UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT ESA/STAT/AC.119/7Department of Economic and Social Affairs November 2006Statistics Division English only

__________________________________________________________________________________

United Nations Expert Group Meeting onMeasuring international migration: Concepts and methods4–7 December 2006United Nations, New York

Using register data to monitor the immigrationand emigration of immigrants *

Prepared by

Vebjørn AalandslidStatistics 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 PIN-code 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

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. 3 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.

4

Figure 1a. Immigrant population in Norway by immigration category. Persons. 1970-2005.

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.

0

50 000

100 000

150 000

200 000

250 000

300 000

350 000

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

First generation immigrants Born in Norway to two foreign born parents

5

Figure 1b. Gender ratio (women per 100 men) with immigrant background 1970-2006.

Gender ratio (women per 100 men)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1970

1980

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

6

Figure 2a. Immigration of the immigrant population by region 5 and year. Persons per annum. 1990-2005.6

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.

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

30 000

35 000 Nordic countries

Rest of EEA +North Am/Oceania

Rest of EastEurope

Asia incl. Turkey,Africa and LatinAmerica

Total

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

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.

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

7 For 2005, the emigration is based on citizenship and projected from three first quarters.

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

12 000

14 000

16 000

18 000 Nordic countries

Rest of EEA +North Am/Oceania

Rest of EastEurope

Asia incl. Turkey,Africa and LatinAmerica

Total

8

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.

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

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.

-5 000

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000 Nordic countries

Rest of EEA +North Am/Oceania

Rest of EastEurope

Asia incl. Turkey,Africa and Latin America

Total

10

Figure 4ab) Immigration and emigration from neighbouring countries. Persons per annum. 1990-2004.

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.

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

-500-500

1 0001 5002 0002 5003 0003 5004 0004 5005 000 Sweden immigration

Sweden emigration

Swedennet immigration

-500-500

1 0001 5002 0002 5003 0003 5004 0004 5005 000

Denmark immigration

Denmark emigration

Denmark net immigration

-500

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000Pakistan immigrationPakistan emigration

Pakistan net immigration

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000Turkey immigration

Turkey emigrationTurkey net immigration

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.

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.

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000Poland immigration

Poland emigrationPoland net immigration

-

500

1 000

1 500

2 000Lithuania immigration

Lithuania emigration

Lithuana net immigration

12

Figure7ab) Immigration and emigration from old refugee countries. Persons per annum. 1990-2004.

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. 1990-2004.

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.

-500

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000Chile immigrationChile emigration

Chile net immigration

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000 Vietnam immigration

Vietnam emigration

Vietnam net immigration

0500

1 0001 5002 0002 5003 0003 5004 0004 5005 000

Somalia immigrationSomalia emigration

Somalia net immigration

0500

1 0001 5002 0002 5003 0003 5004 0004 5005 000

Iraq immigrationIraq emigration

Iraq net immigration

13

Figure 9ab) Immigration and emigration from family immigration countries. Persons per annum. 1990-2004.

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.

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000Russia immigration

Russia emigrationRussia net immigration

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000 Thailand immigration

Thailand emigration

Thailand net immigration

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 immigration1990-1994

Net immigration1995-1999

Net immigration 2000-2004

Net immigration2004

Immigrant population 1.1.2005

1. Bosnia-Herzegovina Sweden Iraq Russia Pakistan2. Vietnam Serbia and Montenegro Somalia Poland Sweden3. Sweden Iraq Russia Thailand Denmark4. Somalia Somalia Afghanistan Germany Iraq5. Iraq Germany Thailand Afghanistan Vietnam6. Serbia and Montenegro Finland Iran Somalia Somalia7. Iraq Iran Germany Philippines Bosnia-Herzegovina 8. Sri Lanka Bosnia-Herzegovina Poland Iraq Iran9. Turkey Russia Philippines Lithuania Turkey10. China Pakistan Pakistan Serbia and Montenegro 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 2000-2004 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