and 8,618 were
Norwegian citizens. The corresponding figures for emigration are also available. In 2004, 23,271 persons
emigrated, of which 9,415 were Norwegian citizens, while 13,856 were foreign nationals.
12.
This information is inadequate for our purposes, which is to find immigration and emigration
figures for the immigrant population. The group of Norwegian citizens will also include a number of
persons with immigrant backgrounds. Analyses will not intercept this group if we only examine
citizenship. Correspondingly, if we only focus on country of origin, we will intercept many of those with
a Norwegian background and those who for various reasons have chosen to return to Norway.
13.
We therefore take Statistics Norway’s definition of the immigrant population as a basis for our
analyses. This entails 36,482 persons who immigrated to Norway last year being grouped according to
their own or their parents’ native country. A total of 28,155 thus end up in the category first generation
immigrants to Norway; 355 are children of couples of first generation immigrants to Norway, 5,323 are
without any immigrant background (i.e. they have a Norwegian background), while the remaining 2,649
are either foreign born with Norwegian born parents (e.g. children of missionaries born abroad or to
Norwegian couples who have worked or studied abroad), are Norwegian born with one foreign born
parent or foreign born with one Norwegian born parent, or are adopted in Norway. None of these are
included in the immigrant population.
14.
Our studies take an in-depth look at only the first two categories; first generation immigrants and
their children, and persons born in Norway to two foreign born parents (often referred to as descendants).
We will examine the development in the immigration and emigration for these two groups from 1990 to
the current day.
The Norwegian immigrant population
Country background or country of origin is a person’s own, or their mother’s or father’s foreign native country.
Persons with no immigrant background only have Norway as their country background. When both parents are
foreign born, they are in most cases born in the same country. In cases where the parents have different native
countries, it is the mother’s native country that is used.
3
4
15.
First, however, it may be useful to obtain an overview of the time from 1970 when Norway (at
least in recent times) was a net immigration country.
Figure 1a. Immigrant population in Norway by immigration category. Persons. 1970-2005.
350 000
First generation immigrants
Born in Norway to two foreign born parents
300 000
250 000
200 000
150 000
100 000
50 000
0
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
16.
Ever since 1970, Norway has had a net immigration, if we look solely at the immigrant
population4. There are currently around 365,000 immigrants in Norway. Of these, 300,000 have
immigrated themselves while 65,000 were born in Norway to two parents who immigrated. In total 8
percent of Norway’s registered resident population have an immigrant background. Compared with other
OECD countries the relative size of Norway’s immigrant population is modest. But the growth in the
immigrant population has been substantial during the last 10-15 years. In 1990, where our analyses
begin, there were around 150,000 first generation immigrants in Norway. Prior to this, average
immigration levels were somewhat lower than later years. However, there were also a few years in the
1980s where immigration to Norway was high. The years 1987 and 1988 had particularly high levels of
immigration, which was partly due to the large numbers of refugees from Vietnam and Chile. Between
1971 and 1985, the net immigration was around 5,000 per year.
Just as many women as men
17.
As with the Norwegian population without immigration background, the immigrant population
consists of roughly the same number of women and men. Among immigrants with background from
North-America and Western Europe women were overrepresented for a long time. However, today this
group has about the same number of men and women. There are however huge differences between the
different country backgrounds.
4
In 1989, Norway had a net immigration that was largely due to the emigration of more than 8,000 citizens to
Sweden.
5
Figure 1b. Gender ratio (women per 100 men) with immigrant background 1970-2006.
Gender ratio (women per 100 men)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
6
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1980
1970
0
Figure 2a. Immigration of the immigrant population by region5 and year. Persons per annum.
1990-2005.6
Nordic countries
35 000
30 000
Rest of EEA +
North Am/Oceania
25 000
20 000
Rest of East
Europe
15 000
10 000
Asia incl. Turkey,
Africa and Latin
America
5 000
0
Total
Immigration
18.
When interpreting the development in immigration in recent years it is important not to be
blinded by individual years. First, it is often the case that movement in one year is closely related to
events in the previous year. If we look at the year 2002 as an isolated case, this was a year of high
immigration levels from a number of countries. This does not necessarily mean that there was a flood of
people suddenly deciding to move to Norway that year. A great deal of the immigration in 2002 was
related to a backlog of cases with the immigration authorities, which resulted in many being granted
family reunification permits. Additionally, a number of local authorities in Norway had the capacity and
were willing to allow more refugees to settle than normal that year. Overall, this meant a high level of
immigration for 2002, but the applications to settle in Norway may well have been sent several years
beforehand. This indicates that there can be conditions other than the individual immigrant’s movements
that determine what year the immigration actually takes place. Although new trends can be seen in
individual years, looking at the average over longer periods would give a better basis for drawing
conclusions over time.
19.
Figure 2a shows the development of the immigrant population’s immigration to Norway from
1990-2004. While the first half of the 1990s had an average immigration below 20,000 a year, the last 5
5
The country backgrounds are divided into the following regions: I. Nordic countries
II. Rest of European Economic Area (EEA) +, which comprises 22 EU member countries + Switzerland and the
small states in West Europe, as well as North America and Oceania.
III. Rest of East Europe, which comprises all the countries in Europe that are not included in the rest of EEA+
group.
IV. Africa, Asia incl. Turkey and South America
6
For 2005, the immigration is based on citizenship and projected from the three first quarters. Refer to the text box
for more details of the country groups.
7
years saw an increase to an average of almost 30,000 per year. The composition of countries of origin also
changed during the course of these 15 years.
20.
Both at the start and the end of the period, immigrants from Asia (including Turkey), Africa and
Latin America made up the largest group, and immigration from these countries has accounted for almost
half of the immigration to Norway in the last 5 years.
21.
Immigration from Nordic countries was at its peak in the mid 1990s, which was largely due to
Swedes immigrating to Norway for work. The two peaks in the East European immigration both stem
from conflicts in the Balkans in the 1990s. First were the refugees mainly from Bosnia-Herzegovina in
1993, followed by the refugees from Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) in 1999. Immigration from the rest
of East Europe after 2000 was mainly from Russia, and is higher (with the exception of the two peak
years) than in the 1990s. The group consisting of EEA, North America and Oceania has had a marked
increased in recent years, and in 2004 was the second largest immigration group to Norway. Growth in
this group is mainly due to the increased immigration from Poland and Lithuania, but also from “older”
EU countries such as Germany. This growth continued throughout the first quarter of 2005. The largest
countries included in the group Asia, Africa and Latin America are described in more detail later.
Figure 2b. Emigration of immigrants by region and year. Persons per annum. 1990-2005.7
Nordic countries
18 000
16 000
14 000
Rest of EEA +
North Am/Oceania
12 000
10 000
8 000
Rest of East
Europe
6 000
4 000
Asia incl. Turkey,
Africa and Latin
America
2 000
0
Total
Emigration
22.
In line with the immigration some years previously, the highest emigration from Norway during
the period 1990 to 2004 as a whole was by persons born in the other Nordic countries, see figure 2b.
Emigration in this group has remained at around 5,000-6,000 in recent years. There has been a gradual
increase in emigration by the Asia, Africa and South America group, which in 2003 was almost as high as
the Nordic group, and in 2004 had the highest level of emigration from Norway. The fall in emigration in
2005 must be viewed with caution as there will be a number of emigrations by Norwegian citizens with
immigrant backgrounds in this group in particular. The figures from 2005 do not reflect the fact that they
are just expanding their citizenship.
7
For 2005, the emigration is based on citizenship and projected from three first quarters.
8
23.
The increase in emigrations from Asia, Africa and South America cannot be ascribed to any one
country; recent years have seen a steady rise in emigration for all of the main non-western countries. The
rest of East Europe has two peaks (even if these are not as distinct as for the immigration); 1993-94 and
2000-2001, which comprises the emigration of Bosnians and Kosovo Albanians respectively.
24.
The reorganisation of registers in the Office of the National Registrar will play an important role
for these figures. For individual years, the deleting of persons from the Central Population Register can
have a major effect on the figures without necessarily reflecting an actual relocation for that particular
year. Such “administrative” emigrations are included in the statistics in the year they are discovered and
registered, which may be at a date subsequent to when the emigration actually took place.
Figure 3. Emigration of descendants by region. Persons per annum. 1990-2004.
1400
1200
Norden
1000
Resten av EØS +
Nord-Am/Oseania
800
Resten av ØstEuropa
600
400
Asia med Tyrkia,
Afrika og LatinAmerika
200
Utvandring i alt
0
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
Do descendants emigrate?
25.
On average, more than 1,000 descendants have left Norway every year for the last 5 years.
Simultaneously, more than 300 descendants moved back on average, giving a net emigration of
descendants in excess of 700 a year. Figure 4 shows the increase in the descendant emigration, in terms of
absolute figures. However, if we compare this to the increase in figures for descendants in Norway, then
the proportion that emigrates is not increasing. The rate of emigration of descendants from non-western
countries is much lower than the emigration rate of persons from the Nordic countries and the EEA, North
America and Oceania group. The fact that not everyone who should report relocation does so can also
play a role here. If we look at the age distribution in this group we can see that those who emigrate are
children (together with adults). The proportion of those who leave who are over 18 is still extremely low.
26.
It has been speculated that older immigrants, particularly those from the traditional labour
immigration countries such as Pakistan, Turkey and Morocco, return to their native country when they are
elderly. However, this is not supported by the immigrant figures distributed by age. Emigration for these
country groups is dominated (as with the immigration) by young adults.
Net immigration
9
27.
Net immigration figures show how the immigrant population changes as a result of immigration
and emigration. High or low immigration does not provide sufficient information to know whether the
relocations contribute to the population growth; we must examine the figures for net immigration to
Norway.
28.
We have already seen that the Asia, Africa and Latin America group has accounted for almost 50
per cent of the immigration in the past 5 years, while the same group has made up more than 25 per cent
of the emigration during the same period. The opposite is true for immigrants from the Nordic countries,
where on average the group has accounted for 20 per cent of the immigration in the last 5 years, and 40
per cent of the emigration. In other words, more immigrate from Asia, Africa and Latin America and
fewer emigrate if we draw comparisons with the Nordic countries. Figure 2c shows the distribution of the
net immigration between the different country groups.
Figure 2c. Net immigration. Immigrant population by region. Persons per annum. 1990-2005. 8
Nordic countries
20 000
15 000
Rest of EEA +
North Am/Oceania
10 000
Rest of East
Europe
5 000
Asia incl. Turkey,
Africa and Latin
America
0
-5 000
Total
29.
For the past 5 years, the net immigration from Asia, Africa and Latin America has been around 70
per cent of the net immigration to Norway on average, which is a marked increased from the 1990s. Net
immigration figures based on the first 3 quarters of 2005 have also been included here. The increase in the
EEA+ group continued in 2005 and will likely mean that the net immigration in 2005 will be well above
last year’s.
Net immigration for individual countries
30.
In order to obtain a more thorough description of the net immigration, it may be useful to analyse
individual countries. We will now examine the development of the net immigration from a number of
countries that have either the largest immigrant population in Norway or have had a high immigration
level in recent years.
8
The net immigration for 2005 is based on citizenship and projected from the first three quarters.
10
Figure 4ab) Immigration and emigration from neighbouring countries. Persons per annum.
1990-2004.
5 000
Sweden immigration
5 000
4 500
4 500
4 000
4 000
Sweden emigration
3 500
3 000
2 500
Denmark immigration
Denmark emigration
3 500
Sweden
net immigration
3 000
2 000
2 000
1 500
1 500
1 000
1 000
500
500
-
Denmark net immigration
2 500
-
-500
-500
31.
The net immigration from Sweden (figure 6ab) is, to a large extent, a function of the labour
market. During periods where the labour market and salaries have been more attractive in Norway, we
have experienced a steady increase in the immigration from Sweden. The economic boom in Norway at
the end of both the 1980s and 1990s meant high immigration levels from Sweden during these periods,
but figures quickly began dropping as problems in the Norwegian labour market in 1989 and 2000 began
to escalate. The major emigration in the last 5 years, which has resulted in almost zero net immigration,
must be regarded together with the immigration in the 1990s. The net immigration from Denmark has
been much less sensitive to economic trends, and throughout the 15-year period, excluding 1999, the
immigration and emigration levels have been about the same.
Figure 5ab) Immigration and emigration from old labour immigration countries. Persons per
annum. 1990-2004.
2 000
2 000
Pakistan immigration
1 500
Pakistan emigration
Turkey immigration
1 500
Pakistan net immigration
Turkey emigration
Turkey net immigration
1 000
1 000
500
500
0
0
-500
32.
Pakistan and Turkey (figure 5ab) are included in the countries with the longest immigration
history (at least in modern times) to Norway, with the labour immigration that began at the end of the
1960s. Both countries have had fairly similar net immigration levels in the past 15 years; Pakistan with
300 net immigrations a year, and Turkey with 270. As shown in figure 5ab, the curves for net
immigration follow each other for these two countries. Both countries had a low net immigration level in
the early 1990s, which is undoubtedly related to the fact that there were few descendants who were old
enough for family reunification via marriage. With regard to Pakistan, there was even a net emigration in
1993. Immigration from Turkey was characterised by high numbers arriving in Norway in order to marry
ethnic Turks, but marriages to persons with a Norwegian background also take place. Additionally, there
has been some refugee immigration.
33.
2002 was the peak year for both Pakistan and Turkey with regard to immigration. We have
already examined how this is undoubtedly due to the casework capacity of the immigration authorities.
Worth noting with regard to Pakistan is that 2004 had the lowest net immigration in 10 years, which was
11
due to a combination of high emigration levels and less immigration. If we look at the 15-year period as a
whole, both countries are characterised by a gradual high immigration level, and an increasing emigration
level for the latter years.
Figure 6ab) Immigration and emigration from newer labour immigration countries. Persons per
annum. 1990-2004.
2 000
2 000
Lithuania immigration
Poland immigration
1 500
Poland emigration
1 500
Poland net immigration
1 000
500
0
Lithuania emigration
Lithuana net immigration
1 000
500
-
34.
Poland and Lithuania are included in order to show the development of the immigration to
Norway as a result of the expansion of the EU, see figure 6c. Immigration from Poland fell throughout the
1990s, and had a clear overrepresentation of women. Three out of four immigrants from Poland were
women in the 1990s. These were mostly Polish women who married Norwegian men, but also Polish
nurses who were granted special permission. In 2004, the nature of the immigration from Poland changed,
whereby three out of four immigrants were men. The majority of Poles who worked in Norway in the
1990s were not intercepted by the Central Population Register system since they only held short-term
permits; special permits for seasonal workers. The bulk of seasonal worker permits issued by the
Norwegian Directorate of Immigration were given to Poles. As a result of the expansion of the EEA, this
group now holds more long-term work permits and is therefore included in the statistics. Additionally,
since the number of EEA work permits exceeds the number of seasonal worker permits, the total figure
has also increased.
35.
The pattern of immigration from Lithuania differs somewhat. First, the scope of the immigration
has been much narrower, and it started later. Additionally, the immigration from this country had an
overrepresentation of women, but experienced a shift in the last 2 years whereby the labour immigration
spurted and the gender composition became more balanced.
36.
The net immigration for these two countries will depend on the development of the labour market,
but also on whether the labour immigrants from Poland and Lithuania will bring their families to Norway
or whether they choose to return when the labour market changes.
12
Figure7ab) Immigration and emigration from old refugee countries. Persons per annum. 19902004.
2 000
2 000
Vietnam immigration
Chile immigration
Chile emigration
1 500
Vietnam emigration
1 500
Chile net immigration
Vietnam net immigration
1 000
1 000
500
500
0
0
-500
37.
The main immigration to Norway from Chile was in the 1970s and 1980s, peaking in around
1987/1988, see figure 6d. This related to persons who sought and obtained asylum in Norway. For the
years following main immigration waves, emigration is normally higher than it would have otherwise
been, and this can clearly be seen for Chile. The emigration is considerably higher than the immigration
in the early 1990s, and not until the end of the 1990s do we see a net immigration from Chile. However,
the immigration and emigration in 2004 are almost the same.
38.
The immigration figures for Vietnam illustrate how the immigration can change character in the
course of just a few years. At the start of the 1990s, Vietnam was in a class of its own as the largest
immigration group to Norway. This figure fell considerably in 1993-94, but the following years were not
characterised by such high emigration levels as Chile. The emigration level of Vietnamese from Norway
has always been low, and this group appears to be one of the main immigrant groups in Norway that is
most stable, and if adjustments are made for the size of the Vietnamese immigrant population in Norway,
only a very small proportion emigrate.
Figure 8ab) Immigration and emigration from newer refugee countries. Persons per annum. 19902004.
5 000
5 000
4 500
Somalia immigration
4 500
Iraq immigration
4 000
Somalia emigration
4 000
Iraq emigration
3 500
3 500
Somalia net immigration
3 000
3 000
2 500
2 500
2 000
2 000
1 500
1 500
1 000
500
Iraq net immigration
1 000
500
0
0
39.
Somalia and Iraq are examples of newer refugee countries. Norway had high immigration levels
from Somalia throughout the 1990s, peaking at the start of the 2000s, see figure 6e. With regard to Iraq,
the immigration began somewhat later, with an initial peak in 2000. Immigration has increased
significantly for both of these countries, as a result of high levels of immigration from the previous years.
Both country groups top the statistics for the largest net immigration countries for the last 5-year period.
The fall in the last 2 years must be regarded together with the change in the asylum policies aimed at
these two country groups. Cases were put on hold by the immigration authorities in autumn 2003 and the
number of asylum seekers fell considerably as a result of this.
13
Figure 9ab) Immigration and emigration from family immigration countries. Persons per annum.
1990-2004.
2 000
2 000
Russia immigration
1 500
Russia emigration
1 500
Russia net immigration
Thailand immigration
Thailand emigration
Thailand net immigration
1 000
1 000
500
500
0
0
40.
The immigration from Russia (figure 6f) has, in recent years, consisted of Chechnyan refugees
and Russian women who marry Norwegian men. An extremely skewed gender distribution is an indicator
of this. The findings are also the same for Thailand, which was the largest individual country in 2004 with
family reunification permits granted by the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration. The immigration from
Thailand mainly consists of women who marry Norwegian men and some children who accompany their
mothers. Very little emigration from these countries has so far been seen.
41.
With very few exceptions, Norway has net immigration from all of the countries in the world, but
in 2003 a total of 15 countries also had a net emigration from Norway. The majority of these were small
island states and the net emigration level was low. However, two countries stood out in 2004; Iceland and
Finland, with more than 200 net emigrations to Iceland and 400 to Finland. Taking the period as a whole,
only two countries have a 2-digit figure. We have a net emigration to the UK of more than 200, but
perhaps more surprisingly, we had a net emigration to Bangladesh of 70 persons from 1990 to 2004.
42.
These examples have been included in order to illustrate that the net immigration to Norway in
the last 15 years has been extremely complex and cannot be attributed to one country or one region alone.
Likewise, neither can immigration to Norway be attributed to one single reason, or a single conflict.
What will the future net immigration be?
43.
This article has attempted to illustrate that the composition and scope of the net immigration is
not easy to predict. However, we can draw some conclusions from the data we have available. A gradual
increase in the net immigration level has taken place; from an average of around 7,000 persons per year at
the start of the 1990s, via more than 10,000 persons per year at the end of the 1990s, to the current net
immigration level of approximately 13,000 persons per year. The average for the 1990s would have been
a good deal lower if the Balkan wars and the subsequent relocations had not taken place.
14
Table 1. The 10 largest net immigration countries and the 10 largest countries in the immigration
population, ranked by size. 1990-2005
Ranked Net immigration
1990-1994
1.
Bosnia-Herzegovina
2.
Vietnam
3.
Sweden
4.
Somalia
5.
Iraq
6.
Serbia and Montenegro
7.
Iraq
8.
Sri Lanka
9.
Turkey
10.
China
Net immigration
1995-1999
Sweden
Serbia and Montenegro
Iraq
Somalia
Germany
Finland
Iran
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Russia
Pakistan
Net immigration
2000-2004
Iraq
Somalia
Russia
Afghanistan
Thailand
Iran
Germany
Poland
Philippines
Pakistan
Net immigration
2004
Russia
Poland
Thailand
Germany
Afghanistan
Somalia
Philippines
Iraq
Lithuania
Serbia and Montenegro
Immigrant population
1.1.2005
Pakistan
Sweden
Denmark
Iraq
Vietnam
Somalia
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Iran
Turkey
Serbia and Montenegro
44.
The net immigration in the last 5 years is characterised by a greater scope and broader
composition. Only 5 out of the 10 largest net immigration countries to Norway during the period 20002004 are to be found in the above overview of the largest country groups in the immigrant population on
1 January 2005, and taking 2004 as an isolated case, only 2 of them (and none of the 5 largest net
immigration countries) are included.
45.
If the trend from 2004 continues, we will have completely different countries included as the 10
largest in the immigrant population in Norway in the years to come. This makes projections difficult.
Another observation is that the emigration for the “older” immigration countries has gradually become
substantial. This is a trend that is also likely to be seen in the future for the newer immigration countries.
To date, this has been reflected in further relocation or the returning of persons from newer refugee
countries such as Somalia and Iraq. We do not yet know enough about this emigration, but it could be an
indicator that in a common European labour market we will see more mobility among the new arrivals in
the future. A natural hypothesis is that those who have obtained permits in Norway, but are not working
or studying, move on to another EEA country to try their luck there. When changing their citizenship,
they will have the same rights as other EEA citizens.
46.
In the domestic debate on immigration to Norway, it has been claimed that the growth in the
immigrant population is exponential, i.e. that it is growing with compound interest. The figures for the
older immigration countries illustrate that this is not the case. The growth eventually stops and is balanced
out to a large extent by the emigration. However, what we have witnessed is that when the immigration
from some country groups stops, new ones begin. Fifteen years ago, more than 500 immigrants from Iraq
were living in Norway. Today, this is the third largest group if we look solely at first generation
immigrants. Who knows what country will be the next Iraq.
References:
Østby, Lars (2002) 'The demographic characteristics of the immigrant population in Norway.' RAPP
2002/22 Statistics Norway
Aalandslid, Vebjørn (2005): Inn- og utvandring blant innvandrere – hvor mange vil flytte i årene
framover? Økonomiske analyser 6/2005 (56-63).
15