290 likes | 301 Views
This presentation discusses the Nordic agreement on population registration and the consistency between inter-Nordic migration figures. It covers the history, basic principles, and features of the agreement, as well as the adaptation of register data to statistical needs. The results show a 3% deviation in annual migration flows between Nordic countries.
E N D
The Nordic agreement on population registration andthe consistency between inter-Nordic migration figures Kåre Vassenden Statistics Norway Presentation for the Joint UNECE/Eurostat Work Session on Migration Statistics Geneva, 14-16 April 2010
Pop. reg. syst- em B. The Nordic agreement on population registration NSI C. Adaption of the register data to statistical needs Developing principles and methods for studying the consistency between high quality migration statistics from a limited number of similar countries D. The quality of the statistics: consistency between statistics from different countries What this is about A. The national population registration systems
Which are the Nordic countries? ”Norden” (in Scandinavian) is divided into … • Sweden • Denmark • Finland • Norway • Iceland • Greenland • Faroe Islands
History 1954: The new Nordic Council proposed a study 1969: An arrangement with Inter-Nordic migration certificates was introduced 2003: Nordic politicians demanded faster handling of inter-Nordic migrations 2007: A quite new system was launched based on electronic flow of data between the Nordic population registration authorities
Basic principles of the agreements • The Nordic countries constitute one population area • The purpose is to avoid double registration or no registration • A person is registered as resident in only one country at a time • The countries keep their own laws and rules. The concept of residence may differ • The legislation in the country of immigration is decisive. This country makes the decision
Some abbreviations and terms used • SC = Sending country /population registration authority • RC = Receiving country /population registration authority • NN = a specific (possible) migrant • Registration of residence = immigration
Features of the new system • Inter-Nordic migrants now face the same rules and routines as other international migrants • However, the inter-Nordic immigrants are asked to give their PIN and address (as in SC) • A dedicated electronic system is used for the communication between the relevant authorities
How the system works • RC receives a request for residence from NN, who has just arrived from SC • RC may need more information about NN in order to decide if he qualifies for residence. RC sends a request to SC • RC accepts the request for residence. When RC records the immigration in its database a notice is automatically sent to SC, informing that NN from now on is registered as resident in RC
How the system works (cont.) • The relevant office in SC will find NN in a list on the computer screen • SC follows the decision made by RC without any questioning, and registers NN as emigrated from SC • SC use the same date of event as RC • After this process, RC may ask SC for supplementary information on NN
Notice about the Nordic system! • A collaboration between the population registration authorities. The NSIs are not involved • Includes more than sharing data. This is public administration across the borders • It presupposes … • a certain level of infrastructure • a concept of residence • a general population registration system serving all the society • similar ideologies and traditions of population registration • similar societies • trust between the involved authorities/countries • etc.
C. In the NSIs: Adaption of register data to the statistical needs
The situation for the Nordic NSIs • They are supplied with “pre-harmonised” data • This quality should not be reduced by the process of producing statistics. New incoherence should not be introduced into the data • However, transforming the data into statistics necessarily means choosing certain conditions for extraction and processing
The NSIs may have different policies, procedures and conditions • Length of the waiting period before extraction of data • Choice of variable for date of event (actual or official) • Handling of annulments and corrections • Handling of events with a date of event before the reference year (“the lag”) May differ:
The size of the lag The percentage of lag in Norwegian immigration and emigration statistics *) *) All migrations, not only the inter-Nordic ones
D. The consistency between the inter-Nordic migration figures D1. General discussion
Inspiration for the project: the classical “double entry matrix”
The annual flows *) sorted by percentage difference *) Annual flows with minimum 10 migrations. Sweden-Faroe Island is not included
Aggregating the differences • The 570 annual migration flows cover 737 600 migrations • The absolute differences sum up to 22 000 • which equals 3 per cent of the migrations • i.e. the deviation was 3 per cent in the period 1990-2008 • The weight of the countries is proportional to the number of migrations
More about the increase from 2006 to 2007 • From 1,8 per cent to 4,0 (+2,2) • Increase for all countries. Lowest in Norway: 1,6 • If we take away Denmark the total increase is 1,7 • Without Denmark and Finland the total increase is 0,6
Possible reasons for the setback in 2007 • New policy in Statistics Denmark: From 2007 lags are excluded from the population statistics • The Finnish residence concepts have been a challenge for the new system? • Maybe the new exchange system is not as good as the old one, or maybe it has teething troubles?
Consequences of excluding the lag (2) • Swedish statistics have lost 5 500 emigrations since 1998, judged by the number of immigrations from Sweden to the other Nordic countries (from Sweden) • i.e. Swedish figures for emigration to the Nordic countries have been 4 per cent too low • Similarly for Danish statistics since 2007: 945 lost emigrations, figures 4 per cent too low
General conclusions • Strangely enough, the new Nordic data exchange system may have had a slight negative effect on the statistical consistency. Too early to conclude • The NSIs should be aware of their impact on the consistency • Excluding the lag definitely reduces the consistency • Continued monitoring is necessary. The increasing difference from 2007 should be followed up