International Migration Outlook 2018

Please cite this publication as:
OECD (2018), International Migration Outlook 2018, OECD Publishing, Paris.
https://doi.org/10.1787/migr_outlook-2018-en

Metadata, Legal and Rights

ISBN: 978-92-64-30194-8 (print) - 978-92-64-30195-5 (pdf) - 978-92-64-30505-2 (HTML) - 978-92-64-30504-5 (epub)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/migr_outlook-2018-en

Annual: International Migration Outlook

ISSN: 1995-3968 (print) - 1999-124X (online)

This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries.

This document, as well as any data and any map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

Photo credits: Cover © David Rooney.

Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.

© OECD 2018

You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgement of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at info@copyright.com or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at contact@cfcopies.com.

Foreword

This publication constitutes the 42nd report of the OECD’s Continuous Reporting System on Migration. The report is divided into five chapters plus a statistical annex.

Chapter 1 provides a broad overview of recent trends in international migration flows and policies. Chapter 2 takes an in-depth look at the employment situation of immigrants and highlights major changes in policies that support the integration of immigrants and their children.

Chapter 3 examines the labour market impact of recent refugee inflows to European countries, drawing lessons from past experience and looking beyond the most recent developments to account for the ongoing process of refugee labour market entry. It offers a rigorous assessment of the potential impact of recent refugee inflows on the working-age population and labour force of European countries up to 2020, taking into account the specificity of refugees and their interactions with the labour market. While such an exercise does not provide a definitive response to the hopes or concerns regarding the labour market impact of refugees, it will at minimum help to frame expectations.

Chapter 4 focuses on the issue of illegal employment of foreign workers, looking at the various forms of irregularities and infractions that it may entail, as well as its relationship to informal employment. The chapter also provides some evidence on the scope and characteristics of the phenomenon across OECD countries. Given, however, the scarcity of data in this field, precise quantification remains challenging. Therefore, most of the chapter is focused on policy measures implemented by OECD countries to prevent, control and sanction the illegal employment of foreign workers, information which was obtained from a short questionnaire addressed to OECD member countries. More general policy measures for reducing informal employment and irregular migration are also discussed.

Chapter 5 presents succinct country-specific notes and statistics on developments in international migration movements and policies in OECD countries in recent years. Lastly, the Statistical Annex includes a broad selection of recent and historical statistics on immigrant flows; asylum requests; foreign and foreign-born populations; and naturalisations.

This year’s edition of the OECD International Migration Outlook is the collective work of the staff of the International Migration Division in the Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs. Chapters 1 and 5 contain contributions from John Salt (University College London). Chapter 3 was prepared by Gilles Spielvogel (OECD) and Chapter 4 by Sandrine Cazes (OECD). Jean-Christophe Dumont edited the report. Research assistance and statistical work were carried out by Véronique Gindrey and Philippe Hervé. Editorial assistance was provided by Joanne Dundon and Anna Tarutina (OECD), and by Ken Kincaid specifically on Chapter 4.

Editorial: Moving forward with a pragmatic and constructive co-operation agenda on international migration

Migration is nothing new. People have moved across communities, states and continents for millennia. Migration flows have been rising over the past few decades and are unlikely to fall from their current levels, given the large demographic and economic imbalances. In 2017, about 258 million people around the world were living outside their country of birth, and about half of all these migrants were living in OECD countries. In 2017, more than 5 million people settled permanently in the OECD. In addition, more than 4 million temporary foreign workers were recorded in OECD countries in 2016, in order to fill skills shortages, and more than 3 million international students are enrolled in a higher education establishment in an OECD country.

The 2015/16 refugee surge, concentrated in certain European countries, has served as a stress test for asylum, migration and integration systems. Despite the major efforts made by some European countries, the refugee crisis has revealed a number of weaknesses in the capacity of host countries to cope with such a large and unforeseen inflow of people in need of protection. There was difficulty in anticipating such flows, coordinating the response within and across levels of government and sharing the responsibility across countries. In a number of cases, recently arrived vulnerable migrants received support only after delays. However, the crisis also prompted significant policy changes. This year’s edition of International Migration Outlook provides a full account of these efforts. At the regional level, even if much remains to be done, the efforts made – notably by the European Commission – to co-ordinate effectively and step up the response to the refugee crisis, deserve praise. At the global level, the 2016 UN summit on “Addressing large movements of refugees and migrants” resulted in the New York Declaration and the development of two International Compacts, on refugees and on migrants. These are potential game changers.

These are complex times. On the one hand, we face unprecedented uncertainty about the future forms of migration, due to increasing interconnectivity and the multiplicity of sources of short and longer-term instability, associated with geopolitical, climate and demographic changes. On the other hand, the level of international co-operation is also unprecedented. Never before have we been as mindful of the opportunities and challenges associated with international migration.

At the same time, however, the refugee crisis has heightened concerns in the public opinion about the potential benefits of migration. A growing number of people have expressed concerns about the costs of integrating refugees and other migrants and the potential impact on some local labour markets with high concentration. These concerns must be addressed, if there is any chance of success for the ongoing efforts of the international community to build fruitful international dialogue between origin, transit and destination countries and to create a new framework on migration management and refugee protection.

As we move from the height of the refugee crisis, when the main challenge was to provide immediate support to asylum seekers and new refugees, to the next complex phase of promoting the integration of those who are likely to stay, policy makers are facing two main challenges. The first is to manage the integration process itself without generating undue disruptions to the labour market. The second is to address concerns regarding the misuse of migration channels and the perception of a growing number of foreign workers illegally staying or working in host countries. These two challenges are discussed in the two special chapters of this edition of the Outlook.

The Outlook shows that, for European countries as a whole, the inflow of refugees could raise the working-age population by a marginal 0.4% by December 2020. That being said, the impact varies across European countries and within them. As integration takes time, the inflow of recently arrived refugees may contribute to increasing, at least in the short-to-medium term, the number of people looking for a job. In Germany, for example, the number of unemployed could increase by about 6% by 2020 (i.e. less than half a percentage point). Moreover, in countries with large inflows of refugees, such as Sweden, Germany and Austria, the impact will be stronger for some specific groups of native workers who may find themselves facing higher competition for jobs due to recently arrived migrants and refugees. This is the case for low-educated men: the refugee surge may increase the labour supply in the corresponding labour market segment by up to 15% by 2020. In the short term, it may be therefore just as important to reinforce policy support for low-educated men in general, as it is to develop effective integration measures specifically for recently arrived refugees. However, historical evidence on large refugee inflows from Asia, the Caribbean or Western Balkans into the United States and Europe indicates that refugees have limited medium-to-long term impact on the labour market of natives. Indeed, if there is any impact at all, it has been positive.

The Outlook also reviews the evidence about the illegal employment of foreign workers. This is a crucial issue in the management of migration as the lack of accurate information on the number and characteristics of people who may be staying and working illegally in OECD countries fuels the fear in the public opinion on migration more generally. This is clearly illustrated by the recent Eurobarometer survey, which indicates that almost half of the European population has the misperception that there are at least as many immigrants staying illegally as legally in Europe. Most of them believe there are even more migrants illegally staying than those legally staying, whereas no OECD country even remotely approaches these proportions.

The illegal employment of foreign workers takes many forms. It is often understood as migrants who are working without the legal right to stay in the host country, but it can also take on other forms of non-compliance with either migration rules or labour rules. Estimates suggest that there are about 11 million unauthorised immigrants in the United States and significantly less in Europe. Illegal employment of foreign workers is most likely to affect young men and is usually concentrated in a few sectors notably agriculture, construction and domestic services. Addressing the illegal employment of foreign workers should therefore include both labour market inspections and migration policies in order to reduce informal employment and facilitate legal pathways to residency or employment. It should also include measures specifically designed to enhance compliance with existing regulations, including in the workplaces. When the issue has become prominent or structural, targeted regularisation programmes could be used.

Being blind to public anxiety over the economic and social impact of migration, even if this impact is statistically marginal, or deaf to fears regarding the lack of control on migration management, even if largely over-estimated, could prevent us from moving the international migration co-operation agenda forward in a pragmatic and constructive spirit. This is why the evidence provided in this year’s edition of International Migration Outlook is timely and will hopefully help to bring the public debate onto more solid ground.

Stefano Scarpetta,

OECD Director for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs

Executive summary

Main trends

Preliminary data show that OECD countries received slightly more than 5 million new permanent legal migrants in 2017. This represents the first decline in migration to the area since 2011 (down by around 5%, compared to 2016). This is due, however, to the significant reduction in the number of recognised refugees in 2017 while other migration categories remained stable or increased.

After two years of record-high numbers of asylum applications to OECD countries, there was a significant decline in 2017, with 1.23 million claims. This figure is still well above any other recorded year, prior to 2015. The top three origin countries were Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. In 2017, the United States received the highest number of asylum applications in the OECD (330 000 applications), followed by Germany (198 000).

Accounting for almost 40% of permanent migrants, family migration (family reunification and formation as well as accompanying family members) remained the most important migration channel to the OECD area. The sharp increase in this category in the period 2015/16 reversed a decline that started in 2010.

For the first time, this year’s Outlook includes a consolidated number for all categories of temporary labour migration to OECD countries. These categories comprise international recruitments of seasonal workers and other temporary foreign workers; EU workers sent by their employers to other EU countries under local contracts (posted workers); and intra-company transferees. In total, more than 4.2 million temporary foreign workers were recorded in the OECD in 2016, which corresponds to an 11% increase compared to the previous year. The main receiving countries for temporary foreign workers are Poland (672 000, mostly from Ukraine) and the United States (660 000, with India as main origin country).

Around 3.3 million international students were enrolled in higher education in an OECD country, 8% up from the previous year. Recent trends in the United States, however, indicate a strong decline in the number of study permits in 2016 (-27%). On average, international students account for 9% of the total number of students enrolled in establishments of higher education in OECD countries in 2015. They represent 14% of all students enrolled in Master’s degree courses and 24% of those enrolled in doctoral courses.

On average across OECD countries, migrants’ employment rate increased by 1 percentage point in 2017, to 67.1%. Their average unemployment rate decreased by 1 percentage point to 9.5%, and the average unemployment gap with their native-born peers narrowed to 3 percentage points in 2017. This development was partly driven by significant improvements in some EU countries.

On the policy side, migration channels for highly-qualified foreigners continue to be refined in many countries, involving adjustment of the selection criteria of permanent programmes and reviewing conditions for temporary programmes. Start-up visas continue to grow in number while investor programmes are under review and see stricter conditions. Eligibility for family reunification is also an area of policy adjustment.

The labour market impact of recent refugees

For European countries as a whole, the estimated relative impact of recent refugee inflows on the working-age population is projected to reach no more than 0.4% by December 2020. In terms of labour force, since participation rates of refugees are typically very low in the early period of their stay in the host country, the magnitude of the aggregate net impact is estimated to be even smaller, at less than 0.25% by December 2020.

In countries with the highest aggregate effects, the impact is likely to be much larger in specific segments of the labour market, notably among young low-educated men. Since this population group is already vulnerable in most host countries, well-targeted measures are needed to provide them with adequate support.

The illegal employment of foreign workers

The illegal employment of foreign workers may result from non-compliance with either migration – or labour – rules. Addressing this issue is therefore both an economic and migration policy objective.

Consequently, OECD countries should seek to improve co-ordination and coherence between enforcement authorities. They should also raise awareness among both employers and workers and use improved status verification systems as part of measures to prevent the illegal employment of migrant labour. However, when the illegal employment of foreign workers becomes a highly prominent issue or is deemed structural, regularisation programmes may be considered. They need to be designed carefully and accompanied by appropriate changes in legal labour migration channels and stronger enforcement measures. Finally, policies to combat the illegal employment of foreign workers should be conducted not only at national and sector levels, but also internationally.

Main findings

Labour market integration of immigrants

Between 2016 and 2017, the unemployment rate of migrants in the OECD decreased by more than 1 percentage point to 9.5%, and the employment rate increased from 65.7% to 67.1%. The improvement was more marked for foreign-born women.

Specific migrant groups are showing particularly high employment rates. For example, in the European Union, the employment rate of EU migrants is higher than that of natives by 5 percentage points. In the United States, for the first time in recent years, migrants from Mexico and Africa outperformed migrants from Asia by 1 and 3 percentage points, respectively.

Across OECD countries, the creation of integration programmes for newly-arrived migrants and refugees continues, focusing largely on language and skills acquisition. Many countries have also developed measures intended for the most vulnerable, notably unaccompanied minors and children who arrive late to the education system.

Labour market impact of refugees

European countries received 4 million new asylum applications between January 2014 and December 2017, three times as many as during the previous four-year period. During the same period (2014-17), about 1.6 million individuals were granted some form of protection.

For European countries as a whole, the relative impact of recent refugee inflows on the labour force is estimated to be quite small, at less than 0.25% by December 2020. Specific groups (young, low-educated men) in the most affected countries (Austria, Germany, Sweden) are, however, more exposed.

In the absence of any migrant returning to their countries of origin, the total number of rejected asylum seekers could reach 1.2 million by end 2020. The effect on the informal labour market will depend on the level of voluntary returns and the efficiency of enforcement measures.

Illegal employment of foreign workers

Illegal employment of foreign workers is most likely to affect men of a relatively young age. The sectors most concerned by such illegal employment are agriculture, construction, manufacturing and domestic services.

Chapter 1.

Recent developments in international migration movements and policies

This chapter provides an overview of recent developments in international migration movements and policies in OECD countries. After a brief review of developments in migration flows in 2017, based on preliminary and partial data, it provides a detailed analysis of the trends in permanent migration from 2007 to 2016, by country and by main category of migration – migration for work, family or humanitarian purposes, and migration within free movement areas. The next section addresses temporary migration for work purposes, especially seasonal workers, posted workers and working holidaymakers. It then examines migration by international students and the recent trends in asylum requests in OECD countries. The chapter then looks at the composition of migration flows by gender and by country of origin, the evolution of the size of the foreign-born population, and the acquisition of nationality across OECD countries. The chapter closes with a section on policies concerning the main 2016-17 changes made to migration management frameworks, particularly in the European Union.

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

Introduction

This chapter offers an overview of the most recent trends in international migration flows and policies. The first part of the chapter covers flows by broad category of entry: (i) permanent movements broken down into labour, family, humanitarian and free mobility; (ii) the main channels of temporary labour migration: seasonal workers, working holidaymakers, trainees, intracompany transferees and posted workers; (iii) international mobility of foreign students, (iv) asylum seekers. The second part of the chapter gives an overview of flows and naturalisation by origin and demographics. The third part of the chapter deals with the most significant recent developments in terms of policies that regulate the entry and stay of foreign nationals in OECD countries.

Main findings

Preliminary data for 2017 show slightly more than 5 million new permanent migrants arrived in the OECD area in 2017. This is the first drop since 2011 (-5% compared to 2016). However, this decline is due to the significant reduction in the number of recognised refugees in 2017, notably in Germany.

The 15% increase in permanent migration flows in 2016 was mainly driven by the surge in humanitarian flows (+78%) but also by the 11% increase in migration for family reunification and formation. Flows from other migration channels slightly increased (+3% in labour flows) or remained stable (such as free mobility) compared with 2015 levels.

Accounting for 38% of permanent migrants, family migration (family reunification and formation as well as accompanying family members) remained the most important migration channel to the OECD area in 2016. The sharp increase in this category for the second year in a row reversed a decline that started in 2010.

Temporary labour migration to OECD countries accounted for around 4.2 million workers in 2016, 11% more than in 2015.

For the fourth year in a row, the international recruitment of seasonal workers rose sharply in 2016 (+30%).

In the European Union (EU), the number of EU workers sent by their employers to other EU countries under local contracts (posted workers) reached almost 2.2 million in 2016, an increase of 8% relative to the previous year.

After two years of record-high numbers of asylum applications to OECD countries, there was a significant decline in 2017, with 1.23 million claims. This figure is still well above any other recorded year, prior to 2015.

In 2017, the United States received the highest number of asylum applications in the OECD (330 000 applications). Germany, which had held the first position for several years, received the second largest number, with 198 000 first asylum applications, a 73% decline from the record high observed last year.

The top three origin countries of asylum seekers submitting first-time applications in OECD countries (Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq) made up a lower proportion of applications (25%) in 2017 compared with 2016 (43%).

Around 3.3 million international students were enrolled in a higher education establishment in an OECD country, 8% up from the previous year. Recent trends in the United States, however, indicate a strong decline in the number of study permits in 2016 (-27%).

On average, international students account for 9% of the total number of students enrolled in establishments of higher education in OECD countries in 2015. They represent 14% of all students enrolled in Master’s degree courses and 24% of those enrolled in doctoral courses.

The share of women in total migration to the OECD has gradually declined since 2009, and women represented 45% of new immigrants to the OECD area in 2016. Almost three-quarters of OECD countries received more migrant men than women in 2016.

In OECD countries in 2017, 127 million people were foreign-born, which represents an average of 13% of the total population compared with 9.5% in 2000. Of these, 48% were living in an EU or European Free Trade Association (EFTA) country and 34% in the United States.

Between 2000 and 2017, the increase in the foreign-born population accounted for close to three-quarters of the total population increase in EU/EFTA countries, and for more than one-third of the increase in the United States.

Migration channels for highly qualified foreigners continue to be refined in many countries, adjusting the selection criteria of permanent programmes and reviewing conditions for temporary programmes.

Options for international students to remain and work in their country of study continue to expand.

The trend towards expansion of start-up visas continues, with countries building on experience to change criteria and make schemes more accessible, while investor programmes are reviewed.

The expansion in some countries’ resettlement programmes for persons in need of international protection has ended, while attention focuses on differentiating conditions for claimants according to the status they have received.

Recent trends in international migration by category of entry

Major changes in migration flows to OECD countries in 2017

After five years of increase linked, first to economic recovery, then to the refugee crisis, international migration flows to OECD countries decreased in 2017. Preliminary data indicates that OECD countries received a little more than 5 million new permanent-type immigrants in 2017, down 5% compared to 2016. The decline in the immigration to Germany in 2017 is responsible for almost this entire drop (see Annex Table 1.A.1). Other sharp declines were registered in Sweden, Austria and Finland, which had also granted international protection to an elevated number of refugees in 2016. According to partial figures, immigration to Spain, France and the Czech Republic should reach significantly higher levels in 2017 than in 2016.

Figure 1.1. Permanent migration flows to OECD countries, 2008-17

Note: Data for 2008 to 2016 is the sum of standardised figures for countries where they are available (accounting for 95% of the total), and unstandardised figures for other countries. Data relating to 2017 are estimated based on growth rates published in official national statistics.

Source: OECD calculations based on national statistics.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933750947

Again, a reduced number of humanitarian migrants receiving protection in the OECD has driven the overall change in permanent-type migration in 2017. Just as it represented the bulk of the 2016 increase in permanent-type migration, it has been the major driver of the 2017 decrease.

In parallel, and after an extremely high number of asylum applications to OECD countries in 2016 (1.64 million), there was a significant decline in 2017, with 1.23 million applications fully driven by a steep fall in applications in Germany and other EU countries.

Available data indicate that about 440 000 migrants were granted international protection in EU countries in 2017 (462 000 in the EU/EFTA), a 36% decrease compared to 2016. Germany has received a large share of humanitarian migration in recent years, and lower inflows in this country account for more than 70% of the decline in the EU area.

Permanent-type migration flows

In 2016, migration flows to OECD countries increased by 15%, the sharpest rise since 2007. More than 5.3 million permanent entries of foreign citizens were registered by OECD countries in 2016. The increase in humanitarian migration (+78%) has mostly driven this trend. Nevertheless, excluding these numbers, the OECD witnessed a 7% increase in permanent flows. The United States remained the primary OECD destination country with 1.2 million new immigrants in 2016 (Table 1.1), and contributed to one-quarter of this overall increase. The main change in 2016 was the striking rise in migration flows to Germany which reported around 1 million new permanent migrant entries, equivalent to a 50% increase compared to 2015. This increase is largely due to the high number of refugees who entered Germany in 2015 but received international protection in 2016.

Although migration flows to the United Kingdom fell slightly in 2016, to 350 000, it remained the third main OECD destination country. Canada, with almost 300 000 new permanent residents, a 7% increase compared to 2015, recorded the highest number of admissions since World War II, driven by a 83% increase in the number of refugees and a 12% rise in family migrants. Immigration levels in France (260 000), Australia (223 000) and Italy (212 000) were stable in 2016 but increased by 10% in Spain to reach 215 000. Like Germany, Sweden has received a very high number of refugees since the beginning of the war in Syria. In 2016, this resulted in a 34% increase in overall permanent immigration (138 000). Finland saw a refugee influx which provoked a similar increase (+27%, 27 000 in 2016).

Japan, Korea and Ireland witnessed relatively high immigration levels in 2016, with increases ranging from 16% to 18% compared to 2015 levels. In absolute terms, Japan and Korea received approximately 95 000 and 88 000 new migrants, respectively, and Ireland 42 000. Denmark is the OECD country that has seen the largest decline in permanent migration flows (-9%).

Among countries for which standardised statistics on permanent migration are not available, Chile and Poland stand out with over 100 000 new entries in 2016, significantly above the 2015 levels (+33% and +24%, respectively). Immigration to Iceland soared nearly 60% in 2016 to 8 000, returning to levels comparable to those before the economic crisis.

Family migration was the most important migration channel to the OECD area in 2016. More than 1.8 million new migrants to OECD countries were registered under family reunification and formation, or as accompanying family members of workers. This represents 38% of all permanent migration. Compared to 2015 this is a slight decline in relative terms (-2 percentage points) but a sharp increase in absolute terms (+9%).

The number of accompanying family members has been fairly stable since 2007 and stood at 270 000 in 2016. The number of migrants coming for family reunification or formation increased by 13% in 2016 to reach 1.6 million. This is the second consecutive increase, and these increases more than offset the effects of the steady decline observed between 2010 and 2014 (Figure 1.2, Panel A). With almost 900 000 family migrants in 2016 (+123 000 compared to 2015), the United States accounted for more than half of overall family migration to OECD countries, and contributed to most of the OECD-wide 2016 increase (Annex Table 1.A.2). In particular, the number of immediate relatives of US citizens who immigrated to the United States in 2016 increased by 22%, (+102 000), including parents (+41 000), spouses (+39 000) and children (+22 000). Family preference (for resident foreigners) also increased, by 11%. The sharpest increase in family migration was observed in Germany (+28%) which received more than 100 000 family migrants in 2016. Korea, Norway, the Netherlands, Spain and Canada are also among the OECD countries where family migration increased sharply, ranging from +12% to +23%. Denmark is the only country with a strong fall in immigration for family reasons (-22%).

Table 1.1. Inflows of permanent immigrants into OECD countries, 2010-16
Thousands
| 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Variation (%)
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2016/15
Standardised statistics |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
United States | 1 043.3 | 1 062 .4 | 1 031.9 | 990.8 | 1 016.5 | 1 051.0 | 1 183.5 | +13
Germany | 222.5 | 290.8 | 400.2 | 468.8 | 574.5 | 686.0 | 1 051.0 | +53
United Kingdom | 448.7 | 339.8 | 287.0 | 295.1 | 350.0 | 369.9 | 350.1 | -5
Canada | 281.3 | 249.3 | 258.3 | 262.8 | 261.4 | 275.9 | 296.4 | +7
France | 220.4 | 226.6 | 244.5 | 254.4 | 250.7 | 255.3 | 258.9 | +1
Australia | 208.4 | 219.4 | 245.1 | 254.4 | 231.0 | 226.2 | 223.5 | -1
Spain | 280.4 | 273.2 | 196.3 | 180.4 | 183.6 | 194.9 | 215.0 | +10
Italy | 445.3 | 375.3 | 308.1 | 278.7 | 241.8 | 221.6 | 212.1 | -4
Netherlands | 91.8 | 100.3 | 100.2 | 105.2 | 117.2 | 123.2 | 138.5 | +12
Sweden | 66.7 | 69.7 | 80.8 | 91.1 | 100.3 | 102.9 | 138.2 | +34
Switzerland | 115.0 | 124.3 | 125.6 | 135.6 | 134.6 | 131.2 | 125.0 | -5
Austria | 45.9 | 55.2 | 70.8 | 70.8 | 80.9 | 103.0 | 105.6 | +3
Belgium | 117.0 | 100.9 | 100.1 | 95.6 | 99.0 | 101.3 | 100.2 | -1
Japan | 55.7 | 59.1 | 66.4 | 57.3 | 63.9 | 81.8 | 95.2 | +16
Korea | 49.7 | 53.5 | 51.0 | 61.0 | 69.0 | 74.6 | 88.5 | 19
Denmark | 37.4 | 36.7 | 39.7 | 47.7 | 55.1 | 67.0 | 60.8 | -9
Norway | 56.8 | 61.6 | 59.9 | 60.3 | 55.6 | 53.1 | 58.1 | +9
New Zealand | 48.5 | 44.5 | 42.7 | 45.1 | 49.9 | 54.6 | 55.7 | +2
Ireland | 23.5 | 26.3 | 24.3 | 28.2 | 30.5 | 35.5 | 41.9 | +18
Mexico | 26.4 | 21.7 | 21.0 | 55.0 | 43.5 | 34.4 | 34.9 | +1
Czech Republic | 28.0 | 20.7 | 28.6 | 27.8 | 38.5 | 31.6 | 34.8 | +10
Portugal | 41.2 | 34.3 | 27.9 | 26.4 | 30.5 | 31.2 | 34.0 | +9
Israel | .. | .. | .. | .. | 29.1 | 33.4 | 31.4 | -6
Finland | 18.2 | 20.4 | 23.3 | 23.9 | 23.6 | 21.4 | 27.3 | +27
Luxembourg | .. | .. | 17.5 | 18.0 | 19.0 | 19.4 | 19.5 | +0
Total number of persons |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
All countries | 3 972.2 | 3 866.1 | 3 851.2 | 3 934.3 | 4 149.7 | 4 380.5 | 4 980.0 | +14
Settlement countries | 1 581.5 | 1 575.6 | 1 578.0 | 1 553.0 | 1 558.9 | 1 607.7 | 1 759.0 | +9
EU included above | 2 087.1 | 1 970.3 | 1 931.9 | 1 994.1 | 2 176.2 | 2 344.8 | 2 768.3 | +18
Of which: free movements | 929.0 | 1 040.9 | 1 148.8 | 1 210.4 | 1 353.1 | 1 370.9 | 1 375.3 | +0
National statistics (unstandardised) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Chile | 41.4 | 50.7 | 65.2 | 84.4 | 83.5 | 101.9 | 135.5 | +33
Poland | 41.1 | 41.3 | 47.1 | 46.6 | 32.0 | 86.1 | 107.0 | +24
Greece | 35.4 | 33.0 | 32.0 | 31.3 | 29.5 | 34.0 | 86.1 | +153
Hungary | 23.9 | 22.5 | 20.3 | 21.2 | 26.0 | 25.8 | 23.8 | -8
Slovenia | 11.3 | 18.0 | 17.3 | 15.7 | 18. 4 | 19.9 | 20.0 | +1
Iceland | 3.0 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 3.9 | 4.3 | 5.0 | 7. 9 | +58
Estonia | 1.2 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 7.3 | 6.0 | -19
Slovak Republic | 12.7 | 8.2 | 2.9 | 2. 5 | 2.4 | 3.8 | 3.6 | -4
Latvia | 2.8 | 3.0 | 3.7 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 3.4 | -22
Turkey | 29.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..  | ..
Total (except Turkey) | 172.7 | 181.2 | 192.5 | 210.8 | 202.0 | 288.2 | 393.4 | +36

Note: Includes only foreign nationals. The inflows include status changes, namely persons in the country on a temporary status who obtained the right to stay on a longer-term basis. Series for some countries have been significantly revised compared with previous editions, notably for Chile, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom.

Source: OECD International Migration Database.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752999

Overall, OECD countries registered a dramatic increase in humanitarian migration (+78%) to over 900 000 humanitarian migrants in 2016. This is the highest level ever recorded for the OECD and represents almost one-fifth of total flows. Germany was by far the main destination country of these refugees and received almost half of them, followed by the United States (17%), Sweden (8%), Canada (6%) and Austria (3%). Compared to 2015, the numbers were stable in the United States but almost doubled in the latter three countries. Humanitarian migration was the main channel in Sweden, where 52% of all new migrants were refugees, and in Finland (36%), and the second most important in Austria, Germany, Norway and the United States. Only Denmark, the United Kingdom and Switzerland experienced a decline in humanitarian migration.

Figure 1.2. Permanent migration flows to OECD countries by category of entry, 2007-16

Source: OECD International Migration Database.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933750966

For the first time since 2007, permanent labour migration to OECD countries increased in 2016 (+3%). It represented 9% of the total flows. The largest increase in migrant worker flows was seen in Germany (+23 000 third-country workers). Japan received almost 50 000 permanent foreign workers in 2016, 8 000 more than in 2015, and contributed to the OECD-wide rebound as well. Managed labour migration is the major component of permanent migration only in Japan and accounted for 51% of total immigration to Japan in 2016. In Australia, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand the share of labour migration is around 25% of the total. The number of third-country migrant workers who immigrated to Italy and to Spain declined by 8 000 and 6 000, respectively, and fewer economic migrants (principal applicants) went to Canada (-7 000). This decline in labour migration in Canada contributed to a similar drop in the number of accompanying family members of workers, which drove the overall figure for the OECD down by around 7%.

Since 2014, migration movements within free-circulation areas have maintained very high levels. In 2016, almost 1.5 million people immigrated into an OECD country though this channel, as many as in 2007. In addition to large humanitarian flows, Germany received around 450 000 EU/EFTA citizens in 2016 (+6% compared to 2015), more than any year before. The largest increases were observed in Ireland and Portugal (+14% both), while the sharpest drops were in Austria (-16%), Norway (-14%), Belgium (-12%) and Finland (-7%). After having reached historically high levels in recent years, and in particular in 2015, the number of EU/EFTA citizens who immigrated to the United Kingdom diminished in 2016 (-6%) but they still accounted for 60% of permanent migration. Intra-EU/EFTA migration is the main migration channel to all European OECD countries except for Finland, France and Sweden.

Figure 1.3. Permanent migration flows to OECD countries, 2016

Percentage of the total population

Note: EU average is the average of EU countries presented in the chart. EU - TCN represents the entries of third-country nationals into EU countries for which standardised data are available, as a percentage of their total population.

Source: OECD International Migration Database.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933750985

To summarise, two-thirds of the rise in migration flows to OECD countries is due to increased humanitarian migration, particularly to Germany, and one-fourth is due to rising family migration, in particular to the United States. Overall, there was little change in the numbers of new labour migrants in OECD countries, and in the magnitude of migration movements within free-circulation areas. 

When relating migration flows to the countries’ population, it appears that in most OECD countries, annual migration flows represent less than 1% of the population (Figure 1.3). The average figure for OECD countries is 0.8%. However, in Switzerland, and even more in Luxembourg, this ratio has long been much higher, and stood at 1.5% and 3.4% respectively. It rose sharply in Germany and Sweden which are now among the top five OECD countries in terms of immigration as a proportion of the population. Expressed as a ratio to the EU population, the number of migrants from third countries to EU countries remains relatively low but rose from 0.25% in 2015 to 0.36% in 2016.

Temporary labour migration

Recruiting immigrant workers on a temporary basis is generally seen as a means to respond to specific needs for low-skilled as well as highly skilled workers. Temporary labour migration generally ebbs and flows with fluctuations in the market and short-term demand for labour, allowing host country labour markets to adjust to shifting economic conditions. Although temporary migration is not – initially, at least, and for many programmes – a stepping-stone to long-term residence, it is often closely tied to permanent migration (considered in the previous section). A sizeable share of temporary migrants change status and stay on as long-term residents.

Accordingly, temporary migrant workers are a mixed group – in terms of both categories and skills. The rights which they are granted, be they in terms of the duration of the work permit/authorisation; the conditions of recruitment; the possibility of changing sector; renewing the permit; or being able to bring their families, also vary significantly from one country to the next. These workers include skilled workers, for example highly-skilled engineers and information technology consultants on assignment, intra-company transferees (ICT), and workers coming to meet one-off needs for unskilled labour; depending on the country concerned, these “missions” are entrusted to working holidaymakers, trainees and seasonal workers. In some host countries, these workers can have a significant impact on the sectors involved.

Statistics presented here relate only to five large groups of temporary labour migrants: seasonal workers; working holidaymakers; trainees; posted workers and ICTs. Attempts have been made to estimate total labour-related temporary migration flows but these non-standardised figures should be interpreted with caution (refer to Annex Table 1.A.5 for details on the categories of workers included).

Around 4.2 million workers migrated to or around OECD countries on temporary migration programmes in 2016 (including intra-EU posted workers¹). This was 11% more than in 2015. These flows far exceed permanent labour migration, which amounted to fewer than 500 000 workers in 2016.

Poland and the United States are the main host countries for temporary workers, with around 670 000 and 660 000 temporary work permits (or work authorisations) granted in 2016, respectively representing an increase of over 61% and 10% compared to 2015 (Figure 1.4). In Poland, the estimated growth was driven by flows from Ukraine. Overall, in the United States, the most noticeable growth in 2016 was in agricultural labourers (+24% compared to 2015) and numbers in this category have more than doubled since 2011. Germany represents the third largest host of temporary migrants, with around 470 000 permits granted, mostly EU/EFTA intra-company transferees. Australia, a large receiving country for working holidaymakers and France, a large receiving country for posted European workers, followed with respectively 390 000 and 225 000 in 2016. In the same year, Japan welcomed 190 000 (mostly trainees) and Korea, 128 000 (mostly low-skilled workers). In Korea, there are two main visas for the recruitment of temporary workers: the E-9 (61 000 granted, up by 16% compared to 2015), which are reserved for low-skilled workers and limited to a 10- year maximum stay; and the H-2 (48 000 permits, down by 26% compared to 2016), which are for ethnic Koreans – mainly Chinese nationals – looking for employment in sectors experiencing a labour shortage and valid for up to almost five years including extensions.

Figure 1.4. Inflows of temporary labour migrants, 2016

Note: Intra-EU labour mobility is only partially captured through posted workers. Accompanying family of temporary workers is not included.

Source: OECD International Migration Database.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751004

Seasonal workers

Seasonal work is the most widespread form of temporary unskilled labour migration, with 685 400 permits granted in 2016 by OECD countries (see Table 1.2) and it has increased sharply, by 30%, compared with 2015. Poland and the United States rank highest by virtue of the size of their programmes. There has been sustained growth in the Polish economy over the last decade, with a rate of growth no lower than 1.4% and as high as 4.6% in 2017. At the same time, many Polish citizens have taken advantage of the opening up of EU labour markets, especially in Germany and the UK, which has led to shortages in some sectors, especially those recruiting unskilled labourers. Poland’s seasonal migration programme helps meet these labour requirements in agriculture, horticulture and tourism. The programme (see the legislative changes introduced since the transposition of the EU Seasonal Workers Directive in the third part of this chapter), enabled the entry of 447 000 seasonal workers in 2016 (for a maximum work period of six months), an increase of 39% on the previous year.

Table 1.2. Temporary migration of workers by category (mostly on low-skilled jobs), 2008-16
Destination | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2016/15
Thousands | Change (%)
Seasonal workers
Total OECD | (574.9) | (523.7) | (583.0) | (372.5) | (208.5) | (212.0) | 362.6 | 527.2 | 685.4 | +30
Poland | .. | .. | 73.2 | .. | .. | .. | 176.1 | 321.0 | 446.8 | +39
United States | 64.4 | 60.1 | 55.9 | 55.4 | 65.3 | 74.2 | 89.3 | 108.1 | 134.4 | +24
Canada | 24.2 | 23.4 | 24.1 | 25.3 | 25.8 | 27.8 | 29.9 | 30.8 | 34.2 | +11
Mexico | 22.6 | 29.2 | 27.4 | 27.6 | 21.7 | 15.2 | 14.6 | 15.9 | 14.9 | -6
Finland | 12.0 | 12.5 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 14.0 | 14.0 | 14.0 | 12.0 | 14.0 | +17
New Zealand | 10.4 | 7.8 | 7.7 | 7.8 | 8.2 | 8.4 | 9.4 | 9.8 | 11.1 | +14
France | 11.6 | 7.0 | 6.2 | 6.3 | 6.4 | 6.1 | 6.6 | 6.7 | 6.8 | +1
Austria | 12.1 | 11.7 | 10.5 | 17.5 | 13.2 | 15.1 | 7.2 | 6.9 | 6.7 | -3
Australia | 0.1 | 0.1 | .. | 0.4 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 3.2 | 4.5 | +41
Italy | 41.5 | 34.7 | 27.7 | 15.2 | 9.7 | 7.6 | 4.8 | 3.6 | 3.5 | -1
Sweden | 3.7 | 7.3 | 4.5 | 3.8 | 5.7 | 5.9 | 2.9 | 3.8 | 3.2 | -15
Spain | 42.2 | 6.3 | 8.7 | 4.5 | 3.8 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 2.9 | -2
Norway | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 2.4 | +5
Working holidaymakers
Total OECD | (426.6) | (418.7) | (420.7) | (409.7) | (429.5) | (478.8) | 475.6 | 473.2 | 476.5 | +1
Australia | 157.6 | 194.1 | 183.2 | 192.9 | 223.0 | 258.2 | 239.6 | 226.8 | 214.6 | -5
United States | 152.7 | 116.4 | 118.2 | 97.6 | 79.8 | 86.4 | 90.3 | 95.0 | 101.1 | +6
New Zealand | 39.5 | 40.1 | 43.3 | 43.1 | 48.7 | 54.7 | 61.3 | 65.2 | 69.7 | +7
Canada | 34.5 | 39.2 | 42.0 | 44.7 | 45.7 | 44.9 | 42.5 | 39.4 | 44.8 | +14
United Kingdom | 34.8 | 20.1 | 20.7 | 20.7 | 19.6 | 20.9 | 23.5 | 25.3 | 22.3 | -12
Japan | 5.9 | 7.4 | 10.1 | 7.5 | 9.3 | 9.1 | 8.1 | 10.4 | 10.9 | +5
France | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 4.7 | 4.9 | 5.9 | +20
Ireland | .. | .. | 1.6 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 2.8 | +10
Korea | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.6 | +14
Denmark | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1.2 | +51
Trainees 
Total OECD | (124.0) | (98.8) | (95.0) | 99.6 | 103.2 | 101.6 | 115.8 | 131.0 | 139.5 | +7
Japan | 101.9 | 80.5 | 77.7 | 82.3 | 85.9 | 83.9 | 98.7 | 112.7 | 121.9 | +8
Australia | 5.4 | 5.3 | 3.7 | 3.5 | 3.8 | 3.6 | 3.5 | 4.6 | 4.2 | -9
Germany | 5.4 | 4.8 | 4.9 | 4.9 | 4.1 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 4.3 | 4.0 | -5
France | 0.2 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 2.5 | 2.7 | +5
Korea | 2.3 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 1.5 | -16
United States | 3.4 | 2.1 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 2.9 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 1.7 | 1.4 | -14
New Zealand | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.4 | +5
Denmark | 3.1 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.1 | 1.3 | +20

Note: For each type of permit, the table presents only countries for which inflows exceed 1 000 workers in 2016 so the total might differ from the sum of the countries presented. The number of seasonal workers refers to the number of permits granted, with the exception of France where counts are the actual number of entries.

Source: OECD International Migration Database.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933753018

In 2016, in United States, there was a 24% increase in the number of seasonal workers recruited in agriculture (H-2A permit), which is not capped. The flow reached 134 000.

The other programmes in place in OECD countries are much smaller in scale but with room to grow. For example, numbers have increased by 11% in Canada to 34 000 in 2016. New Zealand has increased by one thousand its quota for seasonal workers (+14%) – mainly from the Pacific Islands – and makes full use thereof for winemaking and horticulture. Australia’s programme for recruiting seasonal workers, created in 2012 primarily for its horticultural sector, is an integral part of the economic development goals for the Pacific Islands and Timor-Leste. However, the 12 000 quota over four years has not been fully used by Australian employers, despite a 41% increase in the number of seasonal workers recruited over the last fiscal year.

Inside the EU/EFTA, and notwithstanding the specific case of Poland, most seasonal migration involves EU workers, but the size of this flow is difficult to estimate. The main European countries receiving third-country seasonal workers who require a work permit are now Finland, with 14 000 seasonal workers in 2016, France and Austria (with fewer than 7 000 workers each). In Austria, the number of seasonal permits granted has stagnated since 2014, and the workforce has been partially renewed by asylum seekers, for whom this often presents an opportunity to enter the labour market. Italy and Spain combined only recruited 6 000 seasonal workers from third countries in 2016, compared to over 80 000 in 2008. In Italy, the quota of 12 500 seasonal workers from third countries was not filled. As for Switzerland, Germany and the United Kingdom, they terminated their recruitment programmes for foreign seasonal workers in 2001, 2012 and 2013 respectively, given that their requirements were largely met through the recruitment of EU/EFTA nationals.

Trainees

Overall, around 140 000 trainees were recorded in the OECD in 2016, which corresponds to a 7% increase compared to 2015. The main destination country for international trainees is Japan. In 2016, Japan hosted 121 900 “technical interns”, signalling a return to pre-crisis recruitment levels. Levels remained relatively stable in other countries.

Working holidaymakers

In total, more than 475 000 working holidaymakers were recorded in the OECD in 2016, 1% point more than in 2015.Within the framework of bilateral agreements signed with 39 countries, Australia hosted 215 000 working holidaymakers in 2016, representing 3.7% of the population aged 15-34. Australia’s working holidaymakers are particularly present in the tourism and agriculture sectors, and in regions with a shortage of unskilled labour. In 2016, there was a fall in the number of applicants for the uncapped part of the programme (95% of arrivals) while the quotas corresponding to recently signed agreements were almost all filled. In New Zealand, the number of working holidaymakers from 44 countries continues to rise as a result of the increase in the cap (16% of arrivals) and the implementation of new agreements.

Intra-company transferees

Mobility between the different establishments owned by multinational firms is generally facilitated by special conditions. The issue of a permit may be subject to a minimum level of income and skills, as in the United Kingdom, or to labour market testing, as in Australia, where only business executives are exempt. Since 2014, intra-company transfers have been governed in the European Union by an EU Directive which is in the process of being transposed into the law of the member states. In the OECD, the leading issuer of these permits is the United States, followed by the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia (Table 1.3).

In the United Kingdom, intra-company transfers represent around two-thirds of Tier 2 visas. In November 2016, on the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee, the British Government raised the income threshold for short-term intra-company transfers to GBP 30 000 (EUR 34 240) and in April 2017 introduced an annual tax of GBP 1 000 (EUR 1 140) per worker to fund training for resident workers. These tighter conditions explained a slight decrease in new visas granted under Tier 2 – short term intra-company transferees (-2% to 20 700 in 2016).

Table 1.3. Intra-company transferees, 2008-16
Destination | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2016/15
Thousands | Change (%)
Total OECD | 162.7 | 113.8 | 134.3 | 137.0 | 132.2 | 138.1 | 142.9 | 156.7 | 153.0 | -2
United-States | 84.1 | 64.7 | 74.7 | 70.7 | 62.4 | 66.7 | 71.5 | 78.5 | 79.3 | +1
United Kingdom | 47.0 | 22.0 | 29.2 | 29.7 | 29.3 | 33.2 | 36.6 | 36.4 | 36.0 | -1
Canada | 7.7 | 7.5 | 10.3 | 10.9 | 12.3 | 11.4 | 11.3 | 9.8 | 9.8 | +1
Australia | 6.9 | 6.0 | 4.3 | 8.2 | 10.1 | 8.9 | ..  | 7.8 | 8.1 | +3
Japan | 7.3 | 5.2 | 5.8 | 5.3 | 6.1 | 6.2 | 7.2 | 7.2 | 7.7 | +6
Germany | 5.7 | 4.4 | 5.9 | 7.1 | 7.2 | 7.8 | 9.4 | 9.1 | 7.5 | -18
France | 1.5 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 2.4 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.8 | +20
Note: The table presents only countries for which inflows exceed 1 000 workers in 2016 so the total might differ from the sum of the countries presented.
Source: OECD International Migration Database.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933753037

Intra-EU/EFTA posted workers

Workers entitled to freedom of movement inside the EU/EFTA are free to pursue a professional activity in another member state (excluding regulated professions). Available data do not fully capture these migrations, especially if they are for very short periods. That said, in the event of a posting, salaried or self-employed workers who choose to continue to pay their social security contributions in their country of origin can be detected through documents confirming their affiliation to the social security scheme of their country of origin (see De Wispelaere and Pacolet – HIVA-KU Leuven (2017[1]), for the methodology).

In this manner, 2.2 million intra-EU/EFTA postings were recorded in 2016, an increase of 8% compared to 2015, and of 48% compared to 2010. In general, posted workers are on short-term contracts (maximum of two years but 101 days on average in 2016)² except for workers authorised to work in several member states (28% of postings) who are on contracts of unlimited duration and whose postings last 306 days on average.³

Posted workers are estimated to represent 0.4% of full-time equivalent employment in the EU, with significant variations between countries and sectors. Half of all postings involve a worker originating from a low- or medium-wage country (under the EU average wage) going to work in a high-wage country (above the EU average), while 38% of postings are between high-wage countries. In 2016, postings increased the most in Belgium, Germany and France (Table 1.3). Germany was the largest net receiving country of posted workers in 2016 (Figure 1.5). About 30% of the posted workers who went to Germany originate from Poland, the largest net sending country of workers in Europe. In 2016, Slovenia and Italy were the net sending countries of posted workers with the largest increase in the gap between the number of postings sent and received. The same is true for France and Belgium which are net receiving countries.

Table 1.4. Posted workers inside the EU/EFTA, 2010-16
| 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2016/15
Destination | Thousands | Change (%)
Total OECD | 1 039.0 | 1 188.8 | 1 169.9 | 1 273.3 | 1 364.0 | 1 422.8 | 1 537.0 | +8
Germany | 250.1 | 311.4 | 335.9 | 373.7 | 414.2 | 418.9 | 440.1 | +5
France | 160.5 | 162.0 | 156.5 | 182.2 | 190.8 | 184.7 | 203.0 | +10
Belgium | 90.5 | 125.1 | 125.3 | 134.3 | 159.7 | 156.6 | 178.3 | +14
Austria | 59.6 | 76.3 | 76.4 | 88.6 | 101.0 | 108.6 | 120.2 | +11
Switzerland | 52.0 | 62.6 | 64.9 | 78.1 | 87.5 | 97.7 | 104.3 | +7
Netherlands | 91.6 | 105.9 | 99.4 | 100.4 | 87.8 | 89.4 | 90.9 | +2
Italy | 60.5 | 64.2 | 48.7 | 47.4 | 52.5 | 59.1 | 61.3 | +4
United Kingdom | 34.3 | 37.2 | 40.4 | 43.5 | 50.9 | 54.3 | 57.2 | +5
Spain | 63.3 | 47.6 | 46.1 | 46.5 | 44.8 | 47.4 | 52.4 | +11
Sweden | 19.5 | 24.4 | 26.1 | 29.4 | 33.0 | 37.4 | 39.1 | +5
Luxembourg | 27.7 | 24.3 | 19.7 | 20.5 | 21.8 | 21.7 | 26.6 | +22
Norway | 18.8 | 30.5 | 16.2 | 18.8 | 21.3 | 25.0 | 23.8 | -5
Czech Republic | 15.9 | 17.1 | 17.8 | 18.6 | 17.2 | 19.1 | 22.7 | +19
Finland | 20.2 | 22.2 | 22.5 | 19.9 | 6.6 | 18.6 | 21.0 | +13
Portugal | 12.2 | 13.3 | 11.4 | 10.7 | 12.8 | 15.4 | 18.1 | +18
Poland | 12.9 | 16.0 | 16.0 | 14.4 | 14.5 | 17.9 | 17.8 | 0
Denmark | 9.6 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 10.8 | 10.9 | 13.4 | 15.7 | +18
Hungary | 8.5 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 8.9 | 9.0 | 9.7 | 11.3 | +29
Slovak Republic | 8.7 | 6.9 | 6.6 | 7.0 | 7.6 | 8.1 | 9.7 | +19
Greece | 10.7 | 7.8 | 6.8 | 4.8 | 4.7 | 5.7 | 6.4 | +12
Ireland | 5.0 | 6.1 | 4.7 | 5.6 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.8 | +43
Slovenia | 3.4 | 2.7 | 3.3 | 4.5 | 6.6 | 5.7 | 5.1 | -10
Estonia | 1.2 | 1.9 | 2.3 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.3 | 3.7 | +61
Iceland | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 1.4 | +126
Latvia | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.1 | -25

Note: Data refer to posted workers who received an authorisation to work in one single receiving country (Refer to De Wispelaere and Pacolet – HIVA-KU Leuven 2017 for the methodology). In total the receiving country is unknown for 26 % of the 2.2 million postings in 2016: posted workers originating from Denmark, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom and all posted workers active in two or more member states.

Source: De Wispelaere and Pacolet – HIVA-KU Leuven, (2017[1]).

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933753056

In 2016, 45% of the 1.5 million posted workers active in one single other European country were employed in the construction sector.⁴ In Belgium and Austria, posted workers represented respectively 27% and 19% of the total population employed in this sector.⁵ Overall, it is estimated that in six countries, posted workers represented more than 1% of the total employment in 2016: Germany and the Netherlands (1%), Switzerland (2%), Austria (3%), Belgium (4%) and Luxembourg (6%) (De Wispelaere and Pacolet – HIVA-KU Leuven, (2017[1])). Among the 607 000 workers active in two or more countries, 19% work in the construction sector and 14% in the sector of freight transport.

Figure 1.5. Posted workers by sending and receiving European country, 2016

Note: The figures refer to the number of portable documents A1 issued according to Article 12 of the Basic regulation and therefore exclude workers who are posted in two or more countries (Article 13). The data exclude Norway as the country doesn't provide statistics on the total number of workers sent.

Source: De Wispelaere and Pacolet – HIVA-KU Leuven, (2017[1]).

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751023

Students

The movement of international students to study in another country is part of the internationalisation of higher education, and involves significant migratory patterns. After a continuous rise over the decade, flows of international tertiary-educated students in the OECD decreased by 6% in 2016. This trend is fully driven by the sharp decrease in the number of F-1 visas granted in the United States (-27%). Indeed, the flows continued to rise in EU/EFTA (+4% in 2016) and in most other non-European countries (Table 1.5). In 2016, 1.4 million were granted a first residence permit in an OECD country. The United States remained the top destination but hosted only one third of all foreign student flows (around 470 000), compared with 42% the year before. The United Kingdom received 19% (270 000), followed by Australia (157 000) and Japan (108 000). Canada hosted 27% more new international students compared with 2015 (107 000) and France remained at the sixth position with 71 000 new arrivals.

In 2015, over 3.3 million international students were enrolled in tertiary education in an OECD country (Table 1.6). These stock data are not comparable with flow data. For a start, some international students only stay for short periods, meaning that they are included in flow data but are not present for the stock assessment (on a given date). In addition, the stock data include international students covered by provisions on freedom of movement (intra EU, Australia–New Zealand), and who are therefore usually not registered in the flow data.

Table 1.5. Inflows of international tertiary-level students in OECD countries, 2008-16
Number of residence permits issued
| 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2016/15 | 2016/08
| Thousands | Change
United States | 340.7 | 331.2 | 385.2 | 447.4 | 486.9 | 534.3 | 595.6 | 644.2 | 471.7 | -27 | +38
United Kingdom | 249.9 | 304.3 | 294.6 | 288.7 | 250.4 | 264.9 | 261.0 | 245.3 | 270.6 | +10 | +8
Australia | 121.4 | 93.8 | 76.3 | 75.0 | 91.3 | 121.1 | 125.4 | 136.8 | 156.6 | +14 | +29
Japan | 58.1 | 66.1 | 63.5 | 49.9 | 57.6 | 70.0 | 82.5 | 99.6 | 108.1 | +9 | +86
Canada | 45.9 | 50.3 | 56.3 | 62.1 | 69.6 | 75.3 | 80.7 | 83.5 | 107.1 | +28 | +133
France | 52.1 | 58.2 | 64.6 | 64.2 | 57.8 | 61.0 | 63.0 | 67.7 | 71.2 | +5 | +37
Germany | 22.2 | 24.2 | 23.5 | 21.2 | 32.3 | 36.9 | 40.4 | 38.8 | 37.3 | -4 | +68
Spain | 19.7 | 20.1 | 22.9 | 32.8 | 26.3 | 25.9 | 27.7 | 31.2 | 33.7 | +8 | +71
Korea | 15.1 | 15.8 | 16.8 | 15.6 | 15.4 | 19.2 | 21.9 | 23.4 | 27.3 | +17 | +81
New Zealand | 20.0 | 20.5 | 22.7 | 19.6 | 17.1 | 23.0 | 28.6 | 28.3 | 25.5 | -10 | +28
Poland | 4.5 | 5.3 | 7.3 | 3.9 | 6.0 | 16.9 | 22.9 | 29.8 | 21.3 | -29 | +376
Netherlands | 8.9 | 9.9 | 10.5 | 10.7 | 10.7 | 12.5 | 12.3 | 14.9 | 16.0 | +7 | +80
Switzerland | 11.0 | 11.1 | 12.4 | 11.7 | 11.3 | 12.3 | 10.9 | 11.9 | 11.3 | -5 | +2
Sweden | 11.2 | 13.5 | 14.2 | 6.8 | 7.1 | 7.6 | 9.3 | 9.4 | 9.5 | +1 | -15
Denmark | 7.4 | 6.1 | 5.8 | 5.8 | 6.2 | 7.0 | 7.4 | 8.2 | 9.2 | +11 | +25
Italy | 25.1 | 24.2 | 17.6 | 24.1 | 18.5 | 16.2 | 15.0 | 14.2 | 8.5 | -40 | -66
Hungary | 7.8 | 4.2 | 4.0 | 3.7 | 3.9 | 5.4 | 5.1 | 5.8 | 7.8 | +35 | +1
Finland | 4.8 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.4 | 5.6 | 5.9 | 6.3 | +8 | +31
Mexico | .. | .. | 4.6 | 4.8 | 5.1 | 7.4 | 10.7 | 6.8 | 6.0 | -12 | ..
Belgium | 6.4 | 6.8 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 5.3 | 5.5 | 5.8 | 5.8 | 5.7 | -2 | -10
Czech Republic | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 1.9 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 5.5 | 5.7 | +3 | +298
Austria | 3.0 | 3.1 | 3.5 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.6 | 5.4 | 5.9 | 4.5 | -23 | +52
Portugal | 3.5 | 4.0 | 5.3 | 6.3 | 7.9 | 4.0 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 3.4 | +23 | -4
Norway | 2.7 | 3.0 | 3.3 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 3.4 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 3.2 | -13 | +18
Chile | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.5 | .. | ..
Slovak Republic | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 1.5 | +17 | +465
Slovenia | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1.3 | +45 | +800
Latvia | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.3 | +18 | +403
Estonia | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.9 | -4 | +179
Iceland | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | +10 | +149
Greece | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | +6 | -79
Luxembourg | .. | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | -4 | ..
Total | 1 045 | 1 084 | 1 128 | 1 177 | 1 205 | 1 345 | 1 450 | 1 534 | 1 435 | -6 | +37

Note: Data refer to international tertiary-level students, including students enrolled in language courses (excluding intra-EU international students). The data do not include professional training courses. Data have been revised compared with the previous edition (notably for Chile, France, Norway and the United Kingdom).

Source: OECD International Migration Database.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933753075

The country hosting the largest number of international students is the United States, with over 900 000 students enrolled, followed by the United Kingdom (430 000), Australia (295 000), France (240 000), and Germany (230 000). The United States accounts for 27% of all enrolled international students in the OECD area, and the EU member countries, 46% (i.e. over 1.5 million students). In the EU28, about one-in-three international students comes from another EU country. Slightly more female than male international students are enrolled in European OECD countries, while male students represent the majority in non-European countries.

Table 1.6. International students enrolled in OECD countries, 2015
| International tertiary students | Share of international students by level of education (%)
| Total (thousands) | Of which: From OECD countries (%) | Of which: From EU28 countries (%) | Of which: Women (%) | % change 2015/14 | Total tertiary education | Master’s or equivalent level | Doctoral or equivalent level
Australia | 294 | 7 | 3 | 46 | + 11% | 15 | 43 | 34
Austria | 68 | 72 | 71 | 53 | + 4% | 16 | 19 | 27
Belgium | 56 | 51 | 50 | 58 | + 2% | 11 | 18 | 42
Canada | 172 | 19 | 12 | 45 | + 27% | 11 | 14 | 30
Chile | 4 | 10 | 5 | 52 | + 18% | 0 | 1 | 8
Czech Rep. | 42 | 65 | 63 | 53 | + 1% | 11 | 12 | 15
Denmark | 32 | 74 | 67 | 53 | + 8% | 10 | 18 | 32
Estonia | 3 | 64 | 57 | 44 | + 28% | 5 | 7 | 11
Finland | 23 | 23 | 18 | 44 | + 2% | 8 | 12 | 20
France | 239 | 21 | 17 | 52 | + 2% | 10 | 13 | 40
Germany | 229 | 32 | 27 | 49 | + 9% | 8 | 13 | 9
Greece | 28 | .. | .. | .. | - 3% | .. | .. | ..
Hungary | 22 | 55 | 47 | 50 | - 6% | 7 | 14 | 7
Iceland | 2 | 79 | 61 | 63 | + 21% | 8 | 9 | 32
Ireland | 16 | 42 | 26 | 50 | + 11% | 7 | 13 | 25
Israel | 10 | .. | .. | .. | - 3% | .. | 4 | 6
Italy | 90 | 17 | 22 | 59 | + 3% | 5 | 5 | ..
Japan | 132 | 5 | 2 | 47 | - 1% | 3 | 7 | 18
Korea | 55 | 8 | 1 | 54 | + 4% | 2 | 6 | 9
Latvia | 5 | 51 | 43 | 44 | + 17% | 6 | 13 | 9
Luxembourg | 3 | 78 | 78 | 51 | + 6% | 46 | 71 | 87
Mexico | 10 | .. | .. | .. | + 25% | 0 | 1 | 3
Netherlands | 86 | 53 | 54 | 54 | + 22% | 11 | 15 | 36
New Zealand | 57 | 15 | 4 | 43 | + 17% | 21 | 24 | 46
Norway | 10 | 40 | 35 | 51 | + 3% | 4 | 7 | 21
Poland | 44 | 23 | 15 | 52 | + 27% | 3 | 3 | 2
Portugal | 17 | 20 | 17 | 51 | + 13% | 5 | 6 | 21
Slovak Republic | 11 | 82 | 75 | 58 | - 2% | 6 | 8 | 9
Slovenia | 2 | 15 | 45 | 57 | - 5% | 3 | 4 | 9
Spain | 75 | 42 | 36 | 52 | + 56% | 3 | 7 | ..
Sweden | 27 | 39 | 34 | 47 | + 5% | 6 | 10 | 34
Switzerland | 51 | 71 | 67 | 50 | + 2% | 17 | 28 | 54
Turkey | 72 | 5 | 6 | 31 | + 50% | 1 | 4 | 6
United Kingdom | 431 | 33 | 28 | 52 | + 0% | 18 | 37 | 43
United States | 907 | 15 | 6 | 44 | + 8% | 5 | 9 | 38
EU OECD countries | 1 522 | 36 | 33 | 51 | + 6% | 8 | 12 | 22
OECD total | 3 324 | 24 | 19 | 48 | + 8% | 5 | 11 | 26
OECD average | .. | 38 | 34 | 50 | .. | 9 | 14 | 24
Note: Date refer to the year 2014/15. Data for the Czech Republic, Israel, Italy, Korea, the Slovak Republic and Turkey refer to foreign students instead of international students. Data for Canada, Iceland and Mexico refer to 2013 instead of 2014 and the change refers to 2012-13.
Source: OECD, Education at a Glance Database.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933753094

International students account for an average of 9% of the OECD tertiary-level student population. This proportion is twice as high in Austria, New Zealand, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. In Luxembourg, international students account for 46% of all students in higher education. However, the share of international students in the student population of many Asian, and Central and Southern European countries is relatively low, as is the case in the United States. The proportion of international students increases with the level of education. On average in the OECD, international students account for 14% of all students enrolled in Master’s programmes, and 24% of PhD enrolments. In a number of countries there is a particularly high share of international PhD students, for example one in every two PhD students in Switzerland, and over two in every five in New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Belgium and France are international. In almost two out of five OECD countries, international students account for over 25% of PhD students.

Figure 1.6. International students enrolled in OECD countries by origin, 2015

Note: Asia includes Western Asia.

Source: OECD Education at a Glance Database.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751042

Over half of international students in the OECD area originate from Asia, and over one-in-four from Europe. Chinese students are by far the most numerous international students, with 750 000 enrolments. Their share in the total number of international students grew markedly over the last year, since Chinese students increased by 24% between 2014 and 2015 (Figure 1.6). Chinese students are followed by students from India (223 000, up by 20%) and Germany (112 000). Since the number of Korean students has decreased by a third in the last two years, Korea is now only the sixth main country of origin for international students (77 500), behind France (85 000) and Saudi Arabia (78 000). Finally, students from an OECD country account for 24% of all international students in the OECD, and 36% in countries which are also members of the European Union.

Asylum seekers

After a record-high number of asylum applications to OECD countries in 2016 (1.64 million), there was a significant decline in 2017, with 1.23 million applications (Figure 1.7). There was a divergence between EU countries, which witnessed a 46% decrease in the number of applications (from 1.2 million in 2016 to 650 000 in 2017), and non-European OECD countries, for which there was a 37% increase (from 435 000 in 2016 to 601 000 in 2017). However, the 2017 number remains above the peak recorded in the early 1990s in the context of the Yugoslav war.

The change observed for EU countries, and indeed for the OECD as a whole, was mostly due to the large decline in applications in Germany, after the very high figure recorded in 2016, which partly reflected delayed registrations from 2015 entries.

The statistics on asylum seekers fail to reflect the situation in Turkey. During the year 2017, the number of Syrian nationals under temporary protection in Turkey increased by more than 550 000 (from 2.8 million in January to 3.4 million in December). Almost all held a status conferring temporary protection without requiring the submission of an asylum application. Turkey has been the leading destination country for refugees in the OECD area for seven years.

Figure 1.7. New asylum applications since 1980 in the OECD and the European Union

Note: Preliminary data for 2017.

Source: UNHCR, Eurostat.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751061

About 25% of the asylum seekers submitting first-time applications in OECD countries in 2017 originated from three countries: Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. These three main countries of origin have been the same since 2015, but Afghanistan is now slightly ahead of Syria. Asylum applications from Syrian nationals in OECD countries have indeed flattened since the last quarter of 2016 and remained lower in 2017, at about 25 000 per quarter (Figure 1.8). In total, the number of applications by Syrian nationals in OECD countries dropped by 70% between 2016 and 2017. Although the number of applications from Afghanistan also went down significantly (110 000 in 2017 compared to 215 000 in 2016 and 250 000 in 2015), this was the main country of origin, as in 2011 and 2012.

Figure 1.8. New asylum applications from Syrians in OECD countries, Q1 2012 to Q4 2017

Note: Preliminary data for 2017.

Source: UNHCR, Eurostat.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751080

Afghans, Syrians and Iraqis accounted, in 2017, for a roughly equal share of total asylum applications in the OECD area (Figure 1.9). As has been the case for several years, Nigeria and Pakistan are also high on the list of the main countries of origin of asylum seekers, although the absolute numbers are lower than in 2016 (-9% for Nigeria, -33% for Pakistan). On the other hand, three Latin American countries, Venezuela, El Salvador and Guatemala, accounted for a significantly larger number of asylum applicants in 2017, continuing a recent trend. Overall, about 120 000 nationals from these three countries applied for asylum in 2017, mostly in the United States, a 40% increase compared to 2016 (and a five-fold increase compared to 2014). The countries of origin and the profiles of asylum seekers are very varied, much more so than in the past.

In 2017, the United States received the highest number of asylum applications of all OECD countries, with 330 000 applications, up from 262 000 the previous year (Table 1.7). About 40% of asylum applications to the United States originated from three countries: El Salvador (16%), Venezuela (14%) and Guatemala (12%). Compared to 2016, asylum applications to the United States from the majority of the largest origin countries increased significantly: applications from Venezuela and El Salvador increased respectively by 60% and 40%. On the other hand, applications from Mexico and China, which were the second and fourth main origin countries of asylum seekers to the United States in 2016, decreased respectively by 10% and 15%.

Figure 1.9. New asylum applications in OECD countries by country of origin, 2015-17

Note: Preliminary data for 2017

Source: UNHCR, Eurostat.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751099

The second largest destination country of asylum applicants in the OECD in 2017 was Germany, which had previously been the largest destination for several years. In 2017, first asylum applications to Germany amounted to 198 000, a 73% decline from the record high observed in 2016 (722 000 applications). The United States and Germany were followed by Italy (127 000 applications), Turkey (124 000 applications) and France (91 000 applications) as the main destination countries for asylum seekers in 2017. Compared to 2016, the number of applications increased most significantly in Canada, where it doubled, Japan (+76%), Mexico (+66%), Spain (+62%) and Turkey (+59%). Conversely, there was a sharp downturn in applicants in a number of European countries that saw large inflows in the recent years; in addition to Germany, applications declined strongly in Hungary (-89%), Poland (-69%), Denmark (-48%), Austria (-44%) and Switzerland (-35%).

Table 1.7. New asylum applications by country where application is filed, 2013-17
| 2013-15 annual average | 2016 | 2017 | 2016-2017 absolute change | % change 2017/2016 | Asylum seekers per million population (2017) | Top three origins of the asylum seekers (2017)
Australia | 11 030 | 27 200 | 35 170 | +7 970 | +29 | 1 438 | Malaysia, Iran, China
Austria | 42 940 | 39 880 | 22 160 | - 17 720 | -44 | 2 537 | Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq
Belgium | 21 690 | 14 250 | 14 040 | - 210 | -1 | 1 228 | Syria, Afghanistan, West Bank and Gaza Strip
Canada | 13 300 | 23 830 | 50 470 | +26 640 | +112 | 1 378 | Haiti, Nigeria, United States
Chile | 390 | 2 300 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. 
Czech Republic | 890 | 1 210 | 1 130 | - 80 | -7 | 106 | Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Georgia
Denmark | 14 530 | 6 050 | 3 130 | - 2 920 | -48 | 546 | Syria, Morocco, Eritrea
Estonia | 160 | 150 | 190 | + 40 | +27 | 145 | Russia, Ukraine, Georgia
Finland | 12 940 | 5 280 | 4 330 | - 950 | -18 | 784 | Iraq, Syria, Eritrea
France | 64 590 | 76 790 | 91 070 | +14 280 | +19 | 1 402 | Albania, Afghanistan, Haiti
Germany | 241 520 | 722 270 | 198 260 | - 524 010 | -73 | 2 414 | Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan
Greece | 9 680 | 49 880 | 57 020 | +7 140 | +14 | 5 109 | Syria, Pakistan, Iraq
Hungary | 78 120 | 28 220 | 3 100 | - 25 120 | -89 | 319 | Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria
Iceland | 230 | 1 110 | 1 070 | - 40 | -4 | 3 194 | Georgia, Albania, Iraq
Ireland | 1 890 | 2 310 | 2 920 | + 610 | +26 | 613 | Iraq, Pakistan, Iran
Israel | 2 730 | 14 840 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. 
Italy | 57 540 | 121 190 | 126 550 | +5 360 | +4 | 2 132 | Nigeria, Bangladesh, Pakistan
Japan | 5 280 | 10 900 | 19 250 | +8 350 | +77 | 151 | Philippines, Viet Nam, Sri Lanka
Korea | 3 390 | 7 540 | 9 940 | + 540 | +7 | 158 | China, Kazakhstan, Egypt
Latvia | 290 | 350 | 350 | +0 | +0 | 180 | Syria, Viet Nam, Eritrea
Luxembourg | 1 420 | 2 060 | 2 330 | + 270 | +13 | 3 993 | Syria, Serbia (and Kosovo), Morocco
Mexico | 2 290 | 8 800 | 14 600 | +5 800 | +66 | 113 | Honduras, Venezuela, El Salvador
Netherlands | 26 440 | 19 290 | 16 090 | - 3 200 | -17 | 944 | Syria, Eritrea, Morocco
New Zealand | 310 | 520 | 560 | + 40 | +8 | 119 | China, India, Sri Lanka
Norway | 18 250 | 3 250 | 3 350 | + 100 | +3 | 631 | Syria, Eritrea, Turkey
Poland | 9 960 | 9 790 | 3 000 | - 6 790 | -69 | 79 | Russia, Ukraine, Tajikistan
Portugal | 610 | 710 | 1 010 | + 300 | +42 | 98 | Dem. Rep. Congo, Angola, Ukraine
Slovak Republic | 260 | 100 | 160 | + 60 | +60 | 29 | Afghanistan, Viet Nam, Syria
Slovenia | 290 | 1 270 | 1 440 | + 170 | +13 | 692 | Afghanistan, Algeria, Pakistan
Spain | 7 920 | 15 570 | 25 270 | +9 700 | +62 | 545 | Venezuela, Syria, Ukraine
Sweden | 95 270 | 22 330 | 22 190 | - 140 | -1 | 2 239 | Syria, Eritrea, Iraq
Switzerland | 26 560 | 25 820 | 16 610 | - 9 210 | -36 | 1 960 | Eritrea, Syria, Afghanistan
Turkey | 88 740 | 77 850 | 123 920 | +46 070 | +59 | 1 535 | Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran
United Kingdom | 34 060 | 39 240 | 33 320 | - 5 920 | -15 | 503 | Iraq, Pakistan, Iran
United States | 134 590 | 261 970 | 329 800 | +67 830 | +26 | 1 016 | El Salvador, Venezuela, Guatemala
OECD total | 1 030 100 | 1 644 120 | 1 233 800 | - 411 380 | -25 | 955 | Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq
Selected non-OECD countries |  |  |  |  |  |
Bulgaria | 12 640 | 18 910 | 3 470 | - 15 440 | -82 | 490 | Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria
Lithuania | 320 | 430 | 550 | + 120 | +28 | 190 | Syria, Russia, Tajikistan
Malta | 1 730 | 1 740 | 1 620 | - 120 | -7 | 3 760 | Syria, Libya, Somalia
Romania | 1 440 | 1 190 | 4 700 | +3 510 | +295 | 239 | Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan

Note: Figures for 2017 are preliminary. Figures for the United States refer to "affirmative" claims submitted with the Department of Homeland Security (number of cases) and "defensive" claims submitted to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (number of people). The symbol “..” stands for “not available”.

Source: UNHCR; Eurostat; OECD International Migration Database.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933753113

In most European OECD countries, the distribution of asylum applicants by main origin countries tends to mirror that of the OECD total. In Germany, for example, the main origin countries of new asylum seekers remained unchanged compared to 2016: Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq accounted for 45% of all applications. Some countries, however, stand out because the bulk of asylum seekers come from other countries of origin. In Italy, for example, most of the applications come from countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, such as Nigeria, Gambia or Côte d’Ivoire, but also from Pakistan and Bangladesh. In France, Albanian asylum seekers were more numerous than Afghans, and Haitians more numerous than Syrians. In the United Kingdom, 20% of applications came from Pakistan, Bangladesh or India. Moreover, non-European countries are relatively unaffected by asylum applications from the Middle East, as has been noted above for the United States. In Canada, the main countries of origin include Haiti and Nigeria, while Malaysia is the most frequent country of origin among asylum seekers in Australia.

Comparisons of ratios of asylum-seeker entries to host country populations reveal that in 2017, OECD countries registered 970 applications per million inhabitants, which is close to the ratio observed for the United States. Among OECD countries with at least 1 million inhabitants, Greece was the leading asylum receiving country in this respect, with a ratio of over 5 000 per million, followed by Austria (2 500 per million), Germany (2 400), Sweden (2 200) and Italy (2 100). In contrast, the United Kingdom received only 500 applications per million inhabitants in 2017, and Japan and Mexico fewer than 200.

Table 1.8. Number of permanent entries for humanitarian reasons, 2009-17
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017/ 2016 change (%)
Australia | 14 854 | 14 553 | 13 976 | 13 759 | 20 019 | 13 768 | 13 756 | 17 555 | ..
Austria | 4 982 | 4 749 | 5 757 | 4 099 | 4 920 | 7 563 | 15 803 | 30 570 | -1
Belgium | 2 905 | 3 510 | 5 075 | 5 555 | 6 313 | 8 045 | 10 798 | 15 828 | -16
Canada | 22 861 | 24 699 | 27 880 | 23 098 | 24 139 | 24 068 | 32 111 | 58 914 | ..
Denmark | 1 376 | 2 124 | 2 249 | 2 583 | 3 889 | 6 104 | 10 849 | 7 493 | -67
Finland | 3 011 | 3 168 | 2 226 | 2 836 | 3 038 | 2 877 | 3 527 | 9 719 | -51
France | 12 732 | 12 083 | 11 606 | 12 232 | 12 107 | 14 104 | 16 551 | 23 174 | +16
Germany | 11 107 | 11 828 | 11 036 | 18 399 | 31 286 | 42 393 | 143 246 | 434 329 | -40
Ireland | 366 | 153 | 132 | 112 | 182 | 224 | 334 | 646 | +44
Italy | 9 573 | 4 303 | 7 155 | 22 030 | 14 395 | 20 580 | 29 615 | 35 405 | -10
Japan | 531 | 429 | 287 | 130 | 175 | 144 | 125 | 143 | ..
Korea | 74 | 47 | 38 | 60 | 36 | 633 | 234 | 320 | ..
Luxembourg | .. | .. | .. | 100 | 164 | 235 | 253 | 738 | +47
Mexico | .. | 222 | 262 | 389 | 198 | 348 | 615 | 1 760 | ..
Netherlands | 9 590 | 10 010 | 10 690 | 5 268 | 9 970 | 19 429 | 41 216 | 17 086 | -62
New Zealand | 3 109 | 2 807 | 2 741 | 3 032 | 3 385 | 3 551 | 3 784 | 4 023 | ..
Norway | 6 189 | 5 328 | 5 389 | 5 721 | 6 725 | 6 287 | 8 916 | 15 581 | -63
Portugal | 52 | 57 | 65 | 100 | 135 | 110 | 195 | 320 | +56
Spain | 341 | 595 | 967 | 520 | 528 | 1 583 | 1 020 | 6 855 | -37
Sweden | 11 119 | 12 073 | 12 651 | 17 355 | 28 904 | 35 642 | 36 645 | 71 571 | -60
Switzerland | 5 370 | 6 655 | 5 755 | 4 212 | 5 061 | 6 355 | 7 051 | 6 517 | +11
United Kingdom | 3 110 | 4 931 | 13 003 | 11 434 | 21 274 | 17 801 | 18 895 | 13 071 | -14
United States | 177 368 | 136 291 | 168 460 | 150 614 | 119 630 | 134 242 | 151 995 | 157 425 | ..
All countries | 300 620 | 260 615 | 307 400 | 303 638 | 316 473 | 366 086 | 547 534 | 929 043 | ..
All European countries | 81 823 | 81 567 | 93 756 | 112 556 | 148 891 | 189 332 | 344 914 | 688 903 | -36
Source: OECD International Migration Database.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933753132

The scale of asylum-seeker flows in 2015, 2016 and, to a lesser extent 2017, has led to a significant backlog of applications in European countries. As of December 2017, there were still more than 900 000 asylum applicants waiting for a decision in the European Union. The high asylum recognition rates for Syrians, who represented the largest group of applicants in 2015 and 2016, led to a 70% increase in the number of permanent migrants for humanitarian reasons in 2016 compared to the previous year, reaching 930 000 in the 23 OECD countries for which comparable data is available (Table 1.8). This is three times as many as the 2008-14 average level. European countries represented three-quarters of these entries (690 000), and Germany alone almost half (430 000). The United States received about 17% of the new humanitarian migrants in the OECD, followed by Sweden (8%) and Canada (6%).

Beyond the asylum channel, many refugees have been resettled to OECD countries (Figure 1.10). Following the expansion of refugee resettlement quotas during the 2014-15 humanitarian crisis in many OECD countries, the number of resettlements increased sharply from 81 000 in 2015 to 126 000 in 2016 (only those resettled with UNHCR’s assistance). The United States was the top destination country, followed by Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and the Nordic countries who also provided a sizeable number of places annually. In 2017, the number of resettlements decreased sharply to 65 000.

Figure 1.10. Refugees admitted under resettlement programmes in OECD countries, 2003-17

Source: UNHCR.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751118

Composition of the migration population by gender and origin

How large is the foreign-born population at the OECD?

The total foreign-born population living in OECD countries rose to 127 million people in 2017, which represents a 3% increase compared to 2016 (see Figure 1.11). After a decreased growth pace between 2010 and 2014, average growth is back to the trend observed in 2000’s, of about 3 million additional foreign-born per year. An increasing share of the OECD’s foreign-born population lives in an EU/EFTA country, reaching 48% of the 127 million foreign-born in 2017, 34% live in the United States. Between 2000 and 2017, the increase in the foreign-born population accounted for close to three-quarters of the total population increase in EU/EFTA countries, and for more than one-third of the increase in the United States.

Figure 1.11. Number of foreign-born persons in the OECD area, 2000-17

Note: Estimated 2017 data for Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Israel, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Turkey. Data for the United States include an undetermined share of undocumented migrants.

Source: OECD International Migration Database; Eurostat.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751137

Figure 1.12. The foreign-born as a percentage of the total population in OECD countries, 2000 and 2017

Note: Data refer to 2000 or the closest available year, and to 2017 or the most recent available year. The OECD and EU/EFTA averages are simple averages based on rates presented. For Japan and Korea, the data refer to the foreign population rather than the foreign-born population.

Source: OECD International Migration Database.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751156

On average, the foreign-born population accounted for 13% of the population in OECD countries in 2017, up from 9.5% in 2000 (Figure 1.12). Similar to previous years, the proportion of foreign-born is highest in Luxembourg (46% of the total population), Switzerland (29%), Australia (28%) and New Zealand (23%). The immigrant population has increased across the OECD, with the exception of Greece and several countries with an aging immigrant population (Estonia, Israel, Latvia, and Poland), following restrictions over the Balkan route in 2016. The strongest growth in the immigrant population over the period was recorded in some EU/EFTA countries (+19 percentage points in Denmark; +11 in Germany and Iceland; +6 in Finland and Sweden) as well as in Japan (+6 percentage points).

Countries of origin of new immigrants to the OECD

The discussion of permanent and temporary migration in previous sections was based on standardised definitions designed to make the scale and composition of migration comparable across countries. With the exception of a handful of countries, however, no such standardised data are yet available by country or region of origin. The analysis of data from population registers and other ad hoc sources helps identify the origin of recent migrants. While the figures should be treated with caution, as they may be composed of mixed groups of permanent and temporary migrants across receiving countries, they do nonetheless offer an indication of the magnitude and make-up of flows by country of origin.

In 2016, the top five countries of origin of new immigrants to OECD countries were China, Romania, Syria, India, and Poland (see Table 1.9). China has held the top position since 2008, while Romania ranked second.

The number of Syrians entering the OECD fell by 20% in 2016 after tripling between 2014 and 2015. Despite this decrease, Syrians still account for almost 5% of all registered flows to OECD countries. These figures do not include Turkey, so the actual level of Syrian migration into the OECD area in recent years is higher.

Poland fell to the fifth position after a significant reduction in emigration in 2016 (-15%). Flows from Poland to the UK fell by 27% between 2015 and 2016 while Polish emigration to Germany declined by 16%. India took over the fourth position despite an increase of less than 1% in new immigrants to the OECD. India accounted for 3.8% of immigration flows to OECD countries in 2016, while flows from Poland accounted for 3.7%.

Mexico rose into the sixth position with a 6.6% increase in immigration to the rest of the OECD in 2016, including a 10% increase in flows to the United States. A spike of almost 22% of new immigrants to the OECD pushed Viet Nam into the seventh position. Vietnamese flows increased to the United States (34%), Korea (33%), Japan (18%) and Germany (14%). These upturns followed a 20% increase in Vietnamese immigration to the OECD in 2015. Mexico and Viet Nam accounted for 2.7% and 2.6%, respectively, of immigration flows to the OECD.

Table 1.9. Top 50 countries of origin of new immigrants to the OECD, 2006-16
| Average 2006-2015 (thousands) | 2015 (thousands) | 2016 (thousands) | % of total OECD inflows 2016 | % change 2016/2015 | Difference in ranking vs 2015 | Difference in ranking vs 2006-15
China | 517 | 541 | 538 | 7.6 | -1 | 0 | 0
Romania | 336 | 421 | 419 | 5.9 | -1 | 1 | 0
Syria | 68 | 429 | 343 | 4.9 | -20 | -1 | 18
India | 241 | 268 | 271 | 3.8 | +1 | 1 | 0
Poland | 282 | 309 | 263 | 3.7 | -15 | -1 | -2
Mexico | 171 | 181 | 193 | 2.7 | +7 | 1 | -1
Viet Nam | 100 | 152 | 185 | 2.6 | +22 | 2 | 4
Italy | 99 | 170 | 172 | 2.4 | +1 | 0 | 4
Philippines | 165 | 181 | 167 | 2.4 | -8 | -3 | -3
United States | 133 | 139 | 137 | 1.9 | -1 | 0 | -3
United Kingdom | 129 | 123 | 130 | 1.8 | +6 | 2 | -3
Ukraine | 85 | 111 | 128 | 1.8 | +15 | 4 | 3
France | 95 | 115 | 125 | 1.8 | +9 | 2 | 0
Afghanistan | 36 | 139 | 125 | 1.8 | -10 | -3 | 27
Bulgaria | 89 | 127 | 125 | 1.8 | -2 | -3 | -1
Iraq | 49 | 121 | 110 | 1.6 | -9 | -3 | 14
Germany | 124 | 109 | 109 | 1.5 | -1 | -1 | -9
Pakistan | 84 | 99 | 95 | 1.3 | -4 | -1 | -3
Morocco | 112 | 84 | 89 | 1.3 | +7 | 3 | -10
Russia | 75 | 81 | 88 | 1.2 | +8 | 3 | -3
Spain | 58 | 95 | 88 | 1.2 | -7 | -2 | 4
Hungary | 65 | 99 | 85 | 1.2 | -15 | -4 | -1
Colombia | 69 | 59 | 81 | 1.2 | +37 | 10 | -4
Cuba | 54 | 67 | 80 | 1.1 | +19 | 3 | 5
Brazil | 81 | 68 | 80 | 1.1 | +18 | 1 | -9
Croatia | 29 | 77 | 76 | 1.1 | +0 | -2 | 25
Dominican Republic | 59 | 62 | 75 | 1.1 | +20 | 4 | -3
Korea | 73 | 65 | 72 | 1.0 | +10 | 0 | -10
Thailand | 57 | 64 | 67 | 1.0 | +6 | 1 | -2
Turkey | 60 | 54 | 65 | 0.9 | +20 | 5 | -8
Portugal | 58 | 64 | 65 | 0.9 | +1 | -2 | -5
Iran | 43 | 59 | 60 | 0.9 | +3 | 2 | 2
Venezuela | 25 | 34 | 59 | 0.8 | +74 | 18 | 22
Nigeria | 43 | 53 | 58 | 0.8 | +10 | 3 | -1
Haiti | 31 | 30 | 52 | 0.7 | +77 | 21 | 14
Peru | 60 | 47 | 51 | 0.7 | +9 | 3 | -13
Bangladesh | 45 | 51 | 51 | 0.7 | +0 | 1 | -5
Nepal | 29 | 47 | 48 | 0.7 | +3 | 2 | 14
Greece | 32 | 53 | 47 | 0.7 | -12 | -3 | 8
Eritrea | 16 | 46 | 44 | 0.6 | -5 | 1 | 36
Serbia | 37 | 60 | 44 | 0.6 | -28 | -9 | -2
Netherlands | 38 | 44 | 42 | 0.6 | -5 | 1 | -4
Algeria | 41 | 45 | 39 | 0.5 | -14 | -1 | -6
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 27 | 37 | 38 | 0.5 | +1 | 3 | 10
Egypt | 33 | 39 | 38 | 0.5 | -2 | 1 | 0
Indonesia | 30 | 35 | 38 | 0.5 | +8 | 4 | 4
Albania | 55 | 91 | 37 | 0.5 | -59 | -26 | -19
Australia | 35 | 39 | 37 | 0.5 | -5 | -3 | -6
Canada | 42 | 42 | 36 | 0.5 | -15 | -5 | -13
Japan | 35 | 37 | 35 | 0.5 | -5 | -1 | -9
OECD | 1 800 | 2 039 | 1 965 | 27.8 | -4 |  |
Non-OECD | 3 948 | 5 002 | 5 092 | 72.2 | +2 |  |
EU28 | 1 645 | 2 055 | 1 966 | 27.9 | -4 |  |
Total | 5 748 | 7 041 | 7 057 | 100.0 | +0 |  |
Source: OECD International Migration Database.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933753151

Emigration from the Philippines to the OECD fell by 8% in 2016. Flows decreased to the United States (-6%) and Canada (-18%) but increased by 9% to Japan. Emigration from Italy to the rest of the OECD stagnated in 2016 after an 11% increase in 2015. While flows from Italy to Spain increased by 17%, those from Italy to Germany decreased by 8%. Italy and the Philippines each account for about 2.4% of overall flows. After a second straight year of decline, the United States accounts for just under 2% of all immigrants to the OECD area.

Several other countries outside of the top ten countries of origin experienced notable changes in their long-term trends in 2016. Flows from Ukraine to the OECD increased by 15% in 2016 due mainly to a 41% increase in immigration to Poland. Emigration from Haiti to the OECD rose by 77%, with an increase of 39% to the United States and an increase of 262% to Chile (from 6 000 to 23 000). Turkey experienced a 19% increase in emigration towards other OECD countries, with a 21% increase in flows to Germany. Flows from Colombia to the OECD rose by 37%, with increases to Spain (+144%, to 22 800) and Chile (+38%, to 27 000).

In addition to the EU member countries mentioned above, Croatia, Greece and Bulgaria saw decreases in emigration in 2016. Emigration from Croatia declined by 3% but remained at historically high levels. Emigration from Greece fell by 9%, returning to its 2014 level. Emigration of Bulgarian citizens declined by 3% from its historical high in 2015.

In contrast, several EU member states experienced increased outflows in 2016. Emigration from France increased by 9%, with a 67% increase in flows to the United Kingdom between 2015 and 2016. Emigration from the United Kingdom rose by 4%, with increased immigration to France (+19%) and Spain (+23%). Flows from Ireland increased by 29%, with a 120% rise in emigration to the United Kingdom. Emigration from Spain and Portugal rose slightly in 2016 after falling in 2015.

Box 1.1. Changes in intra-EU mobility since 2004

Since the enlargement of the EU to ten additional member countries in 2004, flows of registered EU citizens within the EU have nearly doubled to 1.8 million in 2016. Over this period, the top origin countries remained Romania and Poland, although their share in total intra-EU flows decreased from 41% in 2004 to 38% in 2016. Increasing flows from other new EU members have also been registered, directed largely towards Germany and Austria.

While Romanians mostly immigrated to Spain and Italy in the mid-2000s, Germany progressively became their main destination country (Figure 1.13). Since 2004, the growth of migration flows of Romanians to Germany has been continuous and strong, and flows reached more than 220 000 new immigrants in 2016 (including short-term movements). The second top destination country is the United Kingdom with more than 50 000 long-term Romanian immigrants in 2016.

Poland has long been a key origin country to Germany: flows of Polish immigrants plateaued at around 150 000 in 2006 and again in the years 2013-15 with around 190 000 annual registered entries. A large drop in flows was registered in 2016 (160 000). Their flows to the United Kingdom peaked at 88 000 long-term immigrants in 2007 and have been fluctuating between 30 000 and 40 000 since 2009. Their flows to the Netherlands have been increasing continuously since 2004 and, since 2014, has reached 23 000 annual entries.

Bulgarian, French and German citizens are the following top three nationalities moving to another EU country, far behind Romanian, Polish and Italian citizens.

Figure 1.13. Inflows of top EU origin by EU destination, 2000-16

Thousands

Source: OECD International Migration Database.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751175

Flows of migrant women

The share of women in total migration to OECD has gradually declined since 2009, and women represented 45% of new immigrants to the OECD area in 2016 (Figure 1.14). This fall can be partially attributed to a significant change by category of entry. Over the last six years, two categories with an overrepresentation of – male migration for employment (including both managed labour migration and migration for employment within areas of free movement), and humanitarian migration – have increased proportionally more than the other categories, including family migration. The downward trend in the share of women in new migrant flows is fairly general and can be observed in two-thirds of the countries. Compared to the previous five years, the downward trend was particularly visible in 2016 in Iceland (-8 percentage points), Italy (-7 percentage points) and Finland (-6 percentage points).

Figure 1.14. Share of women in overall migration flows to OECD countries, 2011-16

Note: The OECD average is the average of the countries featured in the figure above. For Denmark and Chile, 2015 instead of 2016, and their averages are through 2014.

Source: OECD International Migration Database.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751194

In 2016, only seven OECD countries took in more migrant women than men. The share of migrant women was highest in the United States, Australia, France and Israel. In these countries the gender balance of flows was relatively stable, reflecting the predominance of family migration. The increase in the number of migrant women in Australia is due in part to the change in the make-up of flows by country of origin, with an upturn in entries from Asia, which traditionally involve more women than men. Conversely, the share of women in new migrant flows to Germany, Austria, and most Central and Eastern European countries with available data is below 45%.

Acquisition of citizenship

In 2016, almost 2.1 million people acquired the nationality of an OECD country, representing a slight increase (3%) compared to 2015. This figure remains within the average for the last 10 years, during which 20 million foreign nationals have acquired the citizenship of an OECD country. Around 900 000 people became nationals of an EU country in 2016, which represents a 14% increase compared to 2015. Greece granted citizenship to more than 33 000 people, almost three times more than in 2015. Aside from Greece, the number of acquisitions of nationality in other EU/EFTA countries increased in several countries, such as Estonia (+98%), the Slovak Republic (+32%) and the United Kingdom (+27%). Naturalisations also increased in Chile and New Zealand. Lastly, more than 750 000 people became US citizens (+3%), but naturalisations fell in Canada by 100 000 compared to its 2015 level to under 150 000.

Figure 1.15. Acquisition of citizenship as a percentage of the foreign population, 2015 and 2016

Note: Australia, Canada, Chile and New Zealand: the data refer to the foreign-born population rather than the foreign population. The OECD average is the average of the countries featured in the figure above.

Source: OECD International Migration Database.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751213

In terms of acquisition of citizenship as a percentage of the foreign population, Sweden remains the leading OECD country (Figure 1.15), with 7.8% of the foreign population living in Sweden on 1 January 2016, acquiring citizenship during the year. In Greece, the comparable figure is 4.8%, three times more than in the previous year, and in Portugal the figure is 6.5%. Five other countries registered a naturalisation rate of over 3%, namely Finland, Italy, the United States, Denmark and the Netherlands. In Switzerland and Luxembourg, where foreign citizens make up a large proportion of the total population, respectively 2.1 and 2.7% of them acquired the nationality of their host country in 2016, around the OECD average (2.4%).

The top origin countries for naturalised foreigners are India (127 000 people), Mexico (108 000), the Philippines (85 000), Morocco (78 000) and Albania, where 70 000 nationals were granted citizenship by an OECD country in 2016, an increase of 18 500 from 2015 (+36%) (Figure 1.16). Naturalisations of Moroccan and Chinese nationals have declined (-15%) – with only 77 750 Moroccan and 66 500 Chinese naturalised – and even more significantly for Turkish nationals (-37%).

Figure 1.16. Acquisitions of nationality in OECD countries: Top 20 countries of former nationality, 2015 and 2016

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933762271

Recent policy developments

Economic migration

Programmes for highly-skilled economic migrants continue to be adjusted…

In OECD countries with selective migration schemes granting immediate permanent settlement, criteria have been adjusted. In Australia, the eligibility requirements of its permanent employer-sponsored visas have seen tightened English language requirements, extension of the eligibility period for transition to permanent residence from two to three years, and a lower maximum age requirement of 45 (from 50). However, some concessions for skills needs in regional Australia will continue to be available, including waivers to certain conditions under both temporary and permanent visas. From October 2016, stricter language requirements are also being applied in New Zealand and the points threshold to be invited to apply under the Skilled Migrant Category (SMC) has increased (from 140 to 160). New SMC criteria include a salary threshold and greater recognition of work experience. Canada introduced several changes to Express Entry to align job offer requirements and points more closely with labour market realities. Changes included reducing the points for a job offer and providing certain candidates with an exemption from a Labour Market Impact Assessment (labour market test) for their job offer, and providing additional points for completed college or university-level study. Further modifications in June 2017 awarding included additional points to those with siblings in Canada and for French language skills.

In Canada, in order to increase retention of sponsored economic migrants in Atlantic Provinces, an initiative was launched in March 2017 to test innovative approaches to attract and retain skilled immigrants to meet labour market needs in this region. A distinguishing feature of the pilot is the increased role of the employer, in partnership with federal and provincial immigrant settlement service provider organisations, in the settlement and retention of newcomer employees and their families.

…while competition to facilitate migration of skilled workers continues

In those OECD countries where initial admission is only on a temporary renewable basis, the trend remains for countries to take measures to attract (particularly highly) skilled workers by making it easier for them to enter the labour market and for employers to recruit them.

The new Chilean law of April 2018 creates a visa for graduates of top global universities, to come to Chile and seek work for 12 months, renewable once.

France introduced a “Passeport Talent” in 2016 with the aim of attracting skilled and highly qualified workers. It includes 12 different categories, including highly qualified workers (who receive the EU Blue Card), salaried staff on assignment (subject to education and salary requirements) and researchers. These people are entitled to a visa of more than one year from the moment they enter the country and do not need proof of prior employment or to take a medical examination. Permit duration is as long as four years before renewal is required.

In many European countries, where the EU Blue Card is available for highly-qualified labour migrants, conditions have been eased within the statutory limits of the EU Blue Card Directive. A shortage list, allowing a lower minimum salary for eligibility, has been introduced in Latvia and in Luxembourg.

The EU Blue Card Directive allows countries to set lower thresholds for certain skilled occupations (1.2 rather than 1.5 or more times the average salary). Few countries initially did so, but the list has been expanding. Latvia and Luxembourg introduced a shortage occupation list allowing lower salary for EU Blue Card workers. In Lithuania, the general threshold was reduced from twice average gross monthly earnings to 1.5 times. Similarly, a labour market test exemption – allowed but not required under the Directive – has been extended in Bulgaria and Lithuania (especially for the IT sector).

The EU Blue Card Directive also allows countries to take professional experience into account rather than just academic qualifications. Some countries, Latvia for example, which initially declined to do so, now have included this. In Lithuania and Bulgaria recognition of overseas professional qualifications has been eased. In Bulgaria, employers recruiting EU Blue Card migrants are no longer subject to a quota restricting the number of international employees to not more than 10% of the personnel.

At the EU level, in 2016, the Commission proposed a reform (COM(2016)378) of the 2009 EU Blue Card Directive (2009/50) on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of highly-qualified employment. Among other changes, the proposal would increase the favourable treatment provided for EU Blue Card holders and provide more flexibility in the criteria for qualifying for the permit. The dialogue between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament on the Commission proposal started effectively in September 2017. The institutions diverge on several important issues. The main point of disagreement concerns the possibility for Member States to maintain national schemes for the recruitment of highly-skilled workers parallel to the EU Blue Card. While the Commission proposal, supported by the European Parliament, allowed more favourable national provisions on a limited list of issues, Member States want to maintain the possibility to have their own national schemes.⁶

Temporary skilled work schemes have also undergone revision

Many temporary skilled work schemes have been made more accessible. For example, as part of the Canadian Global Skills Strategy launched in June 2016 to attract top global talent, changes to the temporary work system were made. For specific applicants identified as top talent, there is a two-week work permit issuance process; a dedicated service channel offering enhanced client access; work permit exemptions for short-term work and brief academic stays in Canada; and a new stream of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program for skilled occupations in shortage and for employers with unique talent needs (Global Talent Stream). The Global Talent Stream requires sponsors to be referred by one of the designated referral partners, generally governments and development boards. Canada introduced new measures to support television and film production, the performing arts, and francophone minority communities. In addition, the limit on the number of years that foreign nationals can work temporarily in Canada was eliminated in December 2016.

Following amendments to the Aliens Act in 2016-17, foreigners in Estonia may work either short-term (up to six months) or with a residence permit as an agency worker. The period of short-term employment was extended from a maximum of 180 days to 270 days per annum. More broadly, Estonia lowered the salary threshold for recruitment of a foreign worker from 1.24 times the average salary to the equivalent of the average salary, substantially broadening the range of occupations for which recruitment is possible. Estonia imposes quotas on total recruitment of foreign workers, but exempted additional categories from counting against the quota, such as workers in IT and entrepreneurs.

In Austria, new measures are designed to increase flexibility in its “Red-White-Red” permit (RWR-card) for foreign talent. The RWR-card may now be issued for two years (up from one year) for a specific employer, after which it may be issued with unlimited access to the labour market. The RWR-card for self-employed is also valid for two years and may be changed to a settlement permit thereafter, or to a RWR-card in case of status change from self-employed to wage employment. Romania now allows a foreign national holding a temporary residence permit for work purposes more flexibility to change employer and receive a new work permit.

In some cases, reforms in temporary skilled channels have aimed to increase the skill requirements and make qualification criteria stricter. Australia has amended its visa regulations to simplify and deregulate the Skilled and 400 series visa programmes. The changes reduced visa subclasses from seven to four (Short Stay Specialist; International Relations; Training; Temporary Activity); sponsorship classes from six to one and introduced a flat fee structure across all temporary visas. Notably, Australia is replacing its Temporary Work (Skilled) visa (subclass 457) with a new Temporary Skill Shortage (TSS) visa. The TSS visa comprises two streams: short-term, valid for up to two years maximum; and medium-term, valid for up to four years and to be used only for more critical skill shortages. TSS includes more targeted occupation lists, imposes mandatory labour market testing, allows only one onshore visa renewal, increases English language requirements and requires sponsors to contribute to a “Skilling Australians Fund”.

In a similar vein, the United Kingdom introduced a number of changes to its Tier 2 migration stream for qualified foreign workers, in most cases to raise the cost and minimum salary for recruitment. A number of fees were increased, and a GBP 1 000 Immigration Skills Charge is now levied for each sponsored worker, albeit with some reductions and exemptions available. The Tier 2 Intra-company transfer – Short-Term Staff category was closed, and the salary threshold for the ICT channel set at GBP 41 500. The general Tier 2 salary threshold was raised to GBP 30 000, although lower thresholds were granted for certain occupations. Changes to the Essential Skills visa in New Zealand, designed to enable employers to continue to hire temporary migrant workers where there are genuine shortages, were implemented in August 2017. They include the creation of skill bands and introduce a maximum duration of three years – followed by a 12-month “cool-down” – for lower skill workers. Some programmes have seen compliance and labour market testing stepped up. The United States changed procedures for renewal of the H-1B visa for specialty workers, who are, from late 2017, subject to the same level of scrutiny as at initial authorisation. Previously, renewals were granted on the assumption that initial conditions still prevailed.

Elsewhere the approach is one of fine-tuning existing policies towards the highly skilled. In some cases there is targeting of specific sectors or occupations. In Austria, the point system for skilled migrants in shortage occupation groups has been changed to give less weight to age so that workers in these occupations, but over the age of 40, may qualify for the RWR-card.

Streamlined procedures are increasingly used to make it simpler for skilled workers to be recruited. In Hungary, the deadline for decision-making in single application procedures was decreased from 90 days to 70 days resulting in faster admission. The Swedish government now allows employers submitting work permits to more easily rectify mistakes in applications, and has also developed a plan to shorten processing times for work permit applications. Latvia has shortened the time limit for examining documents to within ten working days, and a one-stop-shop procedure has been introduced in Lithuania, to allow highly-qualified immigrants and entrepreneurs to receive a temporary residence permit. In Bulgaria, the labour market test has been eliminated, and employers pay a fixed fee (approximately EUR 205) to extend foreign employees’ work/residence permits for over three months, if the employee is hired on the grounds of expert knowledge, skills and professional experience.

Finland seeks to link together migration, innovation, and industrial and business policies and to harness the potential of international talent to support the growth and internationalisation of companies. This has led to an intersectoral “Talent Boost” programme designed to attract international talent and provide added value from foreign talent in Finnish business and industry. A Migration Policy Programme to Strengthen Labour Migration was published in 2018 to guide attraction and retention measures.

Access to permanent residence has been facilitated in some countries. In Japan, the period of stay required to apply for permanent residence status was shortened from five to three years for highly-skilled professionals and from five to one year for highly-qualified professionals.

In Poland, following amendments to the Polish legislation on foreigners in December 2017, a special type of a temporary residence and work permit for migrants with skills needed by the Polish economy (as determined by the Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Economy) was introduced. Holders of such a permit are to be given easier access to a permanent residence permit (after only four years of legal residence, rather than five or ten years as in the case of other categories of foreigners).

…while shortage lists continue to be used

Shortage lists continue to be amended and used in the recruitment of foreign workers. In September 2017, Slovenia published a shortage list, including many skilled trades, which grants a labour market test exemption. Simplified and faster procedures have been introduced for labour migrants in shortage occupations in Lithuania, where they no longer need to obtain a work permit and are able, upon receiving a national visa (issued within 15 days, valid for up to 12 months), to enter the country and take up employment faster. The new Latvian shortage list of occupations for which foreigners may be recruited was published in 2018; shortage jobs not meeting the EU Blue Card salary threshold are able to benefit nonetheless from a shorter mandatory vacancy listing at the State Employment Agency (10 rather than 30 working days). Shortage lists are, in most cases, dynamic (i.e. regularly reviewed) so that certain occupations are added or dropped. In January 2017, the Migration Advisory Committee in the UK recommended that secondary education teachers in certain subjects (mathematics, physics, computer science, Mandarin and science) should be added to the shortage list.

Some new temporary and seasonal migration schemes are still being developed

While much of the policy development has taken place on the side of highly-skilled and skilled temporary labour programmes, some countries have also expanded or adjusted their temporary programmes which govern labour migration of less skilled workers, or all workers with no reference to skill level. Poland’s simplified temporary labour provisions for nationals of six Eastern countries (Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine) were modified in order to transpose the EU Seasonal Workers Directive. Temporary permits of up to nine months are now available to foreigners from all non-EU countries; those from the above six countries are exempt from the labour market test. In sectors not covered by the seasonal workers directive (which covers horticulture, agriculture and tourism), the simplified system, allowing six months employment out of twelve months, remains in place.

Korea has refined the management of its programme for temporary (58 month) low-skilled foreign workers. It has gradually introduced a points system for skills of candidates, and in 2017 extended it to all origin countries. It also adjusted the points system used to distribute workers among SMEs requesting foreign workers. The entry quota in the programme was set at 45 000 for 2018, up from 43 000 in 2017, while the number of workers re-admitted for a second and final 58-month spell of employment was set at 13 000 in 2017 and 11 000 in 2018.

In Japan, the need for construction workers, related to the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games, led to a temporary measure to accept foreign construction workers who are industry-ready. More broadly, in late 2017, Japan’s technical intern and trainee programme was modified, allowing certain firms to employ more trainees and certain trainees to extend their stay to five years, instead of three. Japan also started, in mid-2017, a programme allowing foreign workers to enter and be employed in domestic work in national strategic special zones.

In Chile, the provision for foreigners to arrive as tourists and seek work is being eliminated. From August 2018, a Temporary Opportunity Visa must be requested abroad, which allows 12 months of job-seeking in Chile for any job. When the recipient finds a job, a temporary or long-term visa may be requested. At the same time, regularisation is being offered in Chile for foreigners who arrived prior to 8 April 2018 and do not have regular status.

Box 1.2. Posted workers in the European Union

EU Directive 96/71 of 16 December 1996 concerns the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services. It aims at facilitating the provision of services by coordinating the rules of the home Member State which are to be applied to posted workers during their posting assignment. The practical application of the rules of the Directive has been a recurrent problem, with many Member States alleging that fraud and abuses were frequent, thus undermining fair competition. In order to give Member States better tools to enforce the rules of the 1996 Directive, the European Parliament and the Council adopted the so-called “Enforcement Directive” in 2014 which became operational in the second half of 2016.

In March 2016, the European Commission proposed a revision of the 1996 Directive (COM(2016)128). The main changes in the proposal relate to the guarantee for equal pay and additional protection of posted workers in case of posting assignments of more than 24 months. While the 1996 directive guarantees equality only for the minimum rates of pay set by law or universally applicable collective agreements, the proposal extends it to remuneration including all the mandatory elements by law and universally-applicable collective agreements.

The Commission proposal initially faced strong opposition from most of the Member States that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007, as well as Croatia and Denmark. As 14 Chambers of the national parliaments of 11 Member States made use of the so-called “yellow card procedure”, foreseen by the protocol on the application of the protocols on subsidiarity and proportionality, the Commission had to re-examine its proposal on this point. However, considering that the proposal raised no issue of subsidiarity, the commission decided to maintain it without amendment.

The Council of Ministers reached a political agreement on 23 October 2017. It confirms the principle of equal pay for equal work in the same place but makes all national labour rules applicable to postings after 12 months (extendable up to 18) instead of 24 months. Moreover, specific rules will be adopted for the sector of international road transport. Negotiations with the European Parliament started in November 2017. On 28 February 2018, the representatives of the Council, Parliament and Commission announced that they agreed upon a common understanding of the contours of a possible agreement on the revision of the directive. On 11 April, the Council, by a large majority (22 Member States in favour, two against and four abstentions), endorsed the text agreed by the negotiators. It is now up to the European Parliament to take a final position on the text. If the EP supports the text, it could be formally adopted in the EPSCO Council meeting of June 2018.

In Hungary, the employment of third-country nationals from neighbouring countries – at any skill level – was facilitated; the deadline of the single application procedure was reduced from 21 to eight days, and temporary employment relationships were allowed. Hungary has also introduced the concept of “preferred employer” which allows an application for the issue or extension of a residence permit to be submitted by the prospective preferred employer as well as by the worker. The “preferred employer” benefits from faster processing time.

In Israel, pay and conditions for some foreign workers have been reduced, favouring employers. Its National Labour Court decided in 2016 that in addition to non-payment of overtime for live-in care workers, their period of rest would be reduced from 36 hours to 25 weekly hours and lower payments could be made towards their pensions.

In December 2016, the Russian government established quotas of foreign workers in certain economic activities, notably public and commercial vehicles. From July 2017, foreigners who work as professional drivers of motor vehicles are obliged to pass exams and obtain a driving license in Russia (except for certain countries where the Russian language is official).

Schemes for seasonal employment continue to be developed. In Korea, a seasonal worker program for agriculture and fishery was introduced in 2017, granting short-term employment visas for up to three months to workers sponsored by local residents. A fast procedure for seasonal employment in Bulgaria in tourism and agriculture for up to 90 days within a 12-month period has been introduced, under which the employer is no longer obliged to advertise the position in local and national media, internet or other sources.

A number of EU countries have transposed into their own legislation EU Directive 2014/36 on the conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals for the purpose of employment as seasonal workers, and EU Directive 2014/66 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals in the framework of an intra-corporate transfer. They include the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania and Slovenia. The applied conditions are broadly similar but with some variations from country to country. The most notable change, described above, is represented by Poland.

Entrepreneurs and investors are sought-after immigrants

Countries are still keen to attract entrepreneurs and investors. New schemes have been introduced and changes made to existing ones.

One major trend has been to introduce new programmes specifically aimed at high-impact entrepreneurs, especially in innovative sectors and start-ups. Changes introduced in Australia support the Government’s National Innovation and Science Agenda by attracting and retaining entrepreneurial talent that will drive ideas from research to commercial reality. The new Entrepreneur visa is for those with innovative ideas and AUD 200 000 (about USD 150 000) in financial backing from a specified third party, while providing a pathway to permanent residency. Countries have been streamlining their procedures in order to fast-track entrepreneurial residence permits. The Czech Republic and France have both introduced legislation designed to create a more favourable environment for entrepreneurs. A temporary residence permit for an entrepreneur developing innovative products in Latvia is available without the requirement to spend a year in the country first. France combined its investor and entrepreneur programmes in its “Talent Passport”, with criteria ranging from business start-ups to investment (EUR 300 000 or more) to job creation.

Start-ups are a new category attracting more attention. Canada’s Start-up Visa pilot programme, launched in April 2013, with the goal of attracting foreign entrepreneurs with the skills to create innovative new companies that can compete on a global scale, was made permanent in July 2017. As a result of changes in October 2017, a new category of Austrian RWR-cards is being introduced for founders of business start-ups. Criteria encompass innovative products, personal management involvement, business plan and start-up capital of EUR 50 000. Separate RWR-cards are available for other entrepreneurs in order to distinguish them from founder start-ups, namely an investment capital of at least EUR 100 000 or the creation of jobs (or protection of existing jobs) and regional/local added economic benefit. In New Zealand, a new Global Impact Visa (GIV) pilot category came into effect in November 2016 and is designed to attract and support high-impact entrepreneurs, investors and start-ups, who do not meet existing policy requirements, to establish innovative ventures in New Zealand. The visa will run as a four-year pilot and be limited to 400 people. The Talent Boost programme in Finland, implemented in 2017, offers a new type of residence permit for growth or start-up entrepreneurs with a simplified application process so that a residence permit for a specialist could be issued for a period of two years instead of the current one year. Estonia introduced a start-up permit for entrepreneurs founding or developing a start-up company in Estonia (i.e. an economic entity at the beginning of its life cycle and belonging to a commercial undertaking registered in Estonia). The start-up must have significant global growth potential and a business model that would contribute significantly to the development of business environment in Estonia. Start-ups either meet certain criteria or receive a positive evaluation by the expert committee of StartUp Estonia.

In some countries, the criteria for start-up visas have been made more flexible. The minimum educational qualification for a technology start-up visa in Korea has been lowered from a bachelor degree to an associate degree. New measures to encourage start-ups in Lithuania were introduced in January 2017. Prospective entrepreneurs may obtain a temporary residence permit without commencing an activity; providing they have the necessary qualifications, funds and business plan, they may bring their families. Temporary residence permits are issued for a longer period of time (two years instead of one) and holders are obliged to create an enterprise providing jobs for at least one employee, instead of three as formerly. However, the amount of the monthly wage paid must be at least twice the average national gross monthly earnings. Family members of those investing less than EUR 260 000 are now able to enter and receive a temporary residence permit.

For passive investors – those without direct involvement in the management of their investment – most schemes accord residence permits subject to the scale of investment, measured in the sum invested or jobs created; other conditions may also be specified. Investment types vary by country, ranging from real estate to bonds to stocks to support for businesses and job creation; similarly, benefits range from temporary residence to citizenship, although no OECD countries directly offer immediate nationality for investment amounts. In recent years, the trend has been to increase the level of investment required. Changes to the migrant investor policy in New Zealand include doubling the funds migrants must invest to NZL 3 million (about USD 2.1 million) and prioritising experience and English language skills through changes in the points system. Luxembourg has introduced a new “investor” authorisation to stay. Estonia introduced a major investor programme for investments worth at least EUR 1 million in companies (or funds investing in companies) in the Estonian commercial register. In Russia, from September 2017, foreigners who are ready to invest USD 10 million or more in the Far East region of Russia will be allowed to acquire Russian citizenship through a simplified procedure and retain their previous nationality together with other privileges. They can choose the type of investment, such as the construction sector, purchase-ready real estate or stock. Following citizenship acquisition, the investor must keep the assets in the region for three years. Immediate relatives of investors are also allowed to apply for Russian citizenship.

Some countries have tightened their conditions. In the Netherlands, measures have both streamlined procedures and tightened up on the criteria used. The duration of the first residence permit was extended from one to three years and foreign investors no longer need an auditor’s statement concerning the source of the capital. More effort has been placed on due diligence. The investment now has to meet at least two of the following criteria: employment creation of at least ten full-time jobs; innovation; and non-financial contribution. In Bulgaria, the existing requirement for a long-term visa has been that the foreign entrepreneur has to open ten jobs; a new amendment specifies that these jobs must be full-time and that any partner/shareholder must fulfil conditions.

Asylum seeking

The effects of the “migration crisis” are still feeding policy development

Countries remain very active in promoting new measures to deal with asylum seekers and modifying existing measures. In some cases, these represent a delayed response to the spike in asylum applications in Europe in 2015-16. Three themes emerge: efforts to speed up decision making through more streamlined procedures; to reinforce existing systems by exercising greater control on entry and stay; and to adjust conditions for claimants according to the status they have received and ensure protection while maintaining system integrity.

Streamlining of procedures continues to be popular

Legislative amendments to improve the handling of matters concerning international protection, particularly the processing of appeals, came into force in several countries during 2016-17. In some cases they were a reaction to the large number of applications in systems not designed for such volumes. In response to the shutting down of the Balkan route, combined with the EU-Turkey Agreement, Greece introduced measures to be activated in the event of large numbers of arrivals lodging asylum applications at the border. They include allowing police and unarmed soldiers to conduct the registration of asylum applications and tightening deadlines for claimants to prepare for interviews and submit appeals. In April 2017, Italy also adopted measures to accelerate asylum proceedings by reducing possibilities for appeal, extending the network of detention centres, allowing voluntary work by asylum seekers and providing asylum for all unaccompanied minors arriving in Italy. In order to speed up the decision process, Switzerland has made available free legal support and advice to asylum seekers, as well as practical help to return to their countries of origin.

Following the significant increase of unfounded applications, Luxembourg has introduced a fast-track procedure and a new emergency accommodation centre for those whose application Luxembourg determined incomplete. In 2016, the Dutch government introduced a flexible multitrack policy. There is no longer a fixed routine in all cases, allowing the elimination of procedural steps that are superfluous for certain asylum seekers. In addition, in 2016, the list of safe countries of origin was extended to allow for faster asylum procedures for persons who are very unlikely to receive international protection. Slovenia also expanded its list of safe countries of origin. Ireland has introduced a: single application procedure to replace the former sequential asylum application process; designation of safe countries of origin; prioritisation of applications, and acceleration of appeals, together with specific guarantees for unaccompanied minors. In Belgium, asylum law has been reformed to allow the use of electronic devices (tablets, mobile phones, etc.) to recover data on asylum applicants.

Tightening-up conditions of entry and stay continues

Countries tightened-up their asylum policies in two main ways: measures affecting the entry and stay of asylum seekers, and changes in management procedures.

Some measures address asylum seekers at the border. In May 2017, Australia tightened its policy on illegal maritime arrivals (IMAs) by introducing a cut-off date for lodging an application for a protection visa, after which any claim to protection is considered forfeited. Special border procedures in Hungary allow unauthorised third country nationals apprehended within eight kilometres of the border to be taken to the external side of the border; in the event an emergency is declared, this provision applies to apprehensions anywhere in the country. In Poland, foreigners applying for refugee status at the border, and not possessing documents entitling them to enter Poland, are sent to guarded centres, to await a decision. Israel now detains all new illegal border crossers, including asylum seekers, in a closed facility for one year. In Denmark, the Parliament adopted, in May 2017, a so-called “emergency brake” into the Danish Aliens Act, making it possible to reject asylum seekers at the border in the situation where the Dublin Regulation is de facto not in force. Such a “brake” is in place in other EU countries, like Austria since 2016, where an emergency decree allows the refusal of entry at the border to potential asylum seekers if a certain upper limit is reached.

Chile, which has seen a large increase in the number of Haitian and Venezuelan nationals arriving without visas, reformulated its policy for these groups. Haitians must now request a 30-day tourist visa abroad prior to arriving in Chile. However, a humanitarian family visa, of 12 months renewable once, has been created for Haitians with family in Chile, and a quota – of up to 10 000 annually – of humanitarian visas to be requested in Haiti has been created. For Venezuelans, a “Democratic Responsibility” visa is issued in Venezuela and allows 12 months in Chile, renewable once.

Residential requirements for asylum seekers have been adjusted in many contexts. In Finland asylum seekers may be ordered to reside in a specific reception centre and to report there between one and four times a day in order to make them easier to locate during their application processing. In Israel, those eligible for group protection must reside in a specific open facility, for no longer than 12 months. Bulgaria now allows local authorities to restrict zones for movement by asylum seekers and any travel outside the zones has to be permitted.

Conditions for appeal and during asylum processing have changed in some countries. Finland reduced the period for appealing asylum decisions from 30 to 21 days from notice of the decision, and the rules relating to qualifications for legal aid were tightened. In Japan, from 2018, not all asylum seekers will be granted work authorisation while they await a decision; those with a prior residence status will first undergo a rapid screening.

In January 2018, a treaty between France and the UK was signed with financial support for border controls, faster processing, and commitments to transfer some minors from France to the UK. This follows an announcement in July 2017 by the UK, after consultation with local authorities on capacity, that the specified number of unaccompanied child applicants to be transferred from camps in France would be 480. Those who violate the rules may be transferred to a closed refugee camp.

Conditions for those granted protection have in some cases been revised. Sweden has reduced the period of protection granted. A person who is assessed as being a refugee will be granted a residence permit that applies for three years and a person who is assessed as being eligible for subsidiary protection will be granted a permit for 13 months. Sweden has also taken steps to assess the age of a minor at the outset of the asylum procedure instead of, as previously, only in connection with the asylum decision. Austria has limited the period of protection/residence of recognised refugees to three years, after which time persons may be expected to return if the source country can be considered safe for the person in question. Similarly in Belgium, those granted refugee status will be granted temporary residence for five years instead of permanent residence; although, if their situation remains unchanged, they will be granted permanent residence after five years. In Hungary, the period of automatic revision of refugee status was reduced from five to three years, the separate integration support scheme for recognised refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection abolished (in favour of access to mainstream services), and the maximum period of stay in open reception centres following the recognition of refugee status or subsidiary protection was reduced from 60 to 30 days while automatic eligibility period for basic health care services was decreased from one year to six months.

Conditions for family reunification for refugees have in some cases been adjusted. In Norway, refugees submitting an application for family reunification must do so within six months – rather than one year – if they wish to be exempted from the subsistence requirement. From July 2017, applications for family immigration to Norway may be rejected in cases where their family life is possible in a safe country in which their overall ties are stronger than in Norway. Family reunion has also become more difficult in Austria, especially for persons with subsidiary protection status.

Some countries have eased conditions to favour asylum claimants

Some new measures shift policies towards a more favourable treatment of asylum seekers. Those in Greece with asylum claims pending for over five years automatically receive a two-year residence permit on humanitarian grounds. In Ireland, following a government review of direct provision for asylum seekers whose cases had been under consideration for more than five years, reforms were introduced raising the weekly allowance for children (from EUR 6 to 15.60), waiving medical prescription charges and allowing access to further and higher education for students who had been in the Irish education and the asylum system for five years or more.

Box 1.3. The reform of the Common European Asylum System and the issue of the Dublin System

In Europe, weaknesses of the Common Asylum Policy were highlighted during the humanitarian crisis. The Commission proposed, in May and July 2016, a reform of the Common European Asylum System. Besides legislative initiatives aiming at achieving greater convergence regarding the rules on the definition of the persons who can be protected and asylum procedures, on reception conditions for asylum seekers and on asylum procedures, as well as a more important role for the European Agency in charge of asylum, the major element of this third legislative package is a revision of the Dublin System on the determination of the responsible Member States when an asylum application is lodged.

While the Commission proposal (COM(2016)270) preserves the current system of responsibility allocation under the Dublin III Regulation 604/2013, it includes a corrective allocation mechanism to ensure some solidarity between Member States in order to implement the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility (article 80 TFEU). If a Member State would be responsible for a number of applications that exceeds 150% of its “fair share”, the corrective allocation mechanism would be automatically triggered, and the asylum seekers relocated between the Member States below the “fair share” threshold (100%). The “fair share” of Member States is calculated taking into consideration the size of population (50% weighting) and the GDP (50% weighting) relative to the EU total. The proposal however contains the possibility for a Member State not to take part in that mechanism by paying EUR 250 000 per asylum seeker to the Member State taking over responsibility.

This scheme of mandatory relocation is the element of the asylum package that faces the most opposition from some Member States. Concerns are also related to the Commission’s consideration – with the support of some Member States – to link EU funding to criteria including the rules on relocation of asylum seekers.

The European Parliament has defined its position.¹ The Parliament envisages extending the solidarity mechanism proposed by the Commission by replacing the responsibility of Member States for entry of the asylum seeker on their territory by the automatic allocation of responsibility to the least burdened states, offering asylum seekers a choice among the four least-burdened ones. Discussions in the Council of Ministers and at technical level continue, with the aim of reaching a Council position by mid-2018.

1. See the report A8-0345/2017 of 6 November 2017.

Norway no longer expects that an asylum seeker will have sought protection in another part of his or her country of origin (“the internal flight alternative”). It also proposes to give an asylum seeker access to a temporary work permit before the applicant has undergone an asylum interview, if there is a high probability that the applicant will be granted a temporary residence permit. Since May 2017, Latvia allows a person in need of international protection, but with no valid travel document, to obtain a temporary travel document to facilitate entry into the country. In addition, the period after which an asylum seeker may engage in employment if the authorities had not made a decision on an application was reduced from nine to six months.

The temporary expansion of resettlement quotas has largely subsided

A number of OECD countries expanded their refugee resettlement quotas temporarily during the 2014-15 humanitarian crisis; these measures have now ended. More generally, resettlement quotas have in some cases been revised downwards. The United States curtailed its resettlement in Fiscal Year 2017 to about 53 700 refugees, following a revision of the resettlement target established by the previous administration. The government proposed to welcome 45 000 refugees in Fiscal Year 2018. Denmark has maintained – for 2017 and 2018 – a temporary suspension of resettlement of quota refugees first imposed in 2016 in reaction to an increase in cases of asylum seeking.

Other countries have expanded resettlement targets. Canada has increased overall targets for 2018-20, which rise from 27 000 in 2018 to 31 500 in 2020. About two-thirds of these are privately-sponsored refugees, although the number of government-sponsored refugees is also planned to increase, from 7 500 to 10 000.

Based on its experience with Syrians, the Canadian government has developed and initiated a programme of technical assistance for other interested countries, including a comprehensive set of web-based training modules. In December 2016, it also introduced a new intake management strategy for privately-sponsored refugees aimed at reducing backlogs.

Changes in family-related policies reflect divergent approaches

New family migration policies address several issues. Easier reunion – at least for some categories of migrants – is the goal in Canada, Israel, Latvia, Norway, Belgium and Estonia. In December 2016, Canada announced a new processing objective of 12 months for most spousal applications as part of a new, simplified and streamlined application system and eliminated the two-year conditional permanent resident requirement that applied to some spouses seeking to reunite with a Canadian spouse. Israel increased the quota for family unification by members of the Falash Mura (a group of Ethiopian immigrants) with family members in Israel.

Funding requirements have been eased in Latvia and Norway. The minimum amount of funding necessary to obtain residence permits for families in Latvia with more children has been reduced. From August 2017, the deadline in Norway for submitting an application for family reunification for refugees to be exempted from the subsistence requirement is reduced from one year to six months.

Waiting periods and age conditions have also been changed, to the advantage of migrants. Luxembourg has abolished the one-year waiting period that applied to some categories of sponsors wishing to apply for family reunification. Canada has raised the maximum age for dependents from 19 to 22 to ensure more effective support for permanent residents to bring their children to Canada and also introduced a random selection process to facilitate the acceptance of parent and grandparent applications. From October 2017, a residence permit will be granted automatically to children who were born in Estonia or settled there immediately after birth without the parent needing to apply. New legislation in Poland allows family members staying there to apply independently for a temporary residence permit issued for the purpose of the family reunion.

Box 1.4. European Union resettlement and relocation policy

In the European Union, resettlement and relocation remain an area of policy discussion. Two decisions adopted on 14 and 22 September 2015 in the midst of the “asylum crisis” aimed at relocating respectively up to 40 000 and 120 000 asylum seekers to alleviate the burden of Italy and Greece. From then until March 2018, almost 34 000 persons were relocated (12 000 from Italy and 21 800 from Greece) through this scheme. The mechanism, almost the first of its kind,¹ faced implementation challenges during the first year (only 5 700 relocated), while the second year saw a dramatic increase. The condition for relocation, that of belonging to a group with at least a 75% rate of recognition of refugee status, was considered in some cases to be rather restrictive in terms of implementation.

Some Member States opposed relocation, including on the grounds that they were unable to select the applicants for relocation. Although outvoted by a qualified majority of Member States in Council at the occasion of the adoption of the second relocation decision, the Slovak Republic and Hungary asked the Court of Justice to cancel this decision; the Court rejected this action on 6 September 2017.2 The Commission launched infringement procedures against three Member States (the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland) who have refused to participate in the relocation scheme or who stopped pledging and relocating.

To meet the EU target of resettling 22 500 persons in clear need of international protection from North Africa, the Middle East and the Horn of Africa, agreed by the representatives of the Member States on 20 July 2015³, 21 Member States and four Associated States resettled 19 400 people by the end of the 2017, when financial support for this scheme was scheduled to end.

On 13 July 2016, The Commission proposed a Union Resettlement Framework (COM(2016)468) that would regulate resettlement by Member States (there would be an ordinary but also an expedited procedure) and the status of the resettled persons. Under the Commission’s proposal, the Council would adopt an annual “Union resettlement plan” defining the number of persons to be resettled and the contributions by each Member State, while the Commission would adopt “targeted Union resettlement schemes” for the third countries from which resettlement is to occur. Member States would receive EUR 10 000 per resettled person from the EU budget (more than under current arrangements). The negotiations between the Parliament and Council started in December 2017 on the basis of the respective positions, but the two institutions have divergent views yet to be reconciled.

As the adoption of the regulation will require some time, the Commission adopted, on 27 September 2017, a recommendation on enhancing legal pathways for persons in need of international protection (C(2017)6504) aimed at bridging the 2015 resettlement scheme and the future Union Resettlement Framework. Its target is to resettle at least 50 000 persons by 31 October 2019. At the end of 2017, pledges made by 19 Member States totalled almost 40 000. Effective implementation – feasible, in light of the 14 200 persons resettled in 2016 – would quadruple the resettlement volume relative to the 2010-14 period and make the European Union into a major resettling actor, comparable to Canada, even as the EU receives far more spontaneous asylum applications.

1. The only prior experience was a pilot project, Eurema, limited to the relocation of about 500 protected persons from Malta.

2. The court considered that the mechanism is in line with the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility enshrined in article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFUE). See Case Slovakia & Hungary v Council, C-643/15.

3. Document 11130/15.

Tighter conditions to provide more control on reunion have been applied in Finland, Hungary and Switzerland. In Finland, beneficiaries of international or temporary protection are required to prove that they have sufficient means to live there, regardless of when the family was established. Finland has also introduced a processing fee. Belgium has lengthened the maximum duration of the family reunification procedure for third-country nationals from six to nine months and increased the period of control after family reunification from three to five years after the granting of a temporary residence permit. In 2016, the Hungarian government specified which documents could be used to prove family member status, curtailing certain practices suspected of being abuses of the channel. In Denmark, the exemption to the attachment requirement for certain long-term Danish residents or Danish-born individuals (those with 26 years residence, or the “26-year rule”) was eliminated. Switzerland requires either language knowledge or the commitment to take language courses after arrival for family reunification; family reunification will not be allowed for foreigners who are dependent on income support.

Australia and Norway have attempted to reduce the risk of domestic and family violence. Australian sponsors of overseas partner visa applicants are required to provide police clearances and visa applications may be refused where the sponsor has a significant criminal history. Norway seeks to combat forced marriages by stipulating that in cases of family establishment both spouses/parties must be at least 24 years of age.

Border, security, irregular migration

New technology is changing compliance practices

The trend towards technological solutions to improve enforcement continues, including biometrics and data sharing. Australia has enhanced its biometric and data storage facilities to allow more efficient detection of individuals who are of security, law enforcement or immigration interest, while simultaneously speeding up the flow of legitimate travellers. In addition, a new Visa Risk Assessment capability will enable risks to be considered at the visa application stage. Canada now requires visa-exempt foreign nationals flying to, or transiting through, Canada to have an Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA) to fly to or pass through a Canadian airport. It is also engaged in automatic biometric-based information sharing with Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. In French consulates, biometry is now general, and measures to combat illegal migration have been toughened through closer collaboration with other countries. In Denmark, a June 2017 bill expands official opportunities for recording, storing and processing fingerprints and photographs (biometric data) for identification and identity verification purposes.

Border controls have been stepped up

Largely as a response to the recent European migration inflows, border controls have been stepped up. In 2015-16, the Dutch government introduced Mobile Security Monitoring checks at the border and the maximum penalty for human smuggling was increased significantly. In May 2017, Sweden decided to prolong the Swedish Police’s internal border controls which had been in force since November 2015. In January 2016, Denmark reintroduced temporary border controls at the border with Germany, which were extended until November 2017. Modern border surveillance systems have been introduced in Lithuania in the most vulnerable sections of the state border with Belarus to ensure prompt response to violations or detention of offenders. In addition, the existing surveillance systems at the border with the Russian Federation are being upgraded.

Smuggling and trafficking continue to challenge migration management. As part of a new strategy on prostitution, Luxembourg plans to provide legal/social support and to penalise clients in cases involving minors, vulnerable persons or victims of sexual exploitation. Belgian authorities have enhanced practical cooperation in cross-border investigations and prosecutions on smuggling, setting up a task force on illegal immigrant smuggling in the North Sea region. Lithuania has strengthened the co-ordination of activities between state institutions, municipalities and NGOs and approved a new action plan to combat human trafficking.

In recent years, measures to combat illegal employment have been regularly adopted and the process continues. The main focus is on employers. In the Netherlands, a new but more flexible sanctions regime, based on the severity of non-compliance, has replaced the former standard fine of EUR 12 000 per illegally-employed foreigner. Frequent infringement of labour legislation by employment agencies in the Czech Republic has led to steps to compel their registration. Changes to the Belgian social penal law code in May 2016 penalise employers and employees who are in an undeclared work relation. From April 2016, employers in Bulgaria who hire illegal immigrants are liable to a fine of up to EUR 2 550.

Some new legislation is aimed principally at employees without a legal residence status. In January 2018 banks and building societies in the UK started carrying out checks on the immigration status of all personal current account holders, under government measures to encourage departure of those in the UK without authorisation. Russia has increased the level of administrative fines imposed on foreigners staying without authorisation.

At the European level, on 30 November 2017, a regulation (2017/2226) was adopted establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to register entry, exit, and refusal of entry data of third-country nationals crossing the external borders of the Member States.⁷ This new database will record and store the date, time and place of entry and exit of all third-country nationals (even for those not subject to a visa obligation) crossing the external borders of the Schengen Area for a short stay of maximum 90 days. The main objectives of the EES are to enhance the efficiency of border checks, allow the identification of overstayers, enable automation of border checks and gather statistics on entries, exits, and overstays. This new database completes the existing ones (the Schengen Information System [SIS], the Visa Information System [VIS] and Eurodac).

EU relations with Turkey and Libya

For EU border issues, the year 2016 was dominated by the implementation of the March 2016 EU-Turkey Statement, which led to a sharp decrease of arrivals from Turkey. In the two years following the statement (through March 2018), around 58 000 persons arrived on the Greek islands, compared with 561 000 in the six months prior to the agreement. As of 4 April 2018, 13 000 persons have returned voluntarily from Greece to Turkey while 13 000 Syrians have been resettled from Greece to other EU Member States. The EUR 3 billion foreseen in the EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey has been committed and contracted.⁸ The Commission adopted on 14 March 2018 a decision regarding the contribution of an additional EUR 3 billion.

The EU and its Member States are also making significant efforts to address flows across the Central Mediterranean route through Libya, from which 120 000 persons arrived in Italy in 2017 (34% fewer than in 2016). An agreement similar to the one with Turkey cannot be concluded with Libya due to the impossibility of safe return because of the risk of inhumane and degrading treatment in Libya. European efforts focus on enhancing the Libyan capacities to control borders and preventing deaths in Libyan territorial waters. According to its mandate, Operation EUnavfor Med Sophia’s role is the identification, capture and disposal of vessels used, or suspected of being used, by migrant smugglers and traffickers. The mission was tasked in two supporting actions when its mandate was renewed: training the Libyan Coastguard and Navy and contributing to the implementation of the UN arms embargo on the high seas off the coast of Libya.⁹ The EU has focused its support on providing protection to those stranded in Libya. The EU envelope dedicated for projects to address migration in Libya is EUR 237 million including for programmes to support assisted voluntary return and reintegration of migrants to home countries. In addition, the AU-EU-UN Taskforce was established in the margins of the AU-EU Summit in November 2017 to address, at the political level, the migratory situation in Libya. The Taskforce met its targets and has evacuated 1 300 people in need of international protection from Libya since November 2017 thanks to UNHCR. The IOM has safely returned more than 23 000 persons since November 2017.

Student migration and post-study work

New policy measures relating to international students are twofold: to attract them to come and study; and to encourage them to stay and enter the labour market after graduation.

Countries want to attract international students for study

A comprehensive approach to increasing international study has been adopted by both Ireland and Poland. In 2016, Ireland published its International Education Strategy. Its aims include: to increase the number of international students studying there; to attract outstanding researchers and build world-class networks of learning and innovation; to encourage more Irish students to integrate overseas experience into their study and build global connections for better social and economic outcomes for Ireland at home and abroad. Poland has established a National Agency for Academic Exchange aimed at driving the process of internationalisation of Polish academic and research institutions. Its main goals are: to support the international mobility of students, academics and researchers (e.g. through scholarships); to promote Polish science and higher education; and to promote and popularise teaching of the Polish language.

Simplifying the student visa process and speedier decision making on applications are methods being used by several countries. Australia has reduced the number of student visa subclasses from eight to two and introduced a simplified single immigration risk framework for all international students to guide a student’s financial capacity and English language proficiency requirements. The Netherlands has reduced the maximum decision-making time for student residence permit applications from 90 to 60 days and international students can now start internships in the Netherlands as part of their study.

A number of EU countries including the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland and Hungary are in the process of transposing EU Directive 2016/801 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing into their domestic legislation.

Two countries have modified their financial rules with respect to international students. Belgium has set up a database with details of student guarantors, the aim being to recover costs, including repatriation, in the event of a student visa being revoked owing to abuse. Slovenia has tightened up the issuance of residence permits for study purposes to ensure that students have sufficient means of subsistence.

…and they want international graduates to enter their labour markets

In recent years, many countries have taken steps to encourage international students to enter their labour markets and the process continues. Countries which use points to select economic migrants have modified their points systems to encourage international students to stay on and work. Five additional points are available in the points test for skilled migration for students who have completed Australian postgraduate research qualifications in science, technology, engineering or mathematics, or specified information and communication technology fields. Access to additional points has enhanced the pathway to permanent residency for these highly-skilled graduates. In 2016, a new visa allows some international students who enter the Korean labour market to get extra points for permanent residency later on. In addition, new provisions are now available in Korea to develop and train international students in certain non-university-level engineering professions and allow them to change status and stay on for employment.

Most methods used to encourage international students to stay on and enter the labour market involve allowing them to work during study and/or a period of stay for job search after graduation. In Austria, Latvia and Lithuania they may now enter employment while studying. From December 2016 it is easier for international graduates in Poland to stay and seek work. In Latvia, it is easier to obtain a temporary residence permit (with intention to search for a job) after having completed a full-time university master's or doctoral programme or equivalent diploma. In Luxembourg, international students from third countries may apply for authorisation to stay as a salaried worker or an independent worker without leaving the country. Cape Verdean students who have completed their studies and wish to gain initial post-qualification experience may now access a salaried worker’s residence permit in Luxembourg for a maximum duration of two years. From August 2018, international graduates in Chile may receive a 12-month post-study job-search permit, renewable once. In the Netherlands, international graduates may apply for a one-year residence permit in order to look for employment there. They may now apply for a permit within three years after graduation, instead of one year, and the requirement to apply for a work permit within the first year has been dropped, even if the job does not meet the standard income threshold for the work permit offered to highly skilled personnel. Austria now allows bachelor, as well as PhD, international graduates to obtain the RWR-card and their job search period has been extended from six to 12 months. Under the new Israeli national plan to increase the skilled manpower in the high-tech industry, 500 foreign graduates of Israeli academic institutes in high-tech professions will be able to work in Israel for up to one year after graduation.

Compliance practices during the post-graduation study period are evolving. In the United States, from February 2018, students who are in post-graduation practical training (OPT) may update their own employer and contact information directly with the government portal, rather than having to pass through their former educational institution.

The network of bilateral agreements continues to widen

Countries continue to enter into a range of bilateral treaties and develop programmes for nationals of specific countries. Australia has agreed an additional pathway to Australian permanent residence for New Zealand citizens who are long-term residents in Australia, as part of the skilled independent stream. It has also commenced a trial of a ten-year frequent traveller stream for Chinese nationals. Canada has enacted regulations for automatic biometric-based information sharing with Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom to complement that already in place with the United States.

Agreements for business travellers have expanded. Canada instituted one with Mexico in December 2016. Since 2016, Switzerland has entered into agreements with China, India and several other countries in order to waive visa requirements for diplomats and various officials. Readmission agreements have been signed by the Czech Republic with Mongolia and Uzbekistan; Switzerland with Chile, Azerbaijan, Kuwait, Sri Lanka and Ukraine; and by Russia with Iceland and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Most bilateral agreements relate to workers. The agreement between the Czech Republic and Ukraine, in force since August 2016, aims to speed up the procedure for granting employee or EU Blue Cards for Ukrainians. Israel reached a bilateral agreement with China for construction workers in January 2017. Legislation in July 2017 encouraged temporary circular work-related migration between Luxembourg and Cabo Verde with the two countries facilitating the issue of short-term visas for nationals of the other country. A bilateral agreement between Slovenia and Bosnia-Herzegovina in November 2017 allows Bosnian citizens easier access to the Slovenian labour market and more flexibility to change employer; a similar agreement with Serbia is expected in 2018. Bulgaria is working on labour supply treaties with Moldova, Georgia and Armenia for inviting workers from these countries. Russia signed recruitment agreements with Turkey and Uzbekistan.

Policies relating to migrant return have drawn more attention

At least four countries have brought in new legislation affecting the return of migrants to their origin countries, in different forms. The Netherlands has implemented changes in available repatriation support for undocumented migrants from countries deemed to be “safe” in order to prevent “pull in” effects. Italy has increased the number of repatriation centres from four to twenty. The capacity of the closed return centres for irregular migrants and rejected asylum seekers in Belgium has been enlarged. Belgium has also doubled the cash departure grant for Afghan and Iraqi asylum seekers who opt for a voluntary return. In Denmark, a special Return Unit under the Ministry of Immigration and Integration was established in April 2017. Further, the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has appointed an Ambassador-at-Large for Migration, whose main focus will be to support the whole-of-government approach to returns and readmission. New rules in Russia make it easier for certain foreign citizens to leave and re-enter.

While measures to attract emigrants back continue

Other return measures relate to the country’s own nationals, especially in European countries where recent emigration has produced a large expatriate pool. New regulations in Poland are designed to facilitate the settlement and adaptation in Poland of people of Polish origin; they include living cost provision while applying for permanent residence and access to a centralised path for repatriation. Latvia and Lithuania have adopted new measures to deter emigration and encourage re-immigration. They include language and skills, educational and labour market support, and strengthening ties with diaspora. Romania has established cultural centres in countries where at least 5 000 Romanian citizens are registered, to support emigrant communities.

Youth mobility is seen positively

There is a generally positive approach to youth mobility, including working holidaymakers (WHM), and most new measures are supportive.

In Australia, WHM provisions have been loosened to allow the individual to stay with one employer for a longer period, and the maximum eligible age has been increased from 30 to 35 years. The opportunity exists to access a second 12-month visa if they work for three months in agriculture, tourism or hospitality in northern Australia.

Several countries have made new arrangements with foreign partners, the main purpose of which is to improve knowledge of the other’s culture and society, as well as engage in temporary employment in order to supplement their travel funds. For example, agreements between Australia and Hungary, Luxembourg, San Marino and Viet Nam allow young people from these countries to have an extended holiday for up to 12 months in Australia, during which they can undertake short-term work and study. Others include: Canada signed a reciprocal youth mobility agreement with San Marino; Hungary with Chile, Hong Kong (China), Japan and Argentina; Spain with Japan; Belgium with Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Chinese Taipei and Korea; and Sweden with Chile, Hong Kong (China) and Argentina.

Strategic and administrative change

There is an ongoing process of development and renewal of migration strategies in most countries, often accompanied by administrative shifts. These are sometimes responses to particular conditions, like new migration streams, recognition that past courses of action need to be reassessed or changes of government.

Three countries have carried out general reviews. A new comprehensive migration law in Chile covers all aspects of migration and integration and seeks to modernise the current legislation which dates back to 1975. In January 2018, the Finnish Ministry of the Interior published a new migration policy programme which lays down Finnish migration policy guidelines for the current government term in relation to employment, integration, good relations and internal security. Russia is developing a new migration policy strategy for the period 2018-20 which strengthens immigration control, but also facilitates the redistribution of migrants (including workers) to the Far East region where the population has been shrinking for many years.

Other reviews are more focused. Australia has been reviewing its permanent and temporary skilled migrant intakes with a view to enhancing labour market outcomes and has also effected a digital transformation agenda aimed at a clearer and faster online processing system. New legal amendments in Bulgaria are directed at its role as a transit corridor for further migration to Central Europe and include a more straightforward procedure for appealing a visa refusal.

Some countries have made administrative changes designed to increase the efficiency of policy delivery, usually through greater inter-ministerial co-ordination. Finland has transferred administration duties performed by the Police and the Border Guard to the Finnish Immigration Service which has assumed all duties related to travel documents, right of residence and nationality concerning aliens. In Greece, after the spike in arrivals and the challenges of dealing with reception and processing, a new Ministry of Migration Policy was established in November 2016 incorporating elements of the Ministry of Interior and Administration Reconstruction.

References

[1] De Wispelaere, F. and J. Pacolet – HIVA-KU Leuven (2017), “Posting of workers Report on A1 Portable Documents issued in 2016”.

Annex 1.A.

Supplementary tables and figures

Annex Table 1.A.1. Preliminary trends in migration flows, 2017
Thousands
| 2016 | 2017 | % change | Period covered | Number of months
Australia | 218.5 | 224.2 | +3 | Jul-Jun | 12
Austria | 137.1 | 115.0 | -16 | Jan-Sep | 9
Belgium | ..  | ..  |  .. | .. | .. 
Canada | 296.4 | 286.6 | -3 | Jan-Dec | 12
Chile | ..  | .. |  .. | .. | .. 
Czech Republic | 27.6 | 33.1 | +20 | Jan-Sep | 9
Denmark | 72.2 | 67.4 | -7 | Jan-Dec | 12
Estonia | ..  | .. | ..  | .. | .. 
Finland | 31.3 | 26.9 | -14 | Jan-Dec | 12
France | 156.7 | 173.9 | +11 | Jan-Dec | 12
Germany | 1 051.0 | 868.0 | -17 | Jan-May | 5
Greece | ..  | ..  | .. | .. |  ..
Hungary | ..  | .. | ..  | .. | .. 
Iceland | ..  | ..  | ..  | .. | .. 
Ireland | 53.9 | 57.2 | +6 | May-Apr | 12
Israel | 11.5 | 11.5 | +0 | Jan-Jun | 6
Italy | ..  | ..  | ..  | .. | .. 
Japan | ..  | ..  |  .. | .. | .. 
Korea | 64.8 | 62.7 | -3 | Jan-Aug | 8
Latvia | ..  | .. | ..  | .. | .. 
Luxembourg | 3.5 | 4.8 | +37 | Jan-Dec | 12
Mexico | 34.9 | 31.5 | -10 | Jan-Dec | 12
Netherlands | 199.1 | 201.9 | +1 | Jan-Dec | 12
New Zealand | 95.6 | 99.3 | +4 | Jan-Dec | 12
Norway | 58.7 | 49.8 | -15 | Jan-Dec | 12
Poland | ..  | ..  |  .. | .. | .. 
Portugal | ..  | ..  |  .. | .. | .. 
Slovak Republic | ..  | ..  | ..  | .. | .. 
Slovenia | ..  | .. | ..  | .. | .. 
Spain | 159.3 | 204.1 | +28 | Jan-Jun | 6
Sweden | 143.0 | 125.0 | -13 | Jan-Dec | 12
Switzerland | 109.6 | 105.0 | -4 | Jan-Dec | 12
Turkey | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
United Kingdom | 526.0 | 505.0 | -4 | Oct-Sep | 12
United States | 1 183.5 | 1 129.7 | -5 | Oct-Sep | 12
Note: The 2017 data available for France and Luxembourg include only flows from non-EU28 countries.
Source: OECD International Migration Database; national sources.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933753170

Annex Table 1.A.2. Permanent inflows to OECD countries by category, 2016
Thousands in 2016 and change between 2015 and 2016
| Work | Accompanying family | Family | Humanitarian | Other | Free movements 
2016 | % | 2016 | % | 2016 | % | 2016 | % | 2016 | % | 2016 | %
Australia | 60.7 | +2 | 67.9 | -1 | 57.4 | -6 | 17.6 | +28 | 0.3 | +29 | 19.7 | -16
Austria | 5.1 | -4 | 1.0 | -9 | 8.9 | -6 | 30.6 | +93 | 0.4 | +0 | 59.6 | -16
Belgium | 2.6 | +21 | .. | .. | 27.0 | +3 | 15.8 | +47 | 0.1 | -61 | 54.6 | -12
Canada | 69.7 | -9 | 86.3 | -8 | 78.0 | +12 | 58.9 | +83 | 3.4 | ..  | .. | .. 
Denmark | 8.2 | +7 | 4.3 | +14 | 7.7 | -34 | 7.5 | -31 | 5.1 | +0 | 27.9 | +0
Finland | 1.4 | +0 | .. | .. | 8.5 | +0 | 9.7 | +176 | 0.5 | +85 | 7.1 | -7
France | 27.9 | +10 | .. |  .. | 98.4 | -5 | 23.2 | +40 | 22.5 | +4 | 86.9 | -2
Germany | 50.5 | +86 | .. | .. | 105.6 | +28 | 434.3 | +203 | 6.6 | +8 | 454.1 | +6
Ireland | 6.4 | +32 | 0.3 | +38 | 4.1 | +19 | 0.6 | +93 | .. | ..  | 30.5 | +14
Israel | .. | .. | .. | .. | 5.4 | -1 | .. | .. | 26.0 | -7 | .. | ..
Italy | 5.9 | -57 | .. | .. | 102.4 | -6 | 35.4 | +20 | 5.3 | +6 | 63.1 | -1
Japan | 49.1 | +19 |  |  | 29.5 | +13 | 0.1 | +14 | 16.4 | +15 | .. | ..
Korea | 0.7 | +27 | 4.9 | +5 | 31.1 | +32 | 0.3 | +37 | 51.5 | +13 | .. |
Luxembourg | 1.1 | +14 | .. | .. | 1.5 | -1 | 0.7 | +192 | 0.1 | -33 | 16.0 | -3
Mexico | 8.3 | -4 | .. | ..  | 15.5 | -6 | 1.8 | +186 | 9.3 | +8 | .. | .. 
Netherlands | 14.8 | +13 | .. | ..  | 24.8 | +18 | 20.8 | +27 | .. | ..  | 78.1 | +7
New Zealand | 14.1 | +1 | 15.1 | +7 | 16.4 | -5 | 4.0 | +6 | .. | ..  | 6.0 | +9
Norway | 2.5 | -13 | .. | .. | 15.3 | +22 | 15.6 | +75 | .. | ..  | 24.7 | -14
Portugal | 5.7 | -15 | .. | .. | 11.7 | +15 | 0.3 | +64 | 1.4 | +26 | 14.9 | +14
Spain | 27.9 | -17 | .. | .. | 44.4 | +12 | 6.9 | +572 | 16.9 | +33 | 119.0 | +10
Sweden | 3.8 | -2 | 0.6 | -2 | 31.7 | -1 | 71.6 | +95 | .. | ..  | 30.5 | +3
Switzerland | 1.8 | -2 | .. | ..  | 20.9 | +0 | 6.5 | -8 | 2.9 | +4 | 92.9 | -6
United Kingdom | 27.6 | -1 | 17.2 | -12 | 53.2 | +6 | 13.1 | -31 | 23.8 | -1 | 215.4 | -6
United States | 65.6 | -4 | 72.3 | -4 | 804.8 | +19 | 157.4 | +4 | 83.4 | +10 | .. | ..
OECD | 461.4 | +3 | 269.9 | -4 | 1 604.2 | +11 | 932.8 | +78 | 276.0 | +8 | 1 400.9 | +0
Source: OECD International Migration Database.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933753189

Annex Table 1.A.3. Overview of entry categories reviewed in this chapter
Excluding free mobility
| Permanent-type migration | Temporary-type migration
Workers | Students | Asylum seekers
2016 ('000) | % Change 2016/15 | 2016 ('000) | % Change 2016/15 | 2016 ('000) | % Change 2016/15 | 2016 ('000) | % Change 2016/15
Australia | 204 | +0 | 393 | -5 | 157 | +14 | 27 | +120
Austria | 46 | +44 | 7 | -4 | 5 | -23 | 40 | -53
Belgium | 46 | +15 | 1 | +7 | 6 | -2 | 14 | -63
Canada | 296 | +7 | 149 | +12 | 107 | +28 | 24 | +48
Chile | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2 | .. | 2 | +265
Czech Republic | 35 | +10 | 2 | -35 | 6 | +3 | 1 | -3
Denmark | 33 | -16 | 6 | -2 | 9 | +11 | 6 | -72
Estonia | .. | .. | 0 | +46 | 1 | -4 | 0 | -35
Finland | 20 | +46 | 14 | +17 | 6 | +8 | 5 | -84
France | 172 | +3 | 22 | +7 | 71 | +5 | 77 | +3
Germany | 597 | +130 | 32 | +1 | 37 | -4 | 722 | +63
Greece | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0 | +6 | 50 | +339
Hungary | .. | .. | 3 | +44 | 8 | +3 | 28 | -84
Iceland | .. | .. | 0 | +38 | 0 | +10 | 1 | +208
Ireland | 11 | +30 | 4 | +6 | .. | .. | 2 | -30
Israel | 31 | -6 | 53 | +24 | .. | .. | 15 | +196
Italy | 97 | +0 | 8 | -40 | 9 | -40 | 121 | +46
Japan | 95 | +16 | 191 | +7 | 108 | +9 | 11 | +44
Korea | 95 | +17 | 128 | -6 | 27 | +17 | 8 | +32
Latvia | .. | .. | 2 | -2 | 1 | +18 | 0 | +6
Luxembourg | 3 | +19 | 1 | +15 | 0 | -4 | 2 | -10
Mexico | 35 | +1 | 40 | -1 | 6 | -12 | 9 | +157
Netherlands | 60 | +20 | 3 | +21 | 16 | +7 | 19 | -55
New Zealand | 50 | +1 | 125 | +8 | 26 | -10 | 1 | +49
Norway | 33 | +37 | 5 | -13 | 3 | -13 | 3 | -89
Poland | .. | .. | 654 | +64 | 21 | -29 | 10 | -4
Portugal | 19 | +5 | 0 | +84 | 3 | +23 | 1 | -21
Slovak Republic | .. | .. | 1 | +29 | 2 | +17 | 0 | -63
Slovenia | .. | .. | 3 | -6 | 1 | +45 | 1 | +388
Spain | 96 | +11 | 9 | +27 | 34 | +8 | 16 | +16
Sweden | 108 | +47 | 22 | -9 | 9 | +1 | 22 | -86
Switzerland | 32 | -2 | 74 | -13 | 11 | -5 | 26 | -32
United Kingdom | 135 | -4 | 94 | -2 | 271 | +10 | 39 | -2
United States | 1 184 | +13 | 660 | +10 | 472 | -27 | 262 | +52
Total | 3 486 | +19 | 2 706 | +13 | 1 435 | -6 | 1 566 | +3

Note: Temporary work statistics are not standardised and should be compared with caution (see definitions and sources below). Data on students refer to international tertiary-level students, including students enrolled in language courses (excluding intra-EU international students). The data do not include professional training courses. Data have been revised compared with the previous edition (notably for Chile, France, Norway and the United Kingdom). Totals of temporary workers are numbers of issuances of short-term work permits (less than one year) for Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovak Republic and Slovenia.

Source: OECD International Migration Database.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933753208

Annex Table 1.A.4. Selected categories of free mobility presented in this chapter
| Permanent-type migration | Temporary-type migration: intra-EU posted workers
| 2016 ('000) | % Change 2016/15 | 2016 ('000) | % Change 2016/15
Australia | 20 | -16 | ..  |  ..
Austria | 60 | -16 | 120 | +11
Belgium | 55 | -12 | 178 | +14
Czech Republic | .. | .. | 23 | +19
Denmark | 28 | +0 | 16 | +18
Estonia | .. | .. | 4 | +61
Finland | 7 | -7 | 21 | +13
France | 87 | -2 | 203 | +10
Germany | 454 | .+6. | 440 | +5
Greece | .. | .. | 6 | +12
Hungary | .. | .. | 11 | +16
Iceland | .. | .. | 1 | +126
Ireland | 31 | +14 | 6 | +43
Italy | 63 | -1 | 61 | +4
Latvia | .. | .. | 1 | -25
Luxembourg | 16 | -3 | 27 | +22
Netherlands | 78 | +7 | 91 | +2
New Zealand | 6 | +9 |  | ..
Norway | 25 | -14 | 24 | -4
Poland | .. | .. | 18 | +0
Portugal | 15 | +14 | 18 | +18
Slovak Republic | .. | .. | 10 | +19
Slovenia | .. | .. | 5 | -9
Spain | 119 | +10 | 52 | +11
Sweden | 31 | +3 | 39 | +5
Switzerland | 93 | -6 | 104 | +7
United Kingdom | 215 | -6 | 57 | +5
Total | 1 375.3 | +0 | 1 537 | +8

Note: Intra-EU posted workers are entitled to freedom of movement inside the EU/EFTA. Data refer to numbers of documents confirming their affiliation to the social security scheme of their country of origin (see De Wispelaere and Pacolet – HIVA-KU Leuven (2017[1]), “Posting of workers Report on A1 Portable Documents issued in 2016”, for the methodology).

Source: OECD International Migration Database.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933753227

Annex Table 1.A.5. Data sources of statistics on temporary labour migrants presented in Table 1.A.3
Country | Name of the programme | Duration of stay / renewability of the contract | Existence of a quota
Australia (Temporary visas granted, Fiscal years) | Working holidaymakers: subclasses 417 and 462 | Up to 1 year. | subclass 417: uncapped; subclass 462: capped except for the United States.

Trainees: The Training visa (subclass 407) introduced in 2016. Former Temporary Work (Training and Research) visa (subclass 402) streams—‘Occupational trainee’ and ‘Professional development’, closed to new applications from 2016; and the following visas closed to new applications from 24 November 2012: Visiting Academic visa (subclass 419), Occupational Trainee visa (subclass 442), Professional Development visa (subclass 470); and the Trade Training Skills visa (subclass 471) which was repealed in September 2007.

Up to 2 years.

Seasonal workers: Seasonal Worker Programme (within subclass 416 replaced by subclass 403 from Nov 2016) | From 4 to 7 months. | Uncapped.
Intra-company transferees: subclass 457 visas granted (primary applicants) | Up to 4 years. |
Other workers: other temporary work (Short Stay Specialist); International relations (excl. seasonal workers); Temporary Activity; Temporary work (Skilled) (excl. ICTs) |  |
Austria | Intra-company transferees: Rotational workers |  | Uncapped.
Seasonal workers: Winter and Summer tourism, Agriculture, Core seasonal workers, Harvest helpers (number of persons estimated based on the number of permits delivered). | Up to 12 months. |
Other workers: Researchers, Artists (with document or self-employed), Self-employed workers |  | Uncapped.
Canada (TFWP & IMP programmes - initial permits) | Intra-company transferees: International Mobility Program (IMP) Work Permit Holders by year in which Initial Permit became effective (Trade - ICT; NAFTA - ICT; GATS professionals; significant benefits ICT) | Varies. |
Seasonal workers: Seasonal Agricultural Workers Programme (TFWP): effective entries | Not renewable. |
Working holidaymakers: International Experience Canada (IEC) (IMP) | Not renewable. | Uncapped.

Other workers: International Mobility Program (IMP): Agreements (excl. ICT); Canadian Interests (excl. working holidaymakers, spouses and ICT); Self-support; Permanent residence applicants in Canada; Humanitarian reason; Temporary Foreign Worker Program: Live-in caregivers; agricultural workers (non seasonal); other TFWP

IMP: varies; Live-in caregivers: unlimited; other TFWP: not renewable.

Uncapped.

France (first permits issued) | Intra-company transferees: Salarié en mission / Salarié détaché ICT | Up to 3 years. |
Seasonal workers: annual entries - OFII statistics | Up to 9 months per year (3-year authorisation). |
Working holidaymakers: Programme vacances Travail | Up to 12 months. |
Trainees: Étudiants stagiaires | Up to 1 year initially (extension up to 3 years in total). |
Other workers: Temporary economic migration (visa "salarié" < 12 months) | Up to 12 months (renewable). |
Germany (grants of work permits) | Intra-company transferees: § 8 BeschV (Praktische Tätigkeiten als Voraussetzung für die Anerkennung ausländischer Berufsqualifikationen), § 10 BeschV (Internationaler Personalaustausch, Auslandsprojekte), § 10a BeschV (ICT-Karte / Mobiler-ICT-Karte) |  |

Other workers: § 8 Abs. 2 BeschV (Anerkennung ausländischer Berufsqualifikationen - § 17a AufenthG bis zu 18 Monate), § 8 Abs. 3 BeschV (Anerkennung ausländischer Berufsqualifikationen - sonstige), § 11 Abs. 1 BeschV (Sprachlehrerinnen und Sprachlehrer), § 11 Abs. 2 BeschV (Spezialitätenköchinnen und Spezialitätenköche), § 12 BeschV (Au-Pair-Beschäftigungen), § 13 BeschV (Hausangestellte von Entsandten), § 19 Abs. 2 BeschV (Werklieferverträge), § 25 BeschV (Kultur und Unterhaltung), § 27 BeschV (Grenzgängerbeschäftigung), § 29 Abs. 1 BeschV (Internationale Abkommen - Niederlassungspersonal), § 29 Abs. 2 BeschV (Internationale Abkommen - Gastarbeitnehmer), § 29 Abs. 3 - 4 BeschV (Internationale Abkommen), § 29 Abs. 5 BeschV (Internationale Abkommen - WHO/Europaabkommen)

Israel (entries excl. Palestinian workers, and stock of Jordanian daily workers) | Working holidaymakers |  |
Other workers: |  |
Construction: Jordanian workers (daily workers); Tel Aviv-Jerusalem railway project; Tel Aviv city rail project; Sea ports projects; Turkish construction workers; Foreign Construction Workers (5 bilateral agreements) | Daily workers: unlimited; other workers: renewable up to 63 months. | Capped.
Tourism: Jordanian daily workers in hotels in Eilat | Unlimited. | Capped.
Agriculture | Not renewable. | Capped.
Home care | Renewable up to 63 months (or up to 7 years if no employer change between 5 and 7 years of stay). | Uncapped.
Specialists and skilled (experts working visa) | Unlimited. | Uncapped.
Japan (New visas, excl. re-entry) | Trainees: Trainees and Technical intern training |  |
Intra company transferees |  |
Other workers: Professor; Artist; Religious Activities; Journalist; Researcher; Instructor; Entertainer; Cultural Activities |  |
Korea (Visas issued) | Industrial trainees: D-3 |  |
Working holidaymakers: H-1 |  |
Intra-company transferees: D-7 |  |
Other workers: visas D-6; D-9; E-1 to E-9; H2 |  |
New Zealand | Seasonal workers: Recognised Seasonal Employer Limited Visa; Supplementary Seasonal Employment (extensions) | Up to 7 months (or 9 months for citizen-residents of Tuvalu and Kiribati); extensions possible up to 6 months. | Capped.
Working holidaymakers: Working Holiday Scheme | Up to 12 months (or 23 months for citizens of the United Kingdom or Canada). | Capped for some countries.
Trainees: Work experience for student; Medical & dental trainee; NZ racing conference apprentice; Religious Trainees | Practical training for students not enrolled in New Zealand (or enrolled for 3 months maximum): up to 6 months; Religious trainees: up to 3 years; Apprentice jockeys: up to 4 years. | Uncapped.
Others workers: |  |
Essential skills (other temporary workers) | Up to 5 years. | Uncapped.
Entertainers and Associated Workers (other temporary workers) | Contract duration. | Uncapped.
Talent (Accredited Employer) (other temporary workers) | Up to 30 months. | Uncapped.
Exchange Work (other temporary workers) | Up to 12 months. | Capped.
Long Term Skill Shortage List Occupation (other temporary workers) | Up to 30 months. | Uncapped.
China Special Work (other temporary workers) | Up to 3 years. | Capped.
Skilled Migrant and Specialist skills (other temporary workers) | No limit. | Uncapped.
Talent - Arts, Culture and Sports (other temporary workers) | No limit. | Uncapped.
Poland | Seasonal workers: Eurostat |  |
Other workers: Estimates based on administrative forms from employers for recruiting workers from six countries of origin (Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine) under simplified procedures. | Up to 6 months. | Uncapped.
Switzerland | Trainees | Up to 18 months. | Capped.
Other workers: |  |
Employed with work permits | Up to 12 months. | Capped (contracts of 4 to 12 months duration) or uncapped (permits<4 months).
Musicians and artists | Up to 8 months. | Uncapped.
United Kingdom (Entry clearance visas granted) | Working holidaymakers : Tier 5 - pre PBS Youth Mobility |  Up to 24 months (multi-entry visa). |
Intra-company transferees: |  |
Tier 2 - Intra Company Transfers Short Term (closed on 6 April 2017) |  |
Tier 2 - Intra Company Transfers Long Term | Maximum 5 years (9 years if salary > GBP 120 000 per year). |
Other workers: |  |
Tier 5 - pre PBS Charity Workers | Up to 12 months or the time given on the certificate of sponsorship plus 28 days, whichever is shorter. |
Tier 5 - pre PBS Creative and Sporting | Maximum of up to 12 months, or the time given in the certificate of sponsorship plus up to 28 days, whichever is shorter. |
Tier 5 - pre PBS Government Authorised Exchange | Up to 12 or 24 months (depending on the scheme) or the time given on the certificate of sponsorship plus 28 days, whichever is shorter. |
Tier 5 - pre PBS International Agreement | Maximum 2 years, or the time given on the certificate of sponsorship plus up to 28 days, whichever is shorter. |
Tier 5 - pre PBS Religious Workers | Maximum of up to 3 years and 1 month, or the time given on the certificate of sponsorship plus 1 month, whichever is shorter. |
Non-PBS - Domestic workers in Private Households | Up to 6 months. |
United States (non-immigrant visa statistics) | Trainees: H3 | Up to 2 years. |
Working holidaymakers: J-1 - Exchange visitor | Up to 4 months. | Capped.
Seasonal workers: H-2A - Temporary worker performing agricultural services | Up to 3 years. | Uncapped.
Intra-company transferees: L-1 - Intracompany transferee (executive, managerial, and specialized personnel continuing employment with international firm or corporation) | Maximum initial stay of one year. To 3 years (L-1A employees). Extended until reaching the maximum limit of seven years (5 years for L-1B). |
Other workers: |  |
H-2B - Temporary worker performing other services | Up to 3 years. | Capped.
H-1B - Temporary worker of distinguished merit and ability performing services other than as a registered nurse | Up to 3 years initially. Maximum limit of six years in total (with some exceptions). |
H-1B1 - Free Trade Agreement worker (Chile/Singapore) |  |
H-1C - Nurse in health professional shortage area (expired in 2009) | Up to 3 years. |
O-1 - Person with extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics | Up to 3 years (extension up to 1 year). |
O-2 - Person accompanying and assisting in the artistic or athletic performance by O-1 | Up to 3 years (extension up to 1 year). |
P-1 - Internationally recognized athlete or member of an internationally recognized entertainment group | Up to 5 years (1 year for athletic group). Maximum limit of 10 years (5 years for athletic group). |
P-2 - Artist or entertainer in a reciprocal exchange program | Up to 1 year initially (extension up to 1 year). |
P-3 - Artist or entertainer in a culturally unique program | Up to 1 year initially (extension up to 1 year). |
R-1 - Person in a religious occupation | Up to 30 months initially. |
TN - NAFTA professional | Up to 3 years. |
Source: OECD International Migration Database.

Notes

 1.  Intra-EU posted workers are entitled to freedom of movement inside the EU/EFTA. Data refer to numbers of documents confirming their affiliation to the social security scheme of their country of origin (see De Wispelaere and Pacolet – HIVA-KU Leuven, (2017[1]), for the methodology).

 2.  Calculation based on data by duration of posting in 17 countries.

 3.  Calculation based on data by duration of posting in 14 countries.

 4.  Calculation based on data by sector of posting in 21 countries.

 5.  Note that these percentages tend to be overestimated because the number of posted workers refer to number of forms and not of persons.

 6.  SOC/539 – EESC-2016-02508-00-00-AC-TRA, p.3.

 7.  OJEU, 9 December 2017, L 327/20.

 8.  The CJEU was asked to check the legality of the EU-Turkey statement and decided on 28 February 2017 that it has no jurisdiction as it was adopted by the Heads of State and Government in their intergovernmental capacity and not by the European Council. An appeal is pending against this decision. See Case NF, T-192/16.

 9.  In accordance with UNSCR 2292 (2016) and 2357 (2017).

Chapter 2.

Labour market outcomes of migrants and integration policies in OECD countries

This chapter examines the labour market outcomes of migrants during the period 2012-17. Particular attention is given to the migrants’ job quality and to the sectors and occupations in which they are concentrated. Case studies on the labour market performance of migrants in Southern Europe, East Asia, and the United Kingdom complement the analysis. The second part of this chapter discusses recent changes in integration policies in OECD countries, with a specific focus on asylum seekers and refugees.

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

Introduction

In 2017, in a context of stable world economic growth and strong growth in the Euro area, employment rates in the OECD improved significantly and returned to their pre-crisis level (OECD, 2018[1]). In this favourable economic environment, a large number of recently arrived refugees and asylum seekers will enter the labour market progressively which could affect average labour market outcomes of the foreign-born notably in Europe. Yet, labour force survey data for 2017 may be too early to capture such recent inflows of refugees as only private households are surveyed and many recently arrived asylum seekers and refugees still live in collective housing. As a result, so far the data mostly depict a picture of stable recovery of migrants’ labour market outcomes in most OECD countries.

Main findings

On average across the OECD area, migrants benefited from the global labour market recovery, with the unemployment rate decreasing by more than 1 percentage point to 9.5% in 2017, and the employment rate increasing from 65.7% to 67.1%. The improvement between 2016 and 2017 was more marked for foreign-born women, whose average participation and employment rates grew faster than those of male migrants.

Yet on average, migrant women are still performing poorly compared to both migrant men and native-born women. In particular, the gap in participation rates between foreign-born and native-born women has more than doubled over the period 2012-17.

About 10 years after the 2007/08 economic crisis, among hard-hit Southern European countries the employment of migrants has fully recovered only in Portugal. In contrast, the employment rate of the foreign-born in Spain and Greece remains lower than the level in 2008 by at least 11 percentage points.

Specific migrant groups are performing particularly well. This is the case for example for intra-EU migrants. On average their employment rate is higher than for natives by 5 percentage points and reaches 71%. In the United States, for the first time in recent years, Mexican and African migrants have outperformed the employment rate of Asian migrants by 1 and 3 percentage points respectively.

By contrast, some migrant groups are facing persistent difficulties. This is the case notably for migrants originating in the Middle East and North Africa in Europe and Australia.

Foreign-born workers in the OECD area are concentrated in low-skilled occupations, despite their relatively high educational level. On average one-in-three tertiary-educated migrant is over-qualified. This is about 12 percentage points greater than for natives. Only about one-fifth of the differences in over-qualification rates between foreign- and native-born workers can be explained by observed skill differences as measured by PIAAC.

Within one year after the 2016 referendum, new recruitment of EU migrants in highly-skilled occupations in the United Kingdom dropped by 38%, i.e. about twice as much as for low- and medium-skilled jobs.

In 2017 and 2018, as asylum inflows stabilised in many countries and began to fall back to levels seen prior to 2015/16, the focus of integration policy shifted. Policy attention has moved from organising the reception and accommodation of new arrivals, to the fine-tuning of migrant integration strategies in the context of heightened demand, and to addressing the needs of vulnerable groups to ensure no one falls through the cracks.

Across OECD countries, there has been a continued trend towards the creation of integration programmes for newly arrived migrants and refugees. More countries are adopting such programmes and many of those countries in which such programmes have existed for some time are increasingly tailoring programmes and restructuring the sequencing of activities.

OECD countries are increasingly turning towards incentivising the acquisition of language skills through compulsory language tests, the outcomes of which determine certain residency and work permit decisions.

The development of assessment and recognition systems of migrants’ qualifications remains a priority in many OECD countries. Several countries are developing systems for the recognition of vocational qualifications in close co-operation with employers and social partners.

Validation of informally-acquired skills is increasingly used to orient integration advice and interventions, to ensure that training and support build on the skills migrants already possess.

Many OECD countries have also developed measures targeted at the most vulnerable groups, providing enhanced support for those with limited skills and investing in the integration of migrant children. Particular efforts have been made to provide support to unaccompanied minors and to children who arrive late into the education system and risk leaving school without the qualifications to support a resilient career.

Countries have followed divergent trends regarding the support and social protection available to new arrivals. While some OECD countries have extended medical coverage or benefit entitlement to groups previously not covered, elsewhere there has been a trend towards limiting migrant access to benefits.

In many OECD countries, naturalisation requirements increasingly emphasise integration outcomes beyond years of residency.

Recent changes in labour market outcomes of migrants in the OECD area

This section looks at the recent changes in labour market outcomes of the foreign-born in OECD countries. It starts with a snapshot of the changes in employment, unemployment and participation rates between 2016 and 2017 and then extends the analysis to the last few years. The interlinkages between labour market performance and demographic characteristics (such as gender, age and education) as well as regions of origin are examined in order to understand the heterogeneity of different migrant groups. Special attention is then given to migrants’ concentration in certain sectors and occupations, as well as their over-qualification rates compared to the native-born workforce.

Labour market outcomes of migrants in the OECD area continue to improve

Over the course of 2017, the labour market situation of migrants benefited from the overall improvements in economic conditions in the OECD area. On average across the OECD area, migrants’ unemployment rate decreased from 10.8% in 2016 to 9.5% in 2017, and employment rate increased from 65.7% to 67.1% (Table 2.1). This development was partly driven by significant improvements in some EU countries. For example, unemployment rates of the foreign-born decreased by around 3 percentage points in the Czech Republic, Estonia and Latvia, and by approximately 2 percentage points in several other EU countries. In non-European OECD countries such as Australia, Canada, and the United States, as well as in other European OECD countries, such as Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, migrants did not experience a significant change in their unemployment rate.

The picture for the employment rate is also mixed, but follows similar patterns. In particular, European countries that have greatly suffered from the economic crisis are now on the path to recovery, and this leads notably to a higher employment rate for the foreign-born: Ireland, Spain and Portugal all had increases of over two percentage points in the foreign-born employment rate in 2017. In Central and Eastern European countries, such as the Slovak and Czech Republics, female migrants in particular experienced a jump in their employment rate by almost 10%.

On average, migrants’ participation rates saw little, if any, change between 2016 and 2017. Nevertheless, the participation rates of migrants rose by around 1.3 percentage points in Belgium, Portugal and Sweden. Ireland, Slovenia and the Czech Republic also exhibit rising participation rates, which are almost entirely driven by the labour market entry of female migrants, whose participation rates increased by 2 to 4 percentage points compared to the previous year (Table 2.1).

It is useful to compare these findings with the evolution of unemployment rates in the past five years. On average, the unemployment rate of foreign-born has been on the decline throughout the OECD area, falling from 13% in 2012 to 10% in 2017 (Figure 2.1, Panel A). The EU countries that had been more severely affected by the economic crisis were those recovering the most: Spain saw a decrease in migrants’ unemployment rates of 11 percentage points between 2012 and 2017, while in Portugal and Ireland rates dropped by over 9 percentage points (see Box 2.1 for a more detailed discussion on the post-crisis evolution of the labour market outcomes of migrants in Southern Europe).

In addition, the average gap in unemployment rates between the foreign- and native-born in the OECD area has declined during the 2012-17 period, from 4 percentage points in 2012 to 3 percentage points in 2017 (Figure 2.1, Panel B). Spain and Portugal have been again the countries with the greatest improvements for migrants in relative terms, together with Iceland and Latvia. In contrast, Nordic countries – namely, Norway, Sweden and Finland – saw an increase of the unemployment gap by about 0.5 to 2 percentage points.

Table 2.1. Labour market outcomes of foreign-born in OECD countries by gender, 2017 compared to 2016

Note: A blue (striped grey) shading means an increase (decline) in the participation or employment of more than 1 percentage point or a decline (increase) in the unemployment rate of more than 1 percentage point. n.r.: not reliable. The data for Chile and Japan are for the year 2015 and their evolution is not presented. The data for New Zealand refer to the first two quarters of 2016 and are compared to the same period in 2015. The data for Japan refer to foreign nationals instead of foreign-born. The data for Korea refer to foreign nationals and their evolution is not presented. “OECD Total” refers to the weighted average and “OECD average” to the arithmetic average of the countries presented excluding Chile, Japan, Korea, and New Zealand.

Source: European countries and Turkey: Labour Force Surveys (Eurostat); Australia, Canada, Israel, New Zealand: Labour Force surveys; Chile: Encuesta de Caracterización Socioeconómica Nacional (CASEN); Mexico: Encuesta Nacional de Ocupación y Empleo (ENOE); United States: Current Population Surveys.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933753246

Figure 2.1. Unemployment rates of foreign-born and unemployment rate gaps between foreign- and native-born, 2012 and 2017

Note: The population refers to the active population, aged 15-64. The data for European countries refer to the first three quarters only.

Source: European countries and Turkey: Labour Force Surveys (Eurostat); Australia, Canada, Israel: Labour Force surveys; Mexico: Encuesta Nacional de Ocupación y Empleo (ENOE); United States: Current Population Surveys.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751232

Migrants’ labour market outcomes differ substantially depending on region of origin

There are several reasons why migrants’ labour market outcomes may strongly depend on their country of origin. Migrants from different regions may differ in terms of main categories of entry or personal characteristics such as level of education, age, language proficiency, duration of stay in the destination country, etc. In addition, there may be labour market differences due, for example, to the imperfect portability of human capital or the different quality of education across countries. Similarly, for historical, cultural, and socio-economic reasons, there may be some sort of latent factors such as specific asymmetries of information, different social networks, or discriminatory practices by employers against the hiring of migrants from particular regions.

Box 2.1. Employment of migrants in Southern Europe has still not fully recovered

A decade after the 2007/08 economic crisis, hard-hit Southern European countries still face significant labour market challenges. Overall unemployment has declined substantially after its peak in 2013 but it remains above pre-crisis levels, according to the European Labour Force Survey. Migrants have not only been particularly affected by the economic downturn, their recovery has also been somewhat slower than for the native-born. By the end of 2017, only migrants in Portugal exhibit employment rates at or above the level in 2008, while migrants’ employment rates in Spain and Greece are still 8 and 11 percentage points lower, respectively.

Figure 2.2 presents the evolution of foreign-born and native-born employment rates, indexed to the beginning of the economic crisis in 2008. Three stylised facts emerge. Firstly, the magnitude of the decline in employment varied widely across Southern Europe. Greece and Spain experienced greater deteriorations of labour market conditions – with employment rates falling as low as 50% in 2013 – than Italy and Portugal. Secondly, in all four countries foreign-born faced larger declines in employment rates than natives. The divergence between native-born and foreign-born employment rates has been especially pronounced in Spain and Greece. Throughout the period 2008-17, the native-born employment rate in Spain was on average 9% higher than that of migrants. Thirdly, migrants’ employment rates have not yet fully recovered 10 years after the crisis, except in Portugal. In Italy, it was still 4% lower in Q3 2017 than at the beginning of 2008, while the native-born employment rate had fully recovered.

Figure 2.2. Quarterly employment rate by place of birth, 2008-17

Index 100 = Q1 2008

Note: The population refers to the working-age population (15-64).

Source: Labour Force Surveys (Eurostat).

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751251

Table 2.2. Employment, unemployment and participation rates by region of origin in selected OECD countries in 2012 and 2017
Percentages
| Region of birth | Employment rate | Unemployment rate | Participation rate
| 2012 | 2017 | 2012 | 2017 | 2012 | 2017
Australia | Other Oceania | 76.1 | 76.3 | 5.9 | 5.8 | 80.9 | 81.0
Europe | 73.7 | 76.7 | 3.9 | 4.2 | 76.7 | 80.0
North Africa and the Middle East | 48.5 | 49.1 | 11.2 | 12.4 | 54.7 | 56.0
Sub-Saharan Africa | 74.4 | 74.6 | 5.5 | 7.9 | 78.7 | 81.0
Asia | 67.0 | 68.1 | 5.7 | 6.1 | 71.1 | 72.5
Americas | 74.0 | 76.8 | 5.9 | 5.5 | 78.7 | 81.3
Foreign-born (total) | 70.0 | 70.8 | 5.4 | 5.9 | 74.0 | 75.2
Native-born | 73.6 | 74.3 | 5.3 | 5.7 | 77.8 | 78.8
Canada | Sub-Saharan Africa | 67.2 | 69.0 | 12.2 | 11.9 | 76.6 | 78.3
North Africa | 62.9 | 66.8 | 14.0 | 10.6 | 73.2 | 74.7
Middle East | 57.5 | 62.4 | 14.6 | 10.1 | 67.3 | 69.4
Asia | 69.9 | 72.8 | 8.1 | 6.2 | 76.1 | 77.6
Europe | 74.1 | 77.9 | 5.9 | 5.0 | 78.8 | 82.0
Oceania | 81.0 | 81.6 | 0.0 | 4.3 | 81.0 | 85.3
Other North America | 71.3 | 71.7 | 5.8 | 6.0 | 75.7 | 76.3
Central and South America and Caribbean | 71.2 | 75.1 | 9.8 | 6.8 | 79.0 | 80.6
Foreign-born (total) | 70.1 | 72.8 | 8.4 | 6.8 | 76.5 | 78.1
Native-born | 72.6 | 73.7 | 7.1 | 6.3 | 78.1 | 78.6
EU28 countries | EU28 + EFTA | 67.5 | 70.9 | 12.2 | 9.1 | 76.9 | 77.9
Other European countries | 57.9 | 59.6 | 17.4 | 14.7 | 70.1 | 69.8
North Africa | 48.0 | 48.5 | 26.4 | 23.3 | 65.2 | 63.2
Sub-Saharan Africa | 59.8 | 63.3 | 19.2 | 14.7 | 74.0 | 74.2
Middle East | 51.8 | 49.3 | 20.7 | 22.1 | 65.3 | 63.3
North America | 68.9 | 72.1 | 7.2 | 5.8 | 74.2 | 76.6
Central and South America and Caribbean | 59.0 | 62.0 | 25.3 | 18.5 | 79.0 | 76.1
Asia | 62.0 | 64.9 | 10.0 | 7.5 | 68.9 | 70.1
Other regions | 63.6 | 65.2 | 10.7 | 12.5 | 71.2 | 74.5
Foreign-born (total) | 62.6 | 63.4 | 15.5 | 13.1 | 74.1 | 73.0
Native-born | 63.6 | 66.4 | 10.7 | 8.1 | 71.2 | 72.3
United States | Mexico | 65.7 | 70.2 | 9.3 | 4.1 | 72.4 | 73.2
Other Central American countries | 71.4 | 73.5 | 8.1 | 3.8 | 77.7 | 76.3
South America and Caribbean | 68.7 | 71.8 | 9.4 | 5.2 | 75.9 | 75.8
Canada | 72.3 | 76.1 | 5.6 | 2.3 | 76.5 | 77.8
Europe | 70.7 | 74.0 | 6.9 | 3.4 | 75.9 | 76.6
Africa | 66.4 | 72.0 | 10.8 | 5.2 | 74.4 | 76.0
Asia and the Middle East | 67.1 | 69.3 | 6.3 | 3.3 | 71.6 | 71.7
Other regions | 64.8 | 66.7 | 9.8 | 7.0 | 71.9 | 71.7
Foreign-born (total) | 67.7 | 71.0 | 8.1 | 4.0 | 73.7 | 74.0
Native-born | 65.6 | 68.5 | 8.3 | 4.6 | 71.5 | 71.8

Note: The population refers to working-age population (15-64) for the employment and participation rates and to active population aged 15-64 for the unemployment rate. EU28 does not include Germany because data by region of birth are not available for this country in 2012. The regions of birth could not be made fully comparable across countries of residence because of the way aggregate data provided to the Secretariat are coded. The data for European countries refer to the first three quarters only.

Source: European countries: Labour Force Surveys (Eurostat); Australia, Canada: Labour Force Surveys; United States: Current Population Surveys.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933753265

Table 2.2 details employment, unemployment and participation rates by region of origin. The significant increase of migrants’ employment rate in the United States, from 68% in 2012 to 71% in 2017, was primarily driven by Mexicans (5 percentage points increase) and African migrants (6 percentage points increase), while the employment rates of Asian migrants increased by only 2 percentage points. In Europe, the employment rate of other EU citizens reached 71% in 2017, thereby surpassing by almost 5 percentage points the employment rate of natives. By contrast, North African and Middle Eastern migrants had the lowest employment rates across the whole OECD area, at about 49% in 2017.

Large heterogeneity in terms of region of origin also exists regarding the evolution of unemployment rates. On average in EU28 countries, between 2012 and 2017 unemployment rates dropped slightly more for the native-born (-2.6 percentage points) than for the foreign-born (-2.4 percentage points). Yet, migrants from certain regions have benefited from similar – if not greater – improvements than natives. This is the case for both Sub-Saharan African and Central and South American migrants, whose unemployment rates decreased by 5 and 7 percentage points respectively in the last five years. In Australia, instead, the unemployment rate of the foreign-born marginally increased from 5.4% in 2012 to 5.9% in 2017. Migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa faced the most challenging situation, with their unemployment rising by over 2 percentage points. Migrants from North Africa and the Middle East still remain the most disadvantaged group in Australia, with an unemployment rate of over 12% in 2017, twice the average foreign-born unemployment rate.

Highly-educated, young and male migrants have benefited more from the recovery

Figure 2.3 presents variation of labour market outcomes across demographic groups as defined by gender, age and education. Between 2012 and 2017, both foreign-born women and men experienced greater declines in their unemployment rate than the native-born in Europe. However, the decrease was more marked for foreign-born men than for foreign-born women. Similarly, in Canada, and to a lesser extent in the United States, foreign-born women improved their labour market conditions compared to native-born women at a slower pace than men.

In Europe, migrant women performed poorly in the labour market compared to both men and native women. Indeed, participation rates of migrant women increased only by 0.5 percentage points between 2012 and 2017, while that of native-born women increased by 3 percentage points. As a result the gap between native- and foreign-born women more than doubled in the past five years.

Looking at changes in labour market outcomes by educational attainment reveals that in Europe the employment rate of the foreign-born has increased more for the highly-educated than for the medium- and low-educated (Figure 2.3). Canada also exhibits a large employment rate growth only for highly-educated migrants, while the employment rate of low-educated foreign workers decreased by 0.6 percentage points. The opposite is true however in the United States, where the employment rate of highly-educated migrants increased only by 1 percentage point, compared to the 4 percentage points and 3 percentage points increase for medium- and low-educated foreign-born respectively.

Figure 2.3. Changes in labour market outcomes by demographic group and country of birth in selected OECD countries, 2017 compared to 2012

Percentage points

Note: The reference population, including for unemployment rates, is the working-age population (15-64). Thus, the sum of the employment rate and the unemployment rate gives the participation rate. “Low-educated” here refers to less than upper secondary attainment; “Medium-educated” to upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary; “Highly educated” to tertiary. The data for European countries refer to the first three quarters only.

Source: Panel A: Labour Force Surveys (Eurostat). Panel B: Current Population Surveys. Panel C: Labour Force Surveys. Panel D: Labour Force Surveys.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751270

In North America, young migrants (ages 15-24) have experienced greater employment growth than prime-age migrants (ages 25-54). Their greater participation rate growth also suggests that youth are recovering after the substantial employment losses which followed the economic crisis and which often deterred them from entering the labour force. The situation is reversed in Australia, where youth saw their employment rate fall by 2.5 percentage points, while the employment rate of prime-age foreign-born aged 25-54 increased by 1.2 percentage points between 2012 and 2017.

The case of Europe is a particular one: young migrants’ employment rates have not significantly changed over the course of 2012-17, although both their unemployment and participation rates have dropped by 4 percentage points, suggesting that young migrants exited the labour market or more probably that a large share of recently arrived youth remained inactive. This could be a first sign of the effects of recently arrived asylum seekers and refugees in the EU (see Chapter 4).

In both Canada and the United States, also migrants in the age group 55-64 experienced large improvements in their labour market outcomes, with their employment rates increasing by around 4-5 percentage points. The improvement for older migrants is particularly significant in Europe, with their employment rates increasing by 7 percentage points over the course of 2012-17. In Australia, the evolution is less marked, and overall, changes in labour market outcomes by demographic characteristics have been more muted than in the other OECD countries, suggesting a stable economic environment for the foreign-born.

Those not in employment, education or training do not always seek a job

A complementary analysis looks at the share of youth aged 15-24 that is not in employment or education or training (NEET). By distinguishing between the NEET rates of those who do and those who do not actively seek employment, Figure 2.4 finds that only a minority of NEET are looking for a job, thereby emphasising the significance of going beyond unemployment rates when analysing the labour market situation of young people.

In the United States, 15% of young migrants were neither working nor studying or in training in 2017, compared to 12% of young natives. Yet, the share of them actively looking for a job was lower than the corresponding proportion of natives (one-fifth and one-fourth respectively). The relatively large inactivity among the foreign-born NEETs is driven by women: 17% of foreign-born women are NEET and not looking for work, compared to only 7% of male counterparts.

Similar patterns are revealed in other countries. In Australia, in spite of the falling employment rates of foreign-born youth between 2012 and 2017 – as shown in Figure 2.3 – young migrants still had a lower NEET rate than the native-born in 2017, and the share of foreign-born NEETs actively seeking employment was somewhat lower than the share of native-born. Canada shows a similar picture, with 70% of the young migrant NEETs not looking for work compared to 60% of Canadian-born NEETs.

Figure 2.4. NEET rates by place of birth in selected OECD countries, 2017

Share of the population aged 15-24 that is not in employment, education or training

Note: The data for European countries refer to the first three quarters only.

Source: European countries and Turkey: Labour Force Surveys (Eurostat); Australia, Canada, Israel: Labour Force surveys; Mexico: Encuesta Nacional de Ocupación y Empleo (ENOE); United States: Current Population Surveys.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751289

Migrant employment has increased in specific sectors

Foreign-born workers tend to concentrate in specific sectors across the OECD area. In 2017, a significant share of foreign-born workers was working in services. In particular, migrants were over-represented compared to natives in both hotel and restaurant activities and in domestic services in almost all OECD countries (Annex Table 2.A.1). In Spain and Italy, these two sectors alone accounted for 30% of foreign-born employment. In many countries, migrants are also more likely than natives to work in mining and manufacturing, as well as in construction. In Germany, almost one-fourth of foreign-born workers were in manufacturing.

Changes since 2012 highlight how the economic downturn and the recovery have affected migrant worker allocation across sectors (Figure 2.5). In the past five years in the United States, migrant employment in the non-agricultural private sector grew twice as fast as for natives (15% and 8%, respectively). Employment of migrant workers is noticeable in private services, as well as in both manufacturing and construction – the sectors most impacted by the 2007/08 economic crisis. The last quarter of 2017 also recorded a 2.4% decline in foreign-born employment in private services, in contrast to a slight increase in native-born employment. This was partly driven by a reduction in the employment of foreign-born workers in “accommodation and food service activities” (-1.4%) and “information and communication” (-0.5%).

Figure 2.5. Annual percentage change of employees in the non-agricultural business sector by place of birth, 2012-17

Note: EU28 does not include Germany because of data availability.

Source: European countries: Labour Force Surveys (Eurostat); United States: Current Population Surveys.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751308

Employment recovery in Europe started later, in 2014 (Figure 2.5). While most job losses during the downturn occurred in the manufacturing and construction sectors, only jobs in private services – and to a smaller extent manufacturing – have been recovered after 2014. This trend was visible for both foreign-born and native-born but was magnified for the former: migrants experienced both greater job losses (up to -10% in construction in Q3 2012 compared to Q3 2011) and greater job creation (including an increase of 12% in construction jobs in Q2 2016 compared to Q2 2015). This suggests that foreign-born workers were more exposed to changes in the business cycle than natives. By the third quarter of 2017, migrants’ employment in the non-agricultural sector in Europe had a similar industry composition as it had in 2011, with almost one-fifth in manufacturing, 11% in construction and the remainder scattered over the private services sector. Although not entirely comparable, Box 2.2 presents a different picture for the evolution of sectoral employment in Japan and Korea, two countries where migration policies often determine the targeted sectors where migrants work.

Box 2.2. Migration policies determine the distribution of migrants across sectors in Korea and Japan

Except for the highly skilled, Japan and Korea generally authorise foreign employment in few sectors. For example, Korea’s main programme for temporary low-skilled migration – the Employment Permit System (EPS) – establishes quotas for the admission of temporary workers into a limited number of sectors, such as manufacturing and agriculture, and strongly restricts cross-sector mobility. Similarly, in Japan, foreign trainees and interns taking part in the Training and Technical Internship Programmes are employed in specific sectors. The resulting distribution of migrants across industries in Japan and Korea is clearly shaped by the design of labour migration programmes.

In Japan, foreign nationals have overall experienced sustained growth in their employment in the non-agricultural sector throughout the period 2013-17 (Figure 2.6). Although the annual percentage change has been largest in the service sector – as high as 13% in 2016 – the number of foreign employees in the manufacturing sector has also grown considerably. By contrast, Korea’s employment growth by industry has been more mixed. Compared to 2012, foreign employment in construction declined by 3% in 2013 and recovered in 2014. In 2016 and 2017 there was little change in the industry distribution of foreign nationals in Korea. Their employment in manufacturing fell by 2% in 2017, mirroring sectoral trends for the whole population (OECD, 2018[2]).

Figure 2.6. Annual percentage change of foreign employees in the non-agricultural sector, 2013-17

Note: For both Korea and Japan, figures refer to foreign nationals aged 15 and over. Due to a change of definitions in the Korean statistics in 2017, the change reported for 2016-2017 uses a recalculated value for 2016 provided by Statistics Korea.

Source: Korea: FLFS; Japan: MHLW Reports on Foreign Employment.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751327

In Europe, employment of migrants between 2012 and 2017 increased in almost all sectors but two, utilities and domestic services (Figure 2.7). The most significant growth was recorded in low- and middle-skilled sectors. About 800 000 new jobs were created in retail trade and 350 000 in wholesale trade, while warehousing and transportation activities exhibited a 135% increase in the 2012-17 period. Job creation in the industries most affected by the economic crisis was also large, with construction representing more than 520 000 new jobs and the manufacture of food products adding almost 300 000 jobs. By contrast, native-born employment gains were recorded in more skill-intensive industries, such as increases by 450 000 jobs in both management consulting activities and in computer programming.

In the United States, migrants have also experienced large employment gains in those sectors that typically occupy a substantial share of low- and middle-skilled workers. For instance, 630 000 migrants found jobs in construction and more than 300 000 in warehousing and transportation. Yet, in the United States, foreign-born have also found employment in high-quality and high-paying jobs, such as insurance (+38%) and finance (+17%). Employment of migrants in educational services increased by 230 000, which corresponds to over one-third of the total employment creation in the sector. An additional 240 000 jobs of foreign-born were created in hospitals.

Figure 2.7. Ten industries with the largest changes in employment by place of birth, 2012 and 2017

Note: The population refers to working-age population (15-64). The data for European countries refer to the first three quarters only. Panel A: Industries are derived from the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community (NACE) Rev. 2. Panel B: Industries are derived from the 2002 Census Classification.

Source: Panel A: Labour Force Surveys (Eurostat) Q1 to Q3 for 2012 and 2017; Panel B: Current Population Surveys.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751346

Migrants remain over-represented in low-skilled occupations

In all OECD countries, the distribution of foreign-born and native-born workers over occupations differs significantly. In 2017, such occupational dissimilarity remained high, especially in Southern European countries (Figure 2.8). In Italy and Greece, more than one-third of migrants would have to move to another occupation in order for their occupational distribution to be the same as that of the native-born. On average, 16% of foreign-born workers in the EU28 would have to change occupation in order to have similar jobs to natives, while this proportion is substantially lower for non-European countries, such as Canada and Australia (8% in both cases). Occupational dissimilarity between foreign-born and native-born workers has not changed significantly in the last few years: in 2012 as well as in 2017, approximately 18% of migrants in the OECD area would have had to change occupation in order to have the same distribution as native-born workers.

Figure 2.8. Occupational dissimilarity between foreign-born and native-born workers, 2012 and 2017

Note: The dissimilarity index is defined as half the sum of the absolute values of the differences between the distribution of the foreign- and native-born across occupations (ISCO, 1 digit; major occupation groups in the case of the United States with service and sales occupations considered as one single group). It shows how many persons need to change occupation to have the same occupational distribution between immigrants and native-born. The year of comparison for Australia is 2014 instead of 2012. The data for European countries refer to the first three quarters only.

Source: Australia, Canada, Israel: Labour Force Surveys; European countries and Turkey: Labour Force Surveys (Eurostat); United States: Current Population Surveys.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751365

In total, 65% of employed migrants in the OECD area worked in low- or medium-skilled jobs in 2017 (Figure 2.9). The corresponding share for native-born workers was almost 10 percentage points lower. In the United States, this figure reaches 67%. An especially high concentration arises in Greece, where nine out of ten foreign-born workers worked in low- or medium-skilled occupations in 2017. In Europe on average, migrant workers are disproportionally concentrated in occupations with high routine task intensity, with a third of all workers in cleaner and helper occupations being foreign-born in 2015 (OECD, 2017[3]). The situation in the United Kingdom is specific: albeit having a relatively low occupational dissimilarity index for migrants, the most recent trends following the 2016 referendum suggest a reduction in the hiring of recently-arrived high-skilled EU migrants (see Box 2.3).

Figure 2.9. Low- and medium-skilled employment as a percentage of total employment, 2017

Note: Low- and medium-skilled employment refers to ISCO 4 to 9. The data for European countries refer to the first three quarters only.

Source: Australia, Israel: Labour Force Surveys; European countries and Turkey: Labour Force Surveys (Eurostat); United States: Current Population Surveys.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751384

The risk of over-qualification is greater for migrants

Different occupational distributions of native-born and foreign-born workers might reflect differences in their educational attainment. Figure 2.12 presents the educational composition of the employed workforce by place of birth in 2017, for each OECD country where data are available. In 17 of the 29 selected OECD countries, the proportion of highly-educated workers is greater among the foreign-born than among the native-born. This is the case notably in countries where selective economic migration schemes determine a large part of the migration inflow, such as Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but this is also observed in Central and Eastern Europe (e.g. Czech Republic, Estonia and Hungary) and in certain non-European countries (Mexico and Turkey).

The large proportion of migrants with tertiary-level education does not mean that they are also overrepresented in skilled occupations. Figure 2.13 shows large differences in over-qualification rates between foreign- and native-born workers across the OECD area. In all countries for which data are available, and with the exception of Switzerland, tertiary-educated migrants are more frequently found in low- and medium-skilled occupations than natives. Overall, the average gap between foreign- and native-born in the OECD area is about 12 percentage points, although it reaches 29 and 34 percentage points in Greece and Italy, respectively.

Box 2.3. Migration of EU citizens to the United Kingdom since June 2016

In the referendum of June 23, 2016, the United Kingdom voted in favour of leaving the European Union. The official EU withdrawal process started in March 2017 and is due to be completed by early 2019. This is expected to change British migration policy significantly, in particular, ending the free movement of EU citizens. Although the full effects of the leave vote on migration trends will only be visible in a few years’ time, recent data releases for the first complete year after the referendum shed light on the mobility of EU citizens in response to the vote.

Newly released data from the Office for National Statistics suggest that immigration of EU citizens has fallen by almost one-fifth, from 284 000 persons in June 2016 to 230 000 in June 2017 (Figure 2.10, Panel A). By comparison, the fall in immigration of non-EU citizens was only 10%. Almost the entire drop in EU immigration during the last year was due to fewer EU citizens coming to look for a job, while the number of migrants arriving with a job offer in hand, for formal study purposes or to join a family member, remained approximately stable (Figure 2.10, Panel B).

Analysing emigration data confirms these findings (Figure 2.10, Panel A): in the year following the referendum, the number of EU citizens leaving the UK increased by 29% to 123 000, almost reaching the emigration level of the 2008 economic crisis. Over one in three EU citizens leaving the UK stated that their main reason was to return home: this was a 54% increase from the previous year. In addition, many EU citizens sought security by applying for British citizenship before the withdrawal from the European Union is completed. In the year following the referendum, the number of EU migrants applying for UK citizenship rose by 80% compared to the previous year, up to almost 28 500. Overall, between June 2016 and June 2017, the Home Office issued permanent residence permits to around 145 000 EEA citizens and their families, which represented a five-fold increase when compared with 27 000 in the previous year.

There have not only been changes in the magnitude of EU immigration to the United Kingdom, but also important shifts in the occupational composition of those EU citizens who arrived in the aftermath of the referendum. Overall, new recruitments of EU-born workers have diminished but this was particularly marked for highly-skilled occupations (Figure 2.11). Between the second quarter of 2016 (just before the referendum) and the second quarter of 2017, recruitments of newly arrived EU migrants (i.e. arrived in the past 18 months) in highly-skilled occupations dropped by approximately 38% (from 65 000 to 40 000), about twice as much as the reduction in new hiring in low- and medium-skilled jobs over the same period.

Figure 2.10. Migration trends in the United Kingdom, 2014-17

Source: Panel A: Long-Term International Migration estimates ; Panel B : International Passenger Survey; Provisional estimates for 2017. (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration).

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751403

Figure 2.11. Annual percentage change of EU workers in the United Kingdom by occupational level, 2014-18

Note: The reference population is people aged 15-64 who are in employment. “Low” here refers to occupations with ISCO code 9, “Medium” to occupations with ISCO codes 4 to 8, and “High” to occupations with ISCO codes 1 to 3. The change is calculated between one quarter and the same quarter in the preceding year.

Source: Quarterly Labour Force Survey, ONS.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751422

Figure 2.12. Education level of the working-age population in employment by place of birth, 2017

Note: The reference population are persons aged 15-64 who are employed. “Low” here refers to less than upper secondary attainment; “Medium” to upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary; “High” to tertiary. Totals different from 100% are due to non-response or values under the publication threshold. The data for European countries refer to the first three quarters only.

Source: Australia, Canada, and Israel: Labour Force Surveys; European countries and Turkey: Labour Force Surveys (Eurostat); Mexico: Encuesta Nacional de Ocupación y Empleo (ENOE); United States: Current Population Surveys.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751441

Information on formal educational attainment is only a proxy for actual skills. By exploiting the unique OECD Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), it is possible to account for objectively measured competencies in literacy and numeracy. Confirming the above findings, throughout the PIAAC sample the risk of over-qualification is higher for migrants than for native-born persons (Figure 2.14). Compared to Figure 2.13, this difference in over-qualification rates also controls for the heterogeneous demographic composition of the two populations in terms of age, gender and education. On average, migrants are 15 percentage points more likely to be over-qualified than natives, with the highest differences being observed in Italy (23 percentage points) and Greece (20 percentage points).

Figure 2.13. Differences in over-qualification rates between foreign- and native-born workers, 2017 or latest available year

Percentage points

Note: The sample includes tertiary-educated employed individuals aged 15-64 who are not in education. The data for EU28 refer to the first three quarters only. The data for individual European countries refer to the full year 2017 for Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom and for the full year 2016 for other European countries.

Source: European countries: Labour Force Surveys (Eurostat); Israel: Labour Force Survey; United States: Current Population Survey.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751460

Figure 2.14. Differences in over-qualification rates between foreign- and native-born workers with and without differences in literacy and numeracy being accounted for, 2015 or latest available

Percentage points

Note: The sample includes tertiary-educated employed individuals aged 15-64. The estimated model is a linear probability model which includes controls for age, gender, years of schooling and an intercept. The white diamond corresponds to a model which only accounts for these variables and includes a dummy variable for foreign-born workers. The blue bars correspond to the coefficient of a dummy of foreign-born workers in a model which, in addition to the factors mentioned above, controls for literacy and numeracy proficiency. Striped bars and diamonds indicate coefficients which are not statistically significant (at 5% significance).

Source: Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) 2012 and 2015.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751479

The influence of numeracy and literacy skills on the risk of over-qualification is significant but limited. Only one-fifth of the differences in over-qualification rates can be explained by observed skill differences. On average, migrants are still 12 percentage points more likely than native-born persons to be over-qualified for their jobs, also after accounting for their competencies as measured by PIAAC. This gap must therefore largely be driven by other factors. OECD/EU (2014[4]) stresses the location where the highest qualification is obtained as a key driver of the incidence of over-qualification among migrants, as well as their host-country language proficiency. Asymmetries in job information, lack of social networks or employers’ discrimination may also increase the mismatch between foreign-born workers’ qualifications and their occupation.

Recent changes in integration policies in OECD countries

In 2017 and 2018, as asylum inflows have stabilised in many countries and begun to fall back to levels seen prior to 2015/16, the focus of integration policy has evolved accordingly. Many of the asylum seekers that arrived 2015/16 have now been granted a humanitarian residence permit and, in 2017 and 2018, are gradually joining the labour market and beginning their search for work. In response to these changes, there has been a shift in the focus of integration policy in OECD member countries. Policy attention has moved from organising the reception and accommodation of new arrivals, to the fine-tuning of integration strategies, ensuring resources are used in a cost-effective manner in the context of heightened demand, and to addressing the needs of vulnerable groups to ensure no migrant falls through the cracks. This section provides an update on these recent policy changes in OECD countries as well as in Bulgaria, Lithuania and Romania.

Strengthening early intervention to set new arrivals on the right path

There has been a continuous trend towards the creation of integration programmes to structure early integration activities

In recent years, across the OECD area, countries have increasingly been organising their early integration efforts into structured introduction programmes and strategies. In 2016/2017, new programmes were introduced in Austria, Belgium, Chile and Lithuania.

The new strategies vary considerably in the extent of the services that constitute them, ranging from a co-ordinated attempt to provide information on available activities – such as in the Czech Republic – to the creation of a holistic package of integration measures – as was introduced in Lithuania and Belgium in 2016/17.

In Lithuania, for example, the new “Procedure for Providing State Support for the Integration of Beneficiaries of International Protection” includes measures to enhance migrants’ language skills through the introduction of an intensive Lithuanian language course (for level A1) alongside a course focused on the study of Lithuanian culture.

Where integration programmes have existed for some time, countries are restructuring services…

Elsewhere, where introduction programmes have existed for some time, countries such as Sweden and Finland have implemented structural changes in order to increase the efficiency, the organisation and the co-ordination of these programmes. In Finland, for example, where an integration programme has existed for nearly two decades, changes to the way integration training is organised, implemented in 2016/17, have meant that the integration programme is now divided into sub-modules. These modules combine vocationally-oriented content with integration training at an early stage of the integration path. In conjunction with basic integration studies, the new training modules contain a diverse range of other activities, including on-the-job learning and work experience. Modules may be interspersed with other labour market activities, such as work trials and subsidised employment.

…And participation in introduction measures is increasingly becoming obligatory

Alongside reforms to expand the offer of integration activities, there has been a commensurate trend increasing the emphasis placed on the obligations of the migrants themselves. In Austria, the Integration Act which came into effect in 2017, sets out a series of obligations including participation in various activities, such as language courses and seminars about Austrian values. The obligatory nature of participation is reinforced by a state-wide integration exam, the results of which can impact upon permit decisions. Integration courses, offered by certified course providers, are available to prepare participants for the integration exam, with the costs of these courses refunded up to 50% (or a maximum of EUR 750) for some groups.

Similarly, in Belgium, where labour market integration programmes remained a priority, 2017 saw the implementation of new and compulsory integration pathways across the country. Since May 2017, all newcomers in Brussels younger than 65 years of age, who have lived in Belgium for less than three years, and who have a residence permit valid for more than three months, will be required to follow an integration programme, including language training. The newly-introduced integration programme in Wallonia – which includes a reception module, French language training as well as citizenship training and socio-professional assistance – is also compulsory. In Flanders, candidates wanting to acquire a certificate of civic integration at the end of the integration programme have, since January 2016, to pass a test and demonstrate they have reached a certain level of Dutch.

At the same time, in Norway, the requirement of a minimum level of spoken Norwegian and having passed a test of knowledge of the Norwegian society to be eligible for permanent residence, entered into force in January 2017. In Sweden, the budget bill for 2018 introduced an education and training obligation for newly-arrived migrants who are considered in need of further education to find work. The education and training obligation makes clear the individual’s responsibility to obtain the skills necessary to be matched to a job, to take part in labour market policy measures, or continue studying.

In Germany, asylum seekers with a good prospect to remain have been allowed to participate in an integration course during their asylum procedure since October 2015. Changes made in early 2017 introduced the obligation to participate in these courses – enforced through accompanying sanctions – for those asylum seekers claiming benefits.

Language training remains the key building block of integration training…

In the majority of OECD countries, language remains a primary focus of integration policy. In France, the Contrat d’Intégration Républicaine introduced changes to expand access to language courses, and ensure that language training was more systematic. While this expansion in access was initially accompanied by a reduction in the number of hours offered to each individual, recent proposals announced in early 2018 anticipate a reversal of this reduction. Alongside this increase, from 200 hours of language training to 600, a parliamentary report published in early 2018 has put forward a set of proposals to enhance the support offered to new arrivals. These proposals include a decrease in the delay before asylum seekers can seek work from nine to six months, an enhanced link between skills assessments and subsequent professional and vocational training and a more than tenfold increase in integration spending, taking it to EUR 607 million.

The Austrian 2017 Integration Act also included a strong increase in budgetary support for language courses, and more generally many OECD countries have made changes to increase the efficiency of language learning.

In the Czech Republic, the Integration Plan for 2018 proposes the provision of increased methodological support for teachers of language courses; while in Australia, the Department of Education and Training implemented a new business model for the Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP). The introduction of the new model, in July 2017, coincided with the commencement of a new service provider contract which incorporates elements to promote efficiency of delivery while providing extra support for those with the strongest needs. New features of the model include: increased flexibility to let service providers choose a curriculum that meets their clients’ needs, and a choice of streams to deliver tuition tailored both to the needs and the goals of participants. In addition, the new model introduces the possibility of up to 490 hours of further tuition for migrants who have not reached functional English after completing their entitlement of 510 hours, and the removal of the funding cap on additional training for eligible humanitarian migrants.

In Germany, efforts to increase the efficiency of language training have, instead, focused on increasing the efficiency with which migrants are allocated to language courses. To this end, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees developed a system to allow case workers to send migrants directly to courses with available places. Previously, free choice by migrants had meant long waiting lists for some oversubscribed courses.

…And countries are increasingly turning towards incentivising the acquisition of language skills

Efforts to strengthen language skills have also increasingly focused on the incentives of the migrants themselves. In Denmark, to incentivise attendance and reduce dropout rates, amendments to the Law on Danish Language Courses have introduced, since July 2017, a deposit of DKK 1 250 (EUR 168) to be paid by students upon registering for a Danish course. The deposit is either refunded upon completion of the course or can be transferred, automatically, to the following module. Refugees and family migrants are not, however, required to pay the deposit. In a contrasting move, the language bonus that was introduced in 2015 to increase language learning incentives has, as of 2018, been limited, such that language students will now only be able to obtain the bonus for six months.

Rather than a language bonus, many OECD countries incentivise language acquisition by introducing compulsory language tests, the outcomes of which determine certain permit decisions. Countries taking steps in this direction in 2017/18 include Austria, Norway, Poland and the Czech Republic. In Poland, the amended Act on Foreigners, which entered into force on 12 February 2018, makes immigrants’ access to permanent residence conditional on Polish language knowledge (level B1 or an appropriate graduation certificate). However, children under 16, beneficiaries of international protection, victims of human trafficking and foreigners of Polish descent are exempt. In Switzerland, since 2018, naturalisation requires knowledge of a Swiss language to a minimum spoken level of B1 and written level of A2.

Assessment of skills and recognition of formal qualifications continues to develop

The assessment and recognition of qualifications, and the validation of skills, can be valuable tools to support the integration of all skilled migrants. In recent years, there has been increasing acknowledgement that investments in assessment and recognition have the highest yield when undertaken early in the integration process.

When skilled migrants work in jobs for which they are overqualified, potential is wasted. Assessment and recognition of foreign qualifications is an important tool in increasing the transparency of the skills migrantspossess, as such it plays an important role in overcoming the employer uncertainty – one of the root causes of over-qualification. As a result, the development of assessment and recognition systems remains a priority in many OECD countries. In Luxembourg, a Law on the Recognition of Professional Qualifications simplified the recognition procedure and created a register of professional titles and a register of qualification titles.

Alongside the recognition of academic qualifications, several OECD countries are developing systems for the recognition of vocational qualifications. Norway continues to be particularly active in this regard. In late 2017, Norway’s Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT) expanded the coverage of the recognition procedure for foreign vocational education and training that was launched the previous year. The procedure now covers five countries (Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland) and 15 qualifications that have been selected in co-operation with the Norwegian social partners. In addition, since August 2017, the Norwegian government has also established new bridging courses for those trained as nurses and teachers, to enable them to obtain the additional training required to work in these professions in Norway. Similar bridging courses are currently under development targeting refugees with science or technology qualifications.

Such vocational recognition requires close collaboration with employers and social partners. In many ways, Sweden led the way on such vocational recognition with the 2015 launch of its Fast-Track scheme that combines recognition with concurrent bridging courses and language tuition. In 2017, the number of Fast-Track participants has continued to grow and the Swedish Public Employment Service is working closely with industry to procure industry specific validation across the 14 Fast-Track professions.

For refugees, who frequently have no proof of their qualifications, recognition can be a particular challenge. To overcome these difficulties, several international initiatives took place in 2017. In June, the European Union launched its EU Skills Profile Tool for Third-Country Nationals (Box 2.4). Likewise, a new pilot project developed by the Council of Europe, began in 2017 granting European Qualifications Passports for Refugees. The project is based on a recognition methodology developed by the NOKUT as part of their Recognition Procedure for Persons without Verifiable Documentation (UVD-procedure). The Council of Europe is now working to expand the scheme to include more countries and partners from 2018. However, all such instruments have in common that the success will depend on the extent to which stakeholders use and accept them.

Box 2.4. EU Skills Profile Tool for Third-Country Nationals

An EU Skills Profile Tool for Third-Country Nationals was launched in June 2017 to support the early-stage profiling of the qualifications and skills of refugees and other citizens of non-EU countries who are staying in the EU (third-country nationals).

Developed as part of the New Skills Agenda for Europe, the profiling tool has the ambitious aim of ensuring that skills development, training and support for third-country nationals are effectively targeted to build efficiently on the skills they already possess.

The tool is not intended to explicitly recognise or authenticate skills, but is instead designed to be used in an interview situation to get to know the individual, their skills, qualifications and experiences. In this manner, the information collected can be used to:

support further assessment

form a basis for offering guidance

identify up-skilling needs

support job-searching and job-matching.

The tool is available in all EU languages (except Irish) as well as in Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, Sorani, Somali, Tigrinya and Turkish. In addition, in order to reduce the language barriers between caseworkers and citizens of non-EU countries, it is possible to use the tool in two languages at the same time on one screen.

While the tool is available as a web-based tool for anyone to use free of charge, it is specifically designed to aid the skills assessment undertaken by: national authorities responsible for reception and integration of refugees; reception centres; employment assistance services; education and training advisers; social services; NGOs and charitable organisations.

Validation of informally-acquired skills is increasingly used to orient integration advice and interventions

Those migrants who lack formal vocational degrees often have particular difficulty in signalling the skills they hold to potential employers. This can make it difficult for migrants to get their first foothold in the labour market and prove that they hold the skills needed for the job (see Box 2.5 on "Engaging with employers in the hiring of refugees"). In response to this challenge, the “My Skills” tool, developed by the public employment service in Germany, has the goal of providing more precise information on specific competences held. Standardised computer-based tests – supported by pictures and videos, to overcome language barriers – have been developed to capture the relevant competences in the 30 professional areas deemed to be most relevant among refugees and low-skilled Germans. In this manner the new tool aims to increase transparency and thereby enable either qualified placement or the arrangement of targeted further vocational training. The My Skills tool is available in six languages including German, English, Arabic, Persian, Turkish and Russian.

Box 2.5. OECD-UNHCR action plan on “Engaging with Employers in the Hiring of Refugees”

Through a series of regional dialogues on “Employing Refugees”, the OECD and UNHCR have brought together employers and employer organisations to share lessons learned on how to promote refugee employment. On the basis of these consultations, the two international organisations have drawn up an action plan for employers, refugees, civil society and governments on Engaging with Employers in the Hiring of Refugees.

The plan has been further informed by subsequent consultations with refugees, governments, and civil society to validate the outcomes of the dialogues with employers and employer organisations. Released in April 2018, it is composed of 10 “action areas” identified as key to supporting the successful labour market integration of refugees. The action areas are illustrative of the process and issues faced by employers concerning the hiring of refugees. The Action Plan is structured as follows: As a starting point, employers must be in a position to navigate the administrative framework regarding work rights (Action 1) and have sufficient legal certainty on the length of stay of refugee workers (Action 2). Once these preconditions are met, the necessary first step in the labour market integration process is the initial assessment of refugees’ skills (Action 3). Some skills gaps may be identified in this process, and measures for re- and upskilling may be needed to increase refugee employability (Action 4). With this base, a proper matching can be done with employers’ skill needs (Action 5). For a fair recruitment process, equal opportunities are a precondition (Action 6), and the working environment must be prepared (Action 7). Enabling long-term employability requires specific attention (Action 8). To ensure that scalable models for refugee employment are sustained and championed by employers, building a real business case for employment is essential (Action 9). Finally, different stakeholders need to work effectively and efficiently together throughout the process (Action 10).

The Action Plan intends to inspire focused policy action and structural co-ordination among different stakeholders with the aim of facilitating the process of refugee employment for employers, governments, civil society actors and refugees, and thereby getting the most out of refugees’ skills to the benefit of all stakeholders.

Ensuring that vulnerable migrants do not fall through the cracks

Many OECD countries have developed measures targeted at the most vulnerable groups

As integration systems adapt to accommodate the large number of new migrants – many of whom, as refugees, have substantial service needs – a number of integration policy changes have focused on the most vulnerable of these new arrivals. Many of the policy initiatives outlined in this chapter have been introduced in reaction to the large inflow of asylum seekers and refugees. Other groups that are increasingly in the focus are those with very low skills, young children (in particular those who are unaccompanied), and women – to ensure that no migrant is left to fall through the cracks. Indeed, in many cases, there is an overlap of vulnerabilities, with many refugees, unaccompanied minors, and migrant women bringing limited skills and education with them when they migrate.

Migrants with limited skills often require increased support

Migrants arriving with very low levels of skills can experience quite some difficulty in finding durable employment. As a result, in 2017-18, a number of OECD countries have introduced policy changes to encourage migrants to undertake further education to attain the levels needed for long-term employability in the host-country labour market.

In Sweden, since January 2018, the government has introduced the requirement that all newly-arrived migrants who are considered to be in need of education and training undertake such education on a full-time basis. The goal of this policy is to create a more coherent pathway for those with low skills, rather than attempt to move them directly into the labour market in a way that may not be sustainable. Alongside these changes, the National Agency for Education has been tasked with analysing whether the adult education system meets the needs of newly-arrived adults requiring further education at compulsory education level.

In a similar vein, amendments to the Education Act in Norway have ensured that adult migrants with completed upper-secondary education from abroad, which has not been recognised in Norway, will have the right to free local upper secondary education.

Children can often have difficulties integrating early enough to earn a sufficient education…

Investments into the successful integration of migrant children pay long-run dividends, and many OECD countries have updated policy to ensure that young migrants have the information and support to effectively integrate into the school system quickly after arrival. In Luxembourg, changes introduced in August 2017 aim to strengthen the integration into the compulsory schooling system of Luxembourg of newly-arrived foreign pupils, through the extension of the multi-lingual education programme to early childhood education and through the provision of care service vouchers aimed to mitigate inequalities and provide an equal start to all children. Alongside these changes, access to the orientation services offered by the “Reception Desk for Newly-Arrived Pupils” has been extended from age 17 to 24. With a similar aim, the 2018 Swedish Budget Bill announced changes to ensure all children have an equal start by announcing that preschool class is to be made mandatory. Alongside this, a review has been commissioned to look at ways to increase attendance among newly-arrived children.

In Norway, an amendment to the Education Act has been introduced, specifying that all children are entitled to primary and lower secondary education as soon as possible, and no later than within one month after arrival. Similarly, in Lithuania an amendment introduced in May 2017 provides for the right of asylum-seeking minors to pre-school and pre-primary education within three months after lodging an application for asylum. And in Chile, in support of the process of regularisation of migrant children, a no-cost special visa has been created to enable children to access health and educational benefits independently of the visa situation of their parents. Likewise, in the Czech Republic, students moving into Czech Primary schools are now offered free language preparation.

In some OECD countries, there has been a specific focus on children who arrive late into the host-country education system. In Austria, for example, in order to reduce the number of youth without a school leaving certificate, a 2016 amendment to the Austrian Law on Education and Training raised the minimum age for the achievement of the compulsory school leaving certificate to 18 years. In Sweden, in addition to allowing extra time for late-arrivals, a 2017 inquiry proposed that late-arriving students should be offered: a customised timetable with a narrower subject base; an individual study plan that accompanies them from school to school if relocation necessitates such transfers; further study guidance; and increased funding for additional education during the summer. Further, the report proposes that students failing to obtain a pass grade should be provided, in place of a fail grade, with a written review detailing their distance from a pass.

Unaccompanied minors face particular challenges

Unaccompanied minors, applying for asylum in OECD countries, often do so after a long and perilous journey during which they may have experienced abuse and exploitation. In 2017/2018, many OECD governments have introduced changes targeting the specific challenges facing this vulnerable group during the asylum procedure and in the early integration process.

Unaccompanied minors represent an important group among the refugees arriving in Greece. More than 5 000 arrived in 2016, and 2 350 applied for asylum. The efforts of the Greek government to address the needs of these children include a ministerial decision to increase educational support, to harmonise the age assessment procedure, and to provide a legal guardian for every child. However, adequate housing remains a major challenge and it is estimated that there are twice as many unaccompanied minors waiting for a place in a shelter as are currently available.

In Italy, the law “Provisions on measures to protect unaccompanied foreign minors”, approved by the Italian parliament in March 2017, pledges that foreign minors arriving in Italy without adults cannot be repatriated, and must be hosted by specialised shelters for the reception of minors for a maximum of 30 days. Following this time, minors should be placed within a family for foster care. In light of the abrupt and disruptive changes in the rights of the child that occur in many OECD countries when they reach the age of 18, the Italian law initiates the possibility to be supported up to the age of 21 years. Such possibilities for continued support are available in a number of OECD countries, including Germany, Sweden and France.

To limit the time unaccompanied minors spend in limbo, a 2017 legislative package in Germany requires youth welfare offices to apply quickly for asylum on behalf of unaccompanied minors. Meanwhile Belgium has published a manual – available in nine languages – to provide information on the asylum procedure to unaccompanied minors and their guardians.

In order to limit such disruptions and ensure that status does not change during the asylum application process, recent changes introduced in Sweden in May 2017 enable the migration agency to assess the age of a minor at the outset of the asylum procedure instead of in connection with the final decision. In addition, since March 2017, asylum-seeking minors are offered a voluntary medical age assessment in support of their age determination decision. Finally, in June 2017, amendments were made to ensure that those aged between 18 and 25 are able to extend their temporary residence permit for the duration of their upper secondary school studies. Similarly, in Germany adolescents whose removal has been suspended during and after their vocational training can stay in Germany for the duration of their vocational studies and possible subsequent employment.

Despite relatively poor labour market outcomes, policy initiatives targeted at migrant women remain rare

Integration failures among migrant women risk leaving a lasting impact on the integration outcomes of their children. Passing from generation to generation in this manner, poor integration outcomes among women can have long-run repercussions. Yet across the OECD, migrant women tend to take longer to integrate into the labour market than their male counterparts and tend to experience larger employment disparities when compared with the native-born peers in their host countries.

To tackle the barriers created by the difficulties involved in juggling employment and integration activities with childcare duties, in 2017 Germany has reintroduced and expanded the availability of childcare during integration activities. In Sweden, alongside mandating pre-school attendance, the Budget Bill of 2018 announced special measures to increase the opportunities for newly-arrived migrant women to learn Swedish, find a job, or run a business. In Australia, the 2018 national expansion of the “Parents Next” initiative intends to help parents across the country access personalised assistance to improve their work readiness. While this is not specifically targeted at migrants, they are likely to disproportionately benefit from such services.

Countries have followed divergent trends regarding the support and social protection available to new arrivals

Well-designed social protection programmes, including those that reduce poverty, increase employment opportunities, and provide affordable healthcare are important tools to promote integration and prevent the concentration of poverty and vulnerability among migrants. In a number of OECD countries, recent policy changes have also been motivated by public opinion concerns regarding the use of social transfers by migrants.

There has been a trend towards limiting migrant access to benefits…

In mid-2015, the Danish government introduced a new Integration Benefit that replaced the previous unemployment and welfare benefits for newly-arrived refugees. From January 2016, the target of this new integration benefit – which is substantially lower than the unemployment benefit it replaces – has been expanded to include all foreigners who have not resided in Denmark for seven of the past eight years. While the benefit reduction was initially mitigated by a monthly bonus, available to those who had passed an intermediate level Danish exam, in 2017, eligibility for this bonus was limited to a duration of six months. Furthermore, in June 2017, agreement was reached to reduce by 3% the rate of the integration allowance.

Elsewhere, according to plans unveiled by the new Dutch government in October 2017, migrants with residency permits will not be able to claim welfare benefits, such as healthcare allowance or rent allowance for the first two years of their stay. Meanwhile in Austria, three of the country’s nine provinces have reduced the benefits to which new arrivals have access. Benefits for new arrivals, have been cut to around EUR 570 a month with benefits at the household level capped at EUR 1 500.

In addition, under plans announced under the recently unveiled “No-Ghetto” programme in Denmark, a person receiving state income payments (kontanthjælp) would see these benefits reduced if they move to an area defined by the government as a “ghetto” area. In addition, municipalities will not be allowed to move people receiving the unemployment allowance into these areas.

In a similar vein, Hungary has also rolled back support for refugees now offered accommodation for a maximum of 30 days, down from the 60 days previously granted, following recognition of refugee or subsidiary protection status. After this period, housing support for refugees and other beneficiaries of international protection is only available through civil society initiatives. Alongside reduced accommodation support, eligibility for basic health care services has also been halved to a period of six months. The Immigration and Asylum Office (IAO) no longer provides integration support to beneficiaries of international protection. Moreover, the amendments introduced an automatic revision of the refugee and subsidiary protection status every three years. Belgium has reduced the pocket money available to asylum-seekers in reception centres.

…while some OECD countries have extended medical coverage or benefit entitlement to migrant groups previously not covered

Recent policy changes in a number of OECD countries have extended access to such social protection programmes to groups previously ineligible. In Germany, for example, an amendment to the Asylum Seekers’ Benefits Act will ensure that asylum seekers who have been in Germany for at least 15 months are entitled to the same healthcare benefits as those who are members of the statutory healthcare system. In April 2017, Canada launched new pre-departure medical services for refugees destined for Canada. Services include: an immigration medical examination, certain pre-departure vaccinations aligned with Canadian guidelines, services to manage disease outbreaks in refugee camps, and medical support during travel to Canada. Turkey has also made significant efforts to ensure that those living in the country under temporary protection receive the education, labour market support and healthcare services they need (see Box 2.6) In Chile, a circular published in June of 2016 provides pathways through which irregular migrants, without documents or residence permits, can access the public healthcare system. A further circular, issued in August of 2017, created the Temporary Training and Employment Visa, which allows participation in training with a view to insertion into the formal labour market upon course completion.

In Sweden, those granted international protection are, since 2016, offered temporary rather than permanent permits. New legislation introduced in August 2017 ensures that temporary residents are able to keep health care and social benefits if they apply for an extension before the temporary permit expires.

Citizenship

Naturalisation can be an important step towards integration. It encourages investment in host-country specific skills on the part of the migrant, and reduces the uncertainty facing potential employers when making hiring or training decisions. Yet, while the vast majority of countries have legal provisions that allow immigrants to become naturalised citizens, the criteria for acquisition of citizenship, and the procedural measures necessary, vary from country to country.

Box 2.6. Integration policy in Turkey

By mid-March 2018, over 3.7 million registered people under temporary protection were living in Turkey, including Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, Iranians, and Somalis. The 3.5 million Syrians officially residing in Turkey represent over 63% of all displaced Syrians and 3.8% of Turkey’s total population. Of these individuals, close to 240 000 people are hosted in 21 camps run by Turkish authorities, where people have access to shelter, health, education, food and social activities. In response to the growing number of people in need of protection, Turkey has taken a number of steps to facilitate access to the labour market, education, and healthcare.

Labour market: in 2014 the Turkish government adopted the Law on Foreigners and International Protection which makes it possible to apply for a work permit six months after their international protection claim. In January 2016 the Regulation on Work Permits for Foreigners under Temporary Protection extended this right. Employers have to apply on behalf of employees once residency, registration, and health requirements are met. The application is then approved by the local authority if Syrians do not exceed 10% of the Turkish workforce employed in the same workplace.

Education: national Turkish legislation states that all children, including foreign nationals, have the right to free basic education. However, reports indicate that Syrian refugees have had difficulties enrolling their children into the public school system. These difficulties stem from a lack of clarity regarding enrolment procedures as well as practical limitations such as language barriers and lack of space in the classrooms. Alongside public education, an alternative option for the children of Syrian refugees is to enrol at one of the Temporary Education Centres available in urban areas and in some refugee camps. These centres follow a modified Syrian curriculum and are taught in Arabic in order to overcome the language barriers the children face in public schools. Alongside offering vocational training and courses in teaching Turkish, these centres also arrange social and cultural activities. The Temporary Education Centres do, however, face a number of challenges: travel costs to these centres appear to be a problem for some urban refugees and some centres are not accredited by the Turkish government due to the low quality of teaching.

UNICEF is providing incentives to Syrian voluntary teachers and training them on pedagogical techniques, classroom management, and psycho-social support.

Healthcare: since 2014, with the introduction of the Temporary Protection Regulation, Syrians receiving temporary protection have the right to benefit from healthcare services. To this end, Migrant Health Centres have been established by the Ministry of Health in order to provide healthcare services such as outpatient, maternal and child health, health education, and vaccination services to refugees under temporary protection.

While language barriers with healthcare providers represent a hurdle to de facto access, since early 2016, the new work permit for foreign health professionals has assuaged this problem. Since this time, after approval from the Ministry of Health, Syrian medical staff has been able to work and serve Syrian patients mainly in Migrant Health Centres and the health facilities of the refugee camps. Alongside this, the World Health Organization (WHO) is training refugee doctors and nurses for their smooth adaptation in the Turkish health system.

Housing: there is currently no public housing outside the refugee camps in Turkey. And, while the majority of refugees choose to reside outside these camps, this decision implies that they must provide for their own housing and living costs. This has led to overcrowding and poor conditions in certain neighbourhoods.

Naturalisation requirements increasingly emphasise integration outcomes rather than years of residency

For several years, there has been a trend to enhance the importance of citizenship acquisition and a convergence across countries towards similar conditions for access, and 2017/18 was no exception in this respect. Many changes have tended to reduce the focus on years spent in the country, shortening residency requirements in many cases – especially where the required duration was long – while placing greater emphasis on integration outcomes, such as knowledge of host country language and civic responsibilities.

In Luxembourg, for example, where the proportion of the population accounted for by Luxembourgers has been declining in recent years, changes introduced in 2017 reduced the residency requirements for naturalisation from seven to five years. In addition, henceforth only the last year of residence prior to the application must be uninterrupted. Alongside these changes, candidates must pass a new civil introduction course of 24 hours.

Swiss naturalisation laws have also undergone significant changes in recent years and the new Federal Law Concerning the Acquisition and Loss of Swiss Nationality entered into force on 1 January 2018. Henceforth citizenship in Switzerland may be obtained by those who have been resident in the country for at least ten years (reduced from 12) – including three of the five years preceding the application. Years spent in Switzerland between the ages of eight and 18 are counted double. Furthermore, in addition to language requirements, candidates must show familiarity with Swiss habits and customs, must not have claimed social assistance, and must not have a criminal record. Australia, which had among the shortest required duration of residence in the OECD, increased the minimum requirement of previous permanent residency from one year to four years, implying that temporary residency no longer counts towards citizenship. In Norway, since January 2017, applicants for Norwegian citizenship must have passed an oral Norwegian test at a minimum level of A2. This comes in addition to the previous requirement to have completed tuition in Norwegian (or Sami). In Korea, the income requirement for general naturalisation was doubled from KRW 30 M (EUR 22 500) to KRW 60 M (EUR 45 000).

A fundamental reform of citizenship legislation in Canada received Royal Assent in June 2017 to be implemented throughout 2017 and 2018. Under the new law, applicants are no longer required to intend to continue to living in Canada once granted citizenship, providing more flexibility to those who may need to live outside Canada for work or personal reasons. Further changes included reducing the time permanent residents must be physically present in Canada to three out of five years, instead of four out of six, before applying for citizenship; amending the age range for people to meet the language and knowledge requirements for citizenship from 14-64 years to 18-54 years; and counting some of the time applicants spend in Canada as temporary residents or protected persons toward their duration of residence requirements for citizenship. In addition, in Canada, the ability to revoke citizenship from dual citizens convicted of crimes against the national interest has been repealed and such persons will, in future, face the Canadian justice system just as other Canadian citizens who break the law.

OECD countries continue to implement measures to facilitate the naturalisation process for certain groups

The policy trend of speeding up the naturalisation process and introducing facilitated pathways for certain groups has continued in a number of OECD countries. In Poland, residency requirements for people of Polish origin, and holders of the Polish Card, have been reduced from three years to one year. Furthermore, since 2017, holders of the Polish Card who apply for permanent residence are entitled to a nine-month financial allowance. The Polish Card is granted to people who do not have Polish citizenship or a residence permit but who are both citizens of the former Soviet Union states and considered to belong to the Polish Nation. In a similar vein, in Lithuania, those who left the country between 1920 and 1940 – and their descendants – are now allowed to obtain Lithuanian citizenship without revoking the citizenship of their country of residence.

Several other OECD countries also facilitated access to citizenship for the descendants of emigrants. In Estonia in 2016, citizenship acquisition has been facilitated for children of Estonian citizens and children born in Estonia, while in both Portugal and Switzerland, 2017 saw facilitated access to citizenship for the grandchildren of citizens. In Canada, a 2017 legislative amendment made it easier for minors to apply for citizenship on their own behalf, and put all minors on the same footing irrespective of whether they have a Canadian parent.

In Portugal, the Nationality Law was amended in order to speed up the naturalisation process for Portuguese-language speakers. Henceforth, language testing will no longer be a requirement for citizens of Portuguese speaking countries and police record checks will be more limited.

References

[1] OECD (2018), Employment Outlook 2018, OECD Publishing, Paris, Forthcoming.

[2] OECD (2018), Towards Better Social and Employment Security in Korea, Connecting People with Jobs, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264288256-en.

[3] OECD (2017), International Migration Outlook 2017, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/migr_outlook-2017-en.

[4] OECD/EU (2014), Matching Economic Migration with Labour Market Needs, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264216501-en.

Annex 2.A.

Supplementary tables

Annex Table 2.A.1. Employment of foreign-born persons by industry, 2017
| Agriculture and fishing (%) | Mining, manufacturing and energy (%) | Construction (%) | Wholesale and retail trade (%) | Hotels and restaurants (%) | Education (%) | Health (%) | Activities of households as employers (%) | Admin. and ETO (%) | Other services (%) | Total (%) | Total foreign-born employed (thousands) | Foreign-born in total employment (%)
Australia | 1.3 | 11.0 | 7.4 | 11.8 | 9.0 | 6.7 | 14.8 | - | 9.0 | 29.1 | 100.0 | 14 | 30.3
Austria | 0.7 | 16.5 | 10.4 | 13.7 | 13.3 | 5.6 | 10.1 | 0.5 | 10.3 | 18.9 | 100.0 | 817 | 20.2
Belgium | - | 12.3 | 9.2 | 12.1 | 6.9 | 6.1 | 13.9 | - | 21.0 | 17.8 | 100.0 | 564 | 17.1
Czech Republic | - | 26.6 | 8.9 | 16.0 | 4.1 | 4.8 | 7.8 | - | 7.7 | 22.9 | 100.0 | 43 | 3.4
Denmark | 3.3 | 11.8 | 2.4 | 12.0 | 10.3 | 9.5 | 16.5 | - | 9.6 | 24.5 | 100.0 | 86 | 12.6
Estonia | - | 27.4 | 7.7 | 12.1 | - | 10.8 | 7.5 | - | 5.8 | 24.3 | 100.0 | 16 | 10.6
Finland | - | 12.1 | 6.9 | 11.4 | 8.8 | 7.3 | 17.3 | - | 8.7 | 24.9 | 100.0 | 32 | 5.5
France | 1.7 | 10.5 | 11.2 | 12.0 | 7.9 | 6.0 | 13.2 | 2.8 | 14.3 | 20.5 | 100.0 | 2 932 | 11.5
Germany | 0.6 | 24.0 | 7.8 | 14.0 | 8.4 | 4.8 | 11.8 | 1.2 | 10.1 | 17.3 | 100.0 | 6 588 | 16.9
Greece | 10.9 | 14.0 | 11.4 | 15.5 | 16.3 | 1.8 | 3.0 | 9.5 | 6.9 | 10.7 | 100.0 | 80 | 8.8
Hungary | 5.1 | 18.4 | 5.4 | 17.9 | 5.1 | 9.6 | 8.3 | - | 9.2 | 20.3 | 100.0 | 26 | 2.4
Iceland | 4.8 | 16.6 | 5.6 | 9.7 | 13.0 | 9.6 | 11.8 | - | 8.5 | 20.3 | 100.0 | 5 | 10.1
Ireland | 1.8 | 13.6 | 5.9 | 14.6 | 15.1 | 3.9 | 11.8 | - | 7.3 | 25.4 | 100.0 | 106 | 21.8
Israel | 0.5 | 17.6 | 3.6 | 11.4 | 3.6 | 7.9 | 14.5 | 5.1 | 6.1 | 29.7 | 100.0 | 830 | 23.5
Italy | 5.4 | 19.0 | 9.1 | 10.9 | 10.6 | 2.0 | 5.5 | 17.6 | 6.8 | 13.0 | 100.0 | 3 164 | 14.5
Latvia | 3.7 | 22.9 | 6.0 | 13.2 | - | 8.7 | 8.0 | 0.0 | 4.7 | 30.3 | 100.0 | 20 | 9.3
Luxembourg | 0.5 | 5.1 | 8.9 | 9.7 | 4.8 | 4.7 | 8.0 | 3.7 | 20.1 | 34.5 | 100.0 | 121 | 56.5
Netherlands | 0.9 | 14.3 | 3.3 | 13.9 | 7.1 | 6.0 | 15.3 | - | 15.4 | 23.7 | 100.0 | 200 | 10.6
Norway | 1.3 | 10.9 | 9.2 | 11.8 | 7.5 | 5.8 | 19.9 | - | 12.3 | 21.4 | 100.0 | 89 | 14.0
Portugal | 2.1 | 13.9 | 6.5 | 13.9 | 9.4 | 9.8 | 7.8 | 3.7 | 11.8 | 21.2 | 100.0 | 106 | 9.7
Slovak Republic | - | 19.5 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 100.0 | 4 | 0.7
Slovenia | - | 30.8 | 15.2 | 8.4 | 6.5 | 5.5 | 6.7 | - | 10.1 | 15.4 | 100.0 | 22 | 9.8
Spain | 7.6 | 9.7 | 7.9 | 14.9 | 18.5 | 3.3 | 4.8 | 10.7 | 7.6 | 15.1 | 100.0 | 690 | 15.2
Sweden | 0.6 | 10.0 | 4.6 | 8.9 | 7.4 | 12.9 | 19.8 | - | 11.5 | 24.3 | 100.0 | 213 | 18.1
Switzerland | 1.0 | 15.7 | 8.8 | 12.2 | 7.6 | 6.3 | 15.1 | 1.9 | 7.9 | 23.4 | 100.0 | 1 282 | 30.6
United Kingdom | 0.7 | 11.4 | 6.3 | 13.8 | 9.4 | 7.7 | 14.5 | 0.4 | 10.2 | 25.4 | 100.0 | 5 251 | 17.9
United States | 2.0 | 12.0 | 10.4 | 12.3 | 9.7 | 6.0 | 12.3 | 1.0 | 2.4 | 31.8 | 100.0 | 26 305 | 18.3

Note: Bold indicates that foreign-born are over-represented in the sector compared to the native-born. A dash indicates that the estimate is not reliable enough for publication. ETO stands for extra-territorial organisations. The population refers to the employed population aged 15 to 64. The data for European countries refer to 2016 except for Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Switzerland and the United Kingdom where it refers to 2017 and Belgium where it refers to the first three quarters of 2017.

Source: Australia, Israel: Labour Force Surveys; European countries: Labour Force Surveys (Eurostat); United States: Current Population Surveys.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751498

Annex Table 2.A.2. Quarterly employment rates by place of birth and gender in OECD countries, 2013-17

Percentage of the population aged 15-64

Note: Data are not adjusted for seasonal variations. Comparisons should therefore be made for the same quarters of each year, and not for successive quarters within a given year.

Source: European countries and Turkey: Labour Force Surveys (Eurostat); Australia, Canada, Israel, New Zealand: Labour Force surveys; Chile: Encuesta de Caracterización Socioeconómica Nacional (CASEN); Mexico: Encuesta Nacional de Ocupación y Empleo (ENOE); United States: Current Population Surveys.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751517

Annex Table 2.A.3. Quarterly unemployment rates by place of birth and gender in OECD countries, 2013-17

Percentage of the active population aged 15-64

Note: Data are not adjusted for seasonal variations. Comparisons should therefore be made for the same quarters of each year, and not for successive quarters within a given year.

Source: European countries and Turkey: Labour Force Surveys (Eurostat); Australia, Canada, Israel, New Zealand: Labour Force surveys; Chile: Encuesta de Caracterización Socioeconómica Nacional (CASEN); Mexico: Encuesta Nacional de Ocupación y Empleo (ENOE); United States: Current Population Surveys.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751536

Annex Table 2.A.4. Quarterly participation rates by place of birth and gender in OECD countries, 2013-17

Percentage of the population aged 15-64

Note: Data are not adjusted for seasonal variations. Comparisons should therefore be made for the same quarters of each year, and not for successive quarters within a given year.

Source: European countries and Turkey: Labour Force Surveys (Eurostat); Australia, Canada, Israel, New Zealand: Labour Force surveys; Chile: Encuesta de Caracterización Socioeconómica Nacional (CASEN); Mexico: Encuesta Nacional de Ocupación y Empleo (ENOE); United States: Current Population Surveys.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751555

Chapter 3.

The contribution of recent refugee flows to the labour force

This chapter looks at the labour market impact of recent refugee inflows towards European countries, drawing lessons from past experience and looking beyond the most recent developments to account for the ongoing process of refugees’ labour market entry. It offers a rigorous assessment of the potential impact of recent refugee inflows on the working-age population and labour force of European countries up to 2020, taking into account the specificity of refugees and their interactions with the labour market. Although such an exercise does not provide a definitive response to the hopes or concerns regarding the labour market impact of refugees, it will at least help to frame expectations.

This chapter was prepared by Gilles Spielvogel.

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

Introduction

The world refugee population has increased significantly in the recent years, from 11.1 million in mid-2013 to 18.5 million in mid-2017.1 During this period, the refugee population in OECD countries has tripled, from 2 million to 5.9 million, while it has doubled in the European Union (from 920 000 to 2.1 million).

In a number of OECD countries, this rapid increase has sparked a public debate on the potential economic impact of these large inflows. Some have emphasised the fiscal costs associated with hosting an increasing number of refugees, or the risk that they reduce job opportunities for natives in host countries. By contrast, others have suggested that refugees may help slow down population ageing, alleviate labour shortages in specific sectors and generate new business opportunities.

Although attempts have been made to evaluate rigorously some of these arguments, this debate is often fuelled by extreme views extrapolating from dramatic events or anecdotes. Moreover, looking at the economic and labour market impact only through the lens of recent, large arrivals may be misleading because of the time involved in processing a large number of asylum applications and initiating the integration of the refugees who are going to stay in the host country.

This chapter focuses on the labour market impact of recent refugee inflows towards European countries, drawing lessons from past experience and looking beyond the most recent developments to account for the ongoing process of refugees’ labour market entry. It provides an analysis of the contribution of refugees to the dynamics of the working-age population and the labour force. Looking at the supply of labour is a prerequisite for a more complete analysis of labour market outcomes, as well as potential transitional effects. This chapter offers a rigorous assessment of the potential impact of recent refugee inflows on the working-age population and labour force of European countries up to 2020, taking into account the specificity of refugees and their interactions with the labour market.² Although such an exercise does not provide a definitive response to the hopes or concerns regarding the labour market impact of refugees, it will at least help to frame expectations.

The first section examines the recent trends in asylum applications and admissions of refugees in European countries, as well as the available evidence on the economic consequences of these inflows. The second section discusses the labour market impact of major refugee inflows in OECD countries in recent decades, which helps put the current European experience in perspective. The third section presents the methodology used to estimate the impact of refugee inflows on the working-age population and the labour force in European countries through 2020. The fourth section presents the results of these estimates and provides extensions of the main analysis by looking at the potential role of rejected asylum seekers and family members of refugees.

Main findings

European countries received 4 million asylum applications between January 2014 and December 2017, three times as many as during the previous four-year period. During the same period (2014-17), about 1.6 million individuals were granted some form of protection.

Historical evidence suggests that large inflows of humanitarian migrants in OECD countries have generally had little impact on the labour market outcomes of the native-born at the national level.

At the local level, or for specific population sub-groups, however, there is evidence that refugee arrivals can have a negative impact, especially when refugees compete for the same jobs as the native-born. This is, for example, the case in Turkey where Syrian refugees have displaced native-born workers in the informal sector.

For European countries as a whole, the estimated relative impact of recent refugee inflows on the working-age population is small, projected to reach no more than one-third of 1% by December 2020. In terms of labour force, since participation rates of refugees are typically very low in the early period of their stay in the host country, the magnitude of the aggregate net impact is estimated to be even smaller, at less than one-quarter of 1% by December 2020.

For about half of European countries, refugee arrivals will have virtually no impact on the labour force, and most other European countries will experience only a moderate impact by the end of 2020.

This impact is expected to be significantly higher in Austria, Greece and Sweden, however, with at least a 0.5% increase in the labour force and up to 0.8% for Germany.

In countries with the highest aggregate effects, the impact is likely to be much larger in specific segments of the labour market: among young low-educated men, it could reach about 15% in Austria and Germany.

Since accessing employment takes time, most of the increase in the labour force will result in an increase in unemployment rather than in employment. This is notably the case in Germany, where the number of unemployed could increase by about 6% by the end of 2020.

In absence of any return, the cumulative number of rejected asylum seekers could reach 1.2 million by the end of 2020. The effect on the informal labour market will depend on the incidence of voluntary returns and on the efficiency of enforcement measures.

Through family reunification, inflows of family migrants from the main origin countries of recent refugees have increased and are likely to continue. For Syrians, for example, family reunification could amount to up to 50% of the initial inflow of refugee.

Young, low-educated men are overrepresented among refugees. Since this population group is already vulnerable in most host countries, well-targeted measures are needed to provide them with adequate support. Further deterioration of employment outcomes in this group could negatively affect the public perception of the impact of refugees on the economy.

Prompt access to the labour market affects many other dimensions of refugees’ social integration. It is critical to promote integration policies that maximise refugees’ access to employment.

Recent trends in humanitarian inflows towards European countries

Since 2014, European countries have witnessed the largest inflow of humanitarian migrants since World War II. This is due, in part, to the massive displacement of population occasioned by the Syrian War. However, conflicts and humanitarian crises in other countries have also played a role (e.g. in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan or the Horn of Africa). Altogether, European countries³ have received 4 million asylum applications between January 2014 and December 2017. This is nearly three times as many as during the previous four-year period (Jan. 2010-Dec. 2013). About one-quarter (960 000) of those applications were made by Syrian nationals (Figure 3.1). During the same period (Jan. 2014–Dec. 2017), about 1.6 million individuals were granted some form of protection in first instance (asylum under the Geneva Convention, subsidiary or temporary protection), including 780 000 Syrians.

Figure 3.1. Monthly asylum applications in Europe*, January 2011 to December 2017

*: EU-28 countries, Norway and Switzerland.

Source: Eurostat.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751593

Although inflows of humanitarian migrants towards European countries in the last three years have been high by historical standards, they have remained much lower in absolute and relative terms than inflows experienced by countries neighbouring Syria. In March 2018, about 3.5 million Syrians benefited from temporary protection in Turkey, 1 million in Lebanon, and about 660 000 in Jordan (UNHCR, 2018[1]).

Other OECD countries have also witnessed increasing inflows of humanitarian migrants. In Canada, for example, permanent entries for humanitarian reasons have increased from an average of 25 000 per year in 2011-14 to 32 000 in 2015 and to almost 60 000 in 2016. This figure includes both refugees admitted after having claimed asylum in Canada and refugees resettled from abroad in the framework of sponsorship programmes. The majority of this increase was due to the commitment made in late 2015 by the Canadian government to resettle specifically Syrian refugees. In 2017, permanent entries for humanitarian reasons declined by 30%, due to the decrease in the number of resettled refugees.

In the United States, a dual system of in-country asylum applications and refugee resettlement also exists, with the latter component being subject to a yearly ceiling. In fiscal years (FY) 2013 to 2015, admissions through resettlement reached the refugee ceiling of 70 000 per year. Partly in response to the Syrian conflict, the ceiling was raised in FY 2016 and admissions increased to 85 000. In FY 2017, however, the number of refugees resettled into the country was capped at 50 000.4 Although in-country asylum applications have increased steadily in recent years (from 45 000 in FY 2013 to about 140 000 in FY 2017), the number of approved claims has remained stable at around 10 000-15 000 per year, with an increasing backlog of pending applications (close to 300 000 at the end of FY 2017, while it was only 30 000 at the end of FY 2013).

For European countries, the decline in asylum applications that started in the second half of 2016 continued in 2017, with about 60 000 monthly applications, compared to 130 000 between July 2015 and September 2016 (reaching a peak between August and November 2015, with a monthly average of more than 170 000 applications). Despite this slow-down, because of the time required to process asylum claims, the number of pending applications remains very high, at 950 000 in December 2017, including 110 000 Syrians (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2. Monthly asylum decisions and stock of pending applications in Europe*, January 2011 to December 2017

*: EU-28 countries, Norway and Switzerland.

Note: Only first instance decisions are shown here.

Source: Eurostat.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751612

Compared to previous years, the sharp increase in asylum seeker inflows in 2015 and 2016 had little effect on the age and sex distribution of asylum applicants or accepted refugees in European countries (Figure 3.3). Throughout the period 2011-17, about 79% of asylum applicants were aged 15-64, whereas children represented about 21%.⁵ Among working-age asylum applicants (i.e. aged 15-64), the share of individuals aged 18-34 was about 68%. In addition, three-quarters of working-age asylum applicants were men. As shown in Figure 3.3 (Panels A and B), these characteristics of asylum applicants do not differ significantly from those of accepted refugees.

Figure 3.3. Age and sex distribution of asylum applicants and refugees admitted in Europe*, 2011-17

*: EU-28 countries, Norway and Switzerland.

Source: Eurostat.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751631

Economic impact: What do we know?

Recent inflows have a potential economic impact, due to the fiscal cost of hosting a larger-than-usual number of asylum seekers and refugees, and in terms of labour market adjustment, in a context where a large share of new refugees are of working age.

The cost of processing a large number of asylum applications and, more importantly, providing means of subsistence to asylum seekers while their applications are examined, has been the focus of previous OECD analyses (OECD, 2015[2]; OECD, 2017[3]). Frequently, before gainful employment is obtained, a significant proportion of refugees will continue to be dependent on the welfare systems of host countries. In addition, for numerous refugees, access to the labour market and proper social integration are conditional on adequate language training, as well as professional training if necessary, which are often largely financed by public funds. Although such expenses can strain local and national budgets in the short run, they can also have a positive impact on the economy by boosting aggregate demand.

An OECD (2017[4]) analysis, focusing on countries having received a relatively high number of asylum applications as a share of the population,⁶ has shown that fiscal costs as a share of GDP peaked in 2016 in most countries, ranging from 0.1% of GDP in Switzerland to around 0.9% in Sweden. These fiscal costs across the eight countries covered (excluding Turkey and Switzerland) amount to a cumulative 0.6% of EU GDP from 2016-18 (1.2% of the aggregate GDP in the eight EU countries covered). This may understate EU-wide expenditure, as other EU countries have also incurred expenditures to address higher numbers of asylum seekers. This boost to spending and demand will have had small, positive spillover effects on other European countries and trading partners.

The European Commission (2016[5]) provided early forecasts of the macroeconomic impact, focusing on the fiscal dimension and economic growth. The model used in that report, which includes labour market adjustment, predicts a modest rise in employment and a modest decline in wages (respectively +0.2% and -0.2% by 2018, compared to the baseline). The report points to the key role of integration policies in minimising the long-term fiscal cost of refugees, a conclusion shared in particular by Aiyar et al. (2016[6]), who review economic aspects of the surge in asylum seekers in the European Union.

Similar exercises have been carried out at the country level. For instance, Burggraeve and Piton (2016[7]) study the impact on the Belgian economy and forecast a modest increase of the labour force (+30 000 by 2020 compared to the baseline scenario, or less than 0.6% of the total labour force). For Germany, the European Commission (2016[8]) assessed the economic impact of the 2014-16 refugee inflow. Overall, they find a small negative impact on the employment of natives and a small increase in unemployment, especially for the low-skilled who are potentially more exposed to competition from refugees. Stähler (2017[9]) also analyses the impact on the German economy and finds that poor integration of refugees could lead to negative economic consequences, both on the labour market and in terms of per capita output.

The results described above have all been obtained in the context of economy-wide models, and rely on a number of assumptions regarding the evolution of inflows and the labour market integration of refugees. A comprehensive assessment of the actual labour market impact in European countries, in terms of wages and employment, based on observed outcomes, will only be feasible in a few years, with sufficient hindsight.

The additional labour force provided by refugees has also been, in some cases, considered as a potential means to alleviate labour shortages in the context of an ageing European workforce.⁷ The recent refugee inflows, however, occurred as many European countries were recovering from the deep global financial crisis and were still facing high levels of unemployment. In this context, the public perception has not always been positive, with fears of detrimental effects on wages or employment, especially for low-skilled native workers (Figure 3.4). It should be stressed, however, that it can be challenging to disentangle actual concerns about the labour market impact of refugees from other preoccupations, such as a perception of increased insecurity and the dilution of national or cultural identity. In practice, identity and economic concerns tend to be highly correlated, and the expression of the latter does not necessarily imply that the former plays a lesser role in shaping public opinion about refugees (or immigrants more generally). In fact, as shown in Figure 3.4, countries where a high number of refugees have been welcomed, such as Sweden and Germany, tend to have a particularly positive appreciation of the economic contribution of refugees.

Beyond public opinion, most of the economic literature devoted to analysing the labour market impact of immigration in general, and humanitarian inflows in particular, has found little evidence of significant negative consequences. However, this still remains a contentious issue in academic and policy discussions (Dustmann, Glitz and Frattini, 2008[10]; Dustmann, Schönberg and Stuhler, 2016[11]).⁸

Figure 3.4. Public opinion on the economic impact of refugees in selected European countries

Share of respondents holding positive or negative views, 2016

Source: Pew Research Center, Spring 2016 Global Attitudes Survey (Q51a).

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751650

Existing evidence on the labour market impact of humanitarian migration towards OECD countries

Before analysing in more detail the impact of the recent humanitarian migration in the European context, it is useful to broaden the historical and geographical scope to provide an overview of some of the past large humanitarian inflows in OECD countries, and of the recent inflows in some non-European OECD countries. For some of the cases reviewed below, there has been little investigation of potential economic effects of the arrivals of refugees in destination countries, while others have generated significant academic debates.

Indeed, refugee flows play a specific role in the academic literature devoted to the analysis of the economic impact of immigration. Due to the difficulty of identifying the causal effect of immigration on employment or wages in settings where the location choices of immigrants may have been determined by local employment prospects or wage differences, a number of papers have used humanitarian flows as natural experiments to identify such effects. The involuntary nature of these inflows implies that they can sometimes provide an exogenous source of variation in the level of immigration across space or time (Borjas and Monras, 2017[12]; Clemens and Hunt, 2017[13]).

One of the key results from this literature is that humanitarian migration flows have generally been found to have either relatively modest negative impact on labour market outcomes of natives (wages and employment), or no impact at all. Some studies have identified more significant negative effects, while other works have noted that the skill complementarity between refugees and natives can have positive consequences for natives. Some of the relevant findings of these studies are discussed below. However, in keeping with the objective of this chapter, the different cases reviewed are above all an opportunity to assess the magnitude of the change in working-age population and labour force in various contexts, which will provide a useful benchmark for the results discussed afterwards on the current European situation.

The Indochinese refugee crisis, 1975-95

One of the earliest and most significant humanitarian migration events in which several OECD countries played a role in the post-World War II era has been the flight of more than three million people from the former French colonies of Indochina – Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos – following the 1975 communist victories and over the next two decades (UNHCR, 2000[14]; OECD, 2016[15]). Most refugees initially fled (often by boat), to other Southeast Asian countries (Thailand, Malaysia, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, the Philippines, etc.). By the end of the 1970s, after the arrival of about 700 000 refugees in five years, these countries of first asylum were no longer able nor willing to accept them. The 1979 Geneva Meeting on Refugees and Displaced Persons in Southeast Asia, organised by the United Nations, ultimately led to the resettlement of more than 1.3 million refugees from Southeast Asian camps to OECD countries by 1995, with about half of them being resettled between mid-1979 and mid-1982. Vietnamese made up about 57% of the resettled refugees, Laotians 24% and Cambodians 18%.

As noted in UNHCR (2000[14]), the United States has been the main destination country of the resettled Indochinese refugees with about 825 000 persons, followed by Australia, Canada (137 000 each) and France (95 000). In addition, in the framework of the Orderly Departure Programme (ODP), by which Vietnamese authorities permitted the orderly departure of individuals to resettlement countries, more than 400 000 Vietnamese were resettled in the United States.

Considering the magnitude of these inflows, and the fact that the bulk of the resettlement occurred when a number of OECD countries were experiencing the two oil crises, with relatively low growth and rising unemployment, there has been surprisingly little academic research regarding their economic impact in resettlement countries.

Comparing these inflows of refugees to the working-age population of host countries is the first step in assessing their potential impact on the labour market. One key consideration is that the overall figures mentioned above concern refugees resettled over a period of 20 years. An upper-bound estimate of the impact of these inflows on the working-age population of host countries can be obtained by focusing on the early inflows at the beginning of the 1980s and assuming that three-quarters of the total inflows occurred at that time (which is almost certainly an overestimation). For the sake of obtaining this upper-bound approximation, it is assumed that all the refugees were of working-age. For the United States and Canada, this leads to an estimated upper-bound increase of 0.6% of the working-age population due to these resettled Indochinese refugees. The estimate is about 1% for Australia, and 0.2% for France.⁹

In the case of the United States, as documented by Parsons and Vézina (2018[16]), California ended up hosting about 22% of the earliest Vietnamese refugee wave resettled to the country (in 1975), followed by Texas (8%). This concentration increased over time and, by 1995, 45% of the Vietnamese population living in the United States were located in California (Parsons and Vézina, 2018[16]). Assuming that the spatial distribution of Cambodian and Laotian refugees mirrored that of the Vietnamese, the state could therefore have hosted about 28% of the resettled refugees from this region in 1980, which would have increased the working-age population of California by 1.7% at the time.¹⁰ Although this is significantly higher than the estimate obtained for the United States as a whole, it remains a relatively small number. However, as is often the case for newly arrived immigrants, these refugees tended to cluster in ethnic enclaves; it is therefore possible that the local impact has been larger in these areas.

The Mariel Boatlift, 1980

The Mariel Boatlift, which occurred between Cuba and the United States from April to September 1980, was a much smaller humanitarian inflow, but also much more concentrated in space and time. In April 1980, after about 10 000 Cubans tried to obtain asylum by taking refuge in the Peruvian embassy in Havana, several South American countries along with the United States committed to accepting some of the asylum seekers. The Cuban government then opened the possibility for people to leave Cuba through the port of Mariel. Cuban exiles in the United States quickly organised a boatlift to transport people from Mariel (called “Marielitos”) to the United States.

Due to geographical proximity, half of the Cubans in the United States lived in the Miami metropolitan area in 1980, which is where the majority of the Marielitos landed. In total, about 125 000 Cubans moved to the United States during the six-month boatlift. According to Borjas (2017[17]), about 60% of them remained in Miami. The 1980 census, which occurred just before the Mariel Boatlift, indicates that the working-age population (15-64) of the Miami metropolitan area was 1.1 million at that time. Assuming that all the Marielitos were in that age group, then the working-age population of Miami would have increased by 7% as a direct result of the boatlift. Since most of the Cuban refugees were low-educated, their arrival could have had a detrimental impact on the employment outcomes of low-educated workers already present in Miami.

Card (1990[18]) examined the impact of the Mariel boatlift on the labour market of the city by comparing Miami to other comparable US cities which did not experience a sudden increase in labour supply. He found no evidence of a detrimental impact on the wages or employment opportunities of low-skilled non-Cuban workers. This particular event was recently reanalysed by Borjas (2017[17]) and Peri and Yasenov (2018[19]). While Borjas finds that the wages of high-school dropouts in Miami declined by as much as 10 to 30% as a result of the Mariel boatlift, Peri and Yasenov are in agreement with the earlier results obtained by Card. Taking stock of this debate, Clemens and Hunt (2017[13]) find that some of the very negative estimates suffer from methodological problems and that the small sample size of the surveys used to analyse this issue prevents drawing definitive conclusions. They show that the Mariel boatlift may have had a small temporary negative impact on the wages of the low-educated in Miami (-2% to -8%), but that it may also have had no effect at all.

Refugees of the 1990s Yugoslav Wars

Large inflows of humanitarian migrants occurred in Europe due to the breakup of Yugoslavia. About 700 000 people took refuge in Western Europe during the Bosnian War (1992-1995), including 345 000 in Germany and 80 000 in Austria. The Kosovo War (1998-99) led about 100 000 people to flee towards Western Europe. Naturally, over the course of the 1990s, much larger numbers were displaced across the borders of ex-Yugoslavia towards neighbouring countries, or internally in Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia (UNHCR, 2000[14]; OECD, 2016[15]).

An upper-bound on the impact of these inflows on the working-age population of host countries can be estimated by assuming that all refugees were of working-age and dividing their number by the corresponding population of destination countries in 1990. The largest impact is found in Austria (1.5%), while it reaches 0.6% in Germany. Due to the concentration of refugees in specific regions in these countries, the impact may have been higher locally. According to Borjas and Monras (2017[12]), 34% of the refugees who arrived in Austria settled in Vienna. In 1990, the working-age population of Vienna was 1 million, which implies (at most) a local impact of 2.7% on the working-age population of the capital.

Some papers have examined the labour market impact of these refugee inflows. Looking at the labour market of EU countries, Angrist and Kugler (2003[20]) focus on the changes in non-EU immigration brought about by the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. Using the distance between destination countries and Sarajevo or Pristina as an instrument for non-EU immigration, they find evidence of negative effects on the employment of natives, especially in countries with less flexible labour markets. Foged and Peri (2016[21]) study the labour market impact of refugee flows in Denmark between 1995 and 2003, among which immigrants from former Yugoslavia figured prominently. They exploit the existence of a refugee dispersal policy that had long-term implications for the geographical location of immigrants across the country. Using longitudinal data, they find positive impacts of the inflows on the labour market outcomes of natives, in terms of occupational complexity, occupational mobility and wages.

Syrian refugees in Turkey, 2011 - Present

Turkey alone is currently hosting more than twice as many Syrians as the total number of Syrians who have received some protection in all EU countries since January 2014. As noted above, as of March 2018, about 3.5 million Syrians benefited from temporary protection in Turkey (including 45% of children under 18 and 3% of people aged 60+). Among these, about 240 000 reside in refugee camps administered by the Disaster and Emergency Management Authority of the Turkish government (AFAD); most of the camps are located near the Syrian border. Outside the camps, Syrian refugees now make up nearly 10% of the population of several border cities. The largest metropolitan areas, especially Istanbul and Ankara, as well as the Aegean coast, also attract many refugees seeking job opportunities.

Access to the labour market is a key issue for Syrian refugees, with many taking up informal jobs. Indeed, prior to January 2016, refugees could only apply for a work permit if they held a residence permit, which was only the case for a small minority. Under the current regulation, Syrian refugees can apply for a work permit six months after being registered under temporary protection. These permits, however, are only valid in the locality of registration, which limits their attractiveness because most Syrian refugees are registered in border areas with few employment opportunities. Securing a formal job in another location therefore requires registering and obtaining a work permit in that same location. As a result of these constraints, less than 14 000 work permits had been issued to Syrians at the end of 2016. Although there was an increase in 2017, with about 21 000 permits delivered to Syrian refugees, and although Syrians involved in seasonal work in agriculture are still exempted from requiring a work permit, these figures remain well below the potential number of Syrian refugees in need of work.

As of March 2018, the 1.9 million working-age Syrian refugees living in Turkey represented about 3% of the total working-age population of the country, with a much higher proportion in border cities, as well as in Istanbul and Ankara. Due to the constraints in obtaining work permits, it is estimated that most Syrian refugees in employment have informal jobs, which are common in Turkey (about 20% of total employment).

Several recent papers have attempted to estimate the impact of Syrian refugees on the Turkish economy, and particularly on the labour market. Ceritoglu et al. (2017[22]) treat the massive and sudden wave of forced immigration from Syria to Turkey as a natural experiment to estimate the impact of Syrian refugees on the labour market outcomes of natives. Using a difference-in-differences strategy, they find that immigration has negatively affected the employment outcomes of natives in the South-eastern border area, while its impact on wages has been negligible. They document notable employment losses among informal workers as a consequence of refugee inflows, although formal employment increased slightly, potentially due to increased demand for social services. They also find that disadvantaged groups (women, younger workers and less-educated workers) have been more affected, and that the prevalence of informal employment in the Turkish labour market has amplified the negative impact of Syrian refugee inflows on natives’ labour market outcomes. Using similar data but a different empirical approach, which relies on instrumental variables, Del Carpio and Wagner (2016[23]) find similar results: Syrian refugees induce large scale displacement of the native-born in the informal sector. There are also increases in formal employment for the Turks – though only for men without completed high school education. The low-educated and women experience net displacement from the labour market and, together with those in the informal sector, declining earning opportunities.

In related work, Akgündüz, van den Berg and Hassink (2018[24]) analyse how the Syrian refugee inflows into Turkey affected firm entry and performance. They find that hosting refugees is favourable for firms: while total firm entry does not seem to be significantly affected, they observe a substantial increase in the number of new foreign-owned firms, which may be driven by refugees’ entrepreneurship.

Empirical approach

Basic hypotheses and data

To produce estimates of the number of refugees who will enter the working-age population and the labour force in European countries over the years and up to December 2020, different pieces of information are needed. The entry of refugees in the working-age population of a given country results from the interaction between several factors: the inflow of asylum seekers in the country, which determines the potential number of individuals concerned; the time needed to process asylum applications, which affects the timing of potential labour market entries; and the admission rate, i.e. the share of asylum seekers who obtain refugee status, or some other form of protection. In addition, the number of refugees entering the labour force can be estimated using assumptions about the pattern of labour market participation of refugees over time. Labour market participation among refugees is itself determined by their socio-demographic characteristics, in particular gender, age and education, and their duration of stay in the country.

Some data on the number of humanitarian migrants, such as the inflows of asylum seekers, is directly available from Eurostat for all EU countries (plus Norway and Switzerland). Other information, such as admission rates, is not so readily available and needs to be estimated. Finally, some data is not collected systematically and cannot be inferred easily. This is the case for processing time in particular. Although some countries publish some information about processing time (e.g. Sweden), most do not, and published data are not necessarily comparable across countries or available by country of origin. The method developed to estimate the distribution of processing time by country is described in Box 3.1.

Estimates of labour market participation of refugees are based on information gathered on earlier arrivals for two reasons. The first reason is that labour market integration of refugees takes place gradually (Bevelander and Pendakur, 2014[25]). The second reason is data availability, as data on labour market outcomes of recently arrived refugees is available only for a handful of countries (Brücker et al., 2016[26]). Therefore, the analysis in this chapter relies on the ad hoc module of the 2014 EU Labour Force Survey, which includes questions on the motive for migration. This survey is quite recent and covers most EU countries (OECD and European Commission, 2016[27]). It is necessary to bear in mind, however, that refugees from recent waves might differ from earlier refugees along several dimensions, which could affect their integration pattern over time. Moreover, the length of waiting time between asylum application and decision can have a negative impact on labour market integration prospects of refugees (Hainmueller, Hangartner and Lawrence, 2016[28]). Since the recent refugee surge has led to a significant increase in processing time in several European countries, it is quite possible that labour market outcomes of those refugees will be negatively affected and that their integration will be slower than for earlier refugee cohorts. In addition, while refugees do not necessarily compete for jobs with native workers due to different skill sets, they are more likely to compete with one another. When many refugees with similar characteristics enter the labour market at the same time it might generate crowding effects which can slow their access to employment. Lastly, labour market conditions at entry may have long-lasting effects on integration prospects.

The assessment of the magnitude of the labour supply shift is further complicated by the potential participation in the labour market of asylum seekers who are waiting for a decision: according to EU regulations, asylum seekers are normally able to work after at most 12 months following their asylum request even if it is still under examination, with some countries having shorter waiting periods (Figure 3.5). There are however some restrictions to labour market access for asylum seekers as they might need to secure a work permit, or be allowed to work only in specific occupations. What is more, the possibility for asylum seekers to find work shortly after arrival is limited by other obstacles such as linguistic barriers, limited recognition of qualifications and past experience, lack of country-specific knowledge of the labour market, lack of social capital and, in many cases, trauma related to war and flight. Their participation in the labour market is therefore likely to be even lower than that of individuals who have recently obtained refugee status.

The analysis presented in this chapter looks at the labour market contribution of people in need of protection only when they have formally obtained a refugee status or another type of protection. It disregards the potential contribution of people awaiting a decision on their asylum claim, although some of them may be entitled to work.

Figure 3.5. Most favourable waiting periods for accessing the labour market for asylum seekers in selected OECD countries

Source: OECD (2015) and Asylum Information Database (AIDA; www.asylumineurope.org).

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751669

Refugee admissions over time

Admission rates are assumed to be independent of gender and age, and are estimated by country of origin, country of destination and month of application. Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive data source linking applications and decisions over time for all European countries. Expected admission rates for each monthly cohort of applicants are therefore approximated by the ratio of positive decisions in the next 12 months to the total number of decisions over the same period. The rationale for this approach is that most applications received in a given month are dealt with within a year. Although this ratio conflates decisions made about applications that were received at different points in time, the use of a 12-month window smooths the series of admission rates.

The method developed to estimate processing time is detailed in Box 3.1. The number of new refugees can then be computed for each month by combining new asylum applications, admission rates, and the relevant processing time.

Box 3.1. Estimating the distribution of processing time

Processing time is estimated using insights from queuing models. In a stable system (i.e. when inflows and outflows are balanced), Little’s law states that the average processing time is equal to the number of customers in the queue (i.e. in this context, asylum seekers waiting for a decision) divided by the arrival rate (new inflows of asylum seekers in the “queue”). Obviously, European asylum systems have not been in a stable state in recent periods, with inflows exceeding processing capacity in many countries. This resulted in an increase in pending applications. Using Little’s law is therefore likely to underestimate average processing time. In addition, this approach to estimate the labour supply shift due to refugees requires more information on the distribution of processing times than a simple average. For each period and origin-destination couple, a “prospective” stock-flow ratio is computed, which accounts for both current and future pending applications, and current and future asylum applications.

A direct application of Little’s law would rely only on “contemporary” information to define the stock-flow ratio as P ( t - 1 ) / A ( t ) , where P ( t - 1 ) is the number of pending applications at the end of period t - 1 and A ( t ) is the number of new applications during period t . The stock-flow ratio is instead computed using a six-month prospective window after the current period: P ( t - 1 ) 1 / 3 ∏ i = t t + 5 P ( i ) 1 / 9 / A ( t ) 1 / 3 ∏ i = t + 1 t + 6 A ( i ) 1 / 9 . This is simply a geometric average of contemporary and future stock-flow ratios, putting one-third of the weight on the contemporary ratio and two-thirds on future ones.

Then, for each period and destination country, quartiles of stock-flow ratios are computed over all origin countries and five-month windows. These quartiles are then rescaled by an origin-destination-month average stock-flow ratio. For new asylum applications received in a given month, this gives an estimation of the month at which decisions will have been made for the 25% of applications which were processed the most rapidly, the following 25%, and so on.

Country-specific participation and employment rates

The microdata from the 2014 EU Labour Force Survey are used to estimate country-specific participation rates for refugees, by duration of stay and socio-demographic characteristics (i.e. gender, age group and education). Due to the relatively small sample size of refugees in the survey, and missing categories of individuals in several countries, it is not possible to rely on average participation rates that would be computed directly from the survey for different categories of refugees. Instead, an econometric model is estimated to explain labour market participation by key individual characteristics (gender, age group [14-17; 18-34; 35-64], duration of stay in the host country [from less than one year to ten years], and education [ISCED 1 or less, ISCED 2, ISCED 3, ISCED 4 and more¹¹]). A single linear regression, comprising all countries in the survey, is estimated including host country fixed effects to account for differences in average participation.¹² Using the estimated coefficients, labour market participation can be predicted for all categories of refugees, including out-of-sample. These labour market participation rates can then be applied to the relevant groups of refugees. The same approach is used to compute employment rates by gender, age group and education.

The results of these estimations, shown in Annex Figure 3.A.1, match patterns that have already been identified in the literature on the labour market integration of humanitarian migrants, in particular in European countries (Åslund, Forslund and Liljeberg, 2017[29]; Bratsberg, Raaum and Røed, 2017[30]; Schultz-Nielsen, 2017[31]; Fasani, Frattini and Minale, 2018[32]; OECD, 2017[33]). Refugees initially have low participation and employment rates and, although their outcomes improve with duration of stay, they remain below that of natives and other categories of immigrants. In most cases, refugee women have even more difficulties accessing employment than refugee men or women having immigrated for non-humanitarian motives.

Distribution of educational attainment of refugees

Labour market integration prospects for refugees depend, as for other migrant groups, on educational attainment: on average, better-educated individuals have much better employment prospects than those with only a basic education. This can be explained by a better fit with labour demand in host countries, better ability to acquire language skills, or other unobservable factors correlated with formal education.¹³ In addition, because natives’ and refugees’ educational attainment is likely to be quite different, education is also a key dimension for the analysis of the labour market impact. Indeed, refugees are likely to be concentrated at the bottom, and to a lesser extent at the top, of the education distribution of host countries, which implies that labour market impacts may differ strongly across educational groups.

Although some recent surveys or administrative sources provide information on the educational attainment of asylum seekers or refugees (Buber-Ennser et al., 2016[34]; Brücker et al., 2016[26]), there is no comprehensive and comparable data at the European level.

In order to get comprehensive information on the potential distribution of education among recent asylum seekers, the analysis carried out in this chapter uses data on the distribution of education in origin countries in 2010 (Lutz, Butz and KC, 2014[35]). In the absence of strong selection effects, these distributions would be acceptable approximations for the distribution of education among asylum seekers. As can be seen in Figure 3.6, which depicts the distribution of education of Syrians and Afghans in their origin countries (Panel A), and in various transit or destination countries (Panels B, C and D), it is, however, likely that selection is not negligible (this is particularly striking for Syrians). Indeed, better-educated individuals are probably more likely to have the resources required to escape conflict areas and to seek refuge beyond neighbouring countries. In the presence of positive selection, the use of origin countries’ distribution of education would induce two types of bias: (i) it would overstate the impact on the lower part of the distribution of host countries, and (ii) since education is a key determinant of labour market participation and employment, it would underestimate the aggregate labour market outcomes of refugees.

Figure 3.6. Distribution of education among Syrians and Afghans in origin countries, selected transit or destination countries

Note: Excluding unknown education in Panel C.

Source: Panel A: Lutz, Butz and KC (2014[35]); Panel B: UNHCR (2016[36]); Panel C: Statistics Sweden; Panel D: Buber-Ennser et al. (2016[34]).

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751688

Projections for 2018-20

At the time of writing, complete data on asylum applications and decisions were available from Eurostat for all European countries up to December 2017. As discussed above, considering the delay between asylum application and eventual labour market entry, asylum seekers having completed their application by the end of 2017 will start entering the labour market of their host country a couple of months later, at the earliest. In order to obtain consistent estimates of labour market entries up to the end of 2020, it is therefore necessary to make some hypotheses regarding the evolution of asylum applications over the next two years. Two scenarios are analysed: one where asylum applications from 2018 to 2020 go back to the “pre-crisis” 2011-13 average, and one where they are equal to the 2017 average (for these projections, the same disaggregation by origin, destination, gender, and age group is retained). These two different scenarios generate quite different future inflows of asylum seekers towards European countries. In the first scenario (2011-13 average), the total number of applications between 2018 and 2020 amounts to about 1.1 million, while it amounts to 2.1 million in the second scenario (2017 average).

Results

Refugees in the working-age population

To estimate the contribution of the recent increase in asylum seekers inflows to the working-age population (15-64), the absolute change in population induced by this observed increase is compared to a counterfactual scenario in which asylum applications (as well as decisions) from 2014-20 are assumed to have remained consistently at the average level observed between 2011 and 2013.

Figure 3.7. Additional refugees of working-age (15-64) arrived in Europe* since 2011, according to different scenarios

*: EU-28 countries, Norway and Switzerland.

Note: Up to December 2017, the solid blue line corresponds to changes in refugee working-age population induced by observed inflows of asylum seekers. From January 2018 to December 2020, the two blue lines correspond to the two different scenarios for inflows of asylum seekers: back to the 2011-13 average (solid line), or 2017 average (dashed line). The black line reflects changes in the refugee working-age population under the counterfactual scenario, i.e. assuming that asylum applications in 2014-20 remain equal to the 2011-13 average.

Source: Eurostat: asylum statistics, labour force statistics; OECD estimates.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751707

As shown in Figure 3.7, the refugee working-age population of European countries has increased by 1.3 million between January 2011 and December 2017, compared to 460 000 in the counterfactual scenario (i.e. in the absence of the refugee surge observed since 2014). The net effect is therefore 880 000. Projections for the end of 2020 indicate that this net effect might reach between 990 000 (if asylum applications go back to their 2011-13 average in 2018-20) and 1.2 million (if asylum applications in 2018-20 remain at the level observed in 2017).

In relative terms, this corresponds to an additional increase of 0.26% of the working-age population of European countries between January 2014 and December 2017 (Figure 3.8). By December 2020, this net effect could amount to 0.29-0.36%.¹⁴ The overall net effect is therefore small. Indeed, United Nations population projections indicate that, over the same period 2014-20, the working-age population of European countries is set to decrease by 2%.

Figure 3.8. Relative change in working-age population due to increased inflows of asylum-seekers between 2014 and 2017 in Europe*

Cumulative change estimated in December 2017 and December 2020

*: EU-28 countries, Norway and Switzerland.

Note: The relative change in working-age population is the difference between the estimated refugee working-age population accounting for increased inflows since January 2014 and the counterfactual refugee working-age population (i.e. assuming that asylum applications in 2014-20 remain equal to the 2011-13 average), divided by the total working-age population in December 2013. Up to December 2017, observed data on asylum applications and decisions are used; for 2018-20, it is assumed that asylum applications are either equal to the 2011-13 average or to the 2017 average, generating the December 2020 low-high range.

Source: Eurostat: asylum statistics, labour force statistics; OECD estimates.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751726

Estimates of the impact of asylum seekers on the working-age population vary considerably across countries, as shown in Figure 3.8. For 15 European countries (Poland, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Estonia, the United Kingdom, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Portugal, Spain, Slovenia, Ireland, Hungary and Bulgaria), there is virtually no impact of additional refugee inflows on the working-age population by December 2020 (i.e. less than 0.1%). Fewer than ten countries are in an intermediate situation, where the effect is small but not negligible, at most equal to 0.4% (Norway, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland, Italy, Denmark, and Switzerland). Finally, in five countries (Luxembourg, Greece, Sweden,¹⁵ Austria and Germany), the net effect is above 0.5%, and it may reach at least 1% before the end of 2020 in Sweden, Austria and Germany.

Due to the specific age and sex distribution of asylum applicants and refugees (see Figure 3.3), which differs greatly from that of the general population in destination countries, as well as the predominance of relatively low-educated individuals among them, different segments of the working-age population are affected differently. Figure 3.9 depicts the same net relative effect as in Figure 3.8, for specific sex and age groups (Panel A) and by sex and education (Panel B). Three key results emerge from these comparisons:

First, the overall effect for women is much smaller than the one estimated for men: by December 2020, the net effect among women is at most 0.2% while it stands at 0.5% for men.

Second, the differences across age groups are even larger: among men, by December 2020, the net effect for those aged 35-64 is less than 0.2% while it reaches 1.2% for those aged 18-34.

Third, there is significant heterogeneity across education groups: while the effect remains very small in the intermediate and upper segments of the education distribution, it is much larger at the bottom. By December 2020, the low-educated male working-age population will have increased by an additional 1.4% as a result of the increased inflow of refugees, while the tertiary-educated segment of the male working-age population will only have witnessed a 0.2% net increase. Although the overall magnitude of the effect is lower for women, the educational gradient is similar to the one observed for men.

Figure 3.9. Relative change in working-age population due to increased inflows of asylum-seekers between 2014 and 2017 in Europe*, by sex, age and education

Cumulative change estimated in December 2017 and December 2020

*: EU-28 countries, Norway and Switzerland.

Note: The relative change in working-age population is the difference between the estimated refugee working-age population accounting for increased inflows since January 2014 and the counterfactual refugee working-age population (i.e. assuming that asylum applications in 2014-20 remain equal to the 2011-13 average), divided by the total working-age population in December 2013. Up to December 2017, observed data on asylum applications and decisions are used; for 2018-20, it is assumed that asylum applications are either equal to the 2011-13 average or to the 2017 average, generating the December 2020 low-high range.

Source: Eurostat: asylum statistics, labour force statistics; OECD estimates.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751745

These results concern the European working-age population overall, but the concentration of the effects on specific subgroups of the working-age population is even more pronounced in countries where the average effect is larger. This is, for example, the case for Germany, Austria and Sweden. Figure 3.10 shows the net effect among men aged 18-34 with a low level of educational attainment (lower-secondary education or less). By end 2020, it is estimated that in Austria this segment of the working-age population will have increased by 21% compared to end 2013, due to the recent inflows of refugees. For Germany, the maximum net effect is 18% while it is close to 10% for Switzerland, Luxembourg and Sweden.¹⁶ If these figures are large in relative terms, it is both because of the over-representation of refugees in this category, but also because this specific segment of the working-age population (low-educated men aged 18-34) is small in European countries. Overall, this segment represents only about 5% of the male European working-age population, with limited heterogeneity across countries.

Figure 3.10. Relative change in the population of low-educated men aged 18-34 due to increased inflows of asylum-seekers between 2014 and 2017 in Europe*

Cumulative change estimated in December 2017 and December 2020

*: EU-28 countries, Norway and Switzerland.

Note: The relative change in working-age population is the difference between the estimated refugee working-age population accounting for increased inflows since January 2014 and the counterfactual refugee working-age population (i.e. assuming that asylum applications in 2014-20 remain equal to the 2011-13 average), divided by the total working-age population in December 2013. Up to December 2017, observed data on asylum applications and decisions are used; for 2018-20, it is assumed that asylum applications are either equal to the 2011-13 average or to the 2017 average, generating the December 2020 low-high range.

Source: Eurostat: asylum statistics, labour force statistics; OECD estimates.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751764

Refugees in the labour force

Due to the low participation rate of refugees in the first years of residence, the impact on the labour force will be significantly lower than that on the working-age population. The net effect is estimated at 345 000 at the end of 2017, and between 515 000 and 590 000 at the end of 2020 (depending on the level of asylum applications in 2018-20).

In order to assess the potential economic significance of this labour force increase, it is necessary to compare it to the size of the overall labour force. Assuming that the non-refugee part of the labour force would have followed the same path under the actual and counterfactual scenarios, the relative impact is obtained by dividing the difference between the estimated and counterfactual refugee labour force by the total labour force in December 2013. This can be done for the overall European labour force, as well as for each country separately (Figure 3.11).

For European countries as a whole, the relative impact on the labour force is 0.14% in December 2017 and 0.21% to 0.24% in December 2020.17 At the country level, the pattern is similar to the one described for the working-age population: for about half of European countries, there is virtually no impact (less than 0.05%) of additional refugee flows on the labour force, be it in December 2017 or in December 2020. About ten countries experience relatively low impact – between 0.1% and 0.3% at the end of 2020. Finally, the impact is expected to be significantly higher in Sweden, Greece, Austria and Germany, with at least 0.5% increase, and up to 0.8% for Germany.

Figure 3.11. Relative change in labour force due to increased inflows of asylum-seekers between 2014 and 2017 in Europe*

Cumulative change estimated in December 2017 and December 2020

*: EU-28 countries, Norway and Switzerland.

Note: The relative change in labour force is the difference between the estimated refugee labour force accounting for increased inflows since January 2014 and the counterfactual refugee labour force (i.e. assuming that asylum applications in 2014-20 remain equal to the 2011-13 average), divided by the total labour force in December 2013. Up to December 2017, observed data on asylum applications and decisions are used; for 2018-20, it is assumed that asylum applications are either equal to the 2011-13 average or to the 2017 average, generating the December 2020 low-high range.

Source: Eurostat: asylum statistics, labour force statistics; OECD estimates.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751783

How does this contribution of recent refugee inflows to the labour force compare with the “normal” growth rate of the labour force? Estimates based on Eurostat data indicate that labour force growth for European countries as a whole is currently about 0.4% per year. Assuming a continuation of this trend until 2020, the total growth of the labour force over the period 2013-20 would be 2.7%. This is about 10 times larger than the estimate of the net effect of the recent refugee inflows, which is therefore marginal. As is the case for the working-age population, the impact on the labour force differs across sex, age groups and education (Figure 3.12, Panels A and B). For women of all ages and educational attainments, the overall impact is very small, due to their under-representation in refugee inflows and their low participation rates. For men, mirroring the findings on the working-age population, the impact is highest among the youngest groups and the low-educated. For the latter, the net effect by December 2020 reaches 1.2%. It is however much smaller among older or better educated men (less than 0.2%).

Figure 3.12. Relative change in labour force due to increased inflows of asylum-seekers between 2014 and 2017 in Europe*, by sex, age and education

Cumulative change estimated in December 2017 and December 2020

*: EU-28 countries, Norway and Switzerland.

Note: The relative change in labour force is the difference between the estimated refugee labour force accounting for increased inflows since January 2014 and the counterfactual refugee labour force (i.e. assuming that asylum applications in 2014-20 remain equal to the 2011-13 average), divided by the total labour force in December 2013. Up to December 2017, observed data on asylum applications and decisions are used; for 2018-20, it is assumed that asylum applications are either equal to the 2011-13 average or to the 2017 average, generating the December 2020 low-high range.

In Panel B, “edu L” stands for lower secondary education or less, “edu M” stands for upper secondary education, and “edu H” stands for post-secondary education.

Source: Eurostat: asylum statistics, labour force statistics; OECD estimates.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751802

Figure 3.13 shows country-level results for low-educated men aged 18-34, the group for which the overall impact is the highest. The recent refugee inflows will induce a negligible or small increase (below 2%) in the labour force of this group by the end of December 2020 in about half of the countries (compared to the level in December 2013). The impact on the labour force is, however, relatively large in a couple of countries, although smaller than the figure obtained for the total population of this group (Figure 3.10): the net effect reaches 15% in Austria, 14% in Germany, and 9% in Sweden and Luxembourg.

Figure 3.13. Relative change in the labour force of low-educated men aged 18-34 due to increased inflows of asylum-seekers between 2014 and 2017 in Europe*

Cumulative change estimated in December 2017 and December 2020

*: EU-28 countries, Norway and Switzerland.

Note: The relative change in labour force is the difference between the estimated refugee labour force accounting for increased inflows since January 2014 and the counterfactual refugee labour force (i.e. assuming that asylum applications in 2014-20 remain equal to the 2011-13 average), divided by the total labour force in December 2013. Up to December 2017, observed data on asylum applications and decisions are used; for 2018-20, it is assumed that asylum applications are either equal to the 2011-13 average or to the 2017 average, generating the December 2020 low-high range.

Source: Eurostat: asylum statistics, labour force statistics; OECD estimates.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751821

Employment and unemployment among refugees

Drawing inference from this result in terms of wages or employment prospects in this segment of the labour force – both for workers who were already in those countries and for refugees themselves – is not straightforward. It not only depends on the short-term dynamics of labour demand addressed to relatively unskilled and junior workers, but also on the adjustments made by firms in response to a changing labour supply. For example, some firms might choose to delay the adoption of new labour-saving technologies for a specific range of activities. These medium to long-run adjustments are beyond the scope of this chapter. With additional assumptions, however, the short-run effect on the labour force discussed above can be decomposed in to changes in employment and unemployment.

As noted above, data from the 2014 EU Labour Force Survey can be used to estimate employment rates for refugees according to the length of their stay in host countries (see also Annex Figure 3.A.1). Using these predictions, one can estimate the number of employed refugees at different points in time although caution is required when interpreting these results because this approach assumes that labour demand patterns up to 2020 remain sufficiently close to those observed in 2014. Unsurprisingly, because of their relatively low employment rates, refugees do not contribute much to the rise of employment in European countries (Figure 3.14). Overall, the net effect at the end of 2020 is about 0.16%. It is higher than average in countries where the impact on labour force is also relatively large, particularly in Greece (0.3% to 0.5%), Austria (0.5%), Germany (0.4%) and Sweden (0.4%).

Figure 3.14. Relative change in employment due to increased inflows of asylum seekers between 2014 and 2017 in Europe

Cumulative change estimated in December 2017 and December 2020

*: EU-28 countries, Norway and Switzerland.

Note: The relative change in employment is the difference between estimated refugee employment accounting for increased inflows since January 2014 and counterfactual refugee employment (i.e. assuming that asylum applications in 2014-20 remain equal to the 2011-13 average), divided by total employment in December 2013. Up to December 2017, observed data on asylum applications and decisions are used; for 2018-20, it is assumed that asylum applications are either equal to the 2011-13 average or to the 2017 average, generating the December 2020 low-high range.

Source: Eurostat: asylum statistics, labour force statistics; OECD estimates.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751840

The impact on unemployment is much more significant, for two reasons. First, as noted above, employment prospects of recently arrived refugees are often poor. Second, the base population, i.e. the initial number of unemployed among the host-country population, is much smaller. As shown in Figure 3.15, the total number of unemployed in European countries is expected to increase by 0.8-1.0% between December 2013 and December 2020 due to the additional inflows of refugees. The impact will be much larger in the key destination countries, especially Germany, where the expected cumulative impact by December 2020 is 6.1-6.7%. According to these estimates, Austria, Luxembourg and Sweden should also experience an overall increase in the number of unemployed of 2% to 4% over the period.

Official German employment statistics corroborate these findings. Between December 2013 and June 2017, the share of Syrian nationals¹⁸ in total employment in Germany increased from 0.03% to 0.17%, a six-fold increase, while their share among job-seekers was multiplied by 20, from 0.3% to 6.3% (Figure 3.16). More specific data, albeit for a more limited time frame, show that the share of refugees (of all nationalities) among job-seekers in Germany reached 9.3% in February 2018, up from 4.8% in July 2016.19 This sharp increase, which reflects the fact that newly-admitted refugees in Germany currently arrive on the labour market faster than they find employment, has so far had little impact on the total unemployment rate.

Figure 3.15. Relative change in unemployment due to increased inflows of asylum seekers between 2014 and 2017 in Europe*

Cumulative change estimated in December 2017 and December 2020

*: EU-28 countries, Norway and Switzerland.

Note: The relative change in unemployment is the difference between estimated refugee unemployment accounting for increased inflows since January 2014 and counterfactual refugee unemployment (i.e. assuming that asylum applications in 2014-20 remain equal to the 2011-13 average), divided by total unemployment in December 2013. Up to December 2017, observed data on asylum applications and decisions are used; for 2018-20, it is assumed that asylum applications are either equal to the 2011-13 average or to the 2017 average, generating the December 2020 low-high range.

Source: Eurostat: asylum statistics, labour force statistics; OECD estimates.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751859

Figure 3.16. Share of Syrians among job-seekers and in total employment in Germany, December 2013 to June 2017

Source: Job-seekers: Statistik der Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Migrations-Monitor Arbeitsmarkt - Eckwerte (Monatszahlen); Employment: Statistik der Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Beschäftigte nach Staatsangehörigkeiten (Quartalszahlen).

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751878

Figure 3.17. Share of refugees and asylum seekers among jobseekers in German districts, February 2018

Source: Statistik der Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Migrations-Monitor: Personen im Kontext von Fluchtmigration; OECD estimates.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751897

In the case of Germany, there is a noticeable spatial dimension in the distribution of refugees. At the end of 2016, the share of refugees in the population at the State level ranged from about 0.5% in Sachsen, Baden-Württemberg and Bayern to 1.8% in Saarland and 2.2% in Bremen, while the country average was 0.8%. These regional differences in terms of population are also visible when looking at the distribution of job-seeking refugees. Figure 3.17 shows a map of German districts highlighting the share of refugees (and asylum seekers) among job seekers in February 2018. In most districts of Eastern Germany, refugees and asylum seekers represented less than 7% of all job seekers, while the country average was 10.5%. In a number of districts of Western Germany, this share reached more than 15%, especially in cities.

Rejected asylum seekers

Although the core of the labour market impact of the recent increase in humanitarian migration inflows towards Europe will materialise through the entry of refugees in the labour force, other categories might play a role. This is the case notably of asylum seekers who have seen their application denied.

Although the admission rates have increased in most European countries in the context of the refugee surge, there are still large numbers of asylum seekers whose applications are rejected (see Figure 3.2). In 2016, 354 000 asylum applications by working-age individuals were rejected in first instance by European countries. In 2017, this figure amounted to 416 000. The net increase in the total “stock” of rejected asylum seekers from December 2013 to December 2020 ranges from 850 000 to 1.2 million, depending on the counterfactual scenario considered.

These figures are based on first instance decisions and should therefore be considered as upper-bound estimates. Furthermore, among those who will not be granted protection, a non-negligible share may return voluntarily, or not, to their country of origin. In Europe, voluntary assisted returns and forced returns amounted to around 260 000 in 2016. Ultimately, only a fraction of rejected asylum seekers will remain unlawfully in their destination country but it is legitimate to assume that most of them will look for a job to make a living, most likely in the informal labour market.

It is worth noting that the main nationalities of rejected asylum seekers are quite different from the main nationalities of asylum seekers and refugees. The main regions of origin of rejected asylum seekers during the period 2014-17 are Afghanistan, Albania, Iraq, Pakistan, Kosovo, Serbia, Nigeria, Russia, Bangladesh, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Iran and Gambia. Together, these regions account for 60% of all rejected asylum seekers, but for only 45% of applications. The countries of origin with the lowest admission rates are the FYROM, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania. For nationals of these countries, the overall admission rate in one of the EU countries (plus Norway and Switzerland) in 2014-17 was less than 15%. Adding Kosovo (for which the admission rate was higher, at 40%) to this list, these regions represented almost one-quarter of all rejected asylum applications in 2014-17. Since all these regions are geographically close to the EU, the likelihood of return (voluntary or not) after a failed asylum claim is probably higher than for more distant regions. Indeed, these regions feature prominently in the list of regions of origin of people who returned home following an order to leave, with Albania, Kosovo and Serbia being the top three regions in 2014-16.

For the period 2012-17, Figure 3.18 depicts the actual number of rejected asylum seekers of working-age in all European countries, the counterfactual equivalent (i.e. assuming that inflows of asylum seekers in 2014-17 are at the same level as in 2011-13), and the number of returns of third-country nationals following orders to leave. Before 2014, as well as in the 2014-17 period under the counterfactual scenario, the annual number of rejected asylum seekers remained roughly stable between 140 000 and 180 000. This figure is lower than the total number of returns, which has also been fairly stable over the period for which data is available: between 2008 and 2016, it fluctuated between 190 000 and 250 000. Although the number of returns was higher in 2016 than in the four previous years, it was not higher than what was observed at the end of the previous decade and it went down in 2017. In contrast, as a result of the large increase in the number of asylum applications, the number of rejected asylum seekers has been multiplied by 2.5 between 2014 and 2017.

This implies that, for 2016 and 2017, newly rejected asylum seekers are much more numerous than third-country nationals who have returned after an order to leave. A range of plausible values can be estimated by considering two opposite scenarios. The first scenario assumes that all returnees are rejected asylum seekers. In this case, for each country, the estimated approximate number of rejected asylum seekers remaining in the country is the difference between the number of asylum seekers who are denied protection a given year and the number of returns. In the second scenario, one assumes that all rejected asylum seekers remain in the destination country, which, naturally, generates a higher value.

According to this approach, the range of possible values for the number of rejected asylum seekers remaining in European countries is 200 000-395 000 in 2016 and 305 000-470 000 in 2017. It is also possible to reproduce this procedure under the counterfactual scenario for the inflows of asylum seekers to obtain a net estimate of the increase in the number of rejected asylum seekers remaining due to the recent large inflows. The counterfactual number of rejected asylum seekers remaining in European countries is 50 000-170 000 in both 2016 and 2017. The net effect is therefore between 155 000 and 230 000 in 2016 and 260 000 and 300 000 in 2017.

Although this estimate does not account for the unknown number of rejected asylum seekers who have left of their own accord, as well as the fact that people do not necessarily return the same year as their asylum application was denied, it implies that the stock of rejected asylum seekers who remain in European countries is rising quite fast and will probably continue to do so over the next couple of years unless ongoing efforts by many EU countries to increase the efficiency of returns materialise in practice.

Figure 3.18. Annual number of rejected asylum seekers of working-age and annual number of third-country nationals returned following orders to leave, in Europe*, 2012-17

*: EU-28 countries, Norway and Switzerland.

Note: Third country nationals returned following an order to leave are third-country nationals who have in fact left the territory of a Member State, following an administrative or judicial decision or act stating that their stay is illegal and imposing an obligation to leave the territory.

Source: Eurostat: asylum statistics, migration enforcement statistics; OECD estimates.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751916

Family members of refugees

Beyond the direct contribution of refugees to the working-age population and the labour force, it is also worth considering potential dynamic effects due to family reunification. Indeed, once an individual has obtained refugee status in a destination country, he/she can apply to be joined by his/her spouse and children (OECD, 2017[37]). In order to assess the potential impact of family reunification on the working-age population and the labour force, the potential number of refugees’ spouses who might be able to immigrate in this context can be estimated.

In the absence of data on the time period between admission as refugee and family reunification, this analysis focuses on the stock of refugees at the end of 2017 and provides an estimate of the number of their family members of working-age with whom they could potentially reunite. For refugees admitted in 2015, for example, this process might have already occurred and the family members might already be living in the destination country but this is probably not the case for those admitted in late 2017. As in the previous sections, only refugees that are in excess of the counterfactual scenario are considered. To further simplify the question, the analysis only considers reunification with spouses, and assumes that children are in age groups where labour market participation is negligible.

As mentioned above, the gender distribution of asylum seekers and refugees is unbalanced: among those of working-age, about 75% are men. If one assumes that all married refugee women have arrived in their destination country with a husband, this leaves a significant number of male refugees who might try to reunite with their family.

In many origin countries of recent refugees, the marriage rate among adults is typically quite high. For example, in Afghanistan, in 2007-08, 88% of men aged 25-39 were married and this proportion reached 96% for those aged 40-64.The female marriage rate was similarly high. In Syria (2001) and Iraq (2004), the share of married men was also close to 95% for those aged 40-64 but marriage before 30 years old was not so frequent: in Syria, only 9% of the 20-24 age group were married, and 38% of the 25-29; in Iraq, the shares were 18% and 49%. For women, the married share was somewhat lower, about 80% for the 30-44 in Iraq, and about 85% in Syria. Although there are national idiosyncrasies, similar patterns are found in most countries from which refugees originate (United Nations, 2017[38]).

It is assumed that refugees who have come to their destination countries as adults have matrimonial behaviour similar to the general population of their origin country. This would imply that 80% of refugees (men and women) aged 35-64 are married. For the 18-34 group, since there is steep age gradient, two possible marriage rates are considered: 20% and 60%, without making a gender distinction.

As of December 2017, among refugees aged 35-64, there were 204 000 men and 103 000 women. Assuming that 80% of them were married and that all married women were matched with a husband, this implies that 81 000 men could potentially apply to reunite with their family who stayed abroad. Including the 18-34 age group in the picture, and accounting for the “regular” surplus of married men among refugees as captured by the counterfactual, the total number of potential spouses to be reunited with refugees, ranges from 120 000 to 250 000 (all working-age women).

Compared to the above estimate of 920 000 additional working-age refugees who entered European countries between 2014 and 2017, this supplementary inflow of working-age spouses brought about through family reunification is therefore not negligible (an extra 13-27% of the refugee inflow).

Using direct data on family permits delivered to nationals of the main origin countries of refugees is also useful in assessing the potential of this entry channel. For example, there has been a significant increase in the number of permits delivered to Syrian nationals for family reasons by European countries in recent years. While only about 3 000 such permits were delivered per year in 2010-11, this number was multiplied by 20 in five years to reach 60 000 in 2016, which coincided with the massive inflow of Syrian asylum seekers in European countries (Figure 3.19). Assuming that these additional family permits are directly linked to the earlier arrivals of Syrian refugees in European countries, this adds up to 100 000 Syrian family members who have already arrived during the period 2014-16. Assuming a one-year lag between admission as refugee and family reunification, one can estimate a “reunification multiplier” by dividing the number of family permits delivered in year t by the number of refugees of the same nationality admitted in year t-1. For Syrians, the average multiplier is about 0.5 for refugees admitted in 2012-15. Based on this estimate, and on the number of Syrian refugees admitted in 2016 and 2017, one can expect the entry of about 240 000 additional Syrian family members in 2017-18. For Syrians, the overall net effect of family reunification would therefore be 340 000 immigrants, which is to be compared to the net increase of 700 000 in the number of Syrian refugees between 2014 and 2017. Since this estimate includes children, the effect on the working-age population would however be smaller.

Figure 3.19. Syrian refugees admitted to Europe* in 2011-17 and family permits delivered to Syrian nationals in 2011-16 (and estimates for 2017-18)

*: EU-28 countries, Norway and Switzerland.

Note: The number of family permits delivered to Syrian nationals in 2017 and 2018 is estimated assuming a “reunification multiplier” of 0.5 (see text).

Source: Eurostat: asylum statistics; OECD estimates.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751935

Conclusion

In the context of the recent increase in the number of asylum seekers and refugees in European countries, an assessment of the economic impact is necessary for both economic and political reasons. The support of public opinion is essential to sustaining the European asylum system and preventing backlash against refugees (and immigrants in general). To ensure such support, a proper impact evaluation of refugee inflows is necessary to identify any potential negative consequences for the native-born and to incite appropriate additional measures to minimise such effects.

If recent refugees have a labour market integration profile similar to previous refugees, the overall labour market effects of the recent surge are likely to be small and gradual. Most migrants who have been admitted as refugees in European countries since 2013 have just started entering the labour market today, and labour market entry of those refugees who have arrived since 2015 will stretch over the coming years.

The analysis presented in this chapter only looks at changes in labour supply and does not account for potential negative effects due to unforeseen changes in labour demand. Based on historical experience, however, for European countries as a whole, the modest effect on the labour supply probably precludes any risk of the recent inflows having significant negative labour market impact.

There are, however, specific labour market segments in some countries where the increase in labour supply is higher than average and where the native-born may be affected significantly. This is, for example, the case for informal employment, where most rejected asylum seekers who will remain unlawfully in destination countries are likely to concentrate. This is also the case for young low-educated men, due to the overrepresentation of refugees in this population group. In this segment, especially in Germany, Sweden and Austria, the labour supply shift is significant. Since this category of the population is already vulnerable, this labour supply shift calls for a reinforcement of policy measures towards this group.

Even if this sub-group of the population is relatively small, a further deterioration of employment outcomes among them, due to competition with refugees for access to jobs, could have significant negative spillovers on the public perception of the average impact of refugee flows on the economy.

At the same time, it is also necessary to help refugees achieve their integration into the labour market, and more broadly in their host societies, as quickly and as smoothly as possible. Fostering the integration of refugees into the labour market would mechanically lead to a larger and more rapid labour supply shift but would also raise demand. Since a prompt access to the labour market for refugees is a key determinant of other dimensions of their social integration and also reduces their dependence on welfare, it remains critical to promote integration policies that maximise their swift access to employment.

References

[6] Aiyar, S. et al. (2016), “The refugee surge in Europe: Economic challenges”, IMF Staff Discussion Notes, http://dx.doi.org/10.5089/9781513552590.006.

[24] Akgündüz, Y., M. van den Berg and W. Hassink (2018), “The impact of the Syrian refugee crisis on firm entry and performance in Turkey”, The World Bank Economic Review, Vol. 32/1, pp. 19-40, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhx021.

[20] Angrist, J. and A. Kugler (2003), “Protective or counter-productive? Labour market institutions and the effect of immigration on EU natives”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 113/488, pp. F302-F331, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00136.

[29] Åslund, O., A. Forslund and L. Liljeberg (2017), “Labour market entry of non-labour migrants – Swedish evidence”, Nordic Economic Policy Review, Vol. 2017, pp. 115-158, http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2017-520.

[25] Bevelander, P. and R. Pendakur (2014), “The labour market integration of refugee and family reunion immigrants: A comparison of outcomes in Canada and Sweden”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 40/5, pp. 689-709, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2013.849569.

[17] Borjas, G. (2017), “The wage impact of the Marielitos : A reappraisal”, ILR Review, Vol. 70/5, pp. 1077-1110, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0019793917692945.

[12] Borjas, G. and J. Monras (2017), “The labour market consequences of refugee supply shocks”, Economic Policy, Vol. 32/91, pp. 361-413, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/epolic/eix007.

[30] Bratsberg, B., O. Raaum and K. Røed (2017), “Immigrant labor market integration across admission classes”, Nordic Economic Policy Review, Vol. 2017, pp. 17-54, http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2017-520.

[26] Brücker, H. et al. (2016), “Forced migration, arrival in Germany, and first steps toward integration”, DIW Economic Bulletin, Vol. 2016/48, pp. 541-556.

[34] Buber-Ennser, I. et al. (2016), “Human capital, values, and attitudes of persons seeking refuge in Austria in 2015”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 11/9, p. e0163481, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163481.

[7] Burggraeve, K. and C. Piton (2016), “The economic consequences of the flow of refugees into Belgium”, NBB Economic Review, Vol. June, https://www.nbb.be/doc/ts/publications/economicreview/2016/ecorevi2016_h3.pdf (accessed on 28 February 2018), pp. 43-61.

[18] Card, D. (1990), “The Impact of the Mariel Boatlift on the Miami labor market”, ILR Review, Vol. 43/2, pp. 245-257, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001979399004300205.

[22] Ceritoglu, E. et al. (2017), “The impact of Syrian refugees on natives’ labor market outcomes in Turkey: Evidence from a quasi-experimental design”, IZA Journal of Labor Policy, Vol. 6, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40173-017-0082-4.

[13] Clemens, M. and J. Hunt (2017), “The labor market effects of refugee waves: Reconciling conflicting results”, NBER Working Paper, No. 23433, NBER, http://www.nber.org/papers/w23433 (accessed on 23 March 2018).

[23] Del Carpio, X. and M. Wagner (2016), “The impact of Syrians refugees on the Turkish labor market”.

[10] Dustmann, C., A. Glitz and T. Frattini (2008), “The labour market impact of immigration”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 24/3, pp. 477-494, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grn024.

[11] Dustmann, C., U. Schönberg and J. Stuhler (2016), “The impact of immigration: Why do studies reach such different results?”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 30/4, pp. 31-56, http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.30.4.31.

[5] European Commission (2016), An Economic Take on the Refugee Crisis: A Macroeconomic Assessment for the EU, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, http://dx.doi.org/10.2765/631735.

[8] European Commission (2016), Updating of the labour market model, Directorate-General for Employment Social Affairs and Inclusion, Publications Office of the European Union, http://dx.doi.org/10.2767/691738.

[32] Fasani, F., T. Frattini and L. Minale (2018), “(The struggle for) refugee integration into the labour market: Evidence from Europe”, IZA DP, No. 11333, IZA, http://www.iza.org.

[21] Foged, M. and G. Peri (2016), “Immigrants' effect on native workers: New analysis on longitudinal data”, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, Vol. 8/2, pp. 1-34, http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/app.20150114.

[28] Hainmueller, J., D. Hangartner and D. Lawrence (2016), “When lives are put on hold: Lengthy asylum processes decrease employment among refugees”, Science Advances, Vol. 2/8, pp. e1600432-e1600432, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600432.

[35] Lutz, W., W. Butz and S. KC (2014), World Population and Human Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Oxford University Press.

[33] OECD (2017), Finding their Way: Labour Market Integration of Refugees in Germany, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/els/mig/Finding-their-Way-Germany.pdf.

[37] OECD (2017), International Migration Outlook 2017, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/migr_outlook-2017-en.

[4] OECD (2017), OECD Economic Outlook, Volume 2017 Issue 1, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_outlook-v2017-1-en.

[3] OECD (2017), “Who bears the cost of integrating refugees?”, Migration Policy Debates, Vol. No. 13, http://www.oecd.org/els/mig/migration-policy-debates-13.pdf.

[15] OECD (2016), “International migration following environmental and geopolitical shocks: How can OECD countries respond?”, in International Migration Outlook 2016, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/migr_outlook-2016-7-en.

[2] OECD (2015), “How will the refugee surge affect the European economy?”, Migration Policy Debates, Vol. No. 8, http://www.oecd.org/migration/How-will-the-refugee-surge-affect-the-European-economy.pdf.

[27] OECD and European Commission (2016), “How are refugees faring on the labour market in Europe?”, Working Paper, No. 1/2016.

[16] Parsons, C. and P. Vézina (2018), “Migrant networks and trade: The Vietnamese Boat People as a natural experiment”, The Economic Journal, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12457.

[19] Peri, G. and V. Yasenov (2018), “The labor market effects of a refugee wave: Synthetic control method meets the Mariel Boatlift”, Journal of Human Resources, p. 0217_8561R1, http://dx.doi.org/10.3368/jhr.54.2.0217.8561R1.

[31] Schultz-Nielsen, M. (2017), “Labour market integration of refugees in Denmark”, Nordic Economic Policy Review, Vol. 2017, pp. 55-89, http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2017-520.

[9] Stähler, N. (2017), “A model-based analysis of the macroeconomic impact of the refugee migration to Germany”, Discussion Papers, No. 05/2017, Deutsche Bundesbank.

[40] UNHCR (2018), Mid-Year Trends 2017, UNHCR.

[1] UNHCR (2018), Syria Regional Refugee Response, Inter-agency Information Sharing Portal, http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php (accessed on 01 March 2018).

[36] UNHCR (2016), Profiling of Syrian and Afghan arrivals on Greek islands.

[39] UNHCR (2013), Mid-Year Trends 2013, UNHCR.

[14] UNHCR (2000), The State of The World’s Refugees 2000: Fifty Years of Humanitarian Action, Oxford University Press, http://www.unhcr.org/publications/sowr/4a4c754a9/state-worlds-refugees-2000-fifty-years-humanitarian-action.html.

[38] United Nations (2017), World Marriage Data 2017, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.

Annex 3.A.

Supplementary figures

Annex Figure 3.A.1. Participation and employment rates of refugees in European countries according to their duration of stay (in years) in the destination country, by sex and educational attainment

Note: For each category, the line plotted corresponds to the median participation or employment rate across European countries.

Source: Labour Force Surveys (Eurostat) 2014 ad-hoc module on the labour market situation of migrants and their descendants; OECD estimates.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751954

Notes

 1.  The figures provided in this paragraph are taken from UNHCR Mid-Year Trends reports (UNHCR, 2013[39]; UNHCR, 2018[40]).

 2.  In this chapter, unless otherwise specified, the term “refugee” includes individuals having obtained actual refugee status (as defined by the 1951 Refugee Convention), but also individuals under subsidiary protection or authorised to stay for humanitarian reasons under national law.

 3.  In this chapter, European countries refer to all EU 28 countries, plus Norway and Switzerland.

 4.  Although the refugee resettlement number was capped at 50 000 by Executive Order, the United States admitted more than 53 000 refugees in FY 2017 due to a ruling by the Supreme Court that permitted those with a bona fide claim to a relationship with a person or entity in the United States to be admitted even after the ceiling was reached.

 5.  Less than 1% of asylum applicants or accepted refugees in European countries were aged 65 and over.

 6.  These countries are: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.

 7.  This was in particular a point of view echoed in Germany in 2015 by many stakeholders, including in the government. See e.g. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/refugees-are-an-opportunity-for-the-german-economy-a-1050102.html; http://www.dw.com/en/tapping-refugees-to-combat-germanys-labor-shortage/a-18688541.

 8.  The seemingly intuitive nature of the basic supply-demand framework, combined with the political underpinnings of the issue, probably explain the persistence of the quest for a “true” result in the economic literature and the polarisation of the debate.

 9.  To obtain these estimates, the number of resettled refugees in each host country, taken from UNHCR (2000[14]), is multiplied by 75% (share of the total inflow assumed to have arrived by 1980) and divided by the working-age population (15-64) of the host country in 1980. For the United States, the total number of Indochinese refugees resettled between 1975 and 1995, including through the ODP, is 1.28 million. The upper-bound estimate for the number of working-age refugees in 1980 is therefore 75%×1.28 million. Dividing by the US working-age population in 1980 (151 million) leads to the 0.6% estimate.

 10.  This estimate is obtained with the same method as the country-level ones. The share of Indochinese refugees in California is assumed to have increased linearly from 22% in 1975 to 45% in 1995, which results in a share of 28% in 1980. This share is then applied to the national level estimate for the number of working-age refugees in 1980 (75%×1.28 million). The denominator is the working-age population of California in 1980 (16 million).

 11.  ISCED stands for International Standard Classification of Education. ISCED 1 corresponds to primary education, ISCED 2 to lower secondary education, ISCED 3 to upper secondary education, ISCED 4 to post-secondary non-tertiary education, and ISCED 5 to 8 to the different levels of tertiary education (short-cycle, bachelor, master and doctorate).

 12.  The model allows duration of stay to affect participation differently according to age; in addition, the coefficients of each education group are interacted with gender, thus allowing different returns to education for men and women. In this context, since only aggregate predictions are needed (rather than individual) the specification issues due to the use of a linear model instead of a non-linear one are benign. Due to data constraints, it is not possible to account for country of origin effects.

 13.  This does not imply, however, that highly-educated refugees will necessarily be employed in high skilled jobs, as there is ample evidence of overqualification of refugees (and immigrants in general) on European labour markets.

 14.  The net relative change is 0.29% if asylum applications go back to their 2011-2013 average in 2018-2020, and 0.36% if asylum applications are equal to the 2017 average in 2018-2020.

 15.  For Sweden, the net effect is larger in December 2017 than in December 2020, because of the sharp decrease in asylum inflows in 2016 and 2017 compared to 2015. While results for 2017 are heavily influenced by the very high inflows registered in 2015, projections for 2018-2020 are defined on the basis of either the 2011-2013 average or the 2017 average. Inflows of asylum applicants in 2017 were even lower than the 2011-2013, period which defines the counterfactual trajectory. As a result, the net effect in 2020 is lower than in 2017. This is also true, although to a lesser extent, for Norway.

 16.  For Norway and Sweden, the net effect is larger in December 2017 than in December 2020. See note 16.

 17.  For 2020, the lower and upper bounds of the range correspond to the two alternative hypotheses on the level of asylum applications: back to 2011-2013 average (lower bound), or 2017 average (upper bound).

 18.  These statistics refer to all Syrians living in Germany, not only refugees. Refugees represented 55% of all Syrian nationals in Germany at the end of 2016, while this share was 39% at the end of 2013.

 19.  Statistik der Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Migrations-Monitor: Personen im Kontext von Fluchtmigration. This share increases to 10.5% in February 2018 when including asylum seekers.

Chapter 4.

Addressing the illegal employment of foreign workers

This chapter clarifies the concept of illegal employment of foreign workers by looking at the various forms of irregularities and illegalities that it may entail, and at its relationship to informal employment. It also provides some evidence on the scope and characteristics of the phenomenon across OECD countries. However, given the scarcity of data, precise quantification is challenging. Most of the chapter is instead focused on policy measures implemented by OECD countries to prevent, control and sanction the illegal employment of foreign workers based on answers to a short questionnaire addressed to OECD members countries. General policy measures for reducing informal employment and irregular migration is also discussed.

This chapter was prepared by Sandrine Cazes. The author would like to thank Martina Lubyova, Anna Triandafyllidou, Laura Bartolini, and Michele Tuccio for their background documents in the context of the preparation of this chapter.

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

Introduction

The illegal employment of foreign workers is a source of concern for economic and migration-related reasons. From an economic perspective, it may entail lost revenues for the State, put the legally employed – both foreign and native-born – at a disadvantage, and lead to the use of migrant workers by employers to cut labour costs. From the viewpoint of migration policy, countering the illegal employment of foreign workers helps deter irregular migration for which it acts as a major pull factor (OECD, 2015[1]; Reyneri, 2003[2]). Such action is also important for preventing the overall stigma and backlash irregular migration brings against migration in general. More importantly, however, there are human, social and ethical arguments for combatting the illegal employment of foreign workers. They are often among the most vulnerable segments of the labour force and may be exploited, enjoy little or no access to basic welfare services, and be denied their fundamental rights.

Various pull and push forces contribute to the illegal employment of foreign workers, among which sizeable informal economies in the receiving countries as offering wide work opportunities to migrants in an irregular situation (even if not only to them), or potential mismatch between genuine labour shortages in some labour intensive sectors and restrictive immigration policies towards low-skilled migration. Poor employment prospects in the origin countries or sudden circumstances pushing people to forced migration without allowing time to formally apply for visas and work permits can also explain why migrants end up in illegal employment. More generally, the megatrends that affect labour markets – such as globalisation and the rise of flexible jobs¹ – generate additional pressures that may lead employers to look for the cheapest and most flexible labour force.

Fighting illegal employment of foreign workers is not a new topic and the issue has been high on policy makers’ agenda over the last twenty years (OECD, 2000[3]). However, several developments have brought it under greater national and international scrutiny in recent years. In European countries, the political and security issues related to the large recent increase in the number of migrants and asylum seekers crossing the Mediterranean in an irregular way has had a powerful resonance in the media. And the fact that, Europe-wide, an average of one-in-two asylum seekers may be denied protection prompts the dual question of the return and illegal employment of foreign workers. Furthermore, the economic and financial crisis of 2008-09 may have pushed a number of legally employed foreign workers over the boundary into illegal work, at least temporarily, either because they lost their permit or because they lost their formal job.

This suggests that many OECD countries, particularly in Europe, may be experiencing a growing pool of undocumented or semi-documented migrants who work illegally because:

They entered the host country illegally.

They have had their applications for refugee status rejected and have not left the country.

They are breaching the conditions of their work or residence permits.

They may be eligible for work permits but do not have the necessary administrative knowledge to apply for a work permit.²

Combinations of these situations are likely to yield highly heterogeneous foreign worker profiles. What is more, since the illegal employment of foreigners is by definition a hidden phenomenon, deriving reliable estimates of its magnitude in OECD countries is challenging, if not impossible. Consequently, this chapter seeks not to attempt any such assessment, but to bring together the different pieces of a complex puzzle. It also discusses policy action for combatting the illegal employment of foreign workers and examines the forms such action may take. It looks both at broad measures to curb informal employment and irregular migration and at more specific measures that seek to enhance compliance and workplace enforcement through prevention, detection and sanctions.

The chapter is organised as follows. First, it clarifies what makes the employment of foreign workers illegal in light of the various forms of irregularities and illegalities that it may entail and articulates it with regards to informal employment. Second, it introduces the main measurement challenges for assessing illegal employment of foreign workers and provides some evidence on its scope across OECD countries. Given the scarcity of data, however, it devotes more attention to characterising illegal employment of foreign workers. Drawing on the answers to a short questionnaire addressed to OECD member countries, the chapter reviews and discusses OECD countries’ policy measures to prevent, control and sanction the illegal employment of foreign workers. It also examines general policy for reducing informal employment and irregular migration. The final section wraps up the chapter with a summary of the chapter’s main findings and its chief recommendations.

Main findings

The illegal employment of foreign workers is a complex, multi-faceted issue. It may come about through non-compliance with either migration rules (foreign workers with no residence permit, not in full conformity, or no longer valid, e.g. in breach of their residence status) or labour rules (foreign workers with no work permit, not in full conformity, or no longer valid, e.g. in breach of their work status). In light of the wide spectrum of illegalities this may entail, it is likely to include people in very different circumstances.

In order to design adequate policy responses, it is crucial to differentiate between the illegal employment of foreign workers and informal employment. On one hand, foreign workers in breach of their residence status may have formal jobs. On the other hand, both the native-born and immigrants may work informally.

Estimates suggest that there were about 11.3 million unauthorised immigrants in the United States in 2016 (3.5% of its total population) and between 1.9 million and 3.8 million irregular migrants (between 0.4 and 0.8 % of the total population) in the European Union (EU27) in 2008. Unfortunately, a more recent estimate is not available for the European Union, although it would be reasonable to presume that the current number is higher than in 2008, though still far below the US figure.

Despite the scarcity of comparable data, the available information – obtained from sources such as regularisation registries – suggests that illegal employment of foreign workers is most likely to affect men of fairly young age. Such illegal employment is most likely in agriculture, construction, manufacturing and domestic services.

Policies for combatting the illegal employment of foreign workers should draw on a broad set of measures, including both labour market and migration policies in order to reduce informal employment and facilitate legal pathways, as well as measures specifically designed to enhance compliance and enforce existing regulation in the workplace.

When the issue has become prominent or structural, regularisation programmes may appear as an unavoidable solution. However, they must be carefully designed and backed by policy changes that address the root cause of the phenomenon.

Status verification involves employers checking to ensure that foreign worker’s right to work has been duly authorised. To that end, some governments provide a verification service which may be optional or mandatory for employers to use. Such systems can help raise employer awareness and facilitate inspections, though efforts to develop them are still modest in OECD countries. Nevertheless, some countries have introduced secured online verification platforms that allow employers to check free-of-charge the employment authorisations of their foreign employees and job applicants. Such systems may offer good practices to emulate.

Labour inspection practices in most OECD countries involve combining targeted inspections in specific sectors with broader, random controls. Inspections are generally infrequent, however, and therefore unlikely to deter employers from illegal employment of foreign workers. Improving the efficiency of inspections requires closer, better co-ordination and co-operation between the different government agencies which work to curb the illegal employment of foreign workers, e.g. the police, immigration authorities, tax and customs administration, labour inspectorates.

OECD countries adopt very different approaches to sanctions and penalties against illegal employment of foreign workers, with the amounts of fines and the severity of criminal charges varying widely. Nevertheless, sanctions against employers are a crucial part of efforts to deter them from hiring foreign workers with irregular legal status. How effective sanctions are depends both on their severity and whether employers believe they are likely to be enforced.

Illegal employment is multi-faceted

What are we talking about?

The illegal employment of foreign workers may result from irregularities/illegalities linked to the content of the work itself (for instance illicit activities), the form of employment (for instance un/under-declaration of certain activities to public authorities, e.g. informal employment³), or to the worker’s personal situation which may be an irregular situation such as breaching immigration or labour laws, or both. It is however important to distinguish between the illegal employment of foreign workers and informal employment, the latter potentially concerning both the native-born and immigrants, with no clear-cut evidence that foreign workers are overrepresented. Besides, foreign workers in irregular situations may also have formal jobs⁴ – e.g. be on employers’ official payrolls and even pay income tax and social contributions (employers may or may not be aware of their legal status).

Furthermore, degrees of illegality may vary widely – from the absence of any proper work or residence authorisation to non-compliance with the requirements therein (such as length of stay or the duration of a job, number of working hours, limiting a worker to a particular employer, sector, occupation or region). In other words, the illegal employment of foreign workers applies to situations that range from relatively minor permit infringements to criminal activities like trafficking of people and forced labour.

This chapter refers to the illegal employment of foreign workers in terms of breaching and non-complying with certain legal or administrative regulations, either migration or labour rules. This means employment of foreign workers with no residence or work permit, or who are not in full conformity with the conditions of their permits, or who hold permits that are no longer valid.

Such scope is wider than the European Union’s definition of the illegal employment of third-country nationals, set out in the Employers’ Sanctions Directive 2009/52/EC,⁵ as including also those legally staying but working without a work permit or a fully valid one,⁶ or in the informal economy. Figure 4.1 illustrates those various configurations. By combining migration status and form of employment, it draws up profiles of foreign workers. Strictly speaking, the sole category that can be considered “legal” is Profile [6]. Yet the focus of this chapter is on Profiles [1] to [4], given that the situation of a person in Profile [5] is, from a migration perspective, in order, even though breaches labour market and tax regulations.

Figure 4.1. Foreign workers’ migration status, forms of employment and profiles

Note: Formal employment relates to employees who have a proper contract and whose social contributions are fully paid and to self-employed workers whose business is properly registered and pay social contributions. Informal employment relates to registered but under-declared labour and to labour that is not registered at all.

Fine tuning foreign workers’ profiles: histories and trajectories

The illegal employment of foreign workers has a time dimension as it can be defined by its duration. While Figure 4.1 displays workers’ situations at a given point in time, it does not track their trajectories over time, before they entered the labour market, or how often they may have slipped in and out of legal status. Yet time has important implications for measuring and characterising illegal employment of foreign workers and for formulating and implementing policy.

On the measurement front, any estimate of stocks of illegal foreign workers is made difficult by the elusive nature of the phenomenon and by the fact that accounting for flows in and out of regular/legal status is based on assumptions as to the average lengths of time that workers spend in irregular/illegal status. Such computation involves a wide margin of uncertainty, though it is possible to produce figures that lie within a confidence interval. Tracking individual trajectories also yields information that helps detect path dependence and stigma linked to personal histories of past infringements and how serious they were. Such information is also very important when it comes to spotting certain categories of foreign workers – notably those who overstay (e.g. persons who entered with a tourist or other temporary visa and overstay the allowed period) or more generally those who remain in the country despite an obligation to leave the territory.

The histories and trajectories that lead to the irregular residence status of foreign workers range widely:

They may never have had any regular status because they entered the country illegally.

They may have entered the country with forged IDs or with false identities using bona fide papers.

They may have legal temporary status (e.g. tourist visa) but breached the terms and conditions of their temporary visa.

They may have applied for asylum but were denied any protection status and are required to leave the country.

They may have lost their residence status because they no longer met the requirements under which their residence permit was initially granted.

Similarly, the irregularity regarding the employment status can take multiple forms, including:

working in a sector/occupation, region or employer that is not allowed by the work permit, particularly when a worker is working several jobs at once

working longer hours and/or more days than a visa allows, which may be the case of international students or working holiday makers

working informally despite having a lawful residence status.

Foreign workers may also move in and out of legal employment status over time, often finding themselves in situations that involve multiple combinations of work and residence infringements, each of which may last for different lengths of time (Annex Table 4.1).

In sum, various configurations of illegal employment of foreign workers can be identified that either result from the residence status of the person, e.g. foreign workers in an irregular situation (illegally staying), thereby working without permission in both formal and informal employment (categories [1] and [2] of Figure 4.1); or from work authorisation status, e.g. lack of permit, or with permit not in full conformity such as people working longer hours or in other sectors than allowed or people entitled to a work permit but have not requested it nor received one; here again, foreign workers may work in both informal and formal employment (categories [3], [4] and [5] of Figure 4.1).

What drives the illegal employment of foreign workers?

The illegal employment of foreign workers is determined by an interplay of “pull and push” factors generated by the labour market and migration policies. They include:

The size of the host country’s informal economy. If it is large, it offers foreign workers opportunities of illegal work, even if it also employs native-born and legal foreign workers (Reyneri, 2003[2]).

The mismatch between the demand for low-skilled labour – which may be particularly acute in some labour-intensive sectors like agriculture – and immigration policies that restrict or even ban low-skilled immigration.

Potential gaps, inadequacies or inconsistencies in administrative rules and frameworks, such as legislation enabling foreign workers to move into a regular status (e.g. legislation allowing status change) or slow, complex administrative procedures. Language and cultural barriers may also cause workers to struggle to access information on administrative procedures, labour laws and rights. As a result, they may involuntarily find themselves in an irregular situation or in non-compliance with work or residence papers.

Low incentive for employers to hire legal workers due to weak workplace enforcement and employer sanctions. Employers may choose to employ foreign workers illegally not only because such workers accept low wages, but because employers can evade other costly regulations and taxes (Sumption, 2011[4]).

The underlying drivers behind the illegal employment of foreign workers vary by sector. In the domestic and care sector, for instance, illegal foreign work has developed under the combined effects of overall growth in demand for care services – due to population ageing and growing female participation in the labour force – and the abuse of care arrangements, such as cash-for-care programmes⁷ and au pair services. The gendered area of domestic and care activities may also have particularly attracted foreign workers whose permit is linked to their spouse or those who do not necessarily need to prove they are employed in order to keep or renew their residence permit (Triandafyllidou, 2013[5]). Generally speaking, the private, personal nature of the domestic care sector, and the prospect of informal work arrangements that it offers, have been key factors in attracting illegal foreign workers.

The high levels of flexibility required in the agriculture sector, particularly for seasonal work, and the informal arrangements it allows, have also led to high concentrations of illegally employed foreign workers. Moreover, strong pressure to keep production costs low and stay competitive has increased the demand for low-paid work, especially among small producers who generally have little room for adjustment. On the supply side, the native-born in some countries have become more and more reluctant to engage in poorly paid menial jobs, where workers often have to be on call and work under adverse conditions with little prospect of upward mobility. Moreover, seasonal work permits may involve complex and long bureaucratic procedures, making both employers and foreign workers reluctant to use available temporary visa programmes. Some uncapped seasonal work programmes have seen relatively low uptake – for example, the H-2A programme in the United States – with employers complaining of the complexity (Martin, 2016[6]).

Compared to the two previous sectors, construction tends to be more protected as it requires more specialised skills. Upward mobility is sometimes possible notably by the creation of an independent enterprise for subcontracting. Activities however, remain hard, often dangerous and physically demanding, and natives are generally quite reluctant to engage in them.⁸ While highly regulated by legislation and collective agreements, the sector is also deeply segmented due to the extensive use of temporary employment, false self-employment and chain subcontracting which can obscure the link between the principal employer and the employee, potentially leading to evasion and abuse of some contract forms such as posted arrangements.⁹ A relatively small, well protected workforce thus co-exists with a large peripheral, unregulated segment that is likely to include a large number of foreigners in irregular situations (Krings et al., 2011[7]).

The illegal employment of foreign workers across OECD countries

Measurement issues

Due to the elusive nature of the illegal employment of foreign workers, statistics are scarce, unreliable and hard to compare across countries.¹⁰ Patchy information can be found in ad hoc reports and newspaper articles, which paint only an impressionistic picture of the phenomenon. Moreover, it is usually very difficult to distinguish irregularities linked to residence status from those related to work status, or to obtain data broken down into formal and informal employment. Hence, assessing the composition of illegal employment of foreign workers across countries as depicted in Figure 4.1 is not possible.

Statistics on irregular migration can serve as a benchmark for evaluating the magnitude of the illegal employment of foreign workers. In fact, while not all migrants in an irregular situation are of working age or manage to find a job, most decide to migrate in search of work.¹¹ As those in an irregular situation generally do not have access to benefits and income support, they have in practice no other option than to work. That being said, focusing on this category fails to capture those who are legal residents but in an irregular situation workwise (Profiles [3], [4] and [5] in Figure 4.1).

Researchers have developed different methods of estimating the size of migrants an in irregular situation, using direct measures of individuals in an irregular situation or considered likely to be so, either at the time of border crossing (e.g. apprehensions and managed departures), during residence (e.g. apprehensions and regularisations), as well as at work (e.g. inspections). Those direct measures are generally based on administrative statistics, but can also be based on surveys with or without sampling, using various techniques (e.g. “snowball”, “Delphi”, “capture-recapture”) which may be subject to selection bias and strong hypotheses (Box 0.1). In parallel to these direct methodologies, indirect estimates have also been developed by demographers, based on expected population and gender ratio methods that integrate additional information derived from data supplied by host countries (for an overview, see (OECD, 2000[3])).

All these various methods and measures have shortcomings, however, and need to be handled with caution. Statistics on detections and apprehensions, for instance, relate to events and should be adjusted to account for the number of times an individual may have attempted to cross the border. Furthermore, such data may primarily reflect the effectiveness of the host country’s police and immigration authorities in enforcing immigration legislation. Regularisation programmes, too, can yield interesting information, though it relates only to a given point in time and only to individuals who apply to be regularised.

Box 4.1. The capture-recapture survey method: Estimating illegal working migrants in Denmark and the Netherlands

Two surveys – from Denmark and the Netherlands – illustrate how certain assumptions as to remigration and turnover rates in the illegally resident migrant population produce a wide range of figures (and no more than a range) within a specified confidence interval.

A recent study by the Rockwool Foundation in Denmark sought to measure the number of migrants staying illegally in Denmark from data on apprehensions at police checkpoints (Tranæs and Jensen, 2014[8]). The method used was a capture-recapture estimation initially developed to evaluate the size of the trout population in a lake through repeat registrations of individually identified fish. The methodology relied on the assumption that it was feasible to proxy the size of the illegal migrant population from the number of repeat offenders registered by the police. In brief, the higher the chance that the police apprehended the same people, the fewer illegally staying migrants there must be. The authors of the study estimated that there were 10 000 people working illegally in Denmark in 2013 – a significant increase from the 2008 figure of 2 800. What is more, the rise was observed during a period of overall deterioration of the labour market. Almost one-third of all illegally working migrants in Denmark in 2013 came from Nigeria and China, the vast majority of whom (72%) were men. It is worth noting, however, that these estimates have not been confirmed officially and are subject to debate.

Van der Heijden et al. (2006[9]) employed a similar capture-recapture method to estimate the number of migrants residing illegally in the Netherlands. They, too, drew on apprehensions recorded by the police, with information on gender, age, country of origin and reason for registration by the police. The authors of the study used a linear Poisson model to estimate the individual likelihood of being (repeatedly) apprehended, which allowed them to infer the size of the illegal migrant population. Where possible, the authors distinguished between migrants who were returned and those who stayed on after being apprehended. However, migrants who were returned could not be “recaptured”, and not accounting for that fact may have led to substantial overestimation. Findings put the total number of migrants residing illegally in the Netherlands in 2005-06 at between 75 000 and 185 000. Of those, between 62 500 and 115 000 come from non-European countries, including 10% who became illegally resident after filing for asylum in the Netherlands.

The diversity and limitations of measurement techniques and data sources, together with the inherent difficulty of measuring an unobservable phenomenon, suggest that available statistics on a particular topic can yield only very heterogeneous information of mixed quality. In light of these constraints, the rest of this section takes stock of existing data in OECD countries while considering alternative indicators. It also deepens analysis where reliable, detailed information is available, even if restricted to only a few countries, such as the United States, or regions, e.g. Lombardy in Italy (see section on the case of Lombardy, Italy). Finally, it focuses not on numbers of illegally employed foreign workers, but on their characteristics.

Magnitude and trends of irregular migrant population, overstayers and apprehensions

Magnitude

Keeping in mind the measurement challenges aforementioned, Table 4.1 shows various estimates of migrants in an irregular situation that draw on different methodologies and sources in a number of OECD countries. Figures vary widely from one country to another. The 11.3 million unauthorised immigrants in the United States in 2016,12 or 3.5% of the population, stand out. Estimates for the European Union (EU27),¹³ which date back to 2008, produce much lower figures – between 1.9 and 3.8 million people, or 0.4% to 0.8% of the total population. Unfortunately, no more recent estimate has been calculated for Europe as a whole, although it would be reasonable to presume that the current number is above that of 2008, while remaining far below the United States figure.

A number of OECD countries – Australia, Israel, Japan, Korea and New Zealand – supply figures on those who have overstayed their permits (overstayers) drawn from statistics on double-card entry and exit data. Although recent figures show that overstayers in those countries represent between 0.2% and 0.5% of their total populations, they paint only a partial picture of illegal employment of foreign workers as they do not cover, for instance, those people who entered the country illegally.

Partial indications of trends

Information on trends is scarce and hard to compare as there is such a wide variety of indicators. In countries where double-card entry yields information on overstayers, yearly figures make it possible to track changes over time. In Australia, for instance, estimates showed a rise in numbers of overstayers between 2010 and 2015, albeit at a decelerating rate¹⁴ between 2010 and 2014, followed by a slight decrease (Figure 4.2). In Korea, figures also point to an increase over the period, with a significant spike in 2014 over the previous year,¹⁵ while in Israel¹⁶ they suggest rather stable rates. At the opposite end of the spectrum, figures for Japan and New Zealand point to a decrease in the number of overstayers over the period, though at different rate: it slowed down in Japan till 2014, and then increased between 2014 and 2015,17 while it steadily accelerated in New Zealand between 2010 and 2015 (SOPEMI (Permanent System of Observation of International Migration), 2015[10]).

Table 4.1. Estimates of irregular migrant populations in selected OECD countries, latest year available for non-EU OECD countries and 2008 for the EU
Country | Estimate | % of foreign residents | % of total population
Australia (2015) | 62 000 (overstayers) | … | 0.3
Austria | 18 000 - 54 000 | 2.1 - 6.2 | 0.2 - 0.6
Belgium | 88 000 - 132 000 | 8.7 - 13 | 0.8 - 1.2
Czech Republic | 17 000 - 100 000 | 3.9 - 22.9 | 0.2 - 1
Denmark | 1 000 - 5000 | 0.3 - 1.6 | 0 - 0. 1
Estonia | 5 000 - 10 000 | 2.2 - 4.5 | 0.4 - 0.7
France | 178 000 - 354 000 | 4.8 - 9.6 | 0.3 - 0.6
Finland | 8 000 - 12 000 | 5.6 - 8.4 | 0.2 - 0.2
Germany | 196 000 - 457 000 | 2.9 - 6.8 | 0.2 - 0.6
Greece | 172 000 - 209 000 | 23.4 - 28.5 | 1.5 - 1.9
Hungary | 10 000 - 50 000 | 5.4 - 27.1 | 0.1 - 0.5
Ireland | 30 000 - 62 000 | 7.3 - 15 | 0.7 - 1.4
Israel (2016) | 94 160 (overstayers) | .. | 1.1
Italy | 279 000 - 461 000 | 7.2 - 11.8 | 0.5 - 0.8
Japan (2016) | 60 000 (overstayers) | 2.7 | 0.0
Korea (2015) | 214 168 (overstayers) | .. | ..
Latvia | 2 000 - 11 000 | 0.5 - 2.8 | 0.1 - 0.5
Lithuania (2016) | 900 | 4.4 | 0.1
Luxembourg | 2 000 - 4 000 | 0.9 - 1.9 | 0.4 - 0.8
Netherlands | 62 000 - 131 000 | 8.6 - 18.2 | 0.4 - 0.8
New Zealand (2014) | 12 162 (overstayers) | .. | 0.3
Norway | 10 500 - 32 000 | 3.5 - 10.6 | 0.2 - 0.7
Portugal | 80 000 - 100 000 | 18.1 - 22.6 | 0.8 - 0.9
Poland | 50 000 - 300 000 | .. | 0.1 - 0.8
Slovak Republic | 15 000 - 20 000 | 28.6 - 38.1 | 0.3 - 0.4
Slovenia | 2 000 - 10 000 | 2.4 - 12.2 | 0.1 - 0.5
Spain | 280 0000 - 354 000 | 5 - 6.3 | 0.6 - 0.8
Sweden | 8 000 - 12 000 | 1.4 - 2.2 | 0.1
Switzerland (2015) | 76 000 | 4 | 0.9
United Kingdom | 417 000 - 863 000 | 21.2 | 0.73
United States (2016) | 11.3 million | 26 | 3.5
EU 27 (2008) | 1.9 - 3.8 million | 6.6 - 13.9 | 0.4 - 0.8
Note: Methods of calculation vary from country to country: HWWI figures are extrapolated from available national sources; US figures are derived using the residual method. For Israel, 78 500 overstaying tourist visas and 15 660 were foreign workers in violation (Ministry of Interior).

Source: For EU countries, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI) Database, www.irregular-migration.hwwi.net; Ministry of Migration for Lithuania. Continuous Reporting System on Migration (SOPEMI) 2015 country reports for Australia, Israel, Japan, Korea and New Zealand; Pew Research Center (2016[11]) for the United States.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751574

Figure 4.2. Overstayers in selected OECD countries, 2010-15

Percentage changes over the previous year

Source: SOPEMI country reports (2015).

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751973

For the EU, patterns can be identified based on detections and apprehensions figures released yearly by Eurostat since 2008 (third-country nationals found to be illegally present and who were apprehended or otherwise came to the attention of national immigration authorities). Bearing in mind the important caveats that hedge the use of such data for assessing irregular migration, the number of foreign nationals found to be illegally present in the EU28 countries rose from 429 050 in 2013 to 669 575 in 2014, and skyrocketed to 2 152 340 in 2015. This general increase in apprehensions is attributable to the EU member states’ commitment to combatting irregular migration and containing the growth in illegal border crossings driven by the humanitarian crisis in 2015.18 In the EU context this implies a major overestimation of the issue because people who seek international protection cease to be in an irregular legal situation from the time that they apply for asylum to when they obtain it or have it denied.¹⁹ People may also be counted twice in the same or different EU member states.

Although other OECD countries also supply statistics on apprehensions at their borders, international comparisons are hindered by differences in irregular migration management practices and in geographic situations (Table 4.2). Generally speaking, although data on apprehensions are readily available and cover lengthy periods of time, they paint a distorted picture of the evolution of the phenomenon as they fail to take into account exits and status changes.

In the United States, the estimate of 11.3 million unauthorised immigrants in 2016 had remained largely unchanged since 2009. Prior to 2009, the unauthorised immigrant population had risen through the 1990s and early 2000s, peaked in 2007 at 12.2 million, then declined over the next two years during the Great Recession (Pew Research Center, 2006[12]). The number of unauthorised immigrants in the labour force also grew sharply, by nearly 2.7 million from 2000 to 2008 alone – before peaking at 8.3 million in 2008. It has remained broadly stable at about 8 million since then (Annex Figure 4.1).

Table 4.2. Detections and apprehensions in selected OECD countries, 2008-15
A. European Union countries (foreign nationals found to be illegally present)
| 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015
Austria | 14 470 | 17 140 | 15 225 | 20 085 | 23 110 | 25 955 | 33 065 | 86 205
Belgium | 13 780 | 13 675 | 12 085 | 13 540 | 15 070 | 15 065 | 15 530 | 16 275
Czech Republic | 3 315 | 3 950 | 2 615 | 3 035 | 3 305 | 3 685 | 4 405 | 8 165
Denmark | 600 | 625 | 625 | 375 | 610 | 400 | 485 | 2 140
Estonia | 1 030 | 835 | 845 | 995 | 890 | 895 | 715 | 955
Finland | 5 340 | 6 655 | 3 770 | 3 285 | 3 615 | 3 330 | 2 935 | 14 260
France | 111 705 | 76 345 | 56 200 | 57 975 | 49 755 | 48 975 | 96 370 | 109 685
Germany | 53 660 | 49 540 | 50 230 | 56 320 | 64 830 | 86 255 | 128 280 | 376 395
Greece | 106 690 | 108 295 | 115 605 | 88 805 | 72 420 | 42 605 | 73 660 | 911 450
Hungary | 1 880 | 2 290 | 3 235 | 3 790 | 6 410 | 8 235 | 56 155 | 424 045
Ireland | 3 160 | 5 010 | 4 320 | 2 450 | 2 020 | 1 440 | 890 | 2 295
Italy | 68 170 | 53 445 | 46 925 | 29 490 | 29 325 | 23 920 | 25 275 | 27 290
Latvia | 305 | 215 | 170 | 100 | 195 | 150 | 245 | 735
Luxembourg | .. | 235 | 205 | 255 | 325 | 240 | 430 | 170
Netherlands | 7 490 | 7 540 | 7 550 | 6 120 | .. | .. | .. | ..
Norway | 750 | 1 565 | .. | 1 920 | 2 770 | 3 155 | 3 700 | 5 405
Poland | 5 410 | 4 500 | 3 990 | 6 830 | 8 110 | 9 260 | 12 030 | 16 805
Portugal | .. | 11 125 | 10 050 | 9 185 | 9 080 | 5 120 | 4 510 | 5 115
Slovak Republic | 2 300 | 1 680 | 1 420 | 1 110 | 1 360 | 1 010 | 1 120 | 1 955
Slovenia | 1 545 | 1 045 | 3 415 | 4 345 | 1 560 | 1 030 | 1 010 | 1 010
Spain | 92 710 | 90 480 | 70 275 | 68 810 | 52 450 | 46 185 | 47 900 | 42 595
Sweden | .. | 22 230 | 27 455 | 20 750 | 23 190 | 24 380 | 72 835 | 1 410
Switzerland | .. | 9 830 | 9 940 | 11 735 | 14 135 | 15 045 | 13 790 | 15 565
United Kingdom | 69 840 | 69 745 | 53 675 | 54 155 | 49 345 | 57 415 | 65 315 | 70 005
EU28 | 579 835 | 563 970 | 505 130 | 468 810 | 433 320 | 429 050 | 669 575 | 2 152 340
B. United States (apprehensions)¹
| 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015
United States | 1 043 759 | 889 212 | 796 587 | 678 606 | 671 327 | 662 483 | 679 996 | 462 388
Note: “Apprehensions” refers to total numbers of illegal aliens apprehended at the border by fiscal year.
1. “Detections and apprehensions” refers to the third-country nationals found to be illegally present and who were apprehended or otherwise came to the attention of national immigration authorities.
Source: Eurostat Database, Enforcement of Immigration Legislation (migr_eipre), http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/en/migr_eil_esms.htm. Department of Homeland Security.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933753284

Illegal employment of foreign workers: Workers’ characteristics and sectors

Workers’ characteristics: Gender, age, skills and country of origin

Data from past regularisation programmes, while only part of the picture, show that people who were in an irregular situation tend to be men of a fairly young age. In Italy and Spain, for example, three-quarters were under 40 years old (OECD, 2000[3]) (Table 4.3). Although the main nationalities that account for the bulk of illegal foreign work evolve over time, they tend to be determined by geographical proximity or language (see Box 4.2 for profiles of regularised workers in France). Finally, detailed information is available in the United States that allows comparing the profiles of undocumented immigrants with those of the native-born and other immigrants (Box 4.3).

Table 4.3. Regularisation programmes in selected countries
Country | Year | Number of beneficiaries | Share of women | Sectors | Main nationalities
France | 1997 | 108 684 examined applications |  |  | Algeria (14%), Morocco (13%), China (9%), Democratic Republic of the Congo (7%), Tunisia (6%)*
Italy | 1986 | 105 000 | 26% | Contract work (65%), job-search (35%) | Morocco (26%), Tunisia and Senegal (8%), Philippines and Yugoslavia (6%)
1990 | 217 626 | 26% | Contract work (10%), job-search (86%), self-employment (4%) | Morocco (22%), Tunisia (12%), Senegal (7%), Philippines (6%) and Yugoslavia (4%)
1995 | 244 492 | 31% | Contract work (73%), job-search (21%) | Morocco (14%), Albania (12%), Philippines (9%), China (6%), Peru (5%)
1998 | 217 124 | 28% | Contract work (78%), job-search (5%), self-employment (14%) | Albania (18%), Morocco (11%), Romania (11%), China (8%), Senegal (5%)
2002 | 700 033 applications | 46% | Domestic service (18%), Elderly/Handicapped care (13%), Manufacturing and Construction (16%), basic labourers (8%) | Romania (20%), Ukraine (15%), Morocco and Albania (8%), Ecuador (5%)
2009 | 294 744 applications |  | Household help/childcare (61%), eldercare (39%) | Ukraine (13%), Morocco (12%), Moldova (9%), China (7%), Bangladesh (6%)
2012 | 134 775 applications |  | Domestic work (92%), contract work (8%) | Bangladesh and Morocco (11%), India and Ukraine (10%), Pakistan (9%)
115 988 issuances
Portugal | 1992-1993 | 80 000 applications, 38 400 issued |  |  |
1996 | 31 000 |  |  | 67% from Portuguese-speaking African countries (PALOP)
2001 | 123 700 applications | 23% |  | Ukraine (36%), Brazil (18%), Moldova (7%), Romania (6%), Cape Verde (5%)
2003 | 19 408 |  |  | Brazil (100%)
2004 | 40 000 applicants, 19 261 issued |  |  |
Spain | 2000 | 244 327 applications |  | Agriculture and Fishery (28%), Domestic Service (17%), Construction (14%), Hotels and restaurants (12%) |
2005 | 690 679 applications | 44% | Domestic work (32%), Construction (21%), Agriculture (15%), Hospitality (10%), Trade (5%) | Ecuador (20%), Romania (17%), Morocco (13%), Colombia (8%), Bolivia (7%)
* Based on first 60% of applications processed.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933753303

Box 4.2. Who are the regularised immigrant workers in France?

France regularised 5 300 non-EU foreign workers annually in 2014 and 2015 and a further 6 400 in both 2016 and 2017. During the last five years, four–in-five were men, against two-in-three among other labour migrants legally recruited from abroad. In 2015, on average they were regularised after seven years of residence in France and at an average age of 35 – five years older than other labour migrants. Almost 60% of regularised foreign workers are African nationals, mainly from Mali (12%), Morocco (10%) and Tunisia (9%). Although nationals from Africa still account for the bulk of regularisations, the regions of origin of regularised foreign workers have been far more diverse since new regularisation rules in 2012. Since then, there has been a significant rise in the number of those from South Asia, especially from Bangladesh and, to a lesser extent, Sri Lanka. There has also been a significant increase in regularisations of Southeast Asian workers, mostly Filipino women. The Paris area accounts for the vast majority of regularisations of foreign workers – 84% in 2015, for example.

Residence permit data are stored in the Interior Ministry’s foreign national management system, AGDREF. They do not include the socioeconomic characteristics of their holders. The 2010 Longitudinal Survey on the Integration of First-Time Arrivals (ELIPA) does, however. It is the only source of socioeconomic profiles of regularised foreign workers.

Non-EU national foreigners who have been regularised work in lower-skilled occupations and are concentrated in sectors that employ the highest shares of irregular migrants – 63% of regularised foreign workers in 2009 were blue-collar workers (of whom 34% held low-skilled positions) and 27% were service workers. Only one regularised worker in ten found a more highly-qualified job, such as technician or associate professional. Overall, 39% of regularised foreign workers in 2009 worked in the retail, hotel and catering industry, 22% in construction, 12% in services to companies and 12% in services to households. Regularised foreign workers have low-skilled jobs because they have a markedly lower level of education than other labour migrants: 53% had no degrees at all, against 39% of the other labour migrants with low-skilled jobs, and 27% of other labour migrants with higher-skilled jobs. Only one-tenth of regularised foreign workers had a tertiary degree, four times fewer than other labour migrants (and twice as few as even non-labour migrants). This is also due to the fact that 52% of labour migrants in France are higher-skilled. Regularised foreign workers’ profiles may affect their employability in the French labour market, especially since 31% of them reported that they do not speak French fluently, a higher proportion than among other labour migrants recruited from abroad (21%), including the low-skilled.

The ELIPA survey found that 54% of regularised foreign workers in 2009 entered France legally, although four-fifths of them had visas (chiefly tourist visas) that did not allow them to work. They overstayed their visas, sometimes by applying for asylum (one-in-four cases). The remaining 46% entered France illegally (with no visa) and had no residence permit before they were regularised. Two-thirds did, however, have some kind of resident document at some point through their asylum applications. Sixty per cent of regularised foreign workers had job contracts prior to regularisation. Finally, among those that entered France legally, 37% of foreign workers were regularised while working in their first job – i.e. with the support of their first employer in the country. The share was 44% among those who entered illegally.

Source: French Ministry of Interior, AGDREF database and Longitudinal Survey on the Integration of First-Time Arrivals (ELIPA) 2010; OECD (2017[13]).

Box 4.3. Who are the unauthorised immigrant workers in the United States?

In 2014, unauthorised immigrants made up 3.5% of the United States (US) population, 5% of its workforce and 26% of foreign-born residents. They represented a higher share of the US labour force (5%) than of the total population (3.5%) partly because they were disproportionately likely to be of working age: 92% were between 18 and 64 years old, against 60% of the native-born population and 76% of lawful immigrants, and 67% were between 18 and 44 years old. Only 1% was 65 or older, and 7% under 18.

Compared with US-born national and lawful immigrants, unauthorised male immigrants were more likely to be in the labour force and their female peers less likely. Of all unauthorised immigrant men aged 18 to 64, 91% were working or looking for work, compared with 79% and 84 % respectively among native-born and legally resident immigrant men in the same age bracket. Among unauthorised female immigrants, labour force participation was 61%, against 72% among their native-born peers and 67% among lawful immigrants. One reason for the disparity is that unauthorised immigrant women who are not in the work force are far more likely than other groups to have young children at home.

Unauthorised immigrants in the United States come from across the globe, though Mexico has long accounted for the bulk of them. Nevertheless, the number of unauthorised immigrants from Mexico, at 5.8 million in 2014 (52% of all unauthorised immigrants), is lower than its peak of 6.9 million in 2007. In 2014, there were 1.7 million unauthorised immigrants from elsewhere in Central America, 1 million from South America and the Caribbean and 1.4 million from Asia. Smaller numbers were born in Europe and Canada (600 000) as well as the Middle East, Africa and other nations (500 000).

Although unauthorised immigrants are geographically widely dispersed, most (59%) lived in the six most populous US states in 2014. They are California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Texas.

When it comes to educational attainment among adults aged 25 and older, unauthorised immigrants were less likely to have completed high school or college in 2014 than either native born adults or lawful immigrants. Only 27% had completed at least some college education, compared with 58% of native-born adults and 53% of lawful immigrants.

Finally, some two-thirds of unauthorised immigrant adults lived in nuclear families in 2014 – i.e. with a spouse or partner and/or with children. Of the 3.9 million unauthorised immigrant adults who did not live in such families, about 800 000 lived alone or in group-living arrangements. Unauthorised immigrants’ families made up a total of 17.1 million people, including the 11.1 million unauthorised immigrants themselves. The additional residents were largely the native-born children of the unauthorised immigrants – 5 million under-18s and 400 000 adult children. About 4.5 million unauthorised immigrants – 43% of adults – lived with their US-born children under the age of 18.

Source: Passel, J. (2016[14]); Pew Research Center (2014[15])

Sectors and occupations

The illegal employment of foreign workers can be found throughout the economy, particularly in industries reliant on flexible, low-pay arrangements, seasonal activities (such as fruit picking), and in workplaces (like farms and internet-based services) or for employers (e.g. households or small family businesses) that are harder to monitor and inspect.

In the United States, data make it possible to profile unauthorised immigrants by industry. They tend to be concentrated in agriculture, construction, and the leisure and hospitality sectors (Table 4.4). Data obtained from regularisation programmes reveal that unauthorised foreign workers were particularly overrepresented in sectors like domestic work, construction, manufacturing, agriculture and hotel and catering (Table 4.3 and Box 4.2). However, as already pointed out, such data do not reflect the full spectrum of the illegal employment of foreign workers.

Table 4.4. Industry profiles by migration status in the United States, 2014
Percentages
| Unlawful immigrants | Lawful immigrants | US born
Agriculture | 4.6 | 1.6 | 1.2
Mining | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.7
Construction | 16.3 | 6.2 | 5.9
Manufacturing | 12.5 | 11.1 | 10.0
Wholesale/retail | 11.7 | 12.8 | 14.8
Transportation/utilities | 3.3 | 5.5 | 4.9
Information | 1.3 | 1.9 | 2.3
Financial activities | 3.3 | 5.9 | 6.6
Business services | 14.0 | 12.5 | 11.0
Educational/health services | 7.2 | 23.0 | 23.3
Leisure/hospitality | 17.6 | 10.1 | 9.8
Other services | 7.7 | 6.1 | 4.6
Public administration | 0.0 | 3.1 | 5.0
Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0

Note: The distribution is from Passel et al., (2016[14]) and is obtained by applying also the distribution by industry of the foreign-born observed in the American Community Survey 2014, who are working or looking for work, to the estimates of unauthorised immigrants aged 16 and older, taking into consideration their age, regions of birth, family relationship and other socio-demographic characteristics.

Source: Pew Research Center (2014[15]) estimates.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933753322

With the data available in the United States, it is also possible to break down the distribution of unauthorised foreign workers by occupation (Table 4.5). Among all unauthorised immigrant workers, about one-third (31.9 % in 2014) were employed in service occupations, compared with 17.4% of their native-born peers. Construction jobs accounted for about 16%, three times the share of native born workers (5%). Production and maintenance jobs employed 14% of unauthorised immigrant workers in 2014, compared to just 9% of the native-born. Thanks to the detailed nature of the data from the United States, specific occupations with particularly high concentrations of unauthorised immigrant workers can be identified: drywall installers (31%), miscellaneous agricultural workers (30%), roofers (29%), construction painters (26%) and brick masons (26%).

In European countries, data on regularised non-EU nationals suggest they have lower-skilled occupations and are concentrated in the sectors that employ the most irregular migrants (Box 4.2 for France).

Table 4.5. Occupation profiles by migration status in the United States, 2014
Percentages
| Unlawful immigrants | Lawful immigrants | US born
Management, business and financial operations | 5.5 | 13.5 | 15.1
Professional and related | 8.1 | 23.0 | 22.0
Service | 31.9 | 21.3 | 17.4
Sales and related | 7.1 | 9.1 | 11.2
Office and administrative support | 5.8 | 9.7 | 13.9
Farming, fishery and forestry | 4.1 | 1.3 | 0.5
Construction and extraction | 15.7 | 5.3 | 4.6
Installation, maintenance and repair | 3.0 | 2.5 | 3.2
Production | 10.6 | 7.0 | 5.6
Transportation and material moving | 8.3 | 6.9 | 6.3
 Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0

Note: The distribution is from Passel et al. (2016[14]). They obtained it by applying the 2014 American Community Survey’s distribution by occupation of foreigners who are working or looking for work to estimates of unauthorised immigrants aged 16 and over, taking into consideration their age, regions of birth, family situations, and other socio-demographic characteristics.

Source: Estimates from the Pew Research Center (2014[15]).

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933753341

Getting the whole picture of illegal employment of foreign workers: The case of Lombardy, Italy

As already pointed out, the data generally available paint only part of the picture, since they often fail to capture and identify foreigners who are legally resident but without a work permit or in full conformity, as well as those without permits at all. That is, data do not generally allow identifying the different profiles of workers nor do they differentiate illegal employment of foreign workers from informal employment.

When such data are available, analysis thereof provides key findings for policy action, not only by confirming earlier findings, but by revealing important patterns in earnings gaps, remittances and integration. Just such data are produced by a unique survey conducted annually in the Italian region of Lombardy by independent Italian non-profit organisation Foundation for Initiatives and Studies on Multi-Ethnicity (ISMU). The findings from its 2016 survey, which covered almost 3 300 individuals, enable the analysis below of illegal foreign workers in Lombardy (for more on ISMU surveys, see (Guriev, Speciale and Tuccio, 2016[16])). A particular advantage of ISMU’s comprehensive dataset is that it clearly distinguishes between foreign workers in irregular situations (irregularly staying in Italy) and those with visa and residence permits (regularly staying), as well as between formal and informal employment.²⁰

Analysing findings from Lombardy

Lombardy is Italy’s largest region in terms of income, accounting for one-fifth of its GDP, and its most populous region, making up one-sixth of the population. It is also the region with the largest migrant population – almost a quarter of Italy’s migrants with regular legal status lived in Lombardy in 2005. Since 2001, the NGO ISMU has conducted a yearly survey of immigrants residing in Lombardy. Thanks to this unique source of information, it is possible to apply the conceptual framework of Figure 4.1 to the Lombardy case.

In 2016, for instance, 82% of the migrant population in Lombardy were legally resident and worked in formal employment (Profile [6] of Figure 4.1). Nine percent had valid residence permits but worked in informal employment (Profile [5]). Of the remaining 9%, who had no valid residence papers, approximately half worked informally (Profile [1]) and half had formal jobs, possibly using forged papers and fake identities (Profile [2]).²¹

Panel A in Figure 4.3 shows considerable variations in the distribution of foreign workers by country of origin. Among citizens from East European members of the EU, who enjoy full legal residence and employment rights in Italy, one out of 10 is in informal employment (Profile [5]). The situation is slightly different for non-EU Eastern European country nationals. Half work formally and half informally, while 11% are illegally staying migrants (working equally between formal and informal employment). Among immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa, only 67% have valid permits and are in formal employment (Profile [6]), 18% have valid permits but are in informal employment (Profile [5]), while 15% are in illegal employment (Profiles [1] and [2]).

Figure 4.3. Foreign workers’ regions of origin and educational attainment, Lombardy, 2015

Source: OECD Secretariat based on ORIM (2017[17]).

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933751992

A profiling of foreign workers’ characteristics suggests that those in legal and formal employment are on average older (39 years), more likely to be women (43%) and married (62%) – and consequently to have more children – compared to foreign workers in illegal employment, who are on average 33 years old, men (only 32% of them are women), and single (38% of them are married). There are also wide disparities in how long they have been in Italy. The average length of stay among illegally resident migrants in informal employment is only five years, whereas those who are legal residents in formal employment have been in the country for 14 years.

Levels of educational attainment vary, too (Figure 4.3, Panel B). While most illegally resident informal workers (53%) have lower-secondary education, 40% of legally resident formal workers have attained upper-secondary education, with 26% of them boasting post-secondary qualification, compared to only 6% of foreigners in illegal employment.

Illegally resident foreign workers in informal employment earn only 42% of the monthly net wage of their legally and formally employed counterparts (Figure 4.4, Panel A). Although the disparity is partly attributable their lower education levels, legal residents with informal jobs earn only half of the earnings of their formally employed peers despite their similar levels of educational attainment. A closer look at the data suggests that the earnings penalty is, at least partly, due to the instability of the informal economy: formally employed foreigners work about 40 hours a week (regardless of their legal status), compared to the 25 hours of workers in informal employment.

Lower earnings of foreign workers in illegal employment, however, do not translate into lower remittances sent back home: illegally staying migrants in informal employment send on average over a fourth of their monthly earnings to their left-behind communities, while individuals in legal and formal employment send only 18% of their wages. Professions also vary widely (Figure 4.4, Panel B): for example, 26% of migrants in regular situation (legally staying) in informal employment work as a part-time housekeeper, while the figure drops to only 4% for their counterparts in formal employment. Interestingly, 29% of workers in illegal employment practice a commercial activity in the black market, whereas the share remains much lower for the other categories of workers. Foreign workers in an irregular situation (illegally staying) in informal employment are also much more likely than those in regular situation and formal employment to work in construction (16% versus 8%) and in cleaning services (13% versus 5%).

Insights into integration

Finally, when it comes to integration in the host society, informally employed illegal residents are the least integrated (Annex Table 4.2). Whilst only 2% have mostly Italian friends, the share rises to 10% among workers in legal, formal employment. Similarly, illegally resident migrants in informal jobs tend to congregate with foreigners of similar origin, which further fuels their isolation and the asymmetry of labour market conditions. Not surprisingly, over 95% believe (correctly) they do not enjoy the same opportunities as Italians, whereas only 38% of foreign workers in legal and formal employment think so. The struggles of living in precarious conditions may be one reason why a higher share of illegally resident migrants in informal employment wish to leave Italy – 19% intend to go back to their country of origin and 21% would like to move to a third country, compared to respectively 4% and 6% of legally resident foreign workers in formal employment.

Figure 4.4. Foreign workers’ earnings and remittances and their professions, Lombardy, 2015

Source: OECD Secretariat based on ORIM (2017[17]).

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752011

Combatting the illegal employment of foreign workers

The fight against the illegal employment of foreign workers is both an economic and migration policy objective and, as such, requires a broad set of measures. This section considers general policy measures to curtail informal employment (among migrants and the native-born) and irregular migration. It also examines measures aimed specifically at curtailing the illegal employment of foreign workers by improving compliance and workplace enforcement (through information campaigns, verification systems, inspections, sanctions and penalties, etc.). Discussion draws on the literature and is enriched by new information collected through a short policy questionnaire submitted to OECD member countries on measures they have undertaken to prevent, detect and sanction the illegal employment of foreign workers.²²

Reducing informal employment

Measures to curb informal employment, even if not explicitly designed for that purpose, need to be considered as part of the policy package for combatting the illegal employment of foreign workers. The OECD has produced several studies and recommendations on promoting formalisation and curbing undeclared work (OECD, 2004[18]; OECD, 2008[19]). The main policy recommendations are:

Firms and workers need to clearly recognise the benefits of formalisation. Accordingly, governments should seek to improve the quality of the public services they deliver, as well as strengthen the link between contributions and benefits in social protection schemes. Providing better public services will increase people’s trust in their governments and give them greater incentive to join the formal sector.

Reduce the costs of formality for employers and the self-employed. Simplified tax and administrative systems, streamlined registration processes and a reduction in red tape are crucial steps in this direction. Labour regulations should also be carefully designed to offset their potentially adverse effects on hiring and job creation in the formal sector.

Scale up detection and enforcement measures, such as information exchange, co-operation between labour, social security and tax inspectorates and improved enforcement methods. In particular, enforcement agencies, such as labour inspectorates, should enjoy sufficient resources to carry out their work effectively.²³

As already mentioned, labour market regulations, such as employment protection legislation (EPL), may create, if too high, incentives for informal hiring. Empirical evidence of the link between labour regulations and informality is, however, disputed and depends on a wide range of institutional and macroeconomic factors (Djankov, Lieberman and Mukherjee, 2003[20]; Schneider, 2013[21]). Effects on the composition of employment, though, are more clear-cut.

Evidence shows that asymmetries in regulations (such as the protection provided by EPL²⁴) deepen segmentation and widen labour market inequalities between protected workers with permanent contracts (insiders) and those with flexible contracts (the outsiders) – particularly in highly-regulated labour markets such as those of Southern Europe and Korea (OECD, 2014[22]). Accordingly, there is the risk of a displacement effect, whereby employers increasingly turn to the illegal employment of foreign workers, as the most flexible, unprotected group in the labour force – notably in high-risk sectors, such as construction.

However important they may be, efforts to reduce the informal economy and employment are not a cure-all for the illegal employment of foreign workers. Countries like France and the United States, for example, have substantial numbers of unauthorised immigrants but relatively little informal employment.

Curbing irregular migration

There are a number of migration measures available for reducing irregular migration. The three main ones include more restrictive border controls, the creation of legal migration channels and regularisations.

Border control and in countries detections

An important policy tool for stemming irregular migration is to control borders and prevent illegal entries. This response can take two major forms: stricter border controls to intercept foreigners trying to enter illegally, and policies that expedite the detection of migrants in an irregular situation in the country. The settlement countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) and island states – like Ireland, the United Kingdom and Japan – tend to emphasise the enforcement of border checks at airports and sea ports to curb irregular migration. In this context, efforts and resources are focused on restricting the entry of foreigners, at ports and airports. European countries have also tightened up the control at external borders. However, border controls will not solve the problems of overstayers who represent the bulk of irregular migration. Data for Italy and Japan suggest than about 70% of migrants in an irregular situation are overstayers (OECD, 2009[23]); even in the United States it is estimated that fully 45% of the unauthorised population in the mid-2000s entered the country legally and overstayed (Pew Research Center, 2006[12]).

In recent years, OECD countries, particularly in Europe, have stepped up the removals/expulsions of persons found to be illegally present. In general, however, these measures tend to be costly, both socially and economically, often involving detention and accompanied returns. In the United States, removals stood at 380 000 to 400 000 between fiscal years 2008 and 2012, when they peaked at 410 000 before falling to about 240 000 in 2015 and 2016, and 216 000 in fiscal year 2017. In Europe, according to Eurostat data, slightly less than half of the 494 000 non-EU citizens (about 226 000) who had been issued with an order to leave an EU member state in 2016 were returned to their country of origin.

Creating legal migration channels in certain sectors

In theory, and if regular and irregular migration were perfect substitutes, expanding regular labour migration would be associated with less unauthorised migration. If evidence to support that hypothesis is scarce and weak (Clemens and Gough, 2018[24]) past country examples, in Europe, Asia or the Americas, show that the absence of appropriate legal migration pathways when the demand for labour goes unmet for protracted periods generally leads to rises in the illegal employment of foreign workers over time.

More generally, if larger legal labour migration flows can be expected to reduce illegal hiring in the short-run, it is not clear, however, how many regular entry visas it would take to bring about a meaningful reduction in irregular flows. In fact, in large informal labour markets and/or countries where inland identity checks are limited, there is a risk that expanding regular flows without accompanying efforts to deter the illegal employment of foreigners may actually result in a stable, if not increasing, stock of unauthorised labour migrants.²⁵

To meet the demand of employers who may otherwise have turned to illegal employment of foreign workers, action to improve legal labour migration should be targeted; for instance, opening up legal migration channels for workers in agriculture and the care and domestic sectors, where demand is high and local supply is low, would generally be easy to pass, since it is often seen more favourably in the public opinion than in other sectors (Ambrosini, 2013[25]; Triandafyllidou and Marchetti, 2013[26]). Indeed, several countries²⁶ have developed employment-based, generally temporary, visa programmes for certain sectors. Such programmes can be based on bilateral agreements, possibly with a commitment by the country of origin to reinforce control. EU legal migration pilot projects with such an approach are currently under consideration (European Commission, 2017[27]).

Another important way of improving legal migration would be to foster efficiency in the permit delivery process (for instance rapid processing time) so that employers can take on workers swiftly and according to need – one reason why companies, particularly small ones, turn to illegal labour. Permits could offer more flexibility in the length of temporary migration programmes, as strict expiry dates can actually increase illegal work when there is no prospect of permanent legal status (OECD, 2009[23]). Generally speaking, simplifying regulatory requirements, shortening waiting times for employers and workers, and thereby easing visa application and renewal procedures, could improve compliance and prevent some of the irregularities outlined in the section on the multi-faceted aspect of illegal employment.

Regularisation programmes

Offering immigrants the chance to regularise, or legalise, their status so that they can work legally is one of the earliest-developed and most widely used responses to illegal employment of foreign workers. Yet, regularisation remains hotly debated in that it is an ex post remedy rather than a proper strategy that addresses the fundamental issues behind the illegal employment of foreign workers. As a result, the very concept of regularisation has come under close scrutiny and, indeed, disrepute. (For a more detailed discussion of the arguments, see (OECD, 2009[23]; Rosenblum, 2010[28]).

The primary argument in favour of regularisation is that it is a pragmatic tool for reducing stocks of unauthorised foreign workers and can deliver economic and social benefits by moving migrants from informal to formal employment. Indeed, in many instances, it is, at some point in time, the only way to address the cumulative effects of labour migration policies’ failure to respond to locally unmet labour market needs.

Conversely, the most commonly advanced argument against regularisation is that it “rewards” illegality and penalises those queuing and following the legal channels to entry and work.²⁷ Regularisation, particularly on a large scale, is also blamed for undermining ongoing migration control efforts. Another criticism is that it gives rise to a type of moral hazard by encouraging “speculative” irregular migration in anticipation of future regularisation programmes. Such a risk can, however, be mitigated if regularisation is backed by policies to address the root causes of the increase in the illegal employment of foreign workers.

However, once a government has decided to conduct a regularisation programme, it must consider a number of policy parameters:

Eligibility rules. Should regularisation apply to individuals or groups and with reference to migration histories and employment records?

Additional requirements. Should further criteria be met, such as fines, fees and back taxes all being paid, proven language proficiency and demonstrable integration?

Frequency. Should regularisation be a one-off scheme or a continuous programme?

Benefits. What form would an immigrant’s newly legalised status take? Would permits be temporary only, temporary but possibly renewable, provisional, or permanent? This point is extremely important as experience has shown that, when the illegal employment of foreigners is structural, addressing it with temporary visas may lead to a vicious circle of recurrent, ever-larger regularisation programmes over time.

Enhancing compliance and workplace enforcement: Prevent, detect and sanction

Drawing on international agreements and regulations as a general framework for combatting the illegal employment of foreign workers (for instance, the EU directive relating to employers sanctions (Directive 2009/52/EC), and ILO conventions²⁸) many OECD countries have introduced national measures to prevent, control and sanction – the three essential pillars of a well-managed workplace enforcement system.

Building awareness

Prevention measures – such as raising awareness of the risks of employing workers in irregular situations – rest on the premise that people will comply voluntarily if they fully understand their responsibilities and the consequences of non-compliance. Many OECD countries have taken a range of measures to inform, educate and warn employers, employees and organisations as part of their drives to deter illegal employment of foreign workers. These measures include information campaigns, support and advice for employers and employees on their rights and duties, partnership agreements with social partners, and notification obligations. However, OECD countries’ efforts to inform vary substantially and generally remain modest.

While almost all have sought to inform through at least one medium (e.g. flyers, websites, guides, leaflets, newsletters or comprehensive information campaigns), there are considerable disparities in the range of tools that they use and how widely they disseminate them (which includes translation). Furthermore, broad information campaigns quite often fail to explicitly target the illegal employment of foreign workers or social welfare fraud and illicit activities.

Finally, OECD countries engage and co-operate to varying degrees with social partners, NGOs, local actors and municipalities in preventive and support activities, e.g. seminars, training courses, the sharing of best practices and helplines for employers and employees (Table 4.6).

Encouraging the use of status verification systems

Verification procedures and systems are particularly instrumental in raising employer awareness and facilitating inspections. They act as support mechanisms by encouraging employers’ voluntary compliance and as proof or a “safe harbour” device – in other words without a verification system, employers may be able to deny any wrongdoing and avoid the penalties.

Verification policies typically involve checking that employment authorisations are in order and, to that end, providing (and sometimes requiring) the use of a government verification service. In all EU member states, employers have to keep – for at least the duration of a worker’s employment – a record of authorisations in the event of inspection. They must also notify the relevant authorities (e.g. local public employment services, social security office, tax authorities), usually within a specified period, when they start and terminate the employment of a third-country national. Most EU countries require employers to complete such formalities a few days before the start of employment and the termination of the contract. If they do so, they are free from liability, unless it transpires that they knew their documents were forged.

Table 4.6. Preventive measures in OECD and accession countries

| Information campaigns and support | Online verification system for employers

Australia

Australia’s Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) communicates widely to raise awareness of legislative requirements and prevent non-compliance. For example, it conducts outreach activities and publishes guides. To promote the employment of foreign workers with regular legal status, it ran a campaign with the slogan: “Hire legally, protect your profits".

Yes: DIBP’s Visa Entitlement Verification Online (VEVO), launched in 2004, checks visa details and any work restrictions. It is accessible to both visa holders and employers: www.border.gov.au/Busi/visas-and-migration/visa-entitlement-verification-online-(vevo)

Austria | n.a. | No

Belgium

Belgium carries out outreach and measures at sector level to prevent social security fraud and illegal employment, e.g. website; www.emploi.belgique.be/defaultTab.aspx?id=377). The social partners, labour inspectorates and the government have signed a protocol of co-operation. Voluntary groups and associations – e.g. Co-ordination and Initiatives for Refugees and Foreigners (CIRE), the Federal Migration Centre, called Myria – distribute flyers, hold seminars and publish newsletters, best practices (platforms association, unions, employers), and guides on legal rights and how to find lawyers.

No

Canada | n.a. | No
Czech Republic | Websites, leaflets, pre-departure and post-arrival information packages, awareness campaigns, training courses and joint meetings with cross-border partners. | No
Estonia | Seminars and webpages put in place by the Police and Border Guard Board. | No

France

National campaign was launched in 2017. At local level, Prefects use press releases or articles in the local media to inform public about the consequences and sanctions related to the illegal employment of foreign labour. Awareness-raising meetings are organised within the companies in the sectors most affected.

Government websites provide information.

The government and social partners have signed partnership agreements to fight illegal employment in high-risk sectors.

No

Finland | Ran extensive information campaign, “grey economy, black future”, in 2012. Tripartite co-operation agreement signed to curb to curb the informal economy and illegal employment. | No

Germany

Information campaigns to inform employers of their liabilities should they illegally employ third-country nationals (TCNs) and of the advantages of employing TCNs legally. The campaigns were disseminated in different sectors and at local, regional and federal levels. They were organised and financed by government and non-public entities. Trilateral partnerships between the Federal Ministry of Finance and the social partners in risk sectors to educate and inform.

No

Greece | The Labour Inspectorate (SEPE) has a website, distributes leaflets and runs a help desk, a hotline for complaints and on-line services for registered users. Roadmap for combating undeclared employment (with the International Labour Organisation [ILO]) includes public awareness campaigns. | No platform but an online tool to check residence permits (not compulsory).
Hungary | n.a. | No
Ireland | New legislation to improve the enforcement of employment rights. | No
Israel | Information campaigns, commercials and banners run by the Population and Immigration Authority (PIBA). | No
Italy | Unions, employers and civil society have worked together to produce publications and awareness raising in the agricultural sector. | No
Japan | Leaflets, posters, seminars, awareness and information campaigns, discussion sessions. | No platform but an online tool to check residence permits
Korea |  | Employment permit system contains information about the status of foreign workers (can be accessed by public job centres). Detected cases are reported to authorities.
Latvia | n.a. | No
Lithuania | General information provided on the websites of the Migration Department and Lithuanian labour exchange. | No
Luxembourg | Information campaigns run in the construction sector and awareness-raising drives during the regularisation programmes of 2001 and 2013. | Yes
Mexico | n.a. | No
Netherlands | Ministry of Social Affairs (SZW) operates a website and a compliance information tool. | Yes: non-mandatory self-inspection tool for employers.

New Zealand

Publishes operational instructions that set out the rules and criteria that people who want to come to New Zealand must meet to be granted a visa.

VisaView is an online system where employers can check all information relating to work permits. It keeps a history of all enquiries made by employers. It is not compulsory but can be used as evidence to refute a charge under the Immigration Act. https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us/our-online-systems/visaview

Norway | Provides websites and information services. | No, but a phone number and email address for employers wishing to check the legal status of future employees.
Poland | Publishes leaflets and runs information campaigns: https://www.pip.gov.pl/pl/f/v/128295/PracLegalnie%20Ang2%20Internet.pdf | No
Portugal | Runs radio ads. Conducted a poster campaign. Prints leaflets in five languages. | No
Slovak Republic | n.a. | No
Slovenia | Website | No
Spain | Ran campaign on combatting social security and labour fraud. | No
Sweden | Information leaflets in different languages. The Swedish work environment authority runs a website. The Swedish Municipal Workers' Union have run awareness-raising campaigns – often relating to seasonal work in agriculture, horticulture and construction. | No
Switzerland | n.a. | No
Turkey | Provides websites. Issues videos. Pints booklets and brochures in several languages. Runs seminars and workshops. | Yes: mandatory work permit application system launched in 2010: e-Government Gateway.

United Kingdom

The UK Visas and Immigration Group produces material on the prevention of illegal employment and the penalties to which employers are liable: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/employers-illegal-working-penalties.

The Home Office Immigration Enforcement Department (HOIE) launched “Operation Magnify” in 2015. It is an enforcement drive against illegal working that also supports employer compliance in high risk sectors of the economy.

Yes: https://www.gov.uk/legal-right-work-uk

United States | Information campaigns, including leaflets and webinars at https://www.ice.gov/doclib/image/pdf/image-pamphlet.pdf and https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/Employee_Rights_Webinar_Flyer_0.pdf) https://www.uscis.gov/e-verify/about-program/trademark-and-logo-usage-guidelines | Yes. E-Verify is a system that the employers use to check employee eligibility to work. It is administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and social security. Go to https://www.uscis.gov/e-verify

Note: Not applicable is denoted by “n.a.”.

Source: OECD questionnaires.

It is, however, a challenge to produce a status verification system that is fraud-proof, cost-effective and protects against false negatives (or false positives). Several OECD countries have, for instance, introduced electronic online registers and tools. They include Australia, Greece, Japan,²⁹ Korea,³⁰ Luxemburg, Netherlands,³¹ New Zealand, Turkey,³² United Kingdom and the United States (Table 4.6). Some systems are more comprehensive and user-friendly than others. Australia, New Zealand³³ and the United States, for instance, have developed good systems that provide secure free online services for checking foreign workers’ employment authorisations.

Australia’s Visa Entitlement Verification Online (VEVO) is a free, secured online³⁴ service introduced in 2004. It keeps employers and visa holders up-to-date on the work entitlements and restrictions of prospective employees. The system does not require employers to file any mandatory report for employers in the event of employment permission being denied. Indeed, regardless of the result, VEVO automatically generates a record which serves as proof that employers followed the right procedure for employing legal workers. Data on VEVO’s use suggest that the system is functioning well and that employers have steadily made greater use of it – from 1 489 122 checks in 2010-11 to 2 641 245 in 2014-15 (SOPEMI (Permanent System of Observation of International Migration), 2015[10]).

The United States’ Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also runs a free online service, E-Verify.³⁵ It allows employers to check the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States. Employers submit information (name, social security number, alien registration number, etc.) which is then cross-checked against the databases of the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the DHS. If a final non-confirmation is issued, then the employer can find the employee is not authorised to work and terminate the employee’s employment. If the employer continues to employ the employee after receiving a final non-confirmation, then the employer is subject to rebuttable presumption that it has knowingly employed an unauthorised foreign person. In 2017, there are more than 700 000 employers enrolled in E-Verify. Additionally, more than 34 million queries were run through E-Verify by employers in 2017. Although E-Verify started off slowly, it has rapidly expanded in recent years, in part because of federal, state, or local government requirements. While evaluations of the program point to some inaccuracies in status assignment and a limited ability to detect identity fraud, they also acknowledge that it has improved: according to Westat E-Verify survey, most E-verify employers believe that E-Verify is effective (92%) and 89% perceive it as highly accurate (Westat, 2014[29]).

Luxembourg and, recently, France have introduced electronic identification badge schemes in some sectors, such as construction. Finland and Norway also use ID badges to manage chain subcontracting and improve transparency in sectors like construction and cleaning. Luxembourg introduced the badge chiefly to check potential malpractices in posted work. It contains a bar code allowing the labour inspection service to access all relevant information. Concern over posted workers in Luxemburg prompted it to simplify the posting procedure and introduce the electronic transfer of all required documents through an online platform, called e-Détachement. It allows foreign businesses to submit declarations of postings through a person of reference of their choice.

Ensuring effective and adequate inspections

Aside from allotting greater resources to labour inspection agencies to enhance overall labour regulation enforcement (as part of key measures for reducing informal employment), governments should seek to identify and target risk sectors and to foster co-operation and co-ordination between enforcement agencies if they are to be more effective in curbing the illegal employment of foreign workers. Moreover, enforcing labour standards regardless of foreign workers’ labour status is critical for protecting workers from abuse and exploitation. Clearly, if foreign workers with irregular status cannot claim unpaid wages or sue their employer for unfair practices, unscrupulous employers have a greater incentive to hire them. If workers are unable to claim unpaid wages following expulsion, this is also an incentive for employers to seek to have them removed. The possibility of labour courts or other representation to pursue these cases even for expelled workers could address this risk. Of course, there is a trade-off between, on the one hand, disentangling immigration and labour inspection functions and, on the other, making more efficient use of labour inspection resources and personnel.³⁶

There is room for improving enforcement practices – for instance, through improved reporting activities and faster transmission, as outlined by the European Commission in its communication on the application of the EU Sanctions Directive (European Commission, 2014[30]) Furthermore, labour inspectors should be properly qualified and familiar with modern statistical techniques if their work is to be more efficient. Such techniques include statistical profiling, which helps identify the workers and firms most prone to informality and select the most appropriate enforcement action. Accordingly, the competent national authority should draw up a risk assessment to identify the sectors of activity most likely to employ foreign workers illegally. It should then develop a strategy, singling out the most high-risk sectors for the most inspections.

Most OECD countries do target sectors for inspection (Table 4.7), drawing on intelligence gathering, risk assessment, past inspection activities, complaints, whistleblowing, and other practices. In parallel, though, they continue to carry out random checks.³⁷

Available data on numbers of inspections carried out reveal contrasting figures from country to country.³⁸ However, data are often not fully comparable, as some countries may produce statistics on absolute numbers of inspections conducted, while others provide percentages or list targets set and the inspections carried out accordingly. Having information on the share of foreign workers identified in inspections would be particularly informative. Unfortunately such data are difficult to find and compile. All in all, figures on the numbers of inspections performed remain generally low and seem unlikely to deter employers from hiring foreign workers illegally.

Furthermore, while labour inspections gain growing importance in the fight against the illegal employment of foreign workers,³⁹ improved co-ordination and co-operation between different government agencies is also essential. Various agencies, like the police, immigration services, and labour inspectorates, are involved in enforcement and share responsibility for curbing the illegal employment of foreign workers. However, they are sometimes unsure which agency should take the lead because there is no clear mandate, prerogatives are ill-defined, and overall co-coordination inadequate (Table 4.7).

In some countries, the labour inspectorate plays a central role in co-ordinating activities in the field, while in others it works closely with other agencies, particularly in enforcement and social assistance. In Luxembourg, for example, the law establishes that the Inspectorate of Labour and Mines (ITM) is the authority tasked with inspecting businesses to check whether they employ irregular third-country nationals. The ITM conducts inspections in collaboration with the Customs and Excise Administration, focusing heavily on posted workers.

Trade unions, too, may also be involved in inspections. Slovakia and the Czech Republic, for example, delegate oversight and inspection powers for workplace health and safety to trade unions. And while there is no special focus on the illegal employment of foreign workers, elected trade union representatives do enjoy wide-ranging powers and status, which implicitly makes them competent to inspect other workplace issues, including the working conditions of foreign workers.

Table 4.7. Inspections in OECD and accession countries
| Methods and tools for targeting or identifying risk sectors | Inspection services involved | Targets on number of inspections
Australia | Intelligence led and risk-based. | Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) and Fair Work Ombudsman. | 900 sponsors for monitoring audits for 2017.
Austria | High-risk areas and changes in market behaviour. | Financial police, Viennese Regional Health insurance’s Competence Centre for Combating Wage and Social Dumping, regional social security institutions. | 27 000 for 2017. No quota per staff member but federal goal for the financial police set by the Ministry of Finance.

Belgium

Multidisciplinary approach based on high-risk sectors and data mining.

Labour inspection service: public employment service (PES), Social Laws and Well-being at Work Inspection. Social security (ONSS) and National Employment Office (ONEM) inspectors. Regional inspection services. The Social Information and Research Service (SIRS) sets strategic plans and co-ordinates all activities.

9 935 for social security fraud, 500 for fake self-employment checks, 150 front and 450 back office inspections for 2015.

Canada

High-risk sectors identified through intelligence, referrals from partners and the public, and 24/7 border watch tip line for reporting.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) conduct inspections of employers who have hired foreign workers. Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) conduct criminal investigations of immigration fraud and the illegal hiring of foreign nationals and consultants.

No

Czech Republic | Based on past experience and previous inspections detected cases and on complaints from the general public, employees and the social partners. | National and regional labour inspectorates, customs services (Ministry of Finance), immigration police. | 7 000, but actual number of inspections was 9 308. 2 290 illegal employees detected in 2016 of whom 1 530 were foreigners.
Estonia | High-risk sectors, past experience, cases detected through inspection. | Police and border guard in collaboration with the labour inspectorate and tax and customs boards. | n.a.
France | Most exposed sectors. | Police, gendarmerie, labour inspection and border control authorities, the Central Office for Illegal Labour (OCLTI). | 2 986 carried out in 2015.
Germany | Prosecution measures against all forms of undeclared work and illegal employment. Risk-based criteria, e.g. sectors that are affected by undeclared work. | All authorities involved in the fight against undeclared work: tax authorities, PES, social security inspection agencies, the police, immigration authorities and states. | Minimum targets of 275 000 employee inspections and 30 000 inspections of employers (exceeded in 2016).
Greece | Highest-risk sectors based on rate of offences determined through analysis of offence data from previous years. Repeated offending is taken into account. Inspections carried out as part of annual/monthly inspection plans or following complaints. | Led by the Hellenic Labour Inspectorate (SEPE), inspection services of social insurance funds, the police the Financial and Economic Crime Unit (SDOE) of the Ministry of Finance. | No
Hungary | Highest-risk sectors based on statistics from labour inspections in previous years. | Labour authorities in collaboration with immigration authorities. | 100 employees per labour inspector for 2016 and 2017.
Ireland | Inspectors of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) carry out regular night inspections on all business open at night. | National Employment Rights Authority (NERA). | 5 600 inspections carried out in 2014, 600 possible breaches of the law.
Israel | Inspectors receive information from the intelligence unit of the Population Immigration and Border Authority (PIBA) and form the public via hotline. | PIBA and in serious cases the police. No formal co-ordination but contacts and written reports to exchange key information. | Yes, but not public.
Italy | Considers the structural link between black economy and some illicit behaviour, e.g. “caporalato”, slave labour among agricultural workers in Southern Italy. | Social security (INPS), National Health and Safety Institute (INAIL), the police, financial police, the tax revenue office – all co-ordinated by a Commission chaired by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection. | 200 000 for 2017.
Japan | Information received on employers illegally employing foreign workers. | Police, Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The Council for Illegal Foreign Workers co-ordinates, discusses and implements the measures. | No
Korea | Labour inspection conducts targeted or random inspections on businesses which have already been sanctioned for offences like employing illegal foreign workers or violating labour laws. | Ministry of Justice leads inspections, but conducts joint labour inspections with the Ministry of Employment and the national police. | 3 000 business sites that hire foreign workers.
Latvia | Based on previous inspections, detected cases, analysis of revoked residence permits. | State Labour Inspectorate (SLI) and State Border Guard. | No
Lithuania | SLI checks based on the system of risk assessment of companies. | SLI, the Social Insurance Fund Board (SSIFB), the Financial Crime Investigation Service, the State Tax Inspectorate, the police. | 7 012 in 2016. 1 129 illegally employed workers apprehended, of whom 58 were foreign
Luxembourg | Risk analysis undertaken by the labour inspectorate (ITM) based on past experience and the number of complaints registered by help centre and call centre services. | The Police, labour inspectorate, Customs and Excise Administration and public servants from the department which delivers the authorisation of establishment. | n.a.
Mexico | Workplace inspections if many foreign workers are employed. High-risk sectors identified through information provided by statistics agencies, studies, and complaints submitted to the labour ministry. | Federal labour inspectorate and the National Institute of Migration. | 115 889 planned and 115 041 carried in 2016.
Netherlands | Wide range of sources: research reports, fact sheets, figures from the Central Statistics Office (CBS) and Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB) to identify high-risk sectors in agriculture, construction, catering, cleaning and intermediaries. | Inspectors from the Ministry of Social Affairs (SZW), the police, state border guard, and state revenue service. | From 2 500 to 3 000 inspections in 2016.
New Zealand | Complaints, information from anonymous and named informants, other agencies and colleagues. High-risk industries. | Economic intelligence unit of Immigration New Zealand working together with the Labour Inspectorate. | No
Norway | Experience and tips, warnings and information from foreign worker service centres. | Labour Inspection Authority, Tax Administration Office, Labour and Welfare Administration, Directorate of Immigration, the police, and municipalities. | No, but 60% of the joint inspections targeted the construction sector.
Poland | n.a. | Inspectors of the National Labour Inspectorate and officers of the Border Guard Service. | n.a.
Portugal | Experience-based: demand of for manual and low-skilled workers in labour-intensive sectors like agriculture, construction, hotels and restaurants. | Immigration and Borders Office (SEF) and the inspection services of the Authority for Working Conditions (ACT). | 17 000 inspections of working conditions and 17 000 health and safety inspections planned for 2017; 8 324 inspections visits and 3 714 fines levied on employers in 2016.
Slovak Republic | Data from previous inspections in trade, the services, catering and construction. | Labour inspectorates and inspectors from local labour offices and the Department of Social and Family Affairs. | 2 500 employers and 5 300 employees (of whom 190 foreigners) per year.
Slovenia | Risk analysis, random selection, reports received. | The Financial Administration, labour inspectors and the police. | 4 656 audits of illegal employment planned, 8 281 performed in 2016; 5 000 planned for 2017.
Spain | Data mining based on past experiences and cases detected by inspections. | Inspectors from the Ministry of Labour and Social Security working jointly with law enforcement bodies from the and Ministry of Interior. | Yes, per province. Targets to be achieved by the staff of each provincial inspectorate. 26 156 for 2015.
Sweden | Experience from previous inspections and risk assessments. | Migration agency inspects working conditions and work permits. The Swedish Work Environment Authority inspects working hours and occupational health safety. The police, tax authority, and social partners conduct illegal employment inspections. | No
Switzerland | High-risk sectors and activities, random checks and whistleblowing (canton level). | Authorities involved in the fight against undeclared work, social security fraud and tax evasion. | At canton level.
Turkey | n.a. | Ministry of Labour inspectorate is the agency chiefly responsible, but other agencies are also involved. | Inspections carried out by the Ministry of Labour: in 2016 2 710 detected.
United Kingdom | n.a. | Home Office Immigration Enforcement Directorate is responsible for local immigration enforcement activity via 19 immigration, compliance and enforcement (ICE) teams across the UK. Local crime and intelligence teams work closely with ICE teams. | n.a.

United States

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) uses a three-prong approach to conduct worksite enforcement: compliance, through Form I-9 inspections, civil fines and referrals for debarment; enforcement, through the arrest of employers knowingly employing undocumented workers, and the arrest of unauthorised workers for violation of laws associated with working authorisation; and outreach, through the ICE Mutual Agreement, or IMAGE programme, to instil a culture of compliance and accountability.

Department of Homeland Security's ICE.

n.a.

Note: “n.a.” indicates that the information is not available.

Source: OECD questionnaires and European Migration Network ad hoc queries, 2015.

Making employer sanctions more effective

Both workers and employers are liable to sanctions and penalties in OECD countries (Table 4.8). However, sanctioning employers, be it through fines or criminal charges, is one of the main deterrents against illegally employing foreign workers. Sanctions are designed to level the playing field by increasing the punitive cost of using illegal foreign labour and reducing the incentive to do so. How effective they are, though, depends on their severity and whether employers believe they are likely to be enforced.

Sanctions vary with the seriousness of the offence, i.e.:

How exploitative working conditions are

Whether minors are involved

The number of illegally employed foreign workers found, with sanctions increasing for every worker detected or if their number exceeds a certain threshold

Whether the employer is a repeat offender

The legal status of the employer, e.g. individual or corporate body.

Some countries require employers to pay a fine for each worker or a fixed amount. Others may also require employers to pay the costs of deportation on top of the fine.

OECD countries take different approaches to sanctioning the illegal employment of foreign workers. Even within the EU, and despite member states’ efforts to transpose the EU Sanctions Directive⁴⁰ into national legislation, wide disparities remain. For instance, in EU countries where fines increase with every worker detected,⁴¹ the minimum statutory amount per worker varies from EUR 800 in Belgium to EUR 10 001 in Spain. In others, where the law gives a general indication of the fine to be levied, but leaves the actual amount up to the courts, it can range from EUR 500 in Latvia to EUR 500 000 in Germany, according to the number of illegal workers involved (European Commission, 2014[30]; European Migration Network, 2017[31]). The huge disparity in financial sanctions shows that they may not always outweigh the benefits of illegally employing foreign workers, which raises the question of their actual enforcement.

The severity of criminal sanctions also varies considerably across OECD countries – from no more than six months of imprisonment in Latvia and the United States to seven years in France, Spain, Portugal and New Zealand, and up to 14 years in Canada. Many OECD countries couple imprisonment with a fine, while others replace it with a fine. Penalties may also apply to legal persons, with companies being wound up, being stripped of their entitlements to public benefits, made ineligible for public contracts, or having their equipment or property confiscated (European Migration Network, 2017[31])(Table 4.8).

Finally, to drive home the seriousness of the offence, the law in many OECD countries – notably the EU member states⁴² – has provisions for sanctioning all employers, irrespective of their legal relationship with the illegal workers, and all suppliers in the event of any abuse by suppliers or subcontractors. Such provisions may be particularly critical in light of the growing use of intermediaries (such as temp agencies) and in sectors, like construction, that rely heavily on subcontracting and migrant workers. Although this chapter does consider them, sanctions for assisting or abetting illegal entry or residence are in place in many OECD countries and also have an important part to play in tackling the broader issue of irregular migration.

Table 4.8. Sanctions against workers and employers in OECD and accession countries
| Sanctions against workers | Sanctions against employers (financial and criminal)
Australia | Warnings, visas cancelled, removals, detention if the worker does not leave the country, then 3-year ban. | Fines of AUD 3 240 to AUD 270 000, depending on whether the offender is a natural person or reoffender and on the seriousness of the offence. Imprisonment of 2 to 5 years.

Austria

n.a.

Fines: EUR 1 000 to EUR 50 000 per worker, depending on number of illegal workers, whether repeat offence, and seriousness of offence.

Imprisonment of 6 months to 2 years.

Banned from doing business and from public subsidies. Business license withdrawn. Worker makes compensation claim against employer.

Belgium | No administrative or penal sanctions, but warnings, removals and deportation. Employer pays costs of repatriating illegal worker. | Fines: EUR 800 to EUR 48 000, depending on the seriousness of the offence. Equipment confiscated. Company closed. Imprisonment: 6 months to 3 years

Canada

Possible removal order, deportation.

Fine of CAD 10 000 to CAD 50 000 and/or prison term of 6 months to 2 years for employing a foreign national not authorised to work.

Fines of CAD 50 000 to CAD 100 000 or prison term of 5 to 14 years for misrepresentation. Additional administrative sanctions. Banned from legal work authorisation programmes.

Czech Republic | CZK 100 000 fines may be levied. | Fines of CZK 50 000 to CZK 10 000 000 depending on number of illegal workers.
Estonia | Fines, detention. | Fines of EUR 1 200 to EUR 3 200 per worker. Equipment confiscated. Business closed. Ineligible for public contracts, etc. Imprisonment for up to 3 years.

France

Fines: up to EUR 45 000. Prison term of up to 3 years. Banned from France for 5 years.

Fines of EUR 15 000 to EUR 75 000 for a legal person, EUR 100 000 for an organisation. Illegal worker repatriation costs.

Imprisonment of up 5 to 10 years.

Banned from doing business for up to 5 years and from public contracts for up to 5 years. Equipment confiscated. Stripped of civic, civil and family rights. Ban on residence for up to 5 years.

Germany | Fine of up to EUR 5 000, residence permit revoked, imprisonment. | Fines of up to EUR 500 000. Imprisonment of 1 to 3 years and up to 5 years for abuse or human trafficking.

Greece

If illegally resident and working, Directive 2008/115/EC is applied (illegally resident third-country national [TCN] removed). If legally resident but not allowed to work, no financial penalties or sanctions .

For illegally resident workers

EUR 5 000 fine, doubled for reoffenders. Business closed. Banned from public contracts, etc. Prison term of at least 5 months.

If worker is legally resident but not allowed to work:

EUR 1 500 fine per illegal worker.

Hungary | n.a. | Fines: 2 to 4 times the minimum wage for a natural person; 4 to 8 times the minimum wage for a legal person; for reoffenders, 8 to 15 times the minimum wage.
Ireland | None | Fines of up to EUR 3 000 for summary convictions and up to EUR 250 000 on indictment. Imprisonment of up to 12 months for summary convictions and up to 10 years for convictions on indictment.
Israel | Removals and bans on re-entry. Regularisation is possible for offenders with permits but not working in permitted sectors and who have not completed 4 years of work. | Fines of ILS 1 200 to ILS 5 000 and ILS 7 500 for reoffenders and manpower or recruitment agencies. If criminal charges are filed, administrative fines are doubled up to ILS 36 500 and offenders serve up to 1 year in prison.
Italy | If legally resident but not allowed to work, offender is removed from workplace. | Fines of EUR 5 000 to EUR 15 000, depending on numbers of workers involved and the seriousness of the offence. Employer pays repatriation costs. Imprisonment of 6 months to 3 years, or 5 to 15 years if workers have been exploited. Banned from employing TCNs for 5 years. Equipment confiscated.
Japan | Prison term of 1 to 3 years with or without work, or a fine of JPY 2 to 3 million, or both. Deportation. | Fines: JPY 2 to 3 million. Imprisonment of 1 to 3 years or both (respectively if clearly found or engaged). Deportation and ban. Prohibited from employing foreign workers during 5 years if workers have been exploited. Equipment confiscated.
Korea | Up to 3 years imprisonment with work or fine not exceeding WON 20 million. Removal or ban also possible. | Fines.
Latvia | Fine of EUR 140 to EUR 700. Long-stay visa denied, residence permit and registration denied, temporary residence permit cancelled. Removal ordered. | EUR 140 to EUR 700, depending on number of irregular workers and whether they are entitled to residence although they have no work permit. EUR 210 to EUR 500 if worker is illegal resident. Prison term for exploiting workers, bans
Lithuania | None | Fines of EUR 868 to EUR 2 896 per worker. EUR 2 896 to EUR 5 792 for reoffenders. Banned from public contracts and subsidies, etc. Prison term of up to 2 years.
Luxembourg | Repatriation | Fines of EUR 2 500 to EUR 20 000 for reoffenders, high numbers of irregular workers, exploitation, and employing minors. Imprisonment of 8 days to 1 year. Banned for up to 3 years on doing business. Business closed up to 5 years or closed down.
Mexico | Offenders fined between 20 and 100 days of the minimum wage in the federal district concerned. | Fines of between 250 and 2 500 times the minimum wage.
Netherlands | None | Fines of EUR 8 000 (legal person), EUR 4 000 (public interest foundation or association), EUR 2 000 to EUR 4000 (natural person). Amount increased by 50% for reoffenders or if 3 or more workers involved.
New Zealand | None, but offenders liable for deportation. | Fines of NZD 10 000 if employer unknowingly employs illegal worker and NZD 50 000 if employer knows. Fine of NZD 100 000 or 7-year prison term, or both, for anyone who aids and abets illegal employment.
Norway | Fines or up to 6 months imprisonment. Removal and entry ban. | Fine unlimited. Imprisonment of up to 2 years, 6 months to 4 years (reoffenders), up to 6 years (organised crime) and up to 10 years (human trafficking). Confiscation of any profit from the period of illegal employment.

Poland

Fines of PLN 1 000 to PLN 5 000. Possible removal with re-entry ban.

Fines of PLN 3 000 to PLN 10 000, depending on number of irregular workers, whether employer is reoffender, and whether workers are exploited. Employer pays for repatriation costs (if repatriation connected with the work performed).

Imprisonment of up to 3 years for particularly exploitative working conditions.

Portugal | None | Fines of EUR 300 to EUR 90 000, depending on number of illegal workers. Imprisonment of 1 to 6 years. Temporary ban on doing business.
Slovak Republic | Fine of EUR 331. Deportation and ban on re-entering the Schengen area if offence is serious. | Fines of EUR 2 000 to EUR 200 000, depending on number of irregular workers. License revoked. Banned from tenders for public contracts for 3 years.
Slovenia | Fines of EUR 500 to EUR 2 500. | Fines of EUR 5 000 to EUR 26 000.
Spain | None | Fines of EUR 10 001 to EUR 100 000 per irregular worker. Imprisonment of 3 to 18 months (general rule), and from 6 months to 6 years in aggravated circumstances (e.g. high number of workers, abuse). Risk of closure.
Sweden | Deportation of offenders who have been ordered to leave. Otherwise, the Police will seek to clarify the case with the help of the Swedish Migration authorities. Illegally employed TCN have rights however vis a vis their employers. | Fines of up to SEK 44 800. Imprisonment of up to 1 year. Ineligibility for public contracts. Business license withdrawn.
Switzerland | Monetary penalty or custodial sentence up to 1 year (maximum 180 daily penalty units at maximum CHF 3 000 per day, according to culpability, personal and economic situation of the offender). | Monetary penalty defined by Penal code (maximum 180 daily penalty units at maximum CHF 3 000 per day, according to culpability, personal and economic situation of the offender) or custodial sentence up to 3 years.
Turkey | Fines and deportation. | Fines of TRY 415 up TRY 6 229, depending on seriousness of offence and whether employer is reoffender.
United Kingdom | Fines of up to GBP 5 000 in magistrates’ and sheriff courts. Unlimited fines in Crown Court for more serious offences. Imprisonment of up to 3 months in Scotland and Northern Ireland and up to 6 months in England and Wales. | Fines are up to GBP 10 000, but unlimited if an employer knowingly employs an illegal worker. Imprisonment of up to 5 years.
United States | Fines of between USD 110 and USD 1 100. | Fines of USD 275 to USD 2 200 per illegal foreign worker for a first offence, USD 3 200 to USD 6 500 for a second offence, between USD 4 300 to USD 16 000 USD for a third or subsequent offence. Imprisonment: up to 6 months.
Note: “n.a.” indicates that the information is not available.
Source: OECD questionnaires and European Migration Network ad hoc queries, 2015.

Conclusions

This chapter has sought to shed some light on the illegal employment of foreign workers in OECD countries, looking closely at the various forms of illegality and irregularity that it entails. The chapter has, in particular, tried to show how the illegal employment of foreign workers relates to informal employment. It finds that, while they are clearly linked, it is important to distinguish illegal employment of foreign workers from informal employment as illegal employment may also exist in formal employment while informal employment may not necessarily involve foreign workers.

Furthermore, tracking the illegal employment of foreign workers over time helps to understand the histories and trajectories of foreign workers, and how they slip in and out of legal status and whether it is because of their residence or work permits. The time dimension reveals how very varied the illegal employment of foreign workers is, both in the different forms it takes and the seriousness of offences.

While all these findings are essential for policy design and monitoring, the scarcity of reliable, detailed data on the illegal employment of foreign workers generally precludes the distinction between illegal and informal employment of foreign workers. Governments clearly need to make an effort on the statistics front. Disentangling the different categories of illegally employed foreign workers, as this chapter has unpacked them, could yield important findings with regard to individual profiles and sectors of activity. More importantly, it would deliver insights into their employment conditions and integration, as do the annual surveys carried out by ISMU in Lombardy. Generally speaking, drawing the distinction between illegal and informal would also allow better-targeted policy and more effective policy action.

Addressing the illegal employment of foreign workers is both an economic and migration policy objective. Governments should therefore address it with a broad set of labour market and migration policy tools. And, in order to foster a strategic, integrated approach, they should use policy tools in mutually reinforcing ways. In light of limited resources, they should particularly seek to improve co-ordination and coherence between enforcement authorities.

OECD countries should also take awareness-raising action and use improved status verification systems as part of measures to prevent the illegal employment of migrant labour. Improved regulation design, too, would be a key element in better compliance and enforcement.

However, when the illegal employment of foreign workers becomes a highly prominent issue or is deemed structural, regularisation programmes may emerge as an unavoidable solution. They need to be designed carefully and, in order to address the root causes of the problem, accompanied by appropriate changes in legal labour migration channels and stronger enforcement measures.

Finally, policy action to fight the illegal employment of foreign workers should be conducted not only at national and sector levels (there is strong sector-related dimension to the issue), but internationally, too. Governments should particularly seek to promote international co-operation as an essential part of action to address the issues of forged papers and the prevention of unfair competition.

References

[25] Ambrosini, M. (2013), Irregular Migration and Invisible Welfare, Palgrave Macmillan UK, London, http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781137314321.

[34] Angelucci, M. (2012), “US Border Enforcement and the Net Flow of Mexican Illegal Migration”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 60/2, pp. 311-357, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/662575.

[43] Chiswick, B. (1984), “Illegal aliens in the United States labor market: Analysis of occupational attainment and earnings”, International Migration Review, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2545894, pp. 714-732.

[24] Clemens, M. and K. Gough (2018), Can Regular Migration Channels Reduce Irregular Migration? Lessons for Europe from the United States | Center For Global Development, https://www.cgdev.org/publication/can-regular-migration-channels-reduce-irregular-migration-lessons-europe-united-states.

[44] De Haas, H. (2011), “The determinants of international migration: Conceptualising policy, origin and destination effects”, IMI/DEMIG Working Paper , Vol. No.32, https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=De+Haas%2C+H.+%282011%29%2C+%E2%80%9CThe+Determinants+of+International+Migration+%E2%80%93+Conceptualizing+Policy%2C+Origin+and+Destination+Effects%E2%80%9D%2C+Working+Paper+32%2C+International+Migrat.

[20] Djankov, S., I. Lieberman and J. Mukherjee (2003), “Going informal: Benefits and costs”, Citeseer, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.467.6893&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=49 (accessed on 03 May 2018).

[27] European Commission (2017), Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions on the Delivery of the European Agenda on Migration, http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2017/EN/COM-2017-558-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF.

[30] European Commission (2014), Communication from the commission to the European parliament and the council on the application of Directive 2009/52/EC of 18 June 2009 providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third country nationals - EU Law and Publications, https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/0586d310-e197-11e3-8cd4-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.

[31] European Migration Network (2017), Illegal employment of third-country nationals in the European Union, European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network_en.

[36] Fellini, I., A. Ferro and G. Fullin (2007), “Recruitment processes and labour mobility: the construction industry in Europe”, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 21/2, pp. 277-298, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0950017007076635.

[37] Forde, C., R. MacKenzie and A. Robinson (2009), “Built on Shifting Sands: Changes in Employers’ Use of Contingent Labour in the UK Construction Sector”, Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 51/5, pp. 653-667, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022185609346182.

[16] Guriev, S., B. Speciale and M. Tuccio (2016), “How do regulated and unregulated labor markets respond to shocks? Evidence from immigrants during the Great Recession”, CEPR Discussion Papers, Centre for Economic Policy Research 11403, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2814078.

[45] Hussmanns, R. (2004), “Measuring the informal economy: From employment in the informal sector to informal employment”, No. 53, Policy Integration Department, Bureau of Statistics, International Labour Office, http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---integration/documents/publication/wcms_079142.pdf.

[46] International Labour Office (2002), Resolution concerning decent work and the informal economy, http://www.cpahq.org/cpahq/cpadocs/ILO%20Informal%20Economy.pdf.

[32] Kovacheva, V. and D. Vogel (2009), The size of the irregular foreign resident population in the European Union in 2002, 2005 and 2008: aggregated estimates.

[7] Krings, T. et al. (2011), “From boom to bust: Migrant labour and employers in the Irish construction sector”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 32/3, pp. 459-476, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143831X10387651.

[6] Martin, P. (2016), Migrant Workers in Commercial Agriculture, International Labour Office, Geneva, http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---migrant/documents/publication/wcms_538710.pdf.

[13] OECD (2017), Le recrutement des travailleurs immigrés: France, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264276741-fr.

[38] OECD (2016), OECD Reviews of Labour Market and Social Policies: Colombia 2016, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264244825-en.

[1] OECD (2015), “Can we put an end to human smuggling?”, Migration Policy Debates, Vol. No.9, https://www.oecd.org/migration/Can%20we%20put%20an%20end%20to%20human%20smuggling.pdf.

[22] OECD (2014), OECD Employment Outlook 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/empl_outlook-2014-en.

[23] OECD (2009), International Migration Outlook 2009, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/migr_outlook-2009-en.

[19] OECD (2008), International Migration Outlook 2008, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/migr_outlook-2008-en.

[18] OECD (2004), OECD Employment Outlook 2004, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/empl_outlook-2004-en.

[3] OECD (2000), Combating the Illegal Employment of Foreign Workers, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264182394-en.

[17] ORIM (2017), L'immigrazione Straniera in Lombardia, Éupolis Lombardia, Milan, http://www.ismu.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/RapportoORIM2016.pdf.

[47] Pallini, M. and R. Pedersini (2016), Exploring the fraudulent contracting of work in the European Union, Publications Office, Luxembourg, https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2016/industrial-relations-law-and-regulation/exploring-the-fraudulent-contracting-of-work-in-the-european-union.

[14] Passel, J., E. (2016), “Unauthorised immigrant workers in the U.S., 2014”, OECD, Paris.

[11] Pew Research Center (2016), Estimates of irregular migrant populations in selected OECD countries.

[15] Pew Research Center (2014), Unauthorised Immigrant Workers in the U.S., estimates based on 2014 augmented American Community Survey (IPUMS).

[12] Pew Research Center (2006), Modes of Entry for the Unauthorized Migrant Population, Pew Research Center: Hispanic Trends, http://www.pewhispanic.org/2006/05/22/modes-of-entry-for-the-unauthorized-migrant-population/ (accessed on 03 May 2018).

[2] Reyneri, E. (2003), “Illegal immigration and the underground economy”, National Europe Centre Paper 68, https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/41778.

[39] Reyneri, E. (1998), “The Mass Legalization of Migrants in Italy: Permanent or Temporary Emergence from the Underground Economy?”, South European Society and Politics, Vol. 3/3, pp. 83-104, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13608740308539548.

[35] Rivera-Batiz, F. (1999), “Undocumented workers in the labor market: An analysis of the earnings of legal and illegal Mexican immigrants in the United States”, Journal of Population Economics, Vol. 12/1, pp. 91-116, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001480050092.

[28] Rosenblum, M. (2010), “Immigrant Legalization in the United States and European Union: Policy Goals and program design”, Migration Policy Brief, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/legalization-policydesign.pdf.

[40] Sarris, A. and S. Zografakis (1999), “A computable general equilibrium assessment of the impact of illegal immigration on the Greek economy”, Journal of Population Economics, Vol. 12/1, pp. 155-182, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001480050095.

[21] Schneider, F. (2013), “The Shadow Economy in Europe, 2013”, http://www.atkearney.fr/documents/10192/1743816/The+Shadow+Economy+in+Europe+2013.pdf (accessed on 03 May 2018).

[10] SOPEMI (Permanent System of Observation of International Migration) (2015), New Zealand National Report, Unpublished.

[4] Sumption, M. (2011), Policies to Curb Unauthorized Employment, Migration Policy Institute, Washington, http://www.qqq-zzz.com/system/files/MPI_Policies_to_Curb_Unauthorized_Employment.pdf.

[42] Swiss Federal Migration Office, S. (2015), Sans-papiers en Suisse: étude 2015.

[8] Tranæs, T. and B. Jensen (2014), Illegal immigration to Europe - and to Denmark. Causes, extent and significance., The Rockwool Foundation Research unit and Gyldenhal, Copenhagen.

[5] Triandafyllidou, A. (2013), “Irregular Migrant Domestic Workers in Europe: Who Cares?”, Research in Migration and Ethnic Relations Series, https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Triandafyllidou%2C+A.+%282013%29%2C+Irregular+Migrant+Domestic+Workers+in+Europe.+Who+Cares%3F%2C+Research+in+Migration+and+Ethnic+Relations+Series%2C+Ashgate+Publishing+Ltd.+&btnG=.

[33] Triandafyllidou, A. and L. Bartolini (2016), Irregular Employment of Migrant Workers in Europe.

[26] Triandafyllidou, A. and S. Marchetti (2013), “Migrant Domestic and Care Workers in Europe: New Patterns of Circulation?”, Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, Vol. 11/4, pp. 339-346, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15562948.2013.822750.

[9] Van Der Heijden, P. et al. (2006), Een schatting van het aantal in Nederland verblijvende illegale vreemdelingen in 2005, https://repository.tudelft.nl/view/wodc/uuid:488f6330-030b-4126-accd-1003ec991f9c/.

[41] Van Hooren, F. (2012), “Varieties of migrant care work: Comparing patterns of migrant labour in social care”, Journal of European Social Policy, Vol. 22/2, pp. 133-147, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0958928711433654.

[29] Westat (2014), Findings of the e-verify User Survey, Westat, Rockville.

Annex 4.A.

Supplementary tables and figures

Annex Table 4.1. Employment of foreign worker by residence status and work authorisation
Residence permit | Residence status | Known/registered by authorities | Work permit | Illegal employment of foreign worker
Permanent, long-term residence permit | Regular situation/legally staying | Yes, documented | Yes | No: legal (yet does not prevent undeclared or black market work)
Residence permit related to work, family reunion, study, seasonal work, etc. | Regular situation/legally staying | Yes, documented | Yes, some permits restrict working hours (e.g. study, part-time work visas) | No: legal (yet does not prevent undeclared /black work)
Refugee/ humanitarian protection residence permit | Regular situation/legally staying | Yes, documented | Yes | No: legal (yet does not prevent undeclared or black market work)
No visa required or tourist visa |  | Yes | No | Yes

Pending procedure

- for renewals

- for regularisation

- for refugee status

Pending procedure

Yes, documented/depends on outcome of application

Yes / depends on outcome of application

Unclear: semi-legal /legal/illegal (as workers usually keep working during waiting period)

Forged permit or identity papers | Irregular situation/illegally resident | No | Formally yes: until detected, might work and live as legally resident workers | Yes
n.a: visa overstayers | Irregular situation/illegally staying | No | No | Yes
n.a: Permit conditions no longer met: lost status; expired documents; no renewal because end of period of study, end of family permit for over-18s, end of seasonal permit | Irregular situation/illegally staying | No | No | Yes
n.a. | Irregular situation/illegally staying | No status: rejected asylum application | No | Yes
n.a. | Irregular situation/illegally staying | No status: never had one because illegal entry | No | Yes
n.a. | Irregular situation/illegally staying (transit) | No status | No | Yes
n.a. | Irregular situation/illegally staying but tolerated (removal or deportation suspended, hence known and tolerated | Registered as detected | No | Yes
Source: Compiled from OECD (2000[3]), Kovacheva and Vogel (2009[32]), and Triandafyllidou and Bartolini (2016[33]).

Annex Figure 4.1. Estimated number of unauthorised immigrants in the US labour force, 1995-2014

Source: Pew Research Center (2016[11]).

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752030

Annex Table 4.2. To what degree are foreign workers integrated into Italian society? 2015
Estimated characteristics of the foreign nationals found to be illegally present, percentages
| Regular-Formal | Regular-Informal | Irregular-Formal | Irregular-Informal
"The friends you are currently meeting during your spare time are…"
Mostly Italians | 10.5 | 5.0 | 6.2 | 1.8
Mostly compatriots | 41.1 | 52.6 | 62.5 | 52.5
Mostly other | 10.7 | 16.4 | 19.7 | 22.9
Equal | 37.7 | 26.0 | 11.6 | 22.9
"Your neighbours are…"
Mostly Italians | 50.9 | 37.2 | 41.9 | 34.4
Equal | 37.7 | 39.2 | 37.8 | 22.0
Mostly foreigners | 11.4 | 23.6 | 20.3 | 43.5
"How would you define yourself?"
Italian | 4.1 | 3.2 | 0.5 | 0.5
Italian/[origin nationality] | 28.9 | 12.1 | 21.8 | 6.4
Origin nationality | 52.6 | 71.5 | 67.2 | 73.3
World citizen | 11.5 | 10.4 | 7.4 | 12.8
Don't know | 3.0 | 2.8 | 3.1 | 7.0
"Do you think you have the same job opportunities as Italians in the same cohort?"
Yes, anyway | 28 | 18 | 25 | 3
Yes, but with efforts | 34 | 25 | 15 | 3
No | 38 | 58 | 60 | 95
"Select the type of housing you are living in"
Owned | 25.8 | 10.3 | 1.9 | 3.4
Rented | 63.5 | 69.8 | 72.2 | 73.7
Hosted | 2.3 | 10.3 | 4.0 | 13.8
Shelters | 0.3 | 2.2 | 0.8 | 0.1
Others | 8.1 | 7.3 | 21.1 | 9.1
"On a 1 to 5 scale, how well do you understand Italian?"
1 (not at all) | 0.7 | 3.7 | 3.0 | 0.3
2 | 3.8 | 6.4 | 7.6 | 20.9
3 | 17.2 | 28.7 | 29.3 | 36.5
4 | 35.1 | 35.0 | 47.7 | 34.4
5 (very well) | 43.3 | 26.3 | 12.4 | 8.0
Source: OECD Secretariat based on ORIM (2017[17]).
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752049

Notes

 1.  The complexity is due to the multiplicity of new forms of work and contracts (i.e. the development of posted workers, dependent self-employed workers, or other non-regular employment, etc.) which may also allow or facilitate abuses or even generate fraudulent behavior (Pallini and Pedersini, 2016[47])

 2.  This latter group includes asylum seekers whose application is in process, migrants in irregular situations who cannot be returned to their countries of origin, people with some sort of temporary, tolerated or indeterminate status, etc.

 3.  For a comprehensive survey of informal employment, see Chapter 5 of the OECD Employment Outlook (2004[18]). Informal employment entails employment in household production for own use (unpaid work, family workers), wholly undeclared or under-declared work (among dependent employment) and/or black market work and pure tax evasion (among the self-employed). (International Labour Office, 2002[46]; Hussmanns, 2004[45]).

 4.  In the United States, for example, it was estimated that more than 75% of unauthorised migrants were actually declared by their employers under fictitious or borrowed social security numbers in 2005 (OECD, 2009[23]). A similar situation can be found in France, where anecdotal evidence refers to cases of undocumented foreign workers with a work contract, who receive the minimum wage, pay taxes and contributions, and could go to the labour court over unfair treatment or dismissal.

 5.  The Employers’ Sanctions Directive 2009/52/EC defines illegal employment as the employment of an illegally staying third-country national (i.e. any person who is not a citizen of the Union and does not enjoy the Community right of free movement, as defined in Article 2(5) of the Schengen Borders Code). “Illegally staying” means present on the territory of a member state, but not or no longer fulfilling the conditions for stay or residence in that member state.

 6.  The definition is close to the concept of “unlawful workers” in New Zealand, “unauthorised workers” in the United-States, and “undocumented workers” used in the literature.

 7.  Van Hooren (2012[41]) found, for instance, that the Italian family care regimes which provide cash allowances to families without checking how they spend the funds provides are incentives for a “migrant in the family” model of care workers.

 8.  Sarris and Zografakis (1999[40]) show that in two-thirds of cases in Greece, immigrants take up jobs that natives reject, but immigrants also contribute to the creation of new jobs (or help maintain existing ones) as their work makes some small and medium enterprises economically viable, revitalises the economy and, by depressing low-skilled worker wages, it increases skilled wages comparatively. Reyneri (1998[39]) points to similar dynamics in the Italian economy and labour market.

 9.  In Germany, posted worker arrangements and the massive arrival of foreign workers in the construction sector already took place in the mid- to late-1990s despite trade union protest (Fellini, Ferro and Fullin, 2007[36]). The practices of subcontracting and bogus self-employment have been rife in the sector (Forde, MacKenzie and Robinson, 2009[37]; Krings et al., 2011[7]).

 10.  Former studies have often examined non-random samples of migrants in irregular situations, such as detainees in US prisons or Mexican return migrants (Angelucci, 2012[34]; Rivera-Batiz, 1999[35]; Chiswick, 1984[43]). Understanding of the phenomenon, however, is still heavily constrained by lack of data.

 11.  Several surveys on undocumented migrants find that migrants in irregular situations have an employment rate of around 90%, of whom 70% are single men (e.g. Migrant Rights Centre Ireland [2014]; Swiss Federal Migration Office (2015[42])).

 12.  The figure comes from Pew Research Center estimates based on augmented American Community Survey data (IPUMS). The center produces its unauthorised immigrant estimates using a multistage method that first subtracts the estimated lawful foreign-born population in the United States from the total adjusted foreign-born population in order to derive a residual estimate of the unauthorised immigrant population. The residual estimates serve then as control totals in assigning legal status to individual respondents in the survey. The main source of data for 2005-2014 is the American Community Survey, conducted by the US Census Bureau. (For further detail, see the methodology annex in Passel, J. (2016[14]).

 13.  CLANDESTINO project, 2009.

 14.  From 53 900 in 2010 to 62 000 in 2015 in Australia.

 15.  From 183 106 in 2013 to 208 797 in 2014, and back to 214 168 in 2015.

 16.  Estimated at 95 000 in 2010, 90 000 in 2013 and 91 000 in 2014 in Israel.

 17.  The number of overstayers even halved in New Zealand between 2000 and 2016. As for Japan, it fell between 2010 and 2014 and was about 60 000 in 2015.

 18.  Even though increased border security and criminalisation will hardly stop migration (De Haas, 2011[44]). Major steps taken by EU Member States include: tightening up borders, extending the mandate of Frontex and EASO, enforcing the EURODAC system for the co-ordinated collection of fingerprints of all asylum seekers, discussing the possibility of suspending the Schengen Agreement (1985), and discussing amendments to the recently updated Dublin Regulation (1990, 2003 and 2013).

 19.  The dramatic increase in the number of apprehensions of third-country nationals “found to be illegally present” in Greece between 2014 and 2015 typically illustrates this and is the result of the refugee surge in 2015, which was reduced after the EU-Turkey Statement of 20 March 2016.

 20.  Informal employment covers: i) employees with contracts but with under-declared social contributions; ii) self-employed workers who do not pay social contributions or whose business is not registered; iii) employees with no contract at all.

 21.  In the case of Italy it is not possible to estimate the magnitude of Profiles [3] and [4], given that most of the permits and visas the country delivers authorise work – the case of residence permits for family reasons, humanitarian and social protection permits, and residence permits for study.

 22.  This short ad hoc query was sent to the OECD Working Party on Migration and collected information available in December 2016. It includes three sections: i) preventive measures in place (excluding legislation); ii) compliance and enforcement measures (by employers and inspections); iii) penalties and sanctions applicable to employers, intermediaries and workers.

 23.  Concerns about insufficient resources and inspection staff are common to all OECD countries, even if the situation varies dramatically from country to country – from 4 000 workers per labour inspector in Greece to 65 000 in the United States in 2014 (OECD, 2016[38]).

 24.  In particular, wide statutory disparities in hiring and firing rules that govern, on one hand, permanent contracts and, on the other, temporary, casual and seasonal ones.

 25.  There is a particular concern with workers who overstay temporary labour programmes with limited job mobility.

 26.  The United Kingdom’s Sector Based Scheme for food-processing workers, which ran until 2013, is one example. Israel and Canada have schemes for the care sector. Many OECD countries have seasonal programmes for agriculture.

 27.  In many countries, in fact, there is no queue as the prospects of entry are either non-existent or very limited. Many migrants in irregular situations arrive legally as tourists and overstay once they have found a job.

 28.  For instance, ILO conventions on labour administration and inspection (ILC 81, ILC 129), on migrant workers (ILC 97 and ILC 143) and on domestic workers (ILC 189). Other relevant EU directives include those that relate to the conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals for purposes of employment and the employment of posted workers.

 29.  In Greece and Japan, there is no online platform, only tools to check the validity of the residence permit presented by the foreigner.

 30.  Accessible to public job centres only, not employers.

 31.  In the Netherlands, employers can use a self-inspection tool to verify if they comply with rules on work permits and other requirements.

 32.  In Turkey, employers can apply for work permits for their employees. During application, the e-Government Gateway system can check eligibility for work permits.

 33.  In New-Zealand, VisaView allows employers to check whether a person has the appropriate visa to work for them, the expiry date of any work entitlement, and whether any conditions attach to their work entitlement. The system builds a history of all enquiries made by each employer. VisaView is not compulsory, but employers who use it can refute charges of unlawful employment under the Immigration Act. The system does not set out what action an employer must take if they discover that a potential employee is not entitled to work for them, other than not employing them.

 34.  VEVO can also be accessed by downloading a free mobile application, allowing the visa holder to email his/her current visa conditions directly to an employer as proof that he/she is allowed to work in Australia.

 35.  Created in 1997 and authorised by the Irregular Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

 36.  This means that labour inspectors could also check workers’ migrant status, but doing so risks undermining their relationship with workers.

 37.  Indeed, continuing to conduct a small number of random inspections may keep employers on their toes and have a strong effect on compliance.

 38.  In the EU, for instance, it varies from less than 1% of all employers in all the sectors inspected in Poland and Sweden to about 17% in Austria, the Czech Republic and Italy, and up to 29% in Slovenia in 2012, according to the European Commission (op. cit.).

 39.  Notably in EU countries, backed by Article 14 of the EU Sanctions Directive.

 40.  Particularly, Article 5 of the Directive (which provides that sanctions for illegal employment shall include financial sanctions, with the amount rising proportionately to the number of illegally resident third-country nationals employed), and Articles 9 and 10 (which provides criminal sanctions for particularly serious cases of illegal employment).

 41.  Sixteen OECD member states, of which the European ones are Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Greece, France, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Sweden, Spain and Slovenia.

 42.  As required by Articles 8 and 9(2) and 11 of the EU Sanction Directive.

Chapter 5.

Country notes: Recent changes in migration movements and policies

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

Sources and notes of the country tables

Migration flows of foreigners

OECD countries and Russia: sources and notes are available in the Statistical Annex (metadata related to Tables A.1. and B.1.).

Bulgaria: Number of new permanent and long-term residence permits granted (Source: Ministry of the Interior); Lithuania: Arrivals and departures of residents (Source: Department of Statistics of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania); Romania: Changes in permanent residence (Source: Romanian Statistical Yearbook).

Long-term migration inflows of foreigners by type (standardised inflows)

The statistics are based largely on residence and work permit data and have been standardised, to the extent possible.

Temporary migration

Based on residence or work permit data. Data on temporary workers generally do not cover workers who benefit from a free circulation agreement. Students exclude secondary education and vocational training.

Inflows of asylum seekers

United Nations High Commission for Refugees (www.unhcr.org/statistics).

Components of population growth

European countries: Population change - Demographic balance and crude rates at national level (Eurostat); other countries: national sources.

Total population

Foreign-born population

National sources and Secretariat estimates. Exact sources and notes for OECD countries and Russia are given in the Statistical Annex (see metadata for Tables A.4. and B.4.).

Foreign population

National sources. Exact sources and notes for OECD countries and Russia are given in the Statistical Annex (metadata related to Tables A.5. and B.5.).

Bulgaria: Eurostat; Lithuania: Residents’ Register Service (Ministry of the Interior); Romania: Ministry of the Interior.

Naturalisations

National sources. Exact sources and notes for OECD countries and Russia are given in the Statistical Annex (metadata related to Tables A.6. and B.6.). Bulgaria, Lithuania: Ministry of the Interior; Romania: Ministry of Justice.

Labour market outcomes

European countries and Turkey: Labour Force Surveys (Eurostat); Australia, Canada, Israel, New Zealand: Labour Force Surveys; Chile: Encuesta de Caracterización Socioeconómica Nacional (CASEN); Mexico: Encuesta Nacional de Ocupación y Empleo (ENOE); United States: Current Population Surveys.

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Canada

Chile

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russian Federation

Slovak Republic

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom

United States

Australia

In 2016/17, immigration through the permanent migration programme outcome decreased by 3% to 183 600 visas. The composition of the total permanent migration programme echoes the patterns of the last five years. Most of the places available in 2016-17 were in the Skill stream (67%), with around 31% in the Family stream. 3 400 Child visas (2%) were issued and the remaining 420 visas (0.2%) were granted under the Special Eligibility stream.

The Skill stream decreased its share of the Migration Programme by 4%, from 128 600 places in 2015-16 to 123 600 in 2016-17. Points Tested Skilled Migration and Employer Sponsored visas accounted for 55% and 39%, respectively. The Business Innovation and Investment Programme accounted for the remaining 6%, with a small number of visas (200) granted under Distinguished Talent. The Family stream was mostly formed by the Partner – spouse or fiancé – category (85%), with the Parent category at 13%. The Other Family category, including carers; remaining, aged, dependent and orphan relatives, accounted for the remaining 830 visas.

The main origin countries for the Migration Programme were India (21%, 38 400 places), China (15%, 27 800) and the United Kingdom (9%, 16 900). Overall, Southern Asia, including India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh among others, provided almost a third of the total.

In contrast to permanent migration trends, temporary migration increased by 9% in 2016-17, up to 8.4 million visas. Of these, almost two thirds went to people granted Visitor status, an additional 23% to New Zealand citizens granted a Special Category visa. The Working Holiday Maker Programme accounted for just over 211 000 visas, with the United Kingdom, Germany, Korea and France being the main origin countries. Temporary Work Skilled visas (subclass 457) also increased by 2% in 2016-17. One-quarter were granted to nationals of India, followed by the United Kingdom (16%) and China (6%).

Over the last decade, student migration has been rising reaching a record of 343 000 Student visas granted in 2016-17, 10% more than in the previous year. The main source countries remained China (23%), India (10%) and Brazil (6%). Students from OECD countries comprised only 21%. Nepal (up 74%), Brazil and Columbia saw the greatest annual growth.

The Humanitarian Programme visas rose by 25% in 2016-17 to almost 22 000. This included 20 300 visas under the offshore resettlement component and 1 700 under the onshore component. The five main countries of origin for offshore visas were Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Bhutan. Most of these visas have been granted to young people, with 58% under 30 years old and 32% under 14 years.

Throughout 2017, Australia has implemented a number of reforms of the temporary and permanent employer-sponsored skill migration programmes. The Temporary Work (Skilled) visa (subclass 457) has been abolished and replaced with the Temporary Skill Shortage (TSS) visa. The TSS visa comprises a short-term stream (valid for up to two years) and a medium-term (valid for up to four years for more critical skills shortages). TSS introduces several policy innovations, such as increased English requirements, a two years’ minimum relevant work experience, a more targeted occupation list (updated biannually), mandatory labour market testing, and an employer requirement to contribute to the Skilling Australians Fund.

Permanent Employer Sponsored visa requirements have been tightened. Applicants must now be under the age of 45 at the time of application and have at least three years of experience. Applicants must pay a contribution to the Skilling Australians Fund, and their employers must pay the market salary rate and meet the Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold (TSMIT).

The Working and Holiday visa (subclass 462) was also reviewed. Changes to this visa allow staying with one employer for up to 12 months, as long as the second semester is worked in a different region. The maximum eligible age is planned to increase from 30 to 35 years. Since the beginning of 2017, four new Work and Holiday visa arrangements started with Hungary, Luxembourg, San Marino and Viet Nam.

The Community Proposal Pilot was replaced by the Community Support Programme, which was introduced in July 2017. The programme enables communities, businesses and individuals to propose humanitarian visa applicants with employment prospects and to support new arrivals. Supporters need to demonstrate their ability to provide adequate funding to enable refugees to achieve financial self-sufficiency within the first year in Australia. Up to 1 000 places for the Community Support Programme are included in the 2017-18 Humanitarian Programme target of 16 250 places. Another government settlement programme is the Career Pathways Pilot, a three-year project to assist newly arrived humanitarian migrants to get a similar profession to the one they had in their origin countries. Pilot participants must be within the first five years of settlement, with professional or trade skills and a good English proficiency.

For further information

www.homeaffairs.gov.au

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: AUSTRALIA

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752277

Austria

In 2016, Statistics Austria recorded 174 300 persons moving to Austria and 109 600 leaving, resulting in a net immigration inflow of 64 700. This is almost 50 000 persons fewer than in 2015, when the net inflow was 113 100. Among Austrian nationals, outflows exceeded inflows by 5 000 individuals. Almost 60% of new arrivals were Austrian, EU, or EFTA citizens (9% returning Austrian citizens and 49% EU or EFTA citizens) and over 40% of all immigrants came from third countries. The main countries of origin were Afghanistan (7%), Syria (5%), and Iran (3%), as well as countries of the former Yugoslavia (8%). Total inflows were equivalent to 1.9% of the resident population. In January 2017, the stock of foreign nationals was 1.3 million, 15.3% of the total population and an increase of 5.9% compared to January 2016. The largest groups residing in Austria were Germans (181 600), Serbians (118 500), Turks (116 800), and nationals of Bosnia-Herzegovina (94 600).

In 2016, 25 600 new residence permits were issued to third country nationals, 8.8% fewer than in the previous year. Around 22.5% were issued to third country family members of non-EU immigrants on the basis of a quota and the remaining 77.5% were either family members of Austrian or EEA citizens, holders of Red-White-Red Cards, graduates of Austrian universities or humanitarian migrants. Roughly 8 300 temporary permits were issued, principally to students and their family members (60%), followed by special cases of temporary salaried employees and their family members (19%). In 2016, 31 500 employment permits were granted, 1 700 more than in 2015.

Between 2015 and 2016, the number of asylum applications decreased by about 50% to 42 300 but remained above the average of the previous five years (33 100). The majority of applicants continue to come from Afghanistan (11 800) and Syria (8 800). Compared to 2015, asylum applications from Nigerians, Moroccans and Algerians increased whereas those from many other countries of origin decreased.

Unaccompanied minors accounted for 9% of all asylum applications in 2016 (3 900 persons); approximately the same percentage as in 2015 but 319% more than in 2014. The majority came from Afghanistan, followed by Pakistan and Somalia. The age of compulsory education was raised to 18 years by a law introduced in 2016 for children without proof of minimum education, which particularly affects refugee children, many of whom do not have such proof.

In 2016, 5 900 persons returned voluntarily to their home countries. Among these, 4 800 were supported by the International Organization for Migration (IOM). In 2015, 4 100 people returned voluntarily to their home countries with the help of the IOM. To support this, Austria started participating in the European Reintegration Network (ERIN) as well as IOM’s RESTART II reintegration programme and IRMA Plus which is organised by Caritas Austria.

In 2016, the Austrian Federal Ministry of the Interior established a co-ordination unit for strategic migration policy planning and a permanent migration commission. To improve the recognition of skills and qualifications acquired abroad, a 2016 law established service institutions that assess and testify their Austrian equivalence as well as advice centres that provide information on recognition and assessment procedures. The law also provides procedures for recognised refugees and persons with subsidiary protection status who are not able to present their documents as a result of their departure from their country of origin.

In 2017, changes were made to the Red-White-Red Card immigration system. Changes make the card accessible for Bachelor and PhD graduates from Austrian universities via a special procedure and extended job search periods. A new category for founders of business start-ups was introduced. Red-White-Red Cards are now valid for two years (previously one year). Changes were also introduced in 2017 concerning students (increased working hours for all students to up to 20 hours per week), intra-company transfers and posted workers to combat wage and social dumping. Employers of posted workers are obliged to apply Austrian Labour Law and ensure equal treatment relative to Austrian workers.

In the summer of 2017, two new integration laws came into effect as part of a larger effort to promote integration. The Integration Act requires refugees and persons with subsidiary protection status to sign an “integration statement” and to participate in integration courses. Courses cover basics of democratic values, regulations and language training. Failure to complete these courses can lead to sanctions, such as reduced income support. The Integration Act also focuses on active labour market policies and provides that unemployed refugees and person with subsidiary status participate in qualification measures to support an effective labour market integration.

For further information

www.migration.gv.at

www.bmeia.gv.at/en/

www.bmi.gv.at/

www.sozialministerium.at

http://statistik.gv.at

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: AUSTRIA

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752296

Belgium

In 2016, Belgium received 106 000 immigrants (who intended to stay at least one year), 18% fewer than in 2015. Net migration of foreigners, including asylum seekers was 44 000 persons, 30% lower than in 2015. Net migration of Belgian citizens remained negative at -13 000 in 2016 (2015: -12 000). Overall, net migration contributed to three quarters of population increase.

59 000 EU nationals (Belgians excluded) moved to Belgium in 2016, 5% fewer than the previous year. EU nationals comprised half of the immigration, compared with most of immigration in 2014. The leading nationalities of foreign immigrants in 2016 were French (11%), Romanian (10%) and Dutch (7%). Because of the growing number of refugees, Syria became the first country of origin of non-EU migrants ahead of Morocco, both accounting for 4% of total immigration, followed by Afghanistan (2.5%). The total foreign-born population in Belgium was 1.9 million on 1 January 2017, comprising 17% of the population. Morocco (214 000) and France (185 000) were the leading two origin countries.

The number of first residence permits issued to third-country nationals for work reasons rose 5%, to 5 200 in 2016, its highest level since 2009. Four countries accounted for more than half of labour migrants: India (24%), the United States, Japan and China. Family migrants numbered 26 000 third-country nationals in 2016 (similar to 2015 numbers), of which one fifth joined a refugee or a person with another protection status. Morocco, Syria, and India were the main countries of origin of third-country nationals holding a residence permit for family reasons. The number of third-country nationals who obtained a first residence permit for education (6 300) was close to the number in the previous three years. Cameroon and China each comprised 12% of international students.

After a steep drop between 2015 and 2016 (from 39 000 to just over 14 000), the number of first asylum applicants reamined stable in 2017. One third of all asylum seekers in Belgium were from three countries of origin (in descending order): Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. 27 000 decisions were taken in 2017, of which 52% were positive. According to UNHCR, including appeal decisions, almost 10 000 non-EU migrant adults obtained an international protection status in 2016, as well as about 5 500 accompanying minors. This 42% increase (compared to 2015) led to the highest number of new humanitarian migrants in Belgium’s recent history. Three quarters of humanitarian migrants were from Syria (46%), Iraq (20%) and Afghanistan (10%).

Since January 2017, all third country nationals applying for a residence permit must sign a declaration that they understand the fundamental values of Belgium and will comply with them. The right to stay may be withdrawn in the absence of evidence of reasonable integration efforts (e.g. participation in an integration programme, occupation, training or study, activity in associations). Since March 2017, fees required for residence permit applications have been raised for all categories, by up to EUR 350. An additional municipal fee of EUR 50 may be required.

In 2016, the working holiday agreement with Korea came into force. Working holiday makers from all destinations number fewer than 200 annually.

A new law in force from 1 April 2018, states that acknowledgment of paternity out of wedlock may be denied for foreigners when there is a serious assumption that the purpose of the paternity is to provide a right to stay.

A new asylum law, passed in 2017, transposed the EU Directive on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection. Since August 2016, it is legally possible to exclude asylum seekers from reception rights (except medical assistance) and from asylum benefits rights. A one-stop registration centre for asylum seekers is planned to open at the beginning of 2019. Since 2016, asylum seekers, beneficiaries of international protection and highly skilled newcomers have been specifically targeted by labour market integration programs.

Regional integration measures have also evolved. Since 2016, immigrants in Flanders who want a certificate of civic integration at the end of the integration programme must pass a test and demonstrate Dutch language ability. Since 2017, in Brussels, newcomers (under age 65) with a valid permit and less than three years residence in Belgium have been required to follow an integration programme, including language training. Two offices were set up in Brussels to organise the integration programme for newcomers who opt for the French module. In Wallonia, a decree is planned to make the integration programme mandatory. In January 2016, the German-speaking community started a pilot project aiming to implement an integration programme in 2018.

In February 2017, a new law was implemented that makes it easier to return foreign nationals who are a threat to national security.

For further information

www.cgra.be

dofi.ibz.be

www.emploi.belgique.be

fedasil.be

www.ibz.be

www.myria.be

www.statbel.fgov.be

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: BELGIUM

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752315

Bulgaria

In 2016, registered net migration remained negative. Its level more than doubled compared with 2015, to -9 300. While total negative net migration continues to be driven by the growing negative net migration of Bulgarian nationals (-16 500 from -13 700 in 2015), positive net migration of foreigners keeps decreasing (by 23% to 7 300), thus playing a smaller role in compensating national population decline.

Emigration of Bulgarians increased by 5%, reaching 25 800, comprising 85% of total outflows. The largest group (43%) of Bulgarian emigrants was aged 20-35. Total immigration declined in both 2015 and 2016, although the level remains well above pre-2014 figures. Declining immigration of foreigners (-17%) and notably the sharp decrease in inflows from Syria, is the main driver of this trend. Among the 12 000 foreign immigrants, the top three nationalities were Russia, Turkey and Ukraine.

The stock of foreign-born residents increased by 12% in 2016 and reached a record high of 147 000, 2% of the total population. The main countries of origin of the non-EU-born population remain stable and include Russia (18.7% of the total), Syria (8.4%), Turkey (6.9%) and Ukraine (6%). One third of the foreign-born originated from EU countries, mainly the United Kingdom, Germany and Greece. The diversification of the foreign-born population is due to Bulgaria’s geopolitical position at the crossroad of global and regional migration flows, including from neighbouring crisis-ridden areas.

In 2016/17, three main trends emerged concerning asylum flows. First, after four years of steady increase and a record high in 2015, applications for international protection started to decrease in 2016, to 19 400 (-5%), and dropped in 2017 to 3 700. Second, the national composition of asylum seeking inflows has diversified. Since the end of 2015, Afghans have replaced Syrians as the largest group of applicants. In 2016, applications from Afghans and Iraqis boomed (respectively 45% and 28% of the total), while those of Syrians declined to 14%. In 2017, Afghans accounted for 31%, Iraqis for 28% and Syrians 26% of applications. Third, rejection rates have increased. In 2017, almost 99% of applications from Afghans, and 89% from Iraqis, were refused, while only 6% of Syrians had their request refused.

In the academic year 2016/17, international enrolment in Bulgarian universities grew, reaching 13 200 or 5.4% of the total student population, up from 11 600 and 4.4% respectively in 2015/2016. Most foreign students continued to come from neighbouring countries, mainly Greece (27%) and Turkey (15%). The number of British and German students tripled and doubled respectively compared to the previous year.

In 2016, despite persistent unemployment, some sectors of the recovering economy reported labour shortages. The new Labour Migration and Labour Mobility Law which entered into force in April provides an exemption to labour market testing for recruitment of foreigners in a list of occupations set annually by the newly-established National Council on Labour Migration and Labour Mobility – a consultative body made up of representatives of eight ministries, social partners and local authorities – and the National Council for Encouragement of Employment. The 2016 law also included provisions to facilitate Blue Card issue and the transposition of EU directives on intra-corporate transfers and seasonal workers.

In 2016, the number of new work permits swelled to 740, from barely 200 in 2015. Of these, a record 200 EU Blue Cards were issued, 70% more than in 2015 and more than six times the 2014 figure. Most work permits were granted to highly qualified specialists in IT and engineering. Six countries accounted for almost half of all permit holders: Serbia, Turkey, United States, Ukraine, FYROM, and Russia. In 2016, 200 seasonal and short-term permits were issued, mainly to nationals of neighbouring countries.

Additional amendments to Bulgarian labour migration legislation in 2016/2017 further liberalised foreigners’ labour market access. Since January 2017, a simplified procedure for issuing 90-day seasonal worker visas applies. By August 2017, 3 215 such visas had been issued, bringing seasonal worker inflow to a 30-year high. Amendments in June and November 2017 introduced more favourable conditions for EU Blue Card issue, extending its duration to up to 4 years, and waiving the 10% foreign employee limit for businesses hiring EU Blue Card holders. Conversely, requirements for long-term entrepreneur visas have been tightened to ensure that business immigration brings a genuine economic contribution.

In 2017, a new regulation – the third in two years – was introduced, which defines the terms of the integration contract between beneficiaries of international protection and mayors. However, the additional burden that the decentralisation of responsibility for refugee integration has put on under-resourced local authorities means that in many cases they have no other choice than rejecting eligible migrants, thus rendering integration support de facto unavailable.

For further information

http://www.aref.government.bg/

http://www.nsi.bg/

http://www.mvr.bg

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: BULGARIA

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752334

Canada

In 2017, more than 286 000 foreign nationals were granted permanent residence, 3.3% less than in 2016. More than half of the permanent residents admitted in 2017 came as economic migrants (56%), 29% as sponsored family and 14% as refugees and protected persons. The top three origin countries of permanent residents were India (18%), the Philippines (14%) and China (11%). In 2016, the leading origin countries were the Philippines, India and Syria – the latter reflecting an exceptionally high humanitarian intake of 20%.

The number of economic immigrants increased by 2.1% from 156 000 in 2016 to 159 000 in 2017. The majority came under the Worker Program (104 400), followed by the Provincial Nominee Program (49 700) and the Business Program (5 200). The top three origin countries of economic immigrants were India (24%), the Philippines (21%) and China (11%).

The number of immigrants admitted under the sponsored family category increased by 5.7% from 78 000 in 2016 to 82 500 in 2017. The top three origin countries of immigrants admitted under the sponsored family category were India (16%), China (14%) and the Philippines (9%).

Canada has a strong commitment to resettlement. The number of resettled refugees and protected persons decreased by 30% from 58 900 in 2016 to 41 500 in 2017. Of these, 28% came from Syria.

Immigration is expected to continue at record levels, with the planned intake for 2018 set at 310 000, followed by 330 000 for 2019 and 340 000 for 2020, with the aim of 1% of the population thereafter. The majority of the increase will be in the economic category.

In addition to permanent residents, 375 300 temporary residents received a first permit in 2017, 27% more than in 2016. Study permits accounted for 52%, while work permits were at 47%. As part of Canada’s Global Skills Strategy, since June 2017 short-term researchers and highly skilled workers arriving for a short time period no longer require a work permit. Furthermore, high-skilled talent have work permits and visas processed in two weeks.

Changes to the Express Entry system for economic migration in June 2017 included additional points for applicants with siblings in Canada and for candidates with strong French language skills, while the requirement for registration with the Job Bank was removed.

The Atlantic Immigration Pilot (AIP) was launched in January 2017; provinces began accepting applications in March 2017. The AIP is a partnership between the Government of Canada and the four Atlantic Provinces designed to test innovative approaches to new partnerships, settlement and service delivery models. The goal of the Pilot is to ensure the long-term retention of skilled immigrants in Atlantic Canada, to meet labour market needs and to drive economic growth in the region.

In 2017, Canada received over 50 000 asylum claims, more than twice the 2016 figure. The increase was largely attributable to the approximately 20 500 asylum seekers who entered Canada irregularly between designated ports of entry, representing an eight-fold increase over the 2 500 irregular migrants received in 2016. During the peak of the influx in August 2017, arrivals of up to 400 migrants per day were intercepted crossing the Canada-U.S. border irregularly. The top origin countries for claims made by irregular migrants between 1 April and 31 December 2017 were Haiti, Nigeria, the United States and Turkey. In order to respond to the influx Canada took a number of measures, including increasing processing capacity, engaging in communication and outreach campaigns to correct misinformation about the Canadian asylum system and co-ordinating response with provincial partners.

On April 1, 2017, the Department launched new pre-departure medical services for refugees destined for Canada. They include a medical examination, certain pre-departure vaccinations aligned with Canadian guidelines, services to manage disease outbreaks in refugee camps and medical support during travel to Canada.

A reform of citizenship legislation received Royal Assent in June 2017 and was implemented throughout 2017 and 2018. Under the new law, applicants are no longer required to intend to continue to live in Canada once granted citizenship, and the ability to revoke citizenship from dual citizens convicted of crimes against the national interest was repealed. Further changes included reducing the time permanent residents must be physically present in Canada to three out of five years, instead of four out of six, before applying for citizenship; amending the age range for people to meet the language and knowledge requirements for citizenship from 14-64 years to 18-54 years; and counting some of the time applicants spend in Canada as temporary residents or protected persons toward their duration of residence requirements for citizenship. The recent changes also made it easier for minors who are permanent residents to qualify for citizenship, as the age requirement for a grant of citizenship has been removed.

For further information

www.cic.gc.ca

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: CANADA

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752353

Chile

The foreign population in Chile has increased significantly over the past decade, from 155 000 in 2006 to 456 000 in 2015 and 1 118 000 at the end of 2017. The main countries of citizenship are Peru (24%), Colombia (13%), Venezuela (12%), Bolivia (11%), and Haiti (10%). Flows in 2016 have diversified with increasing inflows of nationals from further afield, including Venezuela (3 700 permanent residence permits granted), Haiti (3 600), Spain (1 700), the Dominican Republic (1 100) and China (900).

In 2016, 53 200 permanent residence permits were issued, an increase of 10% compared to the previous year; however, less than the 35% increase which occurred in 2015 and in 2014. From 2005 to 2011, the number of permanent residence permits delivered annually did not exceed 20 000 (except in 2009, when a large regularisation programme was held). In 2016, the new permanent residence holders were primarily Peruvians (25%), Colombians (23%), Bolivians (15%), and Venezuelans and Haitians (7% each). The number of permanent residence permits issued to Venezuelan and Haitian nationals more than doubled in 2016.

The number of temporary visas issued in 2016 reached 141 100, excluding renewals. Of these, 136 300 corresponded to the broad “temporary visa”, a 32% increase compared to 2015. Most holders of a temporary visa can apply for permanent residence after one or two years in Chile. Colombian and Peruvian nationals were the largest group of new temporary visa recipients (20% each) in 2016, followed by Haitians (17%) and Venezuelans (16%). This category of permit includes citizens of other South American countries migrating under the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) Residence Agreement. Temporary visas were granted to 1 500 new international students and 3 200 new workers under contract, whose employers are required to pay the return fare to the country of origin upon termination of employment.

Latin American immigrants can easily enter or settle in Chile in the framework of the mobility programmes of the Mercosur or the Pacific Alliance. Additionally, nationals of two Caribbean countries have also entered Chile in increasing numbers in recent years. The number of permanent residence permits delivered to Haitians tripled in 2016 compared to 2015, with many Haitians first arriving as tourists. Nationals of the Dominican Republic have been subject to a visa requirement since 2012; therefore, some transit through Ecuador or Colombia before entering Chile illegally.

In 2016, Chile received almost 2 300 new asylum applications, a fourfold increase of the number in 2015. That same year, Chile granted refugee status to 34 individuals and rejected 27 cases. In addition, 66 Syrians who arrived from Lebanon were resettled.

In 2017, Chile introduced a Visa Tech procedure streamlining visa issuance for foreign professionals or technicians hired by firms which are authorised sponsors.

In April 2018, new amendments for the 2013 Migration bill were sent to the National Congress in order to modernise current legislation, which dates back to 1975. The amendments create a Ministerial Committee for Migration Policies and a National Migration Service. In August, new visa categories are planned to be available: a 12-month “opportunity visa” to seek work in Chile, requested abroad; and two visas for graduates of Chilean and foreign universities. To address the spontaneous arrival of Haitians and Venezuelans, a 90-day tourist visa category was created for Haitians, as well as family reunification channels and a humanitarian quota. For Venezuelans, a Democratic Responsibility visa is introduced. A regularisation for foreigners arriving in Chile prior to 8 April 2018 is included in the law. 125 000 applied for regularisation in the first month. Additionally, the new bill seeks to grant every non tourist that settles in Chile a national ID card.

Since 2017, the Ministry of Immigration offers a portal in Haitian Creole and has trained some of its officials in the language. The Ministry of Immigration, together with the Ministry of Labour, has created a new temporary training and employment visa in order to facilitate integration of undocumented migrants in the labour market. Spanish language and professional courses for occupations in shortage of 120 to 300 hours were put in place. Subsidised apprenticeship and training programs, relating to youth and female employability and the certification of skills, are also accessible by the foreign population. The Government implemented Chile te recibe in 2017 in order to increase the capacity of offices in charge of welcoming migrants, modernise services and increase attention to specific groups such as children of undocumented parents. In August 2017, the government started delivering temporary visas to children of undocumented migrants who are attending school or pre-school education. The plan is implemented by the provincial governments.

For further information

www.extranjeria.gob.cl

www.interior.gob.cl

www.minrel.gob.cl

https://www.gob.cl/nuevaleydemigracion/

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: CHILE

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752372

Czech Republic

In 2016, the Czech Republic received around 37 500 immigrants, slightly more than in 2015 (35 000). Approximately 17 500 persons, including Czech nationals, left the country in 2016 (19 000 in 2015), resulting in a positive net migration of around 20 000. By the end of 2016, close to 495 000 foreigners were legally residing in the country, which marks a small increase from 2015 (465 000). More than one third of this population was registered as living in Prague and around 55% had a permanent residence permit with approximately 40% of them being EU nationals. Around 5% of the Czech population was foreign-born by the end of 2016.

Mirroring immigration trends in recent years, the main countries of origin among migrants arriving in 2016 were the Slovak Republic (6 700), Ukraine (5 800) and Russia (2 400). Approximately 55% of newly arrived migrants were male.

According to Eurostat, a total of 80 000 new permits were issued in 2016, compared to 70 000 in 2015. Close to 80% of them were for a duration of 12 months or more. Some 30% were granted for family reasons, followed by employment (29%), education (21%) and other reasons (19%). Shares were very similar in 2015.

Numbers of foreign workers and entrepreneurs in the Czech Republic have generally been on the rise since 2006, reaching a new high of 470 000 in 2016 (more than twice the 220 000 figure of 2006). The number of foreign students has also been increasing. In 2016, close to 44 000 foreign students were registered as studying in the Czech Republic, 2 000 more than in 2015. Around 50% of foreign students are Slovak nationals. Approximately 5 500 people acquired Czech citizenship in 2016, 500 more than in 2015.

As in 2015, Czech nationals constituted the largest group of emigrants (4 000), followed by Ukrainians (2 400). In addition, emigration of Czech nationals is still higher than the number of returning Czech citizens who lived abroad (- 1 300 in 2016), as has been the case for the past five years.

About 1 500 persons applied for asylum in 2016 which is similar to the number the previous year. In the first half of 2017, around 600 applications were lodged, with Ukrainian nationals being the largest group (500 applicants). Other important origin countries include Iraq, Cuba and Syria. Around one third of applicants received some form of protection; close to 150 persons were granted refugee status and another 300 persons were given subsidiary protection. In addition, 89 persons were resettled under the European Resettlement Scheme and the national humanitarian admission programme, in addition to the 20 who were resettled in 2015.

Legislation to implement the Seasonal Workers Directive and the Intra-Corporate Transfers Directive was finalised in 2016 and entered into force in 2017. In addition, a government resolution that was introduced in 2015 to facilitate the entry of highly qualified workers from Ukraine was extended in 2016 to include technical professions. Both schemes were continued in 2017.

In 2016, further amendments were made to the foreign investor scheme, with the aim of making it more attractive to immigrants while at the same time seeking to ensure that investment benefits economic development. These amendments entered into force in August 2017.

The “Concept of Integration of Foreigners on the Territory of the Czech Republic” outlines the government’s strategy towards integration and was revised in 2016. It now includes refugees as a target group, places a stronger emphasis on information sharing on the topics of migration and integration with the general public as well as with countries of origin and focuses more strongly on the education of children of migrants. Compared to 2015, the budget for integration almost doubled to CZK 54.3 million (approximately EUR 2.1 million).

In addition, the National Strategy for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings was updated in 2016, identifying the fight against labour exploitation and trafficking of children as priority areas until 2019.

For further information

www.mvcr.cz

www.czso.cz

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: CZECH REPUBLIC

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752391

Denmark

In 2017, immigration to Denmark stood at 89 400, a 5.3% decrease from 2016. Most of the decrease was due to a lower inflow of foreign nationals (67 400, 6.6% fewer than in 2016). Emigration increased by 6%, to 64 800, with a higher outflow of foreign nationals (43 700, a 10.7% increase). Net migration was positive, at 24 600, but lower than in the previous two years. The main countries of last residence of immigrants to Denmark in 2017 were the United States (7%), Romania and Germany (6% each), and the United Kingdom and Poland (5% each). The main destinations of emigrants were the United States (8%), Germany (7%), and the United Kingdom, Sweden and Norway (5% each). The immigrant population in Denmark on 1 January 2018 stood at 592 000, a 4% increase from the previous year and 10% of the resident population.

The number of residence permits granted declined to 76 900 in 2017 from 80 000 in 2016, after strong increases prior to 2015. The decline resulted from a significant fall in residence permits granted to refugees, from 7 500 in 2016 to 2 700 in 2017. These permits were most often granted to Syrians, who remained the largest group in 2017 despite a decrease of 81% compared to 2016. The numbers of other residence permits remained roughly stable or increased slightly. Residence permits issued on the basis of work activities accounted for 12 800 residence permits in 2017, similar to 12 900 in 2016, and residence permits issued on the basis of family reunification accounted for 7 800 in 2017 after 8 100 in 2016. At 38 300, slightly more residence permits were granted to citizens of EU/EFTA countries in 2017 than in 2016 (37 200) and similarly for international students, interns and au pairs (15 300 in 2017 compared with 14 300 in 2016). International students from outside the EU/EFTA were most often from the United States, China or Nepal, while Ukrainian and Philippine nationals were predominant among interns and au pairs, respectively. The largest groups of EU/EFTA citizens in 2017 were Romanian, Polish and German. Indian nationals accounted for 30% of the new residence permits for labour migrants in 2017, followed by Ukraine and China, while family migrants were most often from Syria, Eritrea and Thailand in 2017.

According to preliminary figures from the Danish Ministry of Immigration and Integration, applications for asylum in Denmark fell to 3 500 in 2017. This was roughly half the level observed in 2016, only a fraction of asylum applications in 2015 (21 300) and the lowest level since 2008. The recognition rate was 36% in 2017, half the level observed in 2016. In 2016, the most frequently recorded nationalities of asylum seekers were Syrian (1 250), Afghan (1 100), stateless (490) and Iraqi (450). In 2017, the most frequently recorded nationalities of asylum seekers were Syrian (860), Eritrean (370), Moroccan (330) and Afghan (190).

Following a policy change in 2015 that allowed for dual nationality, 15 000 persons acquired Danish citizenship in 2016, by far the highest number since 2010 and three times the level of 2015. Previous nationality was most often Iraqi, Afghan, Somali or Turkish.

In 2016 and again in mid-2017, the requirements for obtaining a permanent residence permit (without pre-existing “strong ties” to Denmark) were tightened. Requirements were grouped into basic and supplementary requirements. Applicants who meet all requirements may obtain this permit after 4 years of legal residence, but for others the required duration rose to 8 years. Where residence is based on a relationship (spouse/cohabitee), the foreigner only becomes eligible after (normally) 8 years in the same relationship.

In February 2018, the Danish government reached a political agreement on new rules on family reunification. The changes may inter alia replace the so-called attachment requirement and come after a 2016 ruling of the European Court of Human Rights against exemptions that applied only where Danish citizenship had been held for 26 years or more. According to the agreement, four out of six requirements have to be met: the sponsor has a high proficiency in Danish, was employed in Denmark for 5 years or more, or has spent 6 years or more in education in Denmark; the family member speaks English or some Danish, has been employed for 3 out of the preceding 5 years, or has spent 1 year or more in education comparable to Danish higher education or vocational training.

For further information

www.uim.dk (in Danish)

www.newtodenmark.dk

www.integrationsbarometer.dk (in Danish)

www.dst.dk/en

www.workindenmark.dk

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: DENMARK

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752410

Estonia

Net migration in Estonia in 2016 was positive for the third year in a row. According to Statistics Estonia, 14 800 persons immigrated to and 13 800 persons emigrated from Estonia in 2016, making net migration slightly more than 1 000. Most of the migrants were Estonian citizens (48% of immigrants and 66% of emigrants). Net migration of Estonian nationals was negative. As of 2016, Statistics Estonia calculates external migration based on a residency index: a person’s transition from resident to non-resident is emigration and the opposite is immigration (excluding birth or death). As a result, recorded migration flows have increased and must be taken into account when comparing 2016 migration data with those of previous years. Estonian external migration statistics now better reflect reality, even though the country of origin and destination of many immigrants and emigrants remains unknown.

In 2016, most immigrants (88%) were from Europe, primarily from the European Union. Their main origin countries were Finland (45%), Ukraine (11%) and Russia (11%).

In 2016, Estonia issued about 6 700 new temporary residence permits to foreigners – excluding renewals, but including status changes and changes of employer or position, which is 36% more than in 2015. However, the number of renewed residence permits decreased by 34% (close to 4 900) compared to 2015. The increase in temporary residence permits has been mainly due to an amendment to the Aliens Act in January 2016 which introduced a new residence permit category, namely a temporary residence permit for permanent settlement. In consequence, there was a substantial increase in the number of persons with undetermined citizenship who then received a residence permit (112%). Many citizens of Russia, Ukraine, as well as those of India and Nigeria, also received a residence permit for settling permanently in Estonia. The number of residence permits issued for studying and for employment also increased by 13% and 9% respectively. The number of extensions of residence permits decreased by one-third, since fewer residence permits expired while those whose residence permit had expired tended to apply for a new permanent residence permit. Extensions of residence permits issued for employment and for studying increased respectively by 67% and 21%. Estonia receives few asylum seekers; the number of asylum applicants decreased in 2016 by 52% compared to the previous year.

EU countries remain as the main destinations for Estonian emigrants. The main destination was again Finland, which received close to 2 700 Estonian emigrants (58%), followed by the United Kingdom (9%). Among other main destinations were non-EU countries including Ukraine, Russia and Australia.

Most of the changes concerning asylum followed from the amendments introduced to the Act on Granting International Protection to Aliens (AGIPA) that came into force in May 2016, transposing the Reception Conditions Directive and the Asylum Procedures Directive into Estonian legislation. The AGIPA now states that an asylum application should be registered within three working days, or ten days if the number of applications for international protection submitted makes it impossible in practice to do so. The AGIPA also establishes an obligation for beneficiaries of international protection to take part in the international protection module of the Welcoming Programme.

Estonia fights irregular migration by enhancing cooperation to combat human trafficking and illegal employment and by reinforcing co-operation with the border guard services of neighbouring countries. Several initiatives were also implemented to upgrade the equipment used for border checks. In order to facilitate the return of irregular migrants, in 2016 Estonia launched a database of aliens staying irregularly in the country to identify them better.

Most policy changes regarding economic migration occurred in 2016, but in 2017 another round of amendments to the Aliens Act and other related Acts were designed to encourage immigration to Estonia. These amendments mainly aim to attract foreign skilled workers, start-ups and investors, with special regulations for those who invest more than EUR 1 million. IT professionals and start-ups were also granted an exemption from the immigration quota cap. The wage threshold for hiring a foreign worker was lowered, from 1.2 to 1 times the Estonian average gross wage. Other amendments included an expansion of the list of fields eligible for hiring foreign workers temporarily or seasonally; a new opportunity to apply for a long-stay visa or residence permit whilst already in Estonia and a simplification of application procedures. Furthermore, since October 2017 a residence permit is automatically granted – without parents having to apply ∗ to children who are born or settled in Estonia immediately after their birth.

For further information

www.politsei.ee/en/

www.stat.ee/en

www.siseministeerium.ee/en

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: ESTONIA

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752429

Finland

Net migration in Finland grew by 35% between 2015 and 2016, reaching 16 800 persons and accounting for the majority of population growth in 2016. While emigration also increased in 2016 – with over 18 000 individuals leaving Finland – this was countered by a sharp increase in immigration, as close to 35 000 individuals moved to Finland.

Approximately 58% of immigrants to Finland were citizens of non-European countries, 10 percentage points more than the previous year. Immigration from non-European countries rose by 46% while immigration from EU28 countries fell by 7%. Emigration rose both among non-European (13%) and European migrants (11%). Most immigrants to Finland in 2016 came from Iraq (3 250), Estonia (2 600), Russia (2 550), Afghanistan (1 850) and Syria (1 700). The number of Iraqi immigrants, in particular, increased fourfold compared to the inflows in 2015. High net migration numbers in 2016 were primarily driven by the large number of asylum seekers who arrived in Finland in 2015. In 2015, alone a total of 32 500 asylum applications were lodged, over two thirds of which were made by Iraqis.

In 2016, 26 000 resident permit applications were received by the Finnish Immigration Service, 14% more than in 2015 and the first increase in several years. The main categories were family grounds (41%), employment purposes (29%) and study (27%). This composition is similar to the previous year.

Estonian citizens accounted for the largest proportion of foreign citizens emigrating from Finland in 2016, accounting for 20% of the total. Despite the relatively high outflow of Estonians, net migration has remained positive. Information on nationality was missing for 17% of the foreign emigrants. The number of people whose nationality is unknown increased substantially in 2015 and stayed relatively high in 2016 due to the voluntary departure of many asylum seekers before receiving their decision and without informing officials about their departure.

A total of 5 650 asylum applications were submitted in Finland in 2016, well below the 32 500 in 2015. As in 2015, the largest number of asylum seekers were from Iraq (1 250), Afghanistan (750) and Syria (600). Alongside these, Finland received 750 quota refugees in 2016 registered by the UNHCR in Turkey and Lebanon. All but one of these quota refugees were Syrians. Asylum seeker numbers remained relatively stable during the first half of 2017; between January and July 2017 a total of 3 050 individuals applied for asylum in Finland. In addition, by the end of August 2017, Finland had welcomed the vast majority of the 2 100 asylum seekers from Greece and Italy under the temporary emergency relocation scheme.

From the beginning of 2016 to the end of August 2017, about 18 500 (43%) asylum seekers received a negative decision on their application. The Finnish government has included measures to enhance the effectiveness of returns in its action plan on asylum policy.

Over the past years the government has sought to improve control of immigration and streamline processes. These reforms include: transferring duties from the Police and the Border Guard to the Finnish Immigration Service; legislative amendments requiring beneficiaries of international or temporary protection to prove they have sufficient means to live in Finland in order to exercise their right to family reunification; amendment of the criteria for granting international protection (the abolishment of residence permits on the basis of humanitarian grounds), the end of the exemption from the processing fee for the family of those receiving protection; a reduced period for appealing rejected asylum claims; decentralisation of the handling of appeals and the introduction of new alternatives to detention.

The tight fiscal environment in Finland has prompted much thought into new models for funding integration, speeding up the integration process, and allowing migrants to combine education and work in a flexible way. For example, Social Impact investing has been explored as a way to harness private funding in the integration process. The recently-launched pilot of a Social Impact Bond for integration has the ambitious goal of moving individuals into employment within four months of their beginning participation in the programme.

Alongside efforts to increase the efficiency of migrant integration training, the Finnish government is working towards strengthening the economic benefits of migration. Efforts include a cross-sectoral Migration Policy Programme to Strengthen Labour Migration, published in early 2018 as part of the General Government Fiscal Plan for 2018-21. Further measures include changes to facilitate the entrepreneur resident permit and the launch of the Talent Boost programme in Spring 2017, which aims to make Finland more attractive to international talent while also channelling the expertise of international talent already based in Finland to support the internationalisation of companies and innovation activities.

For further information

www.migri.fi

www.stat.fi

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: FINLAND

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752448

France

According to Eurostat, total net migration in France was 68 000 in 2016 (including minors and French nationals), compared to 65 000 the year before. Net migration remained positive because of flows of foreign nationals. Indeed, outflows of French nationals were almost twice as high as inflows. In 2016, of 310 000 persons who left the country, 84% were French.

The long-term trend of increasing immigration accelerated in 2016, when about 230 000 first residence permits were issued to non-EU nationals in France (overseas territories not included). This was 6% more than in 2015; preliminary data suggest an increase of 14% in 2017. Algerians and Moroccans each accounted for about 12% of first residence permit holders, followed by Chinese and Tunisians (about 7% each). Sub-Saharan African nationals also accounted for almost one quarter of all residence permit holders. In addition to third-country nationals, an estimated 87 000 EU/EFTA nationals moved to France in 2016, slightly fewer than in 2015 (88 000). The main origins were Italy (16%), Portugal (14%) and Spain (12%).

Labour migration has increased continuously for the last five years. First residence permits for work purposes rose 11% in 2016, reaching 23 000. Preliminary data suggests a further increase in labour migration by non-EU nationals of 20% in 2017. This trend indicates the increasing attractiveness of France, especially with the introduction of the “Talent Passport” in 2016, a new residence permit for highly skilled workers. Additionally, more than 6 000 regularisations of third-country national workers were approved in 2016, an increase of 21%.

Family migration was the largest category of migration flows of non-EU nationals but fell in 2016 for the third subsequent year to 89 000 first residence permits (-1% from 2015). An estimated 2% increase is expected in 2017, reversing the trend. Family members of French citizens comprised more than half of family migration. Admission of non-EU students rose in 2016 by 5%, reaching the highest level ever recorded with almost 74 000 first residence permits. The attractiveness of France for international students continues to strengthen: according to preliminary data, flows in 2017 will rise by 20%.

After a large increase in 2015 (+25.5%), the number of first-time asylum applications (including minors) rose again in 2016, by 5%, to 78 000 applications. In 2017, 92 000 first applications were made, of whom 74 000 were adults, the highest number ever recorded. The top countries of origin in 2016 were Sudan (+16%), Afghanistan (+166%) and Haiti (+62%). With 4 600 new adult applications, Albania (+105%), was the fourth country of origin, but the first if accompanying minors are taken into account.

Humanitarian migration has grown substantially since 2013. Of the 90 000 first instance decisions taken in 2016, 29% were accepted, leading to a record number of recognitions of international protection status in France’s history. New residence permits (including joining adult family members) increased by 41% in 2016 to 23 000, with preliminary data for 2017 showing an estimated 57% rise.

Since 2016, a five year “Republican Integration Pathway” (Parcours d’Intégration Républicaine) has been set up for newcomers, in the form of a “Republican Integration Contract”, under which access to a multi-annual residence permit is available if the third-country national has actively participated in training and acquisition of French values.

A draft proposal for a new law, planned for implementation in 2018, is under discussion. It is based on a governmental plan presented in July 2017 and called: “Ensure a right to asylum and better managed migration flows”. The plan includes five objectives: better managed migration flows through a common European and international effort; improved asylum procedure and reception of asylum seekers; more effective irregular migration control and removals; reshaped integration policy; and greater effort to attract talent and skills.

Among the ideas in the proposal are a four-year residence permit for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, the extension to parents and siblings of family reunification for refugee minors, and streamlining the appeal process. The national dispersal scheme for reception of asylum seekers would become mandatory, and asylum seekers would be able to apply for another status during their asylum application process.

Further, the draft proposal suggests extending the “Talent Passport” to new categories, e.g. all French Tech Visa holders, and creating a residence permit for au-pairs. The labour market test would be reformed by creating a list of trusted employers. Job-search visas would be available to researchers and former graduates in France who have left the country for less than four years. The draft also proposes to strengthen compliance checks for some categories of permits (visitors, parents of children in education, and sick foreigners).

The government also plans to improve integration policy with increasing efforts in providing French language courses and measures to ease integration into the labour market.

For further information

http://www.immigration.interieur.gouv.fr

http://www.ofii.fr/

http://www.ofpra.gouv.fr

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: FRANCE

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752467

Germany

According to data from the Federal Statistical Office, in 2016, around 1.7 million foreign nationals arrived in Germany (2 million in 2015). Approximately 1.1 million foreign nationals left Germany in 2016, resulting in positive net migration of around 635 300; a strong decrease compared to 2015, when net migration was around 1.2 million.

More than half of newly arrived migrants in 2016 were third-country nationals (922 600). The number fell considerably compared to 2015, when inflows totalled 1.2 million. Around 796 500 EU foreign nationals came to Germany in 2016, a 6% decrease compared to 2015, whereas outflows of EU foreign nationals in 2016 were slightly higher than in the previous year (584 500 and 518 500, respectively).

About 23% of the population living in Germany in 2016 had a ‘migration background’, i.e. they themselves or at least one of their parents were not born with German citizenship. This constitutes an increase of 4 percentage points compared to 2011. Among children aged 5 or younger, this share increases to 38%.

In 2016, most newly arrived immigrants were nationals from Romania (222 400), followed by Syria (179 400), Poland (160 700) and Bulgaria (83 000). These nationalities constitute around 40% of all new immigrants in 2016. Once departures from Germany are taken into account, net migration figures yield a different pattern. Syrians had the highest net migration in 2016 (145 800), followed by Romanian (60 100), Afghan (56 100) and Iraqi nationals (47 700).

According to data from the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, labour migration from third countries to Germany increased by more than 30% to 51 000. Of these, around 65% were highly skilled. The increase is partly due to a temporary policy implemented in October 2015 for nationals from the Western Balkans, allowing them under certain conditions to work in Germany regardless of the qualification level of their job offer. Family migration of non-EU nationals also increased by 28% to a total of 105 600 new family migrants arriving in 2016.

In the winter semester of 2016/17, 150 000 EU and non-EU students started studying at German universities. International student enrolment reached around 265 000 total, up 15 000 from a year earlier. The main countries of origin among enrolled foreign-born students remained China (13%), India (6%) and Russia (4%).

In 2017, close to 200 000 first-time asylum applications were lodged, a decrease of more than 70% compared to 2016 (722 000). Most of the applications were from Syrian nationals (25%), followed by Iraqis (11%) and Afghans (8%). Close to 40% of applicants were female (34% in 2016) or under 16 years old.

The increase of asylum applications in 2016 was accompanied by a large number of appeals. Around 25% of decisions and 40% of rejected cases were appealed before an administrative court in 2016. Even among Syrian nationals who received subsidiary protection status, 37% appealed. The number of pending cases in administrative courts rose from 60 000 in 2015 to 285 000 by the second quarter of 2017.

In 2017, 605 000 asylum cases were heard, which is below the 695 000 figure for 2016. Around 39% of the applications were rejected compared with 25% in 2016, while 18% were declared as not admissible. The remaining 43% received some form of protection: refugee status (21%), subsidiary protection (16%) or a status that prohibits deportation (7%).

After the introduction of the Integration Act (Integrationsgesetz) and new asylum legislation in 2016, the following year was marked by a consolidation phase focused on implementation of, for instance, programmes for vocational language learning.

Most policy developments in 2017 were focused on re-integration and return. As of February 2017, asylum seekers from certain origin countries may receive EUR 800-1 200 in financial assistance in addition to regular return assistance when they agree to return during their asylum procedure or once their request has been denied. Such additional cash assistance is also available for recognised refugees who decide to return. In addition, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees offers a hotline with information on voluntary return and re-integration programmes.

A legislative package that entered into force in 2017 makes it mandatory for asylum seekers without documentation to provide their mobile phones to the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees who may use the metadata for determining their identity and nationality. It also enables regional governments to pass legislation which may then require asylum seekers to live in reception centres for up to two years and facilitates the detention of individuals which pose a severe threat before they are returned. The law also clarifies that youth welfare offices are required to apply for asylum on behalf of unaccompanied minors without undue delay.

Furthermore, in 2017 Germany transposed the Intra-Corporate Transferees Directive, the Seasonal Workers Directive and the Students and Researchers Directive.

For further information

www.bmas.de

www.bmi.bund.de

www.bamf.de

www.destatis.de

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: GERMANY

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752486

Greece

In 2017, the situation in Greece has somewhat stabilised in terms of reception and integration of immigrants. Compared to 2016, irregular entries into Greek territory decreased markedly, although the number of asylum applications remained high. At the same time, integration measures have been taken along with institutional developments that are focused on regulating the residence status and promoting long-term integration of its immigrant population. Challenges remain, such as the situation on the Greek islands, where almost 15 000 asylum seekers were living in reception centres at the end of 2017.

According to 2017 data from the EU Labour Force Survey, there were 430 900 third-country citizens and 85 400 EU citizens residing in Greece, corresponding to 4% and 0.8% of the total resident population respectively. The number of foreigners has fallen over the past four years. The largest group, over 60%, is Albanian (325 500) followed by Bulgarians (29 800) and Romanians (16 900).

Official residence permit statistics report 541 000 third-country citizens holding a permit at the end of 2017 and an additional 112 000 applications for initial permits or renewal. In recent years, more immigrants have acquired long-term permits, particularly 10-year permits, which, upon renewal, are converted to the EU long-term resident status, provided that the relevant conditions are met. The share of long-term permits rose from 23% in 2012 to 37% in 2017. Following the 2015 reform of the Citizenship Code, there have also been more naturalisations, particularly concerning settled immigrants and children of immigrants.

Emigration from Greece remains high; between 2008 and 2016, 427 000 individuals are estimated to have emigrated. Annual emigration flows have risen from about 40 000 persons prior to 2010, to above 100 000. In 2016, in contrast to previous emigration waves, the current emigrants are mostly young, single, urban and highly educated. Three quarters are college graduates and one-third of them are post-graduates, medical and engineering graduates. Around 80% move within the EU, with both Germany and the UK receiving around 25% each.

Greece, which has experienced high inflows of irregular migrants for many years, saw arrivals and, accordingly, apprehensions fall significantly between 2015 and 2017. Following the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement in 21 March 2016, the number of arrivals dropped sharply from 20 April 2015 to 20 March 2016, from 977 700 to 26 900. Of 204 800 apprehensions in 2016, 80% occurred in the first three months only, and total apprehensions in 2017 stood at 63 100 by the end of November.

While the number of arrivals fell, the number of asylum applications increased substantially. From 2015 to 2016, applications increased from 13 200 to 51 100 and remained high through 2017 (58 700), as many of the asylum seekers who formerly sought to transit towards other European countries stayed in Greece and submitted asylum applications. Most came from Syria (34%), followed by Pakistan (13%), Afghanistan (12%) and Iraq (11%). Syrians and Palestinians had high recognition rates (99.6% and 95.4%). At the end of February 2018, 38 700 first instance asylum decisions were pending.

As of December 2017, 21 700 individuals had been relocated from Greece to other EU member states under the EU Emergency Relocation Mechanism. Since the EU-Turkey Statement came into effect, 1 449 individuals were returned to Turkey and another 1 909 returned to their country of origin voluntarily by November 2017. Under special procedures established in 2016 for large numbers of arrivals, almost 15 000 maritime arrivals were waiting on the islands in March 2018.

Among refugees, unaccompanied minors (UAMs) represent an important group: more than 5 000 arrived in 2016; 2 000 applied for asylum in 2016 and 2 500 in 2017. Efforts by the Greek government seek to address the needs of these children, including a ministerial decision to increase educational support, harmonise the age assessment procedure and provide a legal guardian to every UAM. However, adequate housing remains a major challenge and it is estimated that there are twice as many UAMs waiting for a place in a shelter as are currently available.

Education for children in accommodation centres and local public schools has been reinforced, while a new culture and language training program targeting minors aged 15-18 was announced in January 2018.

The Ministry of Migration Policy, established in November 2016, took over from the Ministry of Interior the responsibility for policies on immigration, reception and identification, asylum and social integration of migrants and refugees. The Ministry also contains a Reception and Identification Service, an Asylum Service and an independent Appeals Authority.

For further information

www.immigration.gov.gr/

http://asylo.gov.gr/

http://firstreception.gov.gr/

http://www.astynomia.gr/

www.statistics.gr

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: GREECE

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752505

Hungary

As of 1 January 2017, 151 100 foreign nationals resided in Hungary, a slight decrease (-3%) on the previous year. Foreigners accounted for 1.5% of the total population. The main origin countries continued to be Romania (24 000), China (19 100) and Germany (18 600).

In 2016, the inflow of foreign nationals to Hungary decreased by about 8% on an annual basis, to 23 800. The number of foreign nationals leaving the country was roughly stable, at 10 500. Overall net migration remained positive.

The sharp decline in the number of asylum applications registered in 2016 continued over the course of 2017. According to Eurostat, in the first eleven months of 2017, applications dropped to 3 185, nine times less than the corresponding figure for 2016. The largest group was Afghan nationals, followed by Iraqis and Syrians. A total of 2 210 substantive decisions were taken in the first quarter of 2017, twice as many as in the corresponding period of 2016. Of the decisions, 3.6% (80 applicants) were positive and accorded protection.

In 2016/2017, the stock of foreign students was nearly 29 000, 10% more than in 2015 and twice the level a decade earlier. The Stipendium Hungaricum Scholarship Programme, launched in 2013 as part of the strategy of the internationalisation of Hungarian education (with a goal of attracting a total of 40 000 international students by 2020), has contributed to this trend.

In 2016, foreign worker inflows increased compared to 2015. According to the National Labour Office, 6 300 new work authorisations were issued (4 930 single permits, 940 individual work permits, and 440 seasonal employment permits), 20% more than in 2015. Registrations of foreign workers exempt from authorisation also rose, to 10 550 (of which 90% for EEA and 10% for neighbouring countries’ nationals). Figures for the first half of 2017 confirm this trend, with 6 380 work authorisations issued and 6 100 new registrations. Inflows of workers from non-EEA countries remained well below the annual quota (set at 49 000 in 2016 and 59 000 in 2017). More than 25% of work authorisations were issued to Ukrainian nationals. Other main groups of recipients were Chinese, Indians and Serbians. Registered foreign workers originated mainly from Romania (two in five), the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and Ukraine.

Legislative amendments have facilitated international recruitment for specific groups of foreign workers, or sectors. As of July 2016, recruitment of Serbian and Ukrainian nationals in shortage occupations identified by the Ministry of National Economy (currently including computer scientists, engineers, drivers, nurses and carpenters) is exempt from labour market testing, with the decision being made as quickly as possible. Moreover, seasonal employment of Serbians and Ukrainians for less than 90 days does not require work authorisation. A fast-track procedure for single permit applications is also available to Hungarian employers who have signed a strategic partnership agreement with the government, propose to implement an investment project of national interest, or plan to recruit in shortage occupations. In the case of “preferred employers” the labour authority makes a decision within 8 days, and final decision by the Immigration and Asylum Office (IAO) is made within 21 days. A specific permit for migrant entrepreneurs was also introduced.

The transposition of the EU Directives on seasonal workers and intra-corporate transferees has also resulted in smoother admission procedures for these groups of third-country nationals to the Hungarian labour market since September 2016. The recast Directive on students and researchers was transposed into Hungarian legislation in 2017, with effect from January 2018. In 2016/2017 Hungary signed working holiday agreements with Australia, Chile, Hong Kong, China and Japan; negotiations are ongoing with Argentina.

Amendments to the asylum legislation which became effective in the second half of 2016 tightened the reception, integration and residence conditions of beneficiaries of international protection. Accommodation in open reception centres following recognition of refugee or subsidiary protection status is now offered for a maximum of 30 days (instead of 60 days). The eligibility period for basic health care services was also reduced, from twelve to six months. IAO provides integration support to beneficiaries of international protection who submitted an application for integration support no later than 31st May 2016. Amendments introduced automatic revision of refugee and subsidiary protection status every three years.

As of March 2017, special border control and asylum rules apply in cases of emergency caused by mass influx to Hungary. Asylum seekers have to wait for a final decision of their asylum requests in designated transit zones. The state of emergency was maintained until September 2018.

Under the 2017/2018 edition of the Hungarian Assisted Voluntary Return, Reintegration and Information programme, implemented by IAO in cooperation with IOM, monetary support is no longer available to returnees, except vulnerable migrants and those with chronic diseases (up to EUR 650).

For further information

www.bmbah.hu

www.kormany.hu/en

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: HUNGARY

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752524

Ireland

A total of 566 600 non-Irish nationals resided in Ireland in April 2017. This is an increase from 550 500 in 2016, but has remained below the pre-recession peak of 2008 (575 600). Non-nationals currently represent 11.8% of the total population, up from 11.6% in 2016. In the twelve months to April 2017, immigration increased by 2% (84 600) from the previous year (82 300). With emigration of 64 800 in 2017 (a 2% decline from the previous year), net migration was 19 800. Net migration of Irish nationals continued to be negative, but at a much lower level than in recent years, while net migration of non-Irish nationals increased.

From 2016 to 2017, the stock of immigrants from all regions increased. As in previous years, the largest group of non-nationals in 2017 was from the 12 New EU Member States (250 300) who accounted for 5% of the total population. This group saw only a small increase from 249 400 in 2016. Citizens from outside Europe make up a further 2.9% of the total population (139 600), UK nationals 2.2% (107 700) and immigrants from other European countries 1.4% (69 000).

The share of total immigrants from the rest of the world (excluding the EU, Australia, Canada, and the United States) has risen to 27% in 2017. This increase may be attributed to highly skilled migration to fill skill shortages in the Irish labour market, as well as an increase in the number of international students. The increase in working age migrants (25-44) continued in 2017, accounting for over half (53%) of immigrants.

Approximately 124 200 entry visa applications for both short and long stays were received in 2016, an increase of 7.4% from 2015. The approval rate of entry visas was 90%, and the top five nationalities applying for visas were India (20%), China (13%), Russia (10%), Pakistan (8%) and Turkey (5%). The number of new employment permits in 2016 increased to 7 700 (from just over 6 000 in 2015). As in previous years, India was the largest nationality of employment permit holders with 32% of the total. Pakistan accounts for another 11% and the United States for 9%.

A total of 2 200 people applied for asylum in Ireland during 2016, a decrease of over 30% from the number of applications in 2015. Some 1 600 cases were finalised during 2016. The largest share of asylum claims came from Syria (11% of total applications), Pakistan and Albania (10% each), Zimbabwe and Nigeria. There was a marked increase in the number of appeals by refugee claimants from 1 400 in 2015 to 2 200 in 2016.

The 2015 International Protection Act, which creates a single application system and brings Ireland into line with other EU member states, came into force on 31 December 2016. Furthermore, a series of reforms have been implemented following a review of Direct Provision, the system of reception of asylum seekers in Ireland. Reforms include improvement to accommodation standards, increased allowances and improved access to further education.

In May 2017, the Supreme Court of Ireland declared the ban on working for asylum seekers to be unconstitutional, and commissioned a report by an intergovernmental task force. Following this report, Ireland decided to opt into the EU (recast) Reception Conditions Directive, which lays down standards for the reception of international protection applicants. In November 2017, the Government indicated that asylum seekers will be allowed to work no later than nine months after their application for asylum is lodged, if they have not yet received a decision on their case. Since 9 February 2018, those seeking international protection in Ireland may seek employment via the work permit system or may apply for a permission for self-employment.

The Irish Refugee Protection Programme (IRPP), approved in 2015 in response to the migration crisis, committed Ireland to receiving 4 000 refugees by the end of 2017. The commitment to take 1 040 refugees under the UN Resettlement Programme has been largely fulfilled by the end of 2017. Under the EU relocation programme, at the end of 2016, a total of 240 refugees had arrived in Ireland from Greece.

“Irish Educated, Globally Connected: An International Education Strategy for Ireland 2016-20” aims to increase the value of international education by 33% (to EUR 2.1 billion per annum) by 2020. This calls for an increase in the number of international Higher Education and English Language Training students in Ireland by 37 000, bringing the total number at any point in time to 176 000.

Revised regulations in the Immigrant Investor Programme targeting third-country nationals were published in late 2016, eliminating two investment categories and returning the investment thresholds from EUR 500 000 to 1 million.

For further information

www.inis.gov.ie

www.ria.gov.ie/

https://dbei.gov.ie

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: IRELAND

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752543

Israel

Migrants who have Jewish origin or ties, entering Israel under the Law of Return, are considered permanent migrants and are usually granted immediate citizenship upon arrival. The group of foreign nationals is thus made up mostly of temporary workers, asylum seekers and overstaying tourists. As of 30 June 2017, 216 700 foreign nationals were living in Israel, similar to the figure in June 2016 (217 200).

According to the Ministry of Aliya and Integration, 11 500 permanent immigrants entered Israel between 1 January and 30 June 2017. This is slightly more than in 2016 (+5%), but 13% fewer in comparison with the same period in 2015. Russia was the main origin country, with 3 500 new immigrants (+7%), followed by Ukraine with 3 000 (+5%). France was the third main country of origin (1 200 new immigrants), but flow levels decreased by a third between the first half of 2016 and the same period of 2017. Additionally, 900 US citizens (+12%) emigrated to Israel in the first half of 2017.

The stock of overstaying foreigners, entering on a tourist visa and remaining illegally without a valid visa, has been declining since 2014 and was estimated to be 74 000 at the end of 2016.

The stock of foreign nationals who entered Israel as temporary workers rose again in 2017 and stood at 106 200 in December (+6% compared to December 2016). Among these foreign workers, one in six fell outside the legal temporary work system.

The bilateral agreements signed by Israel with several countries in the past decade contributed to this rise. The total number of temporary foreign workers slightly rose further during the second half of 2017, owing to an increase in the quotas for foreign workers in agriculture and construction and a new foreign day-worker quota for Jordanians employed by the hotel industry in Eilat. A new bilateral agreement was signed with Ukraine in 2016 and with China in 2017. The number of temporary foreign workers in the construction sector is expected to rise sharply in the coming years as Israel has signed a bilateral agreement with China to allow employment of up to 6 000 additional Chinese construction workers. In addition, there is a constant growth in the number of home-based care workers. The number of agricultural workers from Thailand also increased significantly in recent years. In February 2018, the government allowed foreign construction workers and Palestinian building workers working in Israel to work on infrastructure projects. The government also repealed a 2001 rule forbidding access to public construction contracts to companies hiring foreign workers and raised the foreign workers quota in the construction industry by 6 000 (from 16 500). This additional quota is intended for up to 1 000 workers each in up to six foreign companies in the housing sector.

Despite signing Work and Holiday visa agreements with several countries in recent years, the number of such visas issued in Israel remains low. Only 40 were delivered in 2016 and 21 in the first quarter of 2017, most of them to German citizens.

As of December 2017, the number of Palestinian cross-border workers authorised in Israel was approximately 75 000 (6 500 of whom were seasonal workers). This represents a 12% increase in one year. Throughout the years 2015/16, the upward trend from previous years regarding cross-border Palestinian workers in Israel has continued and the number of Palestinian workers reached almost 60 000, of whom 5 700 were seasonal workers. However, for the first time in recent years, in the first half of 2016 there was no change in the percentage of permits being used.

In 2017, Israel introduced an expedited visa application option, the Hi-Tech Visa (HIT), for foreign nationals travelling to Israel to work in an Israeli registered company operating in high tech industries. A spouse of the principal on a HIT visa can also obtain work authorisation by obtaining an Employment Authorisation for Spouse (EAS).

Since 2016, Israel has largely ceased to be a destination for irregular migration from Africa. Irregular border crossings have ended; the number of irregular border-crossers residing in Israel stood at 37 300 on 30 December 2017, its lowest level since 2011, partly due to enforcement measures such as the fence on the Israeli-Egyptian border.

Since the end of 2012 around 21 000 irregular migrants have left Israel voluntary to their country of origin, western countries or to safe third countries, almost 3 400 since the beginning of 2017.

In August 2017, the High Court of Justice stated that an irregular migrant who refuses to be deported to a safe third country should not be held in custody for more than 60 days, but allowed the deportation procedure for irregular immigrants to a third country, provided that the third country is not unsafe.

For further information

www.cbs.gov.il

www.economy.gov.il

www.piba.gov.il

www.moia.gov.il

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: ISRAEL

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752562

Italy

On 1 January 2017 approximately 5 047 000 foreign citizens were registered in Italy, 21 000 more than in the previous year (corresponding to 8.3% of the total population). They constitute a relatively young population: 1 out of 5 was under 18 years old and almost 40% were under 29 years old. About half of them were women.

Among EU nationals, the main nationality was Romania (1.7 million, 2% increase since 2016). Legally residing third-country nationals numbered 3 717 000 (74% of the total migrant stock). Almost one third were born in Africa, followed by non-EU European and Asian nationals (29%) and Americans (10%). In line with the previous year’s patterns, the main countries of origin were Morocco (455 800, -4%) and Albania (442 000, -4%). China saw the largest increase in its immigrant population in Italy between 2016 and 2017 (+4%, reaching 319 000).

Between 2016 and 2017, about 220 000 first time residence permits were issued – almost half the number issued in 2007 (515 000). As in past years, only 4% of new permits were issued for work reasons, while 46% were issued for family reasons. By the beginning of 2017, a third of the total residence permits issued in Italy were for asylum or humanitarian reasons, up from 28% in 2015/16. Long-standing immigrant communities in Italy (such as Albanians, Moroccans and Tunisians) are more likely to have a family permit, while more recent nationalities (such as Chinese, Bangladeshi and Peruvians) mostly hold a residence permit for work. Some nationalities of migrants largely hold permits for protection: 95% of Malians, 94% of Gambians and 88% of Afghans and Somalis.

In 2017, Italy received over 130 000 asylum seekers (10 000 more than in 2016). The main nationalities were Nigerian (18%), Bangladeshi (10%) and Pakistani (7.5%). The number of unaccompanied minors reached a total of almost 18 300 by the end of the year.

In 2017, 119 000 migrants landed on the Italian coasts, 34% fewer than in 2016 and 22% fewer than in 2015. This reduction follows the Italian-Libyan agreements signed at the beginning of 2017 which imposed a barrier to migrant inflows from Africa. Even so, the main sources remain Nigeria, Guinea and Côte d’Ivoire. A substantial number (approximately 16 000) of the landings in 2017 was by unaccompanied minors, mostly from African countries although 39% fewer compared to 2016.

The total number of foreigners who acquired Italian citizenship increased from 286 000 in 2001 to around 1 350 000 in 2016. During 2016, 202 000 foreign citizens acquired Italian citizenship due to long residence or as minors whose parent naturalised. This represents a 13% increase from 2015. About two fifths of citizenship acquisitions in 2016 were by Albanians (20%) and Moroccans (19%), with smaller shares by Indians (5%), Bangladeshis (5%) and Pakistanis (4%). In addition, approximately 15 000 EU citizens acquired Italian citizenship in 2016.

At the same time, a growing number of Italians left the country. The number of Italian citizens who declared their transfer of residence abroad increased by over 11%, from 102 000 in 2015 to 114 000 in 2016. Declared emigration is likely an underestimation; estimates of actual Italian emigration in 2016 range between 125 000 and 300 000.

Three main policy changes affected Italian migration legislation during 2017. On March 2017, the law “Provisions on measures to protect unaccompanied foreign minors” was approved by the Italian parliament. The new law pledges that foreign minors arriving in Italy without adults cannot be refused at the border. The maximum duration unaccompanied minors may be hosted in initial reception centres during identification and age verification was lowered from 60 to 30 days. In view of the superior interests of the child, the law initiates the possibility for the minor to be supported up to the age of 21 years. A National Information System for Foreign Unaccompanied Minors has been mandated under the Ministry of Labor and Social Policies.

In April 2017, the Italian parliament reformed the asylum procedure with the law “Urgent provisions for the acceleration of proceedings in the field of international protection and fighting illegal immigration”. Four major modifications occurred: (i) the abolition of one level of judgement for asylum seekers appealing against a negative decision on their application; (ii) the abolition of the need for the judge to listen personally to the asylum seekers appealing against a denial decision; (iii) an increase from four to twenty repatriation centres – one for each region; (iv) the introduction of voluntary work for asylum seekers and refugees.

In December 2017, a decree assigned Ministry of Interior officials, rather than Police officials, to the local asylum commissions. The same decree changed the procedure for assigning a guardian to unaccompanied minors.

For further information

www.interno.gov.it

www.integrazionemigranti.gov.it

www.istat.it

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: ITALY

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752581

Japan

At the end of 2016, the number of foreign residents registered in Japan reached a record level of 2.38 million, 1.9% of the total Japanese population. The largest group were Chinese, with 696 000 people (29% of total foreign residents), followed by 453 000 South Koreans (19% of total foreign residents), and 244 000 from the Philippines (10% of total foreign residents).

Overall, 428 000 foreign nationals entered Japan in 2016 (excluding temporary visitors and those with re-entry permits), a 9.3% increase on 2015.

The number of new arrivals entering for work purposes also rose, reaching 85 000 in 2016 (+8.4% on 2015). Among these, 46.2% were admitted as entertainers (+5.1% on 2015) whilst engineers and specialists in humanities/international services accounted for 24.8% of the total inflow (+18.4% compared to 2015). Intra-company transfers (+6.2% on 2015) comprised 9.1% of incoming labour migrants and highly skilled professionals comprised 0.3%. If entertainers and intra-company transfers are excluded, the number of new labour migrants increased by 12.4%, from 33 600 in 2015 to 37 800 in 2016. According to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, in October 2017, the stock of foreign workers reached 1 278 000, an 18% increase on the previous year and a 41% increase since 2015. Some 459 000 workers were registered on the basis of their status (as permanent residents, Japanese descendants, etc.), 260 000 were foreign students engaged in part-time work, 238 000 worked in professional or technical fields and 258 000 were technical interns.

In 2016, new arrivals for study purposes amounted to 108 000, an 8.6% increase compared to 2015. According to JASSO (Japan Student Services Organization), in May 2017 the total number of foreign students in Japanese institutions was 267 000 (+11.6%). This follows a 15% increase from the previous year. Most (70.5%) of them were enrolled in higher education institutions, with the remainder in Japanese language institutes. Chinese nationals comprised 42.2% of all foreign higher education students, followed by Vietnamese (18.8%) and Nepalese (8%). Among Japanese language students, Chinese were 35.3% and Vietnamese 33.3%. The number of new arrivals for technical intern training also increased by 9.4% compared to 2015, reaching 106 000. The number of dependent migrants accompanying foreign workers and college students increased by 15% to 27 000.

As of the beginning of 2017, 65 300 foreign nationals were recorded as overstaying. The number of over-stayers increased slightly (+3.9%) compared to 2016, the main nationalities being South Koreans (13 300), Chinese (8 900), and Thai (6 500).

The refugee recognition system was revised in September 2015 to promote prompt and reliable asylum for refugees. Increased abuse or misuse by applicants residing legitimately (such as students or trainees who face expiration of their residence) has hindered prompt protection of refugees, leading the government to make further revisions. From 15 January 2018, for those applicants residing legitimately in Japan, operations relating to the status of residence of “Designated Activities” have been revised.

Japan’s Technical Intern Training Program (TITP), first created in 1993, changed in November 2017 with implementation of the 2016 “Act on Proper Technical Intern Training and Protection of Technical Intern Trainees”. The Organization for Technical Intern Training (OTIT) was created to manage TITP, respond to issues raised by trainees, and conduct regular inspections. The maximum number of people to be accepted by implementing organisations is determined according to the category of technical intern training and the number of full-time staff, with ceilings doubled for excellent supervising organisations and implementing organisations satisfying specified requirements. The period of training may be extended for two additional years (for a total of five years) for trainees who are employed by such an organisation and pass a proficiency test. Technical intern trainees who complete agricultural training may obtain a path to engage in agriculture in National Strategic Special Zones.

In April 2017, the Japanese government adjusted its points-based system for highly skilled foreign professionals to offer accelerated access to permanent residence – one or three years, instead of five years – to certain high-scoring applicants. The minimum stay has been lowered to three years for those with 70 to 79 points and one year for those with 80 or more points. The points-based system for highly skilled foreign professionals led to new permits being granted to about 3 000 highly skilled foreign professionals between mid-2016 and mid-2017. The government aims for the policy to have covered 20 000 highly skilled foreign professionals by the end of 2022.

For further information

www.immi-moj.go.jp

www.mhlw.go.jp

www8.cao.go.jp/teiju-portal/eng/index.html

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: JAPAN

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752600

Korea

The role of Korea in international migration continues to expand. In 2016, the number of migrants admitted into Korea for a permanent stay reached 95 000 (+17% compared to 2015). Of those permanent migrants, most (55%) were ethnic Koreans; while family migrants represented 44%, labour migrants were only 1.3%. The number of temporary migrants admitted rose from 180 000 in 2015 to 184 000 in 2016, among whom 108 000 were workers and 27 000 were students.

The stock of foreign residents in Korea has been steadily increasing and at the end of 2016 it reached 2.05 million, 4% of the national population. The number of long-staying resident migrants increased from 1.47 million at the end of 2015 to 1.53 million one year later. The number of ethnic Koreans (22% of the foreign residents) increased by 5% compared to 2014, with the number of other registered foreigners up by 13%. The main nationalities of foreign residents were Chinese (49%), Vietnamese (7%) and American (7%).

In 2016, there were 342 000 foreigners holding residence permits for employment, a slight increase from 2015 (339 000). The top three nationalities of new labour migrants were Cambodian, Nepalese and Vietnamese. In 2016, the number of low skilled workers entering with an employment permit (E-9) was 60 000, up from 51 000 the previous year. Overall, 279 000 E-9 non-professional visa holders were registered in 2016, mainly working in manufacturing. The number of skilled and professional migrant workers, which has been slowly decreasing since 2013, fell by 2% to 47 700 in 2016. The most common entry channels were for foreign language instructors (E-2) and special activities (E-7), accounting respectively for 15 500 (32% of total skilled migrants) and 21 500 persons (45%).

The stock of ethnic Koreans on work-visit visas (H-2) reached 255 000 in 2016, down from 285 000 in 2015. Of these, 48 000 entered Korea in 2016. This marked a 13% decrease in the inflow, following the 28% decline in 2015. Fewer ethnic Koreans came from China and more had obtained the visa status of Overseas Korean Residents (F-4); the number of F-4 holders rose to 373 000 from 328 000.

A points system for selecting low-skilled workers (for an E-9 visa) piloted in 2016 was expanded in 2017. Points are based on Korean linguistic proficiency, work experience and occupation-related skill levels.

The quotas for entries of foreign workers under the E-9 programme are divided into new workers and returning workers and by sectors of employment. New worker quotas totalled 46 000 in 2016, 43 000 in 2017 and 45 000 in 2018. The quota of returning workers –for a second five-year contract – was 12 000 in 2016, 13 000 in 2017 and 11 000 in 2018. The main sector of employment is manufacturing, which accounts for about three-fourths of the allotment of foreign workers.

A pilot seasonal worker programme was introduced in 2015 and expanded in 2016/17. The programme allows foreign residents and local authorities in certain areas to sponsor friends and relatives from their home countries to work for up to three months in seasonal agricultural activities.

Over the past decade, the number of foreigners holding a residence permit for study increased threefold to reach 116 000 in 2016, of whom 27 300 arrived that same year. Their composition has changed over time. The number of foreign students holding permits for degree programmes rose from 60 500 in 2013 to 76 000 in 2016. The number of foreigners with permits to take language courses was 40 000 in 2016. Chinese nationals accounted for 58% of all student permit holders in 2016, followed by Vietnamese (13%) and Mongolians (5%).

The total number of foreign marriage migrants residing in Korea reached 152 400 in 2016, most of them women. China was the main country of origin for foreign spouses (59%), followed by Viet Nam (41%), Japan (13%) and the Philippines (11%).

In 2016, the total number of unauthorised migrants who had overstayed their visas fell slightly to 209 000.

Asylum applications, which numbered in the hundreds annually in the 2000s, have risen. Applications totalled 5 700 in 2015, 7 100 in 2016 and 2 000 in the first trimester of 2017. In total, about 200 applicants were recognised as refugees in 2015/2016 and 740 were granted stay on humanitarian grounds. The main origin countries in this period were Pakistan, Egypt and China.

In naturalisation policy, the income requirement for general naturalisation was doubled from KRW 30M to KRW 60M. There were 14 200 naturalisations in 2014 and 13 500 in 2015.

In 2017, the minimum educational qualification for the technology start-up visa was lowered from a Bachelor-level degree to a two-year degree. To increase participation, in 2016 Korea launched a competition, the K-StartUp Grand Challenge which awards financial and business support – including visa support – for promising start-ups ranking high in the competition.

For further information

www.eps.go.kr

www.immigration.go.kr

www.kostat.go.kr

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: KOREA

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752619

Latvia

Between 2015 and 2016 the population of Latvia fell by 18 800 to 1.95 million, mainly because of emigration. Official statistics from the Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia indicated that outflows (20 600) exceeded inflows (8 300) resulting in a net outflow of 12 200 in 2016. Latvian nationals accounted for 58.7% of total inflows and 80.8% of total outflows. The non-Latvian population numbered 279 500 at the beginning of 2017, equivalent to 14.3% of the total population. The 222 900 non-citizens of Latvia, mainly longstanding residents from other parts of the former Soviet Union, comprised 80% of the non-Latvian and 11.4% of the total population. Russian nationals (42 200) were the largest group of non-Latvian residents, although their number fell slightly since 2016.

The stock of persons holding valid residence permits has gradually increased to 90 400 by the end of 2016 (84 600 in 2015), after a similar increase in 2014. Of these, 52 200 held permanent residence permits and 38 200 held temporary residence permits, a 4% total increase on the previous year. Most of the increase in 2016 was in the number of temporary residents. In 2016, 81% of permanent residence permits holders were Russian nationals. Among temporary residence permit holders the proportion of Russian nationals was 34%, down from 37% the previous year. EU/EFTA nationals accounted for 31% of temporary residence permit holders and 8% of permanent residence permit holders.

Issue of permanent residence has been declining. In 2016, the number of persons who received permanent residence permits was 1 250, down from 2 050 in 2015 and 3 100 in 2014. Temporary residence permits fell by 9%, to 6 600, after a 31% decline in 2015. A large part of the decline was due to fewer initial temporary residence permits issued to investors and their families, a decrease of 53% to 650 from1 350 in 2015 (down from 5 600 in 2014). The decline in investor permits is owed to the September 2014 increase in the real estate investment threshold for these permits. Labour migrants and their families comprised 37% of all issued initial temporary residence permits (2 700 permits in 2016, including 2 100 principal applicants and 600 dependants). Some 16% of the labour migrants were highly skilled workers and their family members.

International student enrolment is increasing. In the academic year 2016/17, 7 900 international students were registered in higher education establishments in Latvia, 27% more than in 2015/16, which in turn had seen a 23% increase from the previous year. In 2016, 1 700 temporary residence permits were issued to students, 6% more than in 2015. The largest proportions of students were from India (24%), Uzbekistan (18%) and 27% were from EU/EFTA countries.

In 2016, 1 000 persons (including 50 children who were naturalized together with their parents) received Latvian citizenship through naturalisation, over 90% of whom were Latvian non-citizens.

The number of asylum seekers rose from 330 in 2015 to 350 in 2016. Syria (150) and Afghanistan (35) were the main countries of origin. International protection status was given in 52% of decisions. This was more than in 2015, when the figure was 12%, owing to relocated asylum seekers. Latvia relocated 350 asylum seekers from other EU countries (through 30 September 2017) and resettled 20 from Turkey.

In 2016, 370 third-country nationals were detained for illegal crossing of the border.

Several legislative changes were made in 2016/17, related to EU Directives and their transposition. From 2 March 2017, the right to employment was extended to family members of third-country nationals who can work in Latvia. Additionally, children of third-country nationals who received their first permit as minors may enjoy family reunification upon reaching majority. The EU Directive on intra-corporate transferees was transposed (with a minimum monthly salary of about EUR 900), as was the Directive on seasonal workers. Eligibility for the EU Blue Card was expanded, with a lower salary threshold and the possibility for prior experience to count instead of a higher education degree. Processing time was accelerated. In addition, a new permit category was created for start-up entrepreneurs (linked to a separate Start-Up Activity Support Law), who may receive a permit valid for up to three years if there are plans to create or develop innovative products in Latvia. No permits have yet been issued under this new category which came into force on 2 March 2017.

For further information

www.plmp.gov.lv

www.csb.gov.lv

www.emn.lv

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: LATVIA

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752638

Lithuania

Emigration has been increasing from Lithuania and its population has continued to fall, from 3 million during the 2011 census to an estimated 2.81 million at the beginning of 2018. During 2017, the number of foreign nationals residing in Lithuania increased by 0.8% to 49 400 at the beginning of 2018, equivalent to 1.75% of the total population. Non-EEA citizens accounted for 86% of foreign residents. Of these, almost half held long-term residence permits.

Lithuanian emigration rates are among the highest in Europe, and outflows continue to increase. In 2017, 57 300 people left Lithuania, compared with 50 300 in 2016 and 44 500 in 2015. In 2016, the United Kingdom remained the main destination (46%), followed by Ireland (8%), Norway and Germany (8% each). As in 2015, 49% of all emigrants in 2016 were aged between 15 and 34 years. The share of Lithuanians among emigrants was 92%, much higher than in 2015 (80%).

Immigration fell to 22 100 and 20 200 in 2015 and 2016 respectively, slightly less than in the previous two years. A steep increase is observed in 2017 – up to 29 500. In 2016, 71% of immigrants were returning Lithuanian nationals (down from 83% in 2015); 27% of the foreign nationals were Ukrainians and 19% were Belarusians. Net emigration in 2016 stood at 30 200, much higher than in 2015 (22 400); it fell in 2017 to 27 800.

The number of work permits issued by the Ministry of Social Security and Labour in 2016 was 19 700, up from 6 900 in 2015, an almost three-fold increase. These included 1 100 permits for workers posted from another EU country. Most work permits (81%) went to drivers of international freight vehicles employed by Lithuanian firms and work mostly in other countries. Construction workers received 9% of the permits.

International study in Lithuania continues to increase, as enrolment by Lithuanian nationals declines. The total number was 6 600 in academic year 2016/17, compared with 6 200 in 2015/16 (6% of total enrolment). The number in full degree programmes rose from 4 700 to 5 000. The largest groups of foreign students came from Belarus (17%) and India (11%).

Lithuania received 600 asylum applications in 2017, up from 425 in 2016 and 180 in 2015, according to the Migration Department. Of asylum applicants in 2017, 38% were Syrians and 15% were Russians. Refugee status was given to 280 and 13 received subsidiary protection. Lithuania agreed to accept about 1 100 refugees under the European relocation and resettlement scheme. As of mid-February 2018, Lithuania had relocated and resettled about 470 refugees, of which 350 had already left Lithuania.

2 400 people had their citizenship reinstated in 2017 (pre-1940 Lithuanian citizens and their descendants). 170 foreign citizens were naturalised in 2017.

In 2017, the requirement to apply for a work permit was exempted, along with the labour market test, for workers whose occupation is on the national occupational shortage list. Reforms to the EU Blue Card implemented in 2017 include a new list of 27 professions requiring high professional qualifications; foreigners in these professions may immediately apply for the EU Blue Card and are exempted from the labour market test. The salary threshold was also lowered from two to 1.5 times the average salary (from EUR 1 496 to EUR 1 122) and 5 years professional experience is now recognised as equivalent to a higher education qualification.

Also in 2017, changes were made to the investor permit to reduce the risk of fraudulent use of small enterprises to obtain a residence permit. The permit for members of an enterprise’s collegial management or supervisory body was eliminated, although an additional option was created for heads of certain large enterprises with no personal investment in the firm.

The EU intracompany transferee (ICT) Permit became available in Lithuania in September 2017 following transposition of the EU Directive. The minimum salary for ICTs in Lithuania was set at EUR 380 monthly. The permit is valid for up to three years and allows family to accompany the worker and to seek employment in Lithuania.

Since 2017, international students in Lithuania have more favourable conditions. Upon graduation, there is no labour market test to start employment that matches their qualification. During their studies, employment rights (up to 20 hours per week) are granted immediately after receiving a temporary residence permit instead from the second year of studies.

Outreach to emigrants and the Lithuanian diaspora occurs under the Global Lithuania programme. Among the activities in this Programme, Invest Lithuania ran a project “Attracting talents to Lithuania” to promote Lithuania as an attractive country for highly qualified job seekers of Lithuanian or foreign origin. “Match your talent LT” job fairs with large Lithuanian employers were organised in 2016 and 2017. A specialized website was launched (workinlithuania.lt).

For further information

www.migracija.lt

www.stat.gov.lt/en

http://emn.lt/

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: LITHUANIA

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752657

Luxembourg

In 2016, the number of foreign immigrants in Luxembourg decreased from 22 600 to 21 600, after six years of increase. Departures have been on the rise since 2012, reaching 11 400 in 2016. Consequently, net migration fell to its lowest level in six years. Of the 22 900 immigrants who entered Luxembourg in 2016, 5% were Luxembourgish, 70% other EU nationals and 25% were third-country nationals. Total net immigration accounted for 82% of the population growth (84% in 2015).

In 2016, first residence permit issues increased by more than 9% (5 000), mainly owing to 740 salaried workers (23%) and a threefold growth in immigrants granted refugee status (720). The largest category, third-country national family members, fell by 8% to 1 200, as did long-term residents, to 800. Overall, US citizens, Syrians, Chinese and Indians remained the leading nationalities.

The number of new foreign students registered increased by 2% in 2016/17, having decreased by 4% to 1 500 in the academic year 2015/2016. Students from EU countries account for more than three-quarters of the total foreign enrolment.

As of January 2016, 48% of Luxembourg’s residents were foreigners. Representing a third of the 281 500 foreign population (35%), Portuguese remained the largest group, followed by French (16%) and Italians (8%), while the most numerous third country nationals were Montenegrins and Poles. The number of Syrians grew to 1 400 in 2016 from 150 in 2015.

According to the Labour Force Survey, for the first quarter of 2017, 44% of the resident working population were nationals of other EU countries, and 6.5% were third country nationals. In addition, cross-border workers represented 45% of the labour force, more than half of whom were French.

Applications for international protection registered by the Directorate for Immigration, which had peaked at 2 500 in 2015, fell to around 2 000 in 2016. The profile of those seeking international protection in Luxembourg changed considerably from 2015. In 2016, Syria remained the first region of origin (14% of the total), followed by Albania (11%), Kosovo (10%), Iraq and Serbia (8%). While in 2015, refugee status was granted in 16% of the decisions taken, this percentage increased to 33% in 2016.

In the context of the EU-Turkey statement of March 2016 regarding the resettlement and readmission of Syrian nationals, Luxembourg pledged the resettlement of 190 Syrian citizens, completed by 2017. Luxembourg also resettled 28 refugees from Turkey and Lebanon. Within the framework of the EU Council decision to relocate 160 000 international protection applicants from Greece and Italy, 550 people had been relocated by the end of 2017.

Since 2016, the government has launched two integration projects: “Welcome to Luxembourg”, a pilot project focused on the integration of asylum seekers with a focus on equal opportunities between men and women, and the “Guided Integration Trail” or PIA (Parcours d’intégration accompagné), a project that aims to start the integration process from the arrival of asylum seekers in Luxembourg. Since launching in September 2017, 266 asylum seekers have participated in the first phase of the project, which consists of 9 hours of Luxembourgish courses and 8 hours of courses that focus on the daily life in Luxembourg, such as their rights, duties and equal opportunities, among other things. Furthermore, in September of 2017, a new multiannual national action plan on integration was approved, the two axes being the reception and follow up of asylum seekers and the integration of non-Luxembourgish residents.

In December 2017, a project for new public international schools and additional primary/post-secondary international English-speaking classes was adopted to encourage foreign investors, companies or professionals to settle with their family in Luxembourg.

The University of Luxembourg created an ‘integration office’ to facilitate the university entry of applicants and beneficiaries of international protection, by offering them individual support. Refugees and asylum seekers can follow courses as guest attendees and after receiving international protection status may register for a study programme.

Following the outcome of the 2015 referendum in Luxembourg on the granting of voting rights to foreign residents, the length of residence required for naturalisation was reduced from seven to five years, a right of birthplace for the first generation introduced and a simplified way of acquiring Luxembourgish nationality by ‘option’ reintroduced. Language and other requirements were modified to ensure that a basic level of Luxembourgish and civic knowledge is acquired.

With the immigration influx in 2015/2016, the number of third-country nationals in an irregular situation increased substantially, making return policy a priority. Following the significant increase of unfounded applications, a number of administrative changes were introduced in the international protection procedure. On April 2017, a new emergency accommodation centre for applicants falling under the Dublin Regulation became operational.

For further information

www.mae.lu

www.statistiques.public.lu

www.olai.public.lu

http://www.guichet.public.lu/citoyens/fr/immigration/

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: LUXEMBOURG

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752676

Mexico

In 2016, the stock of foreign-born population exceeded one million, twice the level of 2000, but still less than 1% of the total population. Despite increasing inflows, Mexico remains mainly an emigration and transit country. This growing stock needs to be seen in perspective. About 73% of the foreign-born population in 2016 was born in the United States, many of them descendants of Mexican emigrants residing in the US. Yet the growth is mainly observed among nationals of other Latin American and Caribbean countries as well as Spain, Canada and China.

In 2016, 35 900 foreigners were issued a new permanent residence permit, a similar number to 2015. 15 500 permanent permits were delivered on family grounds, half of them to nationals of Venezuela, Colombia, Honduras, Guatemala, Cuba and the United States. The number of permanent residence permits delivered for work in 2016 decreased slightly, by 4%, to 8 500. Labour migrants originated from the Americas (59%), followed by Europe (21%) and Asia (19%). Another 9 300 permits were delivered on other grounds, particularly to persons of independent means. Permanent permits delivered on humanitarian grounds were the only category to increase sharply, nearly tripling in 2016, to 1 960. A large share (43%) of the Salvadorans and the Hondurans who acquired permanent residence in Mexico in 2016 did so on humanitarian grounds.

In total, close to three quarters of permanent immigrants came from the rest of the continent, 19% from the United States alone. Permanent entries of Cubans, Venezuelans and Chinese immigrants to Mexico have increased in the last five years and exceed those of Colombians, Hondurans or Guatemalans.

The share of the foreign population living in Mexico naturalised every year is relatively low at about 0.8%.

In 2016, 52 200 first temporary permits were granted. Of these, 24 000 were for work, with migrants from Asia or Europe each receiving 22%. Inflows of international students fell to 4 300 in 2016 from 6 800 in 2015; more than one third originated from Colombia, France, the United States or Germany. In addition to these inflows, 14 900 cross-border permits were granted, mainly to Guatemalans, allowing them to work, often in the agricultural sector in Chiapas state. In March 2016, the Instituto Nacional de Migración arranged for the transfer of 6 000 Cuban migrants who had been stranded in Costa Rica and Panama since December 2015. They received temporary humanitarian permits to reach the Mexican northern border and request a permit to enter the United States.

The number of asylum seekers reached a historic peak in 2016 with 8 700 demands compared to 3 400 in 2015. Most applicants were from Honduras, El Salvador and to a lesser extent from Guatemala and Venezuela and include a growing share of unaccompanied minors.

In the first half of 2016, 46 600 Cubans entered Mexico, compared to 43 200 during all of 2015. Most had flown from Cuba to Ecuador, which did not require a visa, before continuing their journey through Colombia and Central America.

Haitians entering Mexico may be given a 20-day special documentation from the Mexican authorities in order to regularise their situation or to leave the country; otherwise they face repatriation. An estimated 12 800 Haitians or African nationals entered Mexico in the first half of 2016 with the purpose of reaching the United States; 9 300 reached their destination.

In July 2016, an agreement was signed between the Secretariat of the Government (SEGOB), the Mexican Commission of Support to the Refugees (COMAR) and the Secretariat for Social Development (SEDESOL) to ensure that refugees can benefit from programmes directed to populations in a situation or at risk of poverty or marginalisation. From 9 January to 19 December 2017, a temporary regularisation programme was opened to foreigners who entered Mexico before 9 January 2015 and still had no legal status on 9 January 2017. The temporary residence status granted lasts for four years and allows paid activities under some conditions.

For further information

www.politicamigratoria.gob.mx/

www.inegi.org.mx

www.gob.mx/inm

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: MEXICO

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752695

Netherlands

Total migration inflow to the Netherlands continued to rise between 2015 and 2016 (from 205 000 to 231 000 persons) but levelled off in 2017 at 234 000 persons, the highest level in this decade (all 2017 figures are preliminary). Total migration outflow in 2017 (151 000) was similar to the previous two years. Net immigration to the Netherlands thus rose considerably, from 55 000 in 2015 to 79 000 in 2016 and 83 000 in 2017. By 2017, the stock of the foreign-born population in the Netherlands exceeded 2 million for the first time.

In terms of nationality, inflows of persons born in Asia grew from 49 000 in 2015 to 65 000 in 2016, before falling to 52 000 in 2017. Inflows of persons born in other EU countries rose from 77 000 in 2015 to 93 000 in 2017, accounting for about 40% of total migration inflow. The main origins of foreign-born persons arriving in 2017 were Poland (23 700), Syria (16 800), Germany (10 600), the former Soviet Union (8 500), China (6 700), the United Kingdom (6 600), Italy (6 500) and the United States (6 300). As in 2016, the inflow of persons born in the Netherlands reached 32 000 in 2017. Dutch citizens accounted for about one-fifth of the total migration inflow in both 2015 and 2016, compared with a quarter in 2013 and 2014.

The Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) issued almost 25 000 residence permits for family migrants in 2016, including 10 600 to children, more than in 2015 (21 700). The main nationalities were Syria, Eritrea and India. Another 14 600 residence permits were granted to labour migrants, notably under the knowledge migrant scheme (9 100) and the scheme for researchers (2 500). The number of new knowledge migrants has grown rapidly, increasing by 1 200 between 2015 and 2016. In the knowledge and talent migration schemes, the main nationalities were India, the United States and China; in other labour migration schemes, the main nationalities were China, India and the United States. 16 300 residence permits were granted to international students, led by citizens of China, the United States and Indonesia. In total, 73 000 international students were enrolled at Dutch universities in 2016.

Persons born in the Netherlands (42 300) were by far the largest group in the migration outflow in 2017, followed by persons born in Poland (14 200), Germany (8 100), the United Kingdom (4 300) and China (4 200). They main destination of emigrants were the United Kingdom or Germany.

First requests for asylum in the Netherlands fell by half between 2015 (43 100) and 2016 (19 400) and continued to decline in 2017 (16 100). A similar decline was seen in asylum requests by unaccompanied minors from 2015 to 2016. The nationalities most frequently recorded in 2017 were Syrian (3 000), Eritrean (1 600), Moroccan (1 000), Algerian (900) and Iraqi (800). While approval rates are particularly high for nationals of Syria or Eritrea as well as stateless persons, the Netherlands also operates a list of safe origin countries whose nationals are likely not to be eligible for asylum and are instead fast-tracked with a focus on return. Following sudden increases in asylum requests by nationals of Morocco (from 80 in 2015 to 1 300 in 2016) and Algeria (from 40 in 2015 to 1 000 in 2016), these two countries were included in the list. The number of these requests fell from 2016 to 2017, but still remains high.

Dutch citizenship was acquired by 28 500 persons in 2016, most often by nationals of Morocco (3 400), Turkey (2 800) and Iraq (900). Since February 2017, it became possible to withdraw Dutch citizenship from persons (with additional citizenships) who have participated in terrorist organisations. Previously, a withdrawal could only be based on a conviction for terrorist activities.

A change of rules for high-skilled labour migrants (notably the knowledge migrant scheme), researchers and international students allows them to engage in entrepreneurship in the Netherlands as long as the basis for their residence permit remains their primary activity. In addition, researchers no longer need a work permit.

In July 2017, a pilot programme for short stays of highly skilled labour migrants was made permanent. It allows registered sponsors to employ non-EU/EFTA citizens in the Netherlands for up to 3 months without a work permit, in a context of cross-border collaboration. This scheme complements the knowledge migrant scheme for stays over 3 months, without requiring particular salary levels (except the minimum wage). The one-off fee for becoming a registered sponsor of highly skilled labour migrants, researchers or students was reduced by half for small enterprises (EUR 2 592 instead of EUR 5 183)

For further information

www.ind.nl

www.cbs.nl

https://www.epnuffic.nl/en/internationalisation/mobility-statistics

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: NETHERLANDS

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752714

New Zealand

In 2016/17, New Zealand experienced a net annual permanent/long-term (PLT) migration gain of 72 300 people, the highest on record and an increase of 4.7% from the 69 100 recorded in 2015/16. This was due to a low negative net migration of New Zealand citizens combined with large net positive migration of non–New Zealand citizens (73 600 people), the highest level ever. This resulted from a near doubling in the number of non-New Zealand citizen PLT arrivals from 56 100 in 2009/2010 to 99 200 in 2016/17 and more moderate trends in departures. The outlook is for net immigration to fall in 2017/18 and decline further in 2018/19.

The number of people approved for residence in New Zealand fell by 8% to 47 700 in 2016/17, 60% of whom were in skilled/business programmes, 31% in family and around 8% in humanitarian/international programmes. Driving the decrease was a decision to address increased demand on the residence programme, which included closing the Parent Category to new applications and lowering the cap on the number of family residence visa approvals to 4 000 places over two years. This led to a 63% reduction in the number of Parent Category approvals for 2016/17. In addition, policy changes to reduce demand saw a 6% decrease in Skilled Migrant Category (SMC) approvals. Under the SMC, a prospective migrant is allocated points based on a list of factors, such as education, age, skilled work experience and job offer. In October 2016, the number of points a prospective migrant required in order to be invited to apply for residence under the SMC was increased from 140 to 160. China, India, the United Kingdom and the Philippines continue to be the largest nationalities for residence approvals. Together they accounted for just over half of all approvals in 2016/17. Finally, of the 4 000 visas delivered under the humanitarian/international policy stream, 1 200 were granted to refugees, a third of whom were Syrians, and 1 100 were issued to Samoans under a quota.

In 2016/17, 209 200 work visas were issued, of which two thirds went to first time migrants. This was an increase of 9% in all work visas issued from 2015/16. India, the United Kingdom, China and Germany continued to be the largest origin countries. Those approved to work in New Zealand under the Essential Skills policy (labour market-tested temporary workers) rose by 4% from 2015-16, the fifth year-on-year increase since the financial crisis. Working Holiday Scheme approvals represented a third of all work visa approvals, while 14 700 visas were granted under the horticulture and viticulture seasonal work policy. Post-study work visas (+26% to 27 900) and work to residence visas (+42% to 4 500) experienced the largest growth in percentage terms.

In 2016/17, 48 200 new international students (tertiary and secondary) were approved for study in New Zealand, down 3% from 2015/16. This was the first time international students made up 53% of all admitted international students. China, the top origin country, recorded a 10% increase in all international students from 2015/16 (new student visas for Chinese students grew 5% in 2016/17). International students have become an important source of skilled migrants for New Zealand, as in other OECD countries.

In 2016/17, 430 people sought asylum in New Zealand, up 28% from 2015/16. China and Turkey were the largest source countries of asylum claims in 2016/17.

Changes to the Skilled Migrant Category (SMC) became effective after July 2017. The changes introduced a salary threshold and greater recognition of work experience to ensure that the SMC prioritises higher-paid and higher-skilled migrants. Changes to employment-based temporary work visas, including salary thresholds, were also announced in May 2017.

A new Global Impact Visa (GIV) pilot category came into effect in November 2016. Under GIV, the government has partnered with the Edmund Hillary Fellowship to attract and support high-impact entrepreneurs, investors and start-ups – most of whom would not otherwise qualify under existing policy settings ∗ to establish innovative ventures in New Zealand. The visa will run as a four-year pilot and is limited to 400 people.

In December 2016, changes to the migrant investor policy were made to encourage investments that provide greater economic benefits for New Zealand, by incentivising investment into growth-oriented sectors.

Following changes to immigration regulations and policy, online forms were released allowing the electronic submission of most student, work and visitor visa applications via Immigration Online. As of August 2017, 60% of visa applicants were able to apply online, expanding to 80% of all visa applicants from early 2018.

For further information

www.immigration.govt.nz

www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/immigration

https://www.newzealandnow.govt.nz

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: NEW ZEALAND

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752733

Norway

In 2016, 58 500 foreigners immigrated to Norway, 600 fewer than in the previous year. Overall, 46% were women, although the gender ratio varied by origin country: for instance, migrants from Thailand and the Philippines were mostly women (around 80%), while those from Afghanistan and Syria were mostly men (75% and 63%, respectively). Total net migration, including Norwegians, was 21 300, its lowest level since 2012.

Approximately 40% of the foreign immigrants came from EU countries, a drop of 10 percentage points compared to 2015. For the first time, Syria was the primary country of origin with over 11 200 immigrants in 2016 (+7 000 compared to 2015), followed by Poland (6 000) and Eritrea (2 700).

For the first time since 2005, family immigration represented the largest entry category, with one third of the total. The main groups of family migrants were from Syria, Poland, Thailand and Eritrea. More than three times as many family-related permits were granted to Syrians in 2016 than in 2015.

Around 30% of registered immigrants received a permit following an asylum application or having arrived through the annual resettlement quota (3 200 offers in 2016). Most of these were from Syria (63%). The number of new asylum seekers fell sharply from 2015 (31 000) to 2016 (3 500) and 2017 (3 600, of which 1 250 relocated from Italy and Greece). A similar trend was recorded for unaccompanied minors: only 320 asylum applications were registered in 2016 compared to almost 5 500 in the previous year.

Labour migration, the single largest category of entry, accounted for 28% of total non-Nordic immigration in 2016, led by Poland and Lithuania. Net Nordic migration was negative for the first time in years. The remaining 8% of immigrants had been granted permits for education, training, cultural exchanges and au pairs.

In 2016, the Norwegian police returned almost 8 100 foreigners without legal residence. About a third of them were asylum applicants being expelled following the Dublin procedure or former asylum seekers whose applications had been rejected. An additional 1 500 migrants returned to their countries through voluntary assisted return.

Almost 13 700 persons were naturalised in 2016, a 10% increase since 2015. The major countries of former citizenship were Eritrea (1 900), Somalia (1 200) and Afghanistan (1 000). Almost one third of all new citizens were children under 18 years of age; the share of children was particularly high among Eritreans (38%).

Following the rising number of asylum seekers entering Norway in 2015, several legislative amendments were adopted by the Norwegian parliament both to strengthen border control and ensure a more sustainable immigration policy. The major measures entering into force during 2016/17 included a reform to the family migration policy. According to this policy, an application for family immigration can be rejected if the sponsor has been granted protection in Norway without a permanent residence permit and if it is deemed that the family may exercise their life in another safe country where their social ties are stronger. In addition, when submitting an application for family reunification, the deadline for refugees to be exempted from the subsistence requirement was lowered from one year to six months. In cases of family establishment, both spouses have to be at least 24 years old, with possible exceptions if the union is clearly voluntary.

Conditions for obtaining a permanent residence permit have also changed. Since January 2017, a minimum level of spoken Norwegian and a knowledge test of Norwegian society are required. Permanent residence applications may now be rejected in case of conflict with important concerns related to the regulation of migration.

A number of new integration measures were adopted in 2016 and 2017. For instance, Norway has started developing recognition procedures for certain secondary and tertiary vocational education. By 2017, recognition procedures have been implemented for 15 vocational training programmes in Poland, Germany, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Furthermore, given the difficulty for workers in regulated professions to find suitable jobs, since August 2017 the government has established new bridging courses for foreign-trained nurses and teachers. Similar courses are being developed for refugees with science or technology qualifications to increase their attractiveness to Norwegian employers.

Education policies for migrants have been further developed with an amendment to the Education Act, declaring that all children are entitled to primary and lower secondary education as soon as possible and no later than within one month. Similarly, adult migrants with completed upper secondary education from abroad – which is not recognised in Norway – obtained the right to free upper secondary education.

In June 2017, the parliament adopted a new comprehensive Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act, consolidating several anti-discrimination legislations into one. A new Anti-Discrimination Tribunal has been established to handle complaints.

For further information

www.udi.no/en

www.ssb.no/en

www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/jd

www.imdi.no/en

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: NORWAY

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752752

Poland

In 2016, large migration inflows continued and grew by 15% to 98 400. As in 2015, the growth was driven by migration from Ukraine, 23% of the total. Other main nationalities were Belarusian, Russian, Vietnamese and Chinese, although each accounted for less than 3% of total inflows.

The spike in residence permit issuance in 2015 continued in 2016. For the second consecutive year, the number of temporary residence permits grew by more than 30%. In 2016, 86 600 temporary residence permits were issued (33% more than in 2015), driving the increase in the total number of residence permits to almost 107 700.

Poland has begun to receive substantial and growing inflows of migrant workers. Data for the first half of 2017 point to an increase of more than 100% in the number of work permits issued (over 108 000) compared with the corresponding period in 2016. Registered employer declarations for temporary workers from neighbouring countries, such as Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and Armenia, also increased by 40% in 2017 to almost 1 824 500; 94% of them were Ukrainians.

Around 65 800 international students were enrolled in Poland for the academic year 2016/17, an increase of 15% over the year. They represented about 5% of the total university student population. Ukrainians represented 54% of all international students, followed by Belarussians (8%).

Emigration remained significant. According to official national estimates, as of 31 December 2016, 2.5 million Polish citizens were staying temporarily abroad, mostly for work reasons. This represented a 5% annual increase. The main destination countries remain the United Kingdom (31%) and Germany (27%).

According to Eurostat, in 2017, the number of asylum applications more than halved to 5 050, the lowest figure in the decade. As in 2016, 70% of the applications were filed by Russian citizens (3 545, 2.5 times lower than in 2016). Ukrainians filed 13% (670, half the 2016 level) and Tajiks filed 3%. Of 2 035 decisions in 2017, 480 were granted protection. The rejection rate (76%) was 10% lower than in 2016. Poland initially agreed on a quota of 7 000 under the EU relocation programme from Greece and Italy of persons seeking protection, but relocation has not occurred. Inter-ministerial consultations are ongoing on amendments to the asylum act, which would introduce an accelerated asylum procedure at the border, with applicants awaiting a decision placed in detention centres.

The amended Act on Foreigners entered into force on 12 February 2018. Among the changes, the new act makes immigrants’ access to permanent residence and EU long-term residence conditional on Polish language knowledge (level B1 or an appropriate graduation certificate). Children under 16, beneficiaries of international protection, victims of human trafficking and foreigners of Polish descent are exempt. The amendment also transposes the EU Directive on intra-company transfers into Polish legislation and introduces a new temporary residence permit for foreign workers with in-demand skills, granting a shorter path to permanent residence (four instead of five to ten years). The act simplifies transition to employment for international graduates of Polish universities, in line with the October 2017 strategy for the internationalisation of Polish academic and research institutions through the National Agency for Academic Exchange. Subsidies for international students have been increased to three times the level of those available to Polish students.

The Act on employment and labour market institutions was also amended on 1 January 2018. The transposition of the EU seasonal workers Directive introduced other changes to the short-term employment of foreigners, including a new type of work permit for seasonal employment of up to nine months per year in agriculture, horticulture and tourism. Nationals of Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine may receive this permit without a labour market test, and may work in Poland for up to six months per year in all sectors except those covered by the seasonal work permits, provided an employer applies to the local labour office. The new act also introduced the possibility of setting annual quotas for work permits, seasonal permits and employers’ applications, with 2018 being a transition year before full implementation of all amendments to the employment act.

Other legislative changes in 2017 introduced more favourable residence conditions for foreigners of Polish descent. Holders of the Card of the Pole who apply for permanent residence are now entitled to a nine-month financial allowance. The waiting period to obtain Polish citizenship was shortened to one year. However, the Card of the Pole issue is conditional on the fulfillment of strict ethnicity conditions. Amendments to the Act on repatriation which entered into force in May 2017 have improved resettlement opportunities and assistance for foreigners of Polish ancestry from Asian former USSR countries.

For further information

www.udsc.gov.pl

www.stat.gov.pl

www.mpips.gov.pl

http://cudzoziemcy.gov.pl

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: POLAND

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752771

Portugal

In 2016, the inflow of foreign population to Portugal was 46 900, the highest level recorded since 2010 and a 24% increase relative to 2015. This large inflow led to the first increase in the foreign population stock since 2009. There were 397 700 foreign nationals living in Portugal in 2016, a 2.3% increase compared to 2015.

More than half of the increase in the yearly inflow can be accounted for by EU free mobility. The number of EU migrants increased by more than 40% in two years: from 14 700 in 2014 to 21 200 in 2016. The largest intra-EU inflows in 2016 were from France (3 500), Italy (3 100) and the United Kingdom (3 100). These increases were at least partly due to the favourable non habitual resident tax regime for new fiscal residents. This sets a 20% income tax rate for listed highly qualified occupations, as well as no taxes on foreign pensions and foreign capital gains.

The number of residence permits for investment purposes (ARI) also increased in 2016 and 2017 as backlogs were recovered after the suspension of the program in 2015, which was linked to a judicial investigation on corruption. Between January and July 2017, 1 000 permits were issued (as well as an additional 2 000 for family members), compared with a total of 1 400 permits (and 2 300 family members) in 2016.

Four hundred persons were granted refugee or international protection status in 2016, twice as many as in 2015. Two thirds of these were humanitarian residence permits and one third granted refugee status. Portugal continued to fulfil its commitment in the framework of the EU Agenda on Migration to host and resettle 4 574 people coming from Greece and Italy until December 2017. Between January and June 2017, 2 250 individuals were relocated or resettled, approximately 50% of the total number that had been agreed upon.

After an increase from 2010 to 2013, emigration has been largely stable since 2013, with an estimated 38 300 permanent and 58 900 temporary emigrants in 2016.

Several initiatives were launched to increase the attractiveness of Portugal to foreigners as well as to returning Portuguese emigrants. A call for projects with a social impact in Portugal was launched in 2016 within the “Strategic Plan for Migration – 2015-2020”. Forty projects were selected. A new visa program for entrepreneurs (Startup Visa) started in January 2018 for third country nationals. The selected startups will be incorporated into the Startup Portugal network and benefit from its incentives and programs.

2016 marked ten years since the passage of the 2006 Nationality Law which facilitated the acquisition of Portuguese nationality for the children of immigrants born in Portugal or for those who arrived as children. Between 2008 and 2016, 225 000 individuals acquired Portuguese nationality. Three quarters of these were naturalisations. In 2016, 29 000 individuals acquired Portuguese nationality, 30% more than in 2015.

The Nationality Law was amended in 2017 in order to speed up the process of nationality acquisition. Language testing is not necessary for citizens of Portuguese speaking countries and police records are no longer requested from countries where the applicant lived before age 16. The 2007 Immigration Law was also amended twice in 2017. The 2007 law stipulated that under exceptional circumstances, immigrants who had the promise of a work contract in Portugal could request a residence permit as long as they had entered the country legally. The 2017 amendment makes this a routine procedure, which should speed up the granting of such permits. The law also restricts the expulsion of undocumented immigrants who are taking care of minors born in Portugal or who arrived in Portugal before age 10. It also amended the 2007 Immigration Law by transposing into national legislation three EU directives on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for seasonal work, intra-company transfers, and for research, education, training, volunteering, and au pair purposes.

A new framework to handle racial discrimination was created with the passing of Law 93/2017. Henceforth, all the instruction stages will be concentrated in the Commission for Equality and Against Racial Discrimination (CICDR). The composition of the CICDR will be more diversified with the inclusion of a representative from the Roma communities and with representatives of all political parties. The concept of discrimination was also broadened in order to include elements such as ancestry or territory of origin.

For further information

www.acm.gov.ptwww.om.acm.gov.pt

www.sef.pt

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: PORTUGAL

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752790

Romania

Net emigration in Romania rose to almost 70 000 people in 2016, the third straight year of increase. The number of temporary immigrants resident in Romania increased (+7% compared to 2015) for the third year in a row, to close on 137 500 persons. According to the National Statistics Institute, the total resident population of Romania in January 2017 was 19.6 million persons, a decrease of 122 000 compared to 2016; immigrants accounted for 1.5% of the total population.

In 2016, the total number of immigrants with legal status in Romania was 112 100, including 64 900 third-country nationals and 47 200 nationals of EEA Member States and Switzerland. The five main countries of origin for third-country nationals with legal stay in Romania were Moldova (10 500), Turkey (9 100), China (7 700), Syria (4 850) and Israel (2 800). EU citizens in Romania mainly came from Italy (13 700), Germany (5 600), France (5 300), Hungary (2 900) and Greece (2 600).

As in previous years, almost half of the third-country nationals in Romania were family members of third-country national migrants or those of Romanian citizens. Another third came to Romania to study.

The number of permits that can be issued to new labour migrants is decided by the government on a yearly basis. In 2016, the General Inspectorate for Immigration issued 2 900 work permits, a slight increase compared to 2015 (2 500). Most permits were issued for permanent workers (2 300) followed by posted workers (500) and highly skilled workers (160). The number of work permits issued every year during 2010-2016 remained stable. Issues exceeded 50% of the established annual quota (5 500) for the first time in 2016. Quotas for admission to the labour market in 2017 were set at 5 500, the same as the previous two years, with subcategories for different types of work authorisation: 3 000 permanent workers; 700 posted workers; 700 intra-company transfers; 500 highly skilled employees; 400 seasonal workers; 100 internship workers; and 100 cross-border workers. In November 2017, the quota for permanent workers and intra-company transfers were reached. The quota for 2018 was increased to 7 000, with permanent workers increasing to 4 000 and intra-company transfers to 1 200. In January 2018, the minimum monthly salary for foreign workers was raised by 33% to RON 4 162 (about EUR 900), and the minimum monthly salary for highly skilled workers to RON 16 648 (about EUR 3 600).

In 2016, temporary emigration flows increased (+7.5% compared to 2014) for the third year in a row, to 209 500 persons. This flow is primarily economic migration of short and medium duration and in 2016 reached a level not seen since 2010.

The number of new asylum requests in Romania, together with those under review, remains low compared to other European countries including neighbouring ones: in 2016, about 1 900 asylum applications were submitted. However, the acceptance rate was 73% which is high compared to other EU member states.

Law no. 86/2016 regarding the establishment of Romanian community centres abroad obliges the Romanian government to ensure the establishment of centres in each state where at least 5 000 Romanian citizens are registered at the diplomatic mission of Romania.

In 2016, a Social Security Agreement between Romania and the Republic of Serbia was signed. The main purpose of the regulation is the recognition and aggregation of social insurance periods completed in the territory of both states, the determination of the applicable legislation for migrant workers, equal treatment and the export of benefits.

Government Ordinance no. 25/2016 transposes into national law the provisions of the Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals in the framework of an intra-corporate transfer, and of the Directive on the conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals for the purpose of employment as seasonal workers.

The Government Decision 14/2016 was adopted fully, transposing into Romanian law both recast asylum directives (the Directive laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection and the Directive on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection).

For further information

www.insse.ro

www.mai.gov.ro

www.igi.mai.gov.ro

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: ROMANIA

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752809

Russian Federation

Net migration inflow to the Russian Federation was 212 000 in 2017, a 19% decrease compared to the previous year (262 000). The inflow of permanent immigrants amounted to 598 000 (575 000 in 2016). The main countries of origin were Ukraine (150 000), Kazakhstan (72 000), Uzbekistan (64 000), Tajikistan (63 000) and Armenia (47 000). Emigration from the Russian Federation increased significantly to 377 000, compared to 313 000 in 2016. This is even more than in 2015 (353 000) and is mainly driven by labour migrants departing after being unable to renew work permits due to negative economic conditions. The main destination countries were Ukraine (102 000 ∗ a 72% increase since 2016), Uzbekistan (42 000), Kazakhstan (39 000) Armenia (33 000), Tajikistan (29 000), Moldova and Kyrgyzstan (22 000 each).

In 2017, the migration authorities issued 304 000 temporary residence permits (an 8% drop compared to 2016) and 182 000 permanent residence permits (almost the same as in 2016). Most permits of both types were issued to nationals of Ukraine (34%), Kazakhstan and Tajikistan (12% each), and Uzbekistan (11%). At the end of 2017, the stock of residence permit holders reached 1.14 million persons, 2% more than at the end of 2016. Most of the residence permit holders were citizens of Ukraine (346 000 or 30% of the total), Uzbekistan (149 000), Tajikistan (126 000), Armenia (107 000), Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan (around 93 000 each)

Labour migration grew in 2017. Russian authorities issued about 1.8 million permissions to work (a 9% increase compared to 2016). Citizens of visa-requirement states received 148 000 work permits (almost the same as in 2016), with China (35%), the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (22%) and Viet Nam (10%) among the top recipients of these permits. Nationals of visa-free states of the former USSR purchased about 1.7 million licenses (patents), an increase of 11%. About 94% of all patents were issued to workers from three countries: Uzbekistan (976 000 or 58%), Tajikistan (468 000 or 28%) and Ukraine (133 000 or 8%). Citizens of Moldova and Azerbaijan each purchased about 3% of all patents. Recruitment of permit-free foreign workers (as reflected in notifications sent by employers to migration authorities) increased considerably to 626 000, 90% more than 2016. The majority of them (470 000) were citizens of member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (a twofold increase compared to 2016), while the rest were residence-permit holders and some other categories of foreign workers.

The number of international students in tertiary education in Russia continued to grow. At the beginning of the 2017/18 academic year the stock reached 259 000, an increase of 6% compared to 2016. Most enrolled students were from former USSR countries, including Kazakhstan (65 000), Uzbekistan (26 000), Turkmenistan (22 000) and Ukraine (20 000). Students from China formed the largest group among other countries (16 000). The number of newly enrolled foreign students remained nearly the same as in 2016 (86 000).

The stock of refugees in Russia amounted to 592 persons at the end of 2017, while the stock of temporary asylum holders fell to 125 000, from 228 000 in 2016 and 314 000 in 2015. Temporary asylum is the main type of protection Russia provides. Since the beginning of the armed conflict in the South-East regions of Ukraine in 2014, more than 300 000 forced migrants from this country were granted temporary asylum in Russia. After reaching its historical high in 2015 (151 000), the number of applications continued to decrease and in 2017 amounted to 13 000. Inclusion of temporary asylum holders in the State Program for Voluntary Resettlement to the Russian Federation of Compatriots Residing Abroad allowed many asylum seekers to obtain Russian citizenship through a simplified procedure.

Over 254 000 foreigners were naturalized in Russia in 2017, a 4% decrease since 2016. Most of the naturalized persons were citizens of Ukraine (40%), Kazakhstan (15%), Armenia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan (9% each).

There were few changes in the migration policies of the Russian Federation in 2017. The most important change was the amending of the Law on citizenship with respect to the citizens of Ukraine, who are now allowed to apply for Russian citizenship without a confirmed renunciation of their former citizenship. Other minor changes to migration policy were made in the sphere of exit from / entry to the Russian Federation, rules of stay and residence in the country, and bilateral cooperation of Russia with selected countries. Reorganisation of the Federal Migration Service following its integration into the Ministry of Interior (in April 2016) continued in 2017.

For further information

https://мвд.рф

https://мвд.рф/mvd/structure1/Glavnie_upravlenija/guvm

https://мвд.рф/Deljatelnost/statistics/migracionnaya

www.mid.ru

www.gks.ru

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752828

Slovak Republic

Total migration inflow to the Slovak Republic continued to rise in 2016 albeit at a lower rate, reaching 7 700 persons compared with 7 000 in 2015. This marked the highest level since 2008. The total migration outflow remained roughly stable in 2016 at 3 800 persons (3 900 in 2015), a high level compared with most years since the early 1990s. Net immigration to the Slovak Republic has risen for two consecutive years after the strong decline between 2008 and 2014 and reached 3 900 persons in 2016.

Total migration inflow increased due to a substantial rise in return migration by Slovak citizens, from 3 200 in 2015 to 4 100 in 2016. Emigration of Slovak citizens was stable (3 800 in 2015 and 3 700 in 2016). Slovak citizens accounted for 97% of outflow in 2016. Most foreigners migrating to the Slovak Republic were EU citizens, as in previous years. Those arriving in 2016 included 600 citizens from Hungary, 500 from the Czech Republic, 500 from Romania and 200 each from Italy and Poland. Non-EU inflows mainly came from Asia.

The total number of foreigners with residence permits in the Slovak Republic continued to grow, from 85 000 in 2015 to 93 000 in 2016 and 98 000 in mid-2017. The number of foreigners in employment grew more rapidly, from 25 500 in 2015 to 35 100 in 2016 and 49 500 by December 2017, according to figures from the Centre of Labour, Social Affairs and Family. Of these, 44% were from non-EU countries, principally Serbia, Ukraine and Viet Nam. The number of newly granted residence permits (including permits granted to persons already residing in the Slovak Republic) reached the highest level in this decade, approaching 25 000 in 2016, after 24 000 in 2015 and 17 000 in 2014. Third-country nationals from outside the EU/EFTA accounted for 70% (17 400) of the residence permits granted in 2016. Most of these permits were temporary (14 500). By contrast, most new permits for permanent residence were granted to EU/EFTA citizens (7 300 in 2016). Third-country nationals were granted 2 200 permanent residence permits and obtained tolerated residence in another 700 cases. The principal nationalities with new residence permits in 2016 were Ukrainians, Russians and Serbians, followed by Koreans and Iranians. Close to 500 persons obtained Slovak citizenship in 2016, including about 100 each from the Czech Republic and Serbia.

According to labour force survey data, 150 000 Slovaks were employed abroad in the second quarter of 2017. This is slightly down from 2016 (160 000). The main countries of employment were Austria (56 000), the Czech Republic (38 000) and Germany (22 000).

Applications for refugee status in the Slovak Republic remain limited and fell by half between 2015 and 2016, to 150. In the first 8 months of 2017, slightly more than 100 applications were filed. Acceptance rates increased. Refugee status had been granted in fewer than three dozen cases per year since 2000, but rose to 167 in 2016 (mostly nationals of Iraq). Only 35 procedures were terminated, after much higher numbers in previous years. The applications in 2016 were most frequently filed by nationals of Ukraine and Afghanistan.

In mid-2017, the Slovak Republic introduced the EU Intracompany Transfer (ICT) Permit in the context of the EU ICT Directive, in addition to an existing national scheme for ICT. The new permit is available to third-country nationals sent by their employer to work for more than 90 days in the same company located in the Slovak Republic. The residence permit is valid for up to three years and is renewable. Family may join the ICT for family reunification and enjoy access to the labour market.

To facilitate the recruitment of third-country nationals for Strategic Service Centres (SSC) – business process outsourcing – in the Slovak Republic, maximum processing times for permits for employment in SSCs have been shortened (30 days instead of the usual 90 days). The Ministry of Economy may, upon application, recognise units within private companies as SSCs if they provide services to other parts of the company (e.g. financial, HR or IT services).

In February 2018, the Law on Employment Services was revised. From May 2018, a facilitated procedure – including a labour market test exemption ∗ will be in place for occupations in shortage in districts where unemployment is below 5%. The shortage list will be determined by a tripartite commission on an annual basis. A firm-level ceiling of 30% will apply to the employment of foreign workers.

For further information

www.minv.sk

www.employment.gov.sk

http://datacube.statistics.sk/#!/lang/en

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: SLOVAK REPUBLIC

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752847

Slovenia

The total stock of foreign citizens residing in Slovenia rose to 116 000 in April 2017, accounting for close to 6% of the total population (about 2 million). In 2016, the inflow of foreign nationals to Slovenia remained moderate and stable. According to the National Statistical Office, immigration in 2016 (16 600 people) increased by 8% compared to 2015 (15 400). About 15 600 people emigrated in 2016, a slightly higher number (+4%) than in 2015. Consequently, net immigration of more than 1 000 people in 2016, up from 500 in 2015, was the highest since 2011. In 2016, for the seventeenth year in a row, net migration of Slovenians was negative; close to 6 000 more persons left the country than returned to it. However, the net migration of foreign nationals was positive for the eighteenth consecutive year: in 2016, 7 000 more foreign nationals immigrated to Slovenia than emigrated from it.

In 2016, as in previous years, Slovenia’s immigrants with foreign citizenship arrived predominantly from countries of the former Yugoslavia. The largest group was from Bosnia and Herzegovina (35%), followed by Serbia, Kosovo, Croatia, Bulgaria and other EU countries.

More than a quarter (27%) of Slovenian citizens emigrating from Slovenia went to Austria. Other common countries of next residence were Germany (20%), Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Foreign nationals emigrating from Slovenia most commonly chose Bosnia and Herzegovina (22%) as their next country of residence, followed by Germany (11%), Croatia (10%) and Serbia (9%).

In 2016, Slovenia issued 19 900 temporary residence permits for employment and/or work purposes, compared to 21 400 in 2015. Over the same year, 2 700 temporary permits were issued for students pursuing their studies in Slovenia and close to 5 600 for family reasons. Claims for humanitarian protection noticeably increased in 2016, compared to 2015, with 1 300 applications. By the end of September 2017, more than 1 000 persons had already applied for international protection. In the first nine months of 2017 the main countries of origin of asylum seekers were Afghanistan (46%), Algeria (10%), Pakistan (8%) and Syria (8%). Women made up less than 10% of the applicants. International protection status was granted to fewer than 130 applicants (12%) compared to 170 in 2016 (13%) and 45 in 2015 (16%). As part of the EU relocation effort, Slovenia pledged to relocate 567 persons. By the end of September 2017, 217 of them had already been relocated. Of these, 199 decisions had been made: 182 were granted refugee status and 10 subsidiary protection status. Slovenia also fully joined the EU solidarity efforts in 2017, pledging to resettle 60 Syrian refugees from Turkey as outlined by the EU-Turkey statement of March 2016.

In 2017, the Aliens Act was amended to update and transpose EU directives and regulations into national legislation. Other proposed changes included the possibility of obtaining a residence permit for people who cease to be eligible for international protection under the International Protection Act and for the holders of subsidiary protection. The amendments also enabled shortened procedures for persons intercepted at illegal border crossings; refusal of entry and readmission; as well as certain limitations in granting international protection. A temporary residence permit allowing stay in Slovenia for at least 24 months may now be issued to persons for whom deportation is not possible. The changes also aim at harmonising legislation with the Social Assistance Benefits Act in order to provide sufficient means of subsistence in cases of family reunification. Additionally, there is a new possibility of issuing a separate temporary residence permit for victims of domestic violence.

Amendments to the Employment, Self-Employment and Work of Aliens Act (ZZSDT) also changed conditions for seasonal workers and ICTs (intra-corporate transferees). They allow capital-linked companies to make the best use of their human resources and make it easier to move them within a group of affiliated companies. With the transposition of Directive 2014/36/EU, a single residence and work permit for seasonal work may now be issued for seasonal work longer than 90 days. As of January 2018, the Cross-border Provision of Services Act brought important changes for cross-border provision of services and the posting of workers to other EU and EFTA countries, with the aim of preventing abuse and violation of posted workers’ rights (mainly regarding working conditions and access to social security). New bilateral agreements on the employment of citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, implemented in 2017, have eased labour migration. Finally, in July 2017, an amendment to the Citizenship Act allowed the acquisition of Slovenian citizenship for persons whose naturalisation is of a particular interest to the state, but who do not meet the standard requirements.

For further information

www.stat.si/eng

www.mddsz.gov.si/en

www.mnz.gov.si/en

www.infotujci.si

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: SLOVENIA

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752866

Spain

In 2016, net migration of foreign nationals rose to 112 700 from 40 800 a year earlier. Most of this increase is explained by a 22% rise in immigration, while emigration declined by 3%. With an inflow of 354 000 people, immigration reached its highest level since 2009. Moroccans were the leading nationality of immigrants in 2016, with an inflow of 30 000 and a 25% increase compared to 2015. They were followed closely by Romanians (29 000, as in the previous year). Colombians and Venezuelans were the two main net migration nationalities, with a positive balance of 16 000 each. Net migration of Romanians was negative in 2016 (-24 000). Spain remained the main European destination for UK citizens. As of January 2016, there were close to 300 000 recorded British residents in Spain, about one third of all British residents in the European Union.

Emigration of Spanish nationals in 2016 declined for the first time in more than a decade, to 86 000. As in the previous year, the main destinations, which accounted for 45% of the total, were the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the United States.

Improving economic conditions led to an increase in immigration of Spanish nationals: 62 000 arrived in 2016, compared to 52 000 the previous year. Although net migration of Spanish nationals remained negative in 2016 (-27 200), this was lower than in 2015 (-42 500).

The economic recovery was also visible in improved labour market outcomes for immigrants. Although the unemployment rate of foreigners remained high, at almost 25% in the last quarter of 2016, this was 3.7 percentage points lower than in the previous year. This decline was steeper than the decline for Spanish nationals (2 percentage points, to 18% in the last quarter of 2016).

The total number of first permits granted to foreigners from non-EU countries increased from 193 000 in 2015 to 211 000 in 2016. Most of the increase occurred in the family category, which represented more than 50% of all first permits, while there was a decline in permits issued for economic reasons.

In the first half of 2016, 93 000 naturalisations through residence were granted, up from 78 000 in the same period of 2015. Yet, the overall data show a reduction in naturalisations each year. The main nationalities of origin were Morocco, Bolivia, Colombia and Ecuador, which accounted for about half of the total.

There was an increase in irregular border crossings in 2016 and again in 2017, compared to previous periods. This was mostly due to increased arrivals by sea through the Strait of Gibraltar, while crossings to the Canary Islands decreased. According to the Ministry of Interior, boat landings amounted to 22 100 persons in 2017, compared with 8 200 in 2016. Migration pressure is a challenge for Spain; therefore, there is a continuation of the close co-operation on combatting irregular migration with countries of origin and transit, such as Morocco, Senegal and Mauritania.

There was a 6.6% increase in asylum applications in 2016 to 15 600. Preliminary data for 2017 show an even larger increase to approximately 31 700, the highest on record. There was a sharp increase in applications from Venezuelans, from 585 in 2015 to 3 960 in 2016 and to more than 10 600 in 2017. The second largest group in 2016 and 2017 was Syrians (6 975 and 4 300 respectively). Spain granted international protection to 6 900 persons in 2016 (in most cases, subsidiary protection), a strong increase compared to the previous year (1 000); preliminary data indicate that the 2017 figure should be lower. In addition, Spain took part in the EU relocation and resettlement programmes. By September 2017, about 1 300 asylum seekers had been relocated from Greece and Italy to Spain, due to the difficulties of implementing this new process. Spain also committed to resettle about 1 400 refugees from countries neighbouring Syria and had reached about half of this target by September 2017. The increase in asylum applications in Spain has led to the restructuring of the asylum system to manage larger numbers of applications and to increase the capacity of the reception system.

Due to the lack of parliamentary majority during most of 2016, no major legal changes were implemented. A number of measures to attract highly skilled immigrants, in particular investors and entrepreneurs, have recently been taken. Therefore, migrants to Spain have higher qualifications than in earlier years. In addition, a “Rising Start-up Spain” pilot project was launched in 2016. This project offered foreign entrepreneurs and start-ups who promote entrepreneurial activity with a scalable and innovative project: EUR 10 000, a free office space in Madrid or Barcelona and specialist mentoring to support the financing process and other services. The second call for this scheme, which received a total of 155 applications in its first edition, was considered a success.

For further information

http://extranjeros.empleo.gob.es/es/index.html

www.empleo.gob.es/es/estadisticas/index.htm

www.ine.es

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: SPAIN

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752885

Sweden

In 2016, net migration to Sweden reached over 117 000, the highest on record. The increase in net migration was driven predominantly by a sharp increase in immigration in 2016, but also by slightly lower emigration levels. Approximately 163 000 persons immigrated to Sweden in 2016, representing a 21% increase on the previous year and the fifth consecutive year of growth in immigration numbers.

The increase in immigration is partly attributable to the large number of asylum seekers who arrived in Sweden in 2015 but, due to the long processing time for granted residence, only appeared in the statistics in 2016. In fact, Syrian citizens accounted for 42% of net migration in 2016; migrants from Eritrea, Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq and stateless migrants also making a contribution. Migrants to Sweden from the EU (excluding Swedish citizens) in 2016 were largely from Poland, Romania and Finland. Emigration of EU citizens exceeded immigration, thus their net migration was negative.

Figures from the Swedish Migration Agency indicate 10% fewer residence permits issued in 2017 than in 2016, with the number falling from 151 000 to 136 000. The decline was largely driven by 36% fewer permits issued to refugees and their families ∗ from over 86 700 in 2016 to 55 700 in 2017. Total permit issuance in 2017 did not fall back to the pre-2016 numbers, remaining above the pre-peak average of 115-120 000. The number of permits granted to labour migrants and their families increased, with a 25% increase in the number granted for work purposes (16 100), a 42% increase in the number granted to the families of labour migrants (12 200) and increases in the numbers granted to self-employed workers (220) and visiting scientists (1 200). In addition, 2017 saw a 23% increase in the numbers of visas issued to students and their families, which rose to 13 400 in 2017.

The number of asylum seekers arriving in Sweden during 2016, at 29 000, was at its lowest level since 2009 and a substantial fall from the 2015 high of 163 000. Recent figures for 2017 show a further fall to just 25 700. While the number of asylum seekers has usually varied during the year with a peak in autumn, application levels in 2016/17 were stable at 400-600 applications per week. The fall in asylum seekers is thought to be driven partially by a number of legislative changes that have reduced the attraction of Sweden, including tightened rules on family reunification and stricter rules governing permanent residence permits. The introduction of border controls and ID checks, as well as international agreements and strengthened international borders, also played a role.

In May 2017, the Swedish Government decided to prolong the Swedish Police’s internal border controls, which have been in force since November 2015, but decided to end ID checks across the Öresund Strait. Furthermore, while the temporary law – dictating that those in need of protection are granted only temporary permits and limited family reunification – remains in place, new legislation introduced in August 2017 ensures that these individuals are able to maintain health care and welfare benefits if they apply for an extension before their temporary permit expires. Changes have also been introduced relating to age determination for unaccompanied minors. Since May 2017, the Migration Agency is able to assess the age of a minor at the outset of the asylum procedure instead of, as previously, only in connection with the final decision. Furthermore, since March 2017 asylum seeking minors will be offered the possibility to undergo a voluntary medical age assessment in support of their age determination decision. Additionally, in June 2017, amendments were made to ensure that, under certain conditions, those aged between 18 and 25 are able to extend their temporary residence permit for the duration of their upper secondary school studies.

Processing times for work permits have increased in recent years, partly due to the large number of asylum requests. As a result, in May 2017 the Swedish Migration Agency expanded an existing scheme under which online applications for work permits from certified employers will be processed within 20 days. Alongside this, in response to a number of permit applications rejected on the basis of minor, unintentional deviations from the required conditions during previous permit periods, measures enabling employers to correct such mistakes before an application is submitted were introduced in December 2017.

In 2016, Sweden entered into a working holiday agreement with Chile, and in 2017 with Hong Kong, China and with Argentina. Such agreements, which are already in place with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Korea, promote cultural exchange and mobility among youth aged 18-30 by enabling them to travel for a year and engage in temporary employment to supplement their travel funds.

For further information

www.migrationsverket.se

www.scb.se/en/

https://sweden.se/migration/

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: SWEDEN

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752904

Switzerland

Immigration to Switzerland has been declining since 2014 with this trend continuing in 2017. According to national statistics, about 138 000 persons immigrated to Switzerland on a permanent basis – including 25 200 status changes. Immigration declined about 4% in comparison with 2016, although per-capita immigration remains high in international comparison. With emigration showing a slight increase, net migration declined markedly, by 12%. At around 100 000, free-mobility from the EU continues to account for the vast majority of permanent immigration. However the decline in immigration as well as the increase in emigration was more marked than for non-EU countries. At 47%, labour migration – the vast majority of the free mobility kind ∗ accounted for almost half of the inflow, followed by family migration (31%). Germans continued to comprise the main nationality of new immigration (20 000, -1 200 from 2016), followed by Italians at 15 500 (-2 700 from 2016) as well as about 14 000 French (+300 from 2016). Germans were by far the most important nationality for emigration (14 500), with net migration of Germans at about 4 500.

In 2017, Switzerland received a little more than 18 000 asylum requests, a third less than in 2016 and the lowest level since 2010. However, on a per capita basis this is still well above the OECD average. The most prevalent nationality continued to be Eritreans, at about 3 400, in spite of a significant decline from 2016 (5 200). Other main nationalities were Syrians (2 000 requests), Afghans (1 200, less than half the 2016 figure) and Turks (900).

New asylum legislation is currently being prepared, with the objective of accelerating asylum procedures to conclude most decisions within 140 days. To this end, asylum seekers have to reside in special, newly-created federal asylum centres. In exchange for accelerated procedures, asylum seekers will obtain legal counsel to ensure that their rights are not jeopardised. The new procedure is expected to enter into force in 2019. An evaluation of a pilot in Zurich suggested quicker procedures, fewer complaints and higher returns to the origin countries.

In December 2017, the Federal government decided on the details of the implementation of a 2016 law that aimed at responding to a popular vote to limit free mobility, while maintaining the corresponding agreements with the EU and its member countries. As of July 2018, vacancies must be communicated to the public employment service if they concern occupations with an average unemployment rate of 8% or higher. In addition, for a period of five days, information about such vacancies will be exclusively available to the employment service and its clients.

As a further measure to limit inflows, in May 2017 Switzerland introduced temporary limitations with respect to the labour migration of nationals from Bulgaria and Romania. This is in line with provisions in its agreements with the EU and its member states which allow for such measures in a transition phase. This measure can be extended to another year.

Integration continues to be high on the policy agenda. This is reflected in several ongoing changes in the integration framework and in the planned change of the name of the current “law on foreigners” into “law on foreigners and integration” as of mid-2018. Other changes underway are several clarifications with respect to the required level of language knowledge for certain permits, and the grounds for making the fulfilment of an integration contract obligatory. The corresponding sanctions for non-compliance, such as a less stable permit, are also concretised. Several changes in the integration framework concern humanitarian migrants. On 1 January 2018, a special tax of 10% on wages that previously applied for asylum seekers and temporarily admitted persons was abolished and, as of July 2018, employable refugees and temporarily admitted persons under social assistance who are seeking a job will be automatically registered with the public employment service to improve their access to labour market integration measures. What is more, the current permission procedure for employment of both recognised refugees and temporarily admitted persons is to be replaced by an obligation to register such employment.

A new citizenship law entered into force in January 2018. It contains, among other changes, a reduction of duration of residency requirements from 12 years – one of the highest in the OECD ∗ to 10 years. In exchange, eligibility criteria have been tightened with respect to the requirements to prove good integration into Swiss society and to have previously held a permanent resident permit. While Switzerland does not have birth right citizenship, from mid-February 2018 third-generation young foreigners who were born in Switzerland ∗ as well as their parents ∗ can benefit from a facilitated procedure for naturalisation.

For further information

www.sem.admin.ch

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: SWITZERLAND

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752923

Turkey

According to the online application system (e-residence) providing foreigners with initial residence permits, renewals and status changes, in 2017, the number of residence permits held by foreigners in Turkey increased by 29% to almost 600 000. As of 22 February 2018, this number stood at 627 000. The main origin countries in 2017 were Iraq (70 000) and Syria (65 000), followed by Azerbaijan (49 000) and Turkmenistan (41 000). The number of permits doubled between 2015 and 2017 for citizens of Iraq, Syria and Turkmenistan.

The main residence permit category is the short-term one, which represented around two-thirds of the total in 2017 (383 000). 86% of the permits held by Iraqis and 76% of those held by Syrians fell into this group. The second largest category of permits were granted for family reasons (68 000), followed by student permits (63 000). Azerbaijan was the top nationality of permit holders for these two categories. The Ministry for Labour and Social Security delivers work permits, and since 2015, these also serve as residence permits. The number of issues of such permits is also on the rise and reached 87 200 in 2017 (+25% compared to 2015).

Higher education institutions in Turkey have seen a growing number of international student enrolments. In 2016/17 there were 108 000 international tertiary students in Turkey, up 23% compared to the previous school year and double the figure of 2013/14. Syria and Azerbaijan were the main countries of origin, with 15 000 students each. Turkmenistan followed with 10 000 students, while Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq were the other countries with more than 5 000 tertiary students enrolled. At a lower level, the most recent data show that there were 166 500 Syrian students enrolled in state schools and 293 000 students attending classes in temporary education centres in 2016.

Between 2008 and 2013, the number of workers sent abroad by the Turkish Employment Agency remained at an overall average of 55 000 people; this declined to around 40 000 people in 2014 and to 24 000 in 2016, a 50% drop in only a few years. In 2016, the top three destination countries were Iraq (17%), Algeria (16%) and Saudi Arabia (8.5%). According to the World Bank, remittances to Turkey declined again in 2017 (-4% to USD 1.1 billion), albeit at a slower pace than previously (-20% in 2015 and -15% in 2016).

The Directorate General of Migration Management (DGMM) under the Ministry of Interior has authority to carry out functions and activities related to entry, stay and exit of foreigners as well as removal, international protection, temporary protection and protection of victims of human trafficking.

As of 22 February 2018, according to the DGMM there were more than 3.5 million registered Syrians under temporary protection in Turkey, of whom almost 1 million were children under 10. The Syrian population residing in camps administered by the “Prime Ministry Disaster and Emergency Management Authority” declined slightly since 2016, and stood at around 230 000 in February 2018. Most Syrians reside in border provinces, where they account for up to a quarter of the provincial population, as in Şanlıurfa and Hatay provinces for example. However, the main destination region of Syrians is the province of Istanbul, where more than half a million of them reside (3.7% of the provincial population).

In March 2017, the regulations implementing the Turquoise Card for highly qualified foreigners were published. The Turquoise Card is granted to foreigners with qualifying levels of education, occupational experience and contribution to the technology, employment and economy of Turkey. The equivalent of a permanent work permit, it allows accompanying family to join.

The issue of facilitating the naturalisation process of foreigners, including the Syrians under temporary protection, was of critical importance in 2016/17. A regulation enacted in January 2017 aims to attract foreign investors, offering citizenship to those buying real estate in Turkey worth at least USD 1 million, under the condition that the property is not sold for at least three years. The regulation also extended the possibility of naturalisation to foreigners who had at least USD 3 million deposited in Turkey provided that it is not withdrawn for three years. This new regulation aimed in particular at increasing the number of property sales, which fell in 2016.

In July 2017, the government submitted a new proposal to amend the Population Services Law aimed at streamlining residency and citizenship regulations for foreign nationals. According to the proposed amendment, foreigners who were granted residence would be registered in the registry of foreigners by providing their ID numbers to the Ministry of the Interior. The law would require those seeking naturalisation not to leave Turkey for a period of more than nine months during their application process.

For further information

www.csgb.gov.tr

www.goc.gov.tr

www.iskur.gov.tr

www.nvi.gov.tr

www.mfa.gov.tr

www.tuik.gov.tr

www.workinturkey.gov.tr

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: TURKEY

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752942

United Kingdom

Leading up to September 2017, net migration to the United Kingdom fell, as immigration decreased and emigration increased. In the year ending September 2017 net migration was +244 000, down 29 000 compared with the previous year. The decline was driven by a fall in net migration from EU nationals, down 75 000 to +90,000. However the number of EU nationals coming to the UK remains higher than the number leaving. Over the same period, there was an increase in net migration from non-EU nationals (up 40 000 to +205 000) and British nationals (up 4 000 to -52 000). Net migration has shown a general downward trend since early 2016.

As in 2015, the largest group of non-British long-term immigrants to the United Kingdom in 2016 were estimated to be from Romania, accounting for 12% of arrivals, followed by India (8%), China (8%) and Poland (6%). Other European countries were also well represented.

In the year ending September 2017, over 40% of all long-term immigrants to the United Kingdom (248 000 individuals) said their main reason for coming to the United Kingdom was to take up a definite job offer or to look for work. The number of immigrants coming to the UK for work reasons fell compared with the previous year. Over the same period, the number leaving the UK for work reasons increased to 179 000. It is important to note, however, that some of those leaving for work reasons are likely to have originally entered for other reasons such as study.

The number of long-term immigrants to the United Kingdom who arrive for the purposes of study has fallen since its peak of 246 000 in 2011. However, the most recent period shows immigration to study was 163 000 in year ending September 2017 (up 29 000 on the previous year). Home Office visa data for the calendar year 2017 show the number of study-related visas issued has also increased (up 8%) in the last year, and applications sponsored by the university sector have risen (up 6% to 177 775). The fall in long-term immigration for study since the peak in 2011 is largely a response to tighter government policies to address non-compliance with the immigration rules, especially in the Further Education sector. A further 81 000 migrants arrived in the UK to accompany, or to join, their family, 7 000 higher than the previous year.

Reasons for coming to the UK continue to vary between OECD (excluding the UK) and non-OECD area citizens. Overall, those from OECD countries continue to appear predominantly work motivated (64%) compared with 37% for non-OECD countries. Those from elsewhere are more likely to express study or family reasons for coming to the United Kingdom than those from OECD countries.

The number of EU citizens moving to the United Kingdom to look for work decreased by 35 000, at the year ending September 2017. Those coming for a definite job also saw a small decline. The latest data still show that more EU citizens are arriving in the UK than leaving, meaning that the numbers of EU citizens in employment have continued to grow, although the rate of increase has slowed for a variety of reasons.

Asylum applications in the UK from main applicants decreased by 14% in 2017, to 26 350. This continues a downward trend since 2015. The largest number of applications for asylum came from nationals of Iran (2 600), followed by Pakistan (2 500), Iraq (2 400), Bangladesh (1 700), and Sudan (1 700). The majority of applications were made by people already in the country (85%) rather than immediately on arrival. Of the 21 300 initial decisions on asylum applications from main applicants, 32% granted some form of protection, down from 34% the previous year.

In addition to offering protection through asylum routes, the UK has other channels such as resettlement schemes. The UK granted asylum, alternative forms of protection, or resettlement to nearly 15 000 in 2017. Nearly 6 000 of these were children under 18 years old.

In 2016, the UK transferred over 900 unaccompanied asylum seeking children to the UK from Europe. In July 2017, following consultation with local authorities on capacity, the Government announced that the specified number of children to be transferred would be 480.

Policy on future immigration from the EU and on the position of EU citizens in the United Kingdom was set out in July 2017 in a Command Paper, “Safeguarding the Position of EU Citizens Living in the UK and UK Nationals Living in the EU”. The paper sets out a series of principles, including the expectation that the EU will offer reciprocal treatment for United Kingdom nationals resident in its member states. Meanwhile, negotiations continue.

For further information

www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office

www.ons.gov.uk

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: UNITED KINGDOM

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752961

United States

The total foreign-born population residing in the United States in 2016 was 43.7 million, or 13.4% of the US population. Persons born in Mexico accounted for 26.5% of the foreign-born population, followed by India (5.6%), the People’s Republic of China (4.9%), and the Philippines (4.4%).

There were 1 183 500 new lawful permanent residents (LPR) in FY (Fiscal Year) 2016, of whom about half were new arrivals to the United States. This annual increase of 12.6% was the third increase in a row. However, preliminary figures for FY2017 suggest a 4.4% drop, mostly due to fewer new arrivals.

In FY2016, Asia accounted for about 39% of all LPR, followed by North America 36%, Africa 9.6% and Europe 7.9%. Family-sponsored immigrants and immediate relatives of US citizens accounted for 68% of all persons granted LPR status, while 11.7% were employment-based (including accompanying family members). 13.3% became LPRs after being granted refugee status or asylum. Family migration was largest (80.3%) among South Americans, while employment-based preference was largest for Europe and Oceania (22.8%).

A total of 85 000 refugees were resettled in FY2016; in addition, 20 500 individuals already present in the United States were granted asylum, 39% fewer than in FY2015. Resettled refugees were mainly from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (19%) followed by Syria (15%) and Myanmar (15%). For FY2017 the refugee admission ceiling, set at 110 000 under the previous administration, was not reached, 54 000 were admitted. Refugee admission has been capped to 45 000 for FY2018, its lowest level since the programme began in 1980.

Asylum applications at the border and in the United States have increased. In FY 2016, 93 000 individuals who claimed a credible fear were screened (73% from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador), while the number of affirmative applications filled reached 115 000, a 20-year high. In the first three quarters of FY2017, 61 000 credible fear referrals were registered and 111 000 new affirmative asylum applications were lodged. The backlog of pending asylum cases reached 311 000 in January 2018; since then, applications have been handled on a last-in, first out basis.

Non-immigrant temporary visas fell 4.7% in FY2016 and 2.7% in FY2017, after years of increase. International student admissions have fallen sharply (-26% in FY2016, to 502 000, and -16.2% in FY2017, to 421 000); students are no longer the leading category. Students from China and India – half of the total – comprise a shrinking share – down by 61% and 39% respectively from 2015 to 2017.

Temporary foreign workers (H visas) rose sharply in the past two years (+11.5% in FY2016 and 5.7% in FY2017). The H-1B (temporary specialty occupation workers) cap was reached in the first week of applications in recent years, leading to a lottery to attribute the 65 000 visas available, with 20 000 exempt from the cap due to the worker holding an advanced US degree. Premium processing has been temporarily suspended for FY2018 cap-subject H-1B petitions only.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is reviewing administrative actions taken by the previous administration. A suggested rule expected in mid-2018 would propose to revoke the 2015 provision for certain spouses of H-1B to access employment. Other programmes under review include extensions for post-graduation employment authorisations for certain foreign students, temporary admission for international entrepreneurs, and eligibility rules for intra-company transferees. In addition, DHS is working on regulations to strengthen EB-5 programmes, to further define inadmissibility based on public charge grounds, and to expand biometrics requirements. Legislative proposals under discussion include the termination of the Diversity Visa, the shift to a merit-based system for prioritising applications and selection and changes to the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program.

81 000 foreigners were removed from the interior of the country in FY2017, with a strong increase (+37%) since January 2017. Border removals fell, leading the total number of removals during FY2017 to fall by 5.9% to 226 100 (240 400 in FY2016 and 409 800 at the peak in FY2012).

There were 703 000 naturalisations in FY2017 and 753 000 in FY2016. About 56% are women. In FY2017, the largest groups were Mexican nationals (118 200), followed by Indians (49 600), Chinese (37 600) and Filipinos (36 300).

On 5 September 2017, the termination of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was announced. Due to federal court orders, USCIS continues to accept certain renewal requests, but not new applications. Legislative solutions have been discussed, but not advanced.

Among executive orders issued was Executive Order 13780 (March 2017) which limited travel to the U.S. from certain countries. Following court challenges, Presidential Proclamation 9645 in September 2017 restricted travel from Chad, Iran, Libya, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. The restriction went into effect in December 2017. Another executive order directs government agencies to “to propose new rules and issue new guidance […] to protect the interests of United States workers in the administration of [the] immigration system” Finally, TPS was terminated for several countries, including El Salvador, Haiti and Nicaragua.

For further information

www.uscis.gov

www.dhs.gov/

www.state.gov

Recent trends in migrants’ flows and stocks: UNITED STATES

Notes and sources are at the end of the chapter.

StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752980

Statistical annex

Inflows of asylum seekers

A.3. Inflows of asylum seekers into OECD countries and Russia

B.3. Inflows of asylum seekers by nationality

Metadata relative to Tables A.3. and B.3. Inflows of asylum seekers

Stocks of foreign and foreign-born populations

A.4. Stocks of foreign-born population in OECD countries and in Russia

B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth

Metadata relative to Tables A.4. and B.4. Stocks of foreign-born

A.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality in OECD countries and in Russia

B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality

Metadata relative to Tables A.5. and B.5. Stocks of foreign population

Acquisitions of nationality

A.6. Acquisitions of nationality in OECD countries and in Russia

B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality

Metadata relative to Tables A.6. and B.6. Acquisitions of nationality

Note on Israel: The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

Note on Cyprus:

1. Note by Turkey: The information in this document with reference to « Cyprus » relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no single authority representing both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Turkey recognizes the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within the context of United Nations, Turkey shall preserve its position concerning the “Cyprus issue”.

2. Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Union: The Republic of Cyprus is recognized by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Turkey. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

Introduction

Most of the data published in this annex have been provided by national correspondents of the continuous reporting system on migration appointed by the OECD Secretariat with the approval of the authorities of member countries. Consequently, these data are not necessarily based on common definitions. Countries under review in this annex are OECD countries for which data are available, as well as the Russian Federation. The continuous reporting system on migration has no authority to impose changes in data collection procedures. It is an observatory which, by its very nature, has to use existing statistics. However, it does play an active role in suggesting what it considers to be essential improvements in data collection and makes every effort to present consistent and well-documented statistics.

The purpose of this annex is to describe the “immigrant” population (generally the foreign-born population). The information gathered concerns the flows and stocks of the total immigrant population as well as the acquisition of nationality. These data have not been standardised and are therefore not fully comparable across countries. In particular, the criteria for registering persons in population registers and the conditions for granting residence permits, for example, vary across countries, which means that measurements may differ greatly even if the same type of source is being used.

In addition to the problem of the comparability of statistics, there is the difficulty of the very partial coverage of unauthorised migrants. Part of this population may be counted in censuses. Regularisation programmes, when they exist, make it possible to identify and enumerate a far from negligible fraction of unauthorised immigrants after the fact. In terms of measurement, this makes it possible to better measure the volume of the foreign-born population at a given time, even if it is not always possible to determine the year these immigrants entered the country.

Each series in the annex is preceded by an explanatory note concerning the data presented. A summary table then follows (series A, giving the total for each destination country), and finally the tables by nationality or country of birth, as the case may be (series B). At the end of each series, a table provides the sources and notes for the data presented in the tables for each country.

General comments

The tables provide annual series covering the period 2006-16 or 2007-17.

The series A tables are presented in alphabetical order by the name of the country. In the other tables, nationalities or countries of birth are ranked by decreasing order of frequency for the last year available.

In the tables by country of origin (series B) only the 15 main countries are shown. “Other countries” is a residual calculated as the difference between the total foreign or foreign-born population and the sum for all countries indicated in the table. For some countries, data are not available for all years and this is reflected in the residual entry of “Other countries”. This must be borne in mind when interpreting changes in this category.

There is no table by nationality for the series on outflows of the foreign population (series A.2). These statistics, as well as data by gender are available online (http://www.oecd.org/els/mig/keystat.htm).

The rounding of data cells may cause totals to differ slightly from the sum of the component cells.

The symbol “..” used in the tables means that the data are not available.

Inflows and outflows of foreign population

OECD countries seldom have tools specifically designed to measure the inflows and outflows of the foreign population, and national estimates are generally based either on population registers or residence permit data. This note describes more systematically what is measured by each of the sources used.

Flows derived from population registers

Population registers can usually produce inflow and outflow data for both nationals and foreigners. To register, foreigners may have to indicate possession of an appropriate residence and/or work permit valid for at least as long as the minimum registration period. Emigrants are usually identified by a stated intention to leave the country, although the period of (intended) absence is not always specified.

In population registers, departures tend to be less well recorded than arrivals. Indeed, the emigrant who plans to return to the host country in the future may be reluctant to inform about his departure to avoid losing rights related to the presence on the register. Registration criteria vary considerably across countries; in particular the minimum duration of stay for individuals to be registered ranges from three months to one year, which poses major problems of international comparisons. For example, in some countries, register data cover many temporary migrants, in some cases including asylum seekers when they live in private households (as opposed to reception centres or hostels for immigrants) and international students.

Flows derived from residence and/or work permits

Statistics on permits are generally based on the number of permits issued during a given period and depend on the types of permits used. The so-called “settlement countries” (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) consider as immigrants persons who have been granted the right of permanent residence, and this right is often granted upon arrival. Statistics on temporary immigrants are also published in this annex for these countries. In the case of France, the permits covered are those valid for at least one year (excluding students).

Another characteristic of permit data is that flows of nationals are not recorded. Some flows of foreigners may also not be recorded, either because the type of permit they hold is not included in the statistics or because they are not required to have a permit (freedom of movement agreements). In addition, permit data do not necessarily reflect physical flows or actual lengths of stay since: i) permits may be issued overseas but individuals may decide not to use them, or delay their arrival; ii) permits may be issued to persons who have in fact been resident in the country for some time, the permit indicating a change of status.

Flows estimated from specific surveys

Ireland provides estimates based on the results of Quarterly National Household Surveys and other sources such as permit data and asylum applications. These estimates are revised periodically on the basis of census data. Data for the United Kingdom are based on a survey of passengers entering or exiting the country by plane, train or boat (International Passenger Survey). One of the aims of this survey is to estimate the number and characteristics of migrants. The survey is based on a random sample of approximately one out of every 500 passengers. The figures were revised significantly following the latest census in each of these two countries, which seems to indicate that these estimates do not constitute an “ideal” source either. Australia and New Zealand also conduct passenger surveys which enable them to establish the length of stay on the basis of migrants’ stated intentions when they enter or exit the country.

Table A.1. Inflows of foreign population into selected OECD countries and Russia
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016
Australia |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Permanent | 176.2 | 189.5 | 203.9 | 219.4 | 202.2 | 206.4 | 236.0 | 244.8 | 233.9 | 223.7 | 218.5
Temporary | 299.4 | 361.5 | 418.1 | 447.5 | 371.9 | 387.1 | 452.9 | 512.1 | 530.6 | 534.9 | .. 
Austria | 82.9 | 91.5 | 94.4 | 91.7 | 96.9 | 109.9 | 125.6 | 135.2 | 154.3 | 198.7 | 158.7
Belgium | 83.4 | 93.4 | 106.0 | 102.7 | 113.6 | 117.9 | 128.9 | 117.6 | 106.3 | 128.8 | 103.2
Canada |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Permanent | 251.6 | 236.8 | 247.2 | 252.2 | 280.7 | 248.7 | 257.8 | 259.0 | 260.3 | 271.8 | 296.3
Temporary | 175.6 | 203.3 | 229.9 | 227.1 | 223.1 | 239.9 | 267.9 | 281.3 | 258.0 | 241.1 | .. 
Chile | 37.0 | 53.1 | 43.6 | 35.9 | 41.4 | 50.7 | 65.2 | 84.4 | 83.5 | 101.9 | 135.5
Czech Republic | 66.1 | 102.5 | 76.2 | 38.2 | 28.0 | 20.7 | 28.6 | 27.8 | 38.5 | 31.6 | 34.8
Denmark | 24.0 | 31.4 | 37.0 | 32.0 | 33.4 | 34.6 | 35.5 | 41.3 | 49.0 | 58.7 | 58.7
Estonia | 1.5 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 7.3 | 7.7
Finland | 13.9 | 17.5 | 19.9 | 18.1 | 18.2 | 20.4 | 23.3 | 23.9 | 23.6 | 21.4 | 27.3
France | 228.7 | 213.7 | 216.0 | 211.4 | 221.8 | 228.1 | 247.0 | 256.5 | 255.7 | 252.6 | 240.9
Germany | 558.5 | 574.8 | 573.8 | 606.3 | 683.5 | 841.7 | 965.9 | 1 108.1 | 1 342.5 | 2 016.2 | 1 720.2
Greece | .. | .. | 27.0 | 28.0 | 26.0 | 17.0 | 16.0 | 18.0 | 22.0 | 37.0 | 44.0
Hungary | 23.6 | 22.6 | 35.5 | 25.6 | 23.9 | 22.5 | 20.3 | 21.3 | 26.0 | 25.8 | 23.8
Iceland | 7.1 | 9.3 | 7.5 | 3.4 | 3.0 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 3.9 | 4.3 | 5.0 | 7.9
Ireland | 88.9 | 120.4 | 89.7 | 50.7 | 23.9 | 33.7 | 37.2 | 41.0 | 43.7 | 49.3 | 53.9
Israel | 19.3 | 18.1 | 13.7 | 14.6 | 16.6 | 16.9 | 16.6 | 16.9 | 24.1 | 27.9 | 26.0
Italy | 254.6 | 515.2 | 496.5 | 406.7 | 424.5 | 354.3 | 321.3 | 279.0 | 248.4 | 250.5 | 262.9
Japan | 325.6 | 336.6 | 344.5 | 297.1 | 287.1 | 266.9 | 303.9 | 306.7 | 336.5 | 391.2 | 427.6
Korea | 303.0 | 300.4 | 302.2 | 232.8 | 293.1 | 307.2 | 300.2 | 360.5 | 407.1 | 372.9 | 402.2
Latvia | 2.8 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 3.7 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 3.4
Lithuania | 2.2 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 1.7 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 4.8 | 3.7 | 6.0
Luxembourg | 13.7 | 15.8 | 16.8 | 14.6 | 15.8 | 19.1 | 19.4 | 19.8 | 21.0 | 22.6 | 21.6
Mexico | 6.9 | 7.2 | 15.9 | 23.9 | 26.2 | 22.0 | 18.2 | 63.0 | 43.5 | 34.4 | 35.9
Netherlands | 67.7 | 80.3 | 103.4 | 104.4 | 110.2 | 118.5 | 115.7 | 122.3 | 139.3 | 159.5 | 182.2
New Zealand | 58.7 | 59.6 | 63.9 | 60.3 | 57.6 | 61.0 | 62.0 | 67.5 | 80.3 | 91.8 | 95.6
Norway | 37.4 | 53.5 | 58.8 | 56.7 | 65.1 | 70.8 | 70.0 | 66.9 | 61.4 | 59.1 | 58.5
Poland | 34.2 | 40.6 | 41.8 | 41.3 | 41.1 | 41.3 | 47.1 | 46.6 | 32.0 | 86.1 | 107.0
Portugal | 22.5 | 32.6 | 72.8 | 61.4 | 50.7 | 45.4 | 38.5 | 33.2 | 35.3 | 37.9 | 46.9
Russia | 186.4 | 287.0 | 281.6 | 279.9 | 191.7 | 206.2 | 283.3 | 345.9 | 439.3 | 421.0 | 384.3
Slovak Republic | 11.3 | 14.8 | 16.5 | 14.4 | 12.7 | 8.2 | 2.9 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 3.8 | 3.6
Slovenia | .. | 30.5 | 43.8 | 24.2 | 11.3 | 18.0 | 17.3 | 15.7 | 18.4 | 19.9 | 20.0
Spain | 803.0 | 920.5 | 567.4 | 365.4 | 330.3 | 335.9 | 272.5 | 248.4 | 264.5 | 290.0 | 354.5
Sweden | 80.4 | 83.5 | 83.3 | 83.8 | 79.0 | 75.9 | 82.6 | 95.4 | 106.1 | 113.9 | 143.0
Switzerland | 102.7 | 139.7 | 157.3 | 132.4 | 134.2 | 142.5 | 143.8 | 155.4 | 152.1 | 150.4 | 143.1
Turkey | .. | .. | .. | .. | 29.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
United Kingdom | 451.7 | 455.0 | 456.0 | 430.0 | 459.0 | 453.0 | 383.0 | 406.0 | 504.0 | 481.0 | 454.0
United States |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Permanent | 1 266.1 | 1 052.4 | 1 107.1 | 1 130.8 | 1 042.6 | 1 062.0 | 1 031.6 | 990.6 | 1 016.5 | 1 051.0 | 1 183.5
Temporary | 980.5 | 1 001.0 | 844.4 | 909.4 | 963.6 | 1 009.7 | 1 114.1 | 1 235.0 | 1 349.3 | 1 265.6 | 1 141.1
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of Table A.2.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752068

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
AUSTRALIA permanent)
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
India | 15.2 | 19.8 | 22.7 | 25.3 | 23.5 | 21.9 | 27.8 | 38.1 | 39.6 | 34.7 | 38.6 | 50
China | 17.3 | 21.1 | 20.7 | 22.3 | 24.5 | 28.7 | 25.3 | 27.9 | 27.1 | 27.9 | 29.1 | 56
New Zealand | 23.8 | 28.3 | 34.5 | 33.0 | 24.4 | 34.6 | 44.3 | 41.2 | 27.3 | 22.4 | 19.7 | 51
United Kingdom | 30.9 | 30.7 | 31.7 | 33.3 | 26.7 | 21.5 | 27.0 | 23.1 | 23.8 | 22.2 | 19.0 | 47
Philippines | 5.4 | 6.1 | 7.1 | 8.9 | 10.2 | 10.7 | 12.8 | 11.0 | 10.3 | 11.9 | 12.0 | 59
Pakistan | 1.6 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 3.9 | 3.6 | 5.7 | 8.0 | 7.0 | 46
Viet Nam | 2.9 | 3.4 | 3.0 | 3.3 | 3.8 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 5.7 | 5.2 | 5.1 | 5.4 | 61
Nepal | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 2.5 | 4.0 | 4.4 | 4.2 | 5.1 | 50
Ireland | 1.8 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 2.7 | 3.0 | 3.4 | 5.0 | 5.3 | 6.3 | 6.3 | 4.9 | 46
Malaysia | 4.8 | 4.8 | 5.1 | 5.4 | 4.9 | 4.9 | 5.4 | 5.6 | 4.5 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 55
South Africa | 4.8 | 5.4 | 6.9 | 11.3 | 11.1 | 8.1 | 8.0 | 5.8 | 4.9 | 4.7 | 4.0 | 48
Sri Lanka | 3.3 | 3.8 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 5.2 | 4.5 | 5.7 | 5.3 | 4.5 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 53
United States | 2.9 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.0 | 3.3 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 53
Korea | 4.0 | 4.2 | 5.0 | 5.2 | 4.3 | 4.3 | 5.0 | 5.4 | 3.8 | 3.6 | 3.3 | 57
Afghanistan | 3.5 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 2.2 | 5.7 | 3.3 | 3.2 | 54
Other countries | 53.5 | 52.2 | 52.4 | 56.3 | 52.5 | 50.1 | 53.5 | 56.6 | 57.1 | 58.0 | 56.0 | ..
Total | 176.2 | 189.5 | 203.9 | 219.4 | 202.2 | 206.4 | 236.0 | 244.8 | 233.9 | 223.7 | 218.5 | 53
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
AUSTRIA
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Romania | 4.5 | 9.3 | 9.2 | 9.3 | 11.3 | 12.9 | 13.4 | 13.5 | 20.7 | 17.5 | 16.7 | 45
Germany | 15.9 | 18.0 | 19.2 | 17.6 | 18.0 | 17.4 | 17.8 | 17.7 | 16.8 | 17.0 | 16.1 | 47
Hungary | 3.6 | 4.5 | 5.2 | 5.8 | 6.4 | 9.3 | 13.1 | 14.9 | 14.5 | 14.4 | 13.3 | 48
Afghanistan | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 2.9 | 3.8 | 2.3 | 3.2 | 19.5 | 11.7 | 29
Syria | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 1.7 | 7.4 | 22.6 | 9.0 | 53
Serbia | 7.4 | 6.4 | 6.1 | 4.6 | 7.2 | 6.1 | 6.8 | 7.2 | 7.6 | 7.8 | 7.5 | 44
Slovak Republic | 3.5 | 3.6 | 4.9 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.3 | 6.0 | 6.2 | 6.5 | 6.1 | 5.6 | 54
Poland | 5.7 | 5.3 | 4.4 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 6.4 | 7.1 | 7.3 | 6.9 | 6.1 | 5.4 | 39
Croatia | 2.5 | 2.3 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 4.2 | 6.0 | 5.8 | 5.1 | 46
Bulgaria | 1.2 | 2.2 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 5.8 | 5.2 | 4.9 | 46
Iran | 2.2 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 38
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 3.2 | 3.0 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 5.0 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 4.3 | 47
Italy | 1.5 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 3.1 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.6 | 4.2 | 42
Turkey | 4.9 | 5.2 | 5.0 | 4.7 | 4.3 | 3.8 | 4.1 | 4.5 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 43
Russia | 2.5 | 2.2 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 2.2 | 2.6 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 2.7 | 55
Other countries | 23.9 | 25.2 | 25.4 | 26.9 | 26.6 | 30.0 | 34.0 | 36.7 | 40.1 | 55.5 | 43.9 | ..
Total | 82.9 | 91.5 | 94.4 | 91.7 | 96.9 | 109.9 | 125.6 | 135.2 | 154.3 | 198.7 | 158.7 | 44
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
BELGIUM
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
France | 11.6 | 12.3 | 14.1 | 12.3 | 13.5 | 13.8 | 13.3 | 13.6 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 11.1 | 51
Romania | 3.1 | 5.5 | 6.8 | 6.1 | 8.0 | 10.9 | 11.2 | 10.0 | 11.3 | 10.6 | 10.3 | 38
Netherlands | 11.5 | 11.4 | 11.7 | 8.8 | 9.3 | 9.5 | 9.1 | 9.0 | 8.1 | 8.1 | 7.5 | 47
Italy | 2.6 | 2.7 | 3.7 | 3.6 | 4.3 | 4.7 | 5.2 | 5.7 | 5.3 | 5.1 | 4.8 | 44
Syria | .. | .. | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 2.8 | 10.4 | 4.4 | 55
Poland | 6.7 | 9.4 | 9.0 | 9.9 | 8.9 | 9.3 | 8.6 | 7.5 | 5.8 | 5.3 | 4.4 | 46
Morocco | 7.5 | 7.8 | 8.2 | 9.1 | 9.8 | 8.5 | 5.9 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.8 | 4.4 | 53
Spain | 1.8 | 1.9 | 2.8 | 3.6 | 4.6 | 5.3 | 6.0 | 6.1 | 5.0 | 4.1 | 3.7 | 47
Bulgaria | 0.8 | 2.6 | 3.9 | 3.3 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 3.9 | 4.2 | 3.8 | 3.3 | 47
Portugal | 2.0 | 2.3 | 3.2 | 2.9 | 2.7 | 3.1 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 3.0 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 43
Afghanistan | .. | .. | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 2.8 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 7.5 | 2.5 | 24
Germany | 3.3 | 3.4 | 3.8 | 3.4 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 50
India | 1.5 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 1.8 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.6 | 1.9 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 43
United States | 2.6 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 52
Turkey | 3.0 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 45
Other countries | 25.5 | 26.8 | 30.8 | 32.0 | 36.3 | 37.2 | 47.0 | 40.3 | 35.0 | 45.6 | 35.3 | ..
Total | 83.4 | 93.4 | 106.0 | 102.7 | 113.6 | 117.9 | 128.9 | 117.6 | 106.3 | 128.8 | 103.2 | 48
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
CANADA (permanent)
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Philippines | 18.4 | 19.8 | 24.9 | 28.6 | 38.6 | 36.8 | 34.3 | 29.5 | 40.0 | 50.8 | 41.8 | 54
India | 33.8 | 28.7 | 28.3 | 29.4 | 34.2 | 27.5 | 30.9 | 33.1 | 38.3 | 39.5 | 39.8 | 49
Syria | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 2.1 | 9.9 | 34.9 | 49
China | 33.5 | 27.6 | 30.0 | 29.6 | 30.4 | 28.5 | 33.0 | 34.1 | 24.6 | 19.5 | 26.9 | 55
Pakistan | 13.1 | 10.1 | 9.0 | 7.2 | 6.8 | 7.5 | 11.2 | 12.6 | 9.1 | 11.3 | 11.3 | 51
United States | 9.6 | 9.5 | 10.2 | 9.0 | 8.1 | 7.7 | 7.9 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 7.5 | 8.4 | 51
Iran | 7.5 | 7.0 | 6.5 | 6.6 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 11.3 | 16.8 | 11.7 | 6.5 | 52
France | 4.0 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 5.1 | 4.6 | 4.1 | 6.3 | 5.6 | 4.7 | 5.8 | 6.4 | 47
United Kingdom | 7.1 | 8.2 | 9.0 | 8.9 | 8.7 | 6.1 | 6.2 | 5.8 | 5.8 | 5.5 | 5.8 | 41
Eritrea | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 4.6 | 43
Nigeria | 2.6 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 3.2 | 3.9 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 4.1 | 4.4 | 48
Korea | 6.2 | 5.9 | 7.3 | 5.9 | 5.5 | 4.6 | 5.3 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.1 | 4.0 | 58
Jamaica | 1.7 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.5 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 46
Mexico | 2.8 | 3.2 | 2.9 | 3.1 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 4.2 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 3.2 | 3.4 | 50
Ukraine | 2.0 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 2.4 | 3.2 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 3.4 | 56
Other countries | 107.4 | 103.9 | 106.7 | 109.1 | 120.9 | 104.7 | 101.1 | 98.1 | 89.7 | 90.9 | 91.2 | ..
Total | 251.6 | 236.8 | 247.2 | 252.2 | 280.7 | 248.7 | 257.8 | 259.0 | 260.3 | 271.8 | 296.3 | 51
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
CHILE
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Colombia | 2.1 | 2.7 | 3.2 | 4.1 | 5.5 | 9.4 | 12.1 | 16.7 | 15.4 | 19.5 | 26.9 | 52
Peru | 20.1 | 31.5 | 22.3 | 14.9 | 14.7 | 16.4 | 18.9 | 18.9 | 19.8 | 24.7 | 25.5 | 47
Haiti | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 2.2 | 6.4 | 23.0 | 30
Venezuela | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 2.3 | 7.4 | 21.9 | 47
Bolivia | 1.6 | 5.2 | 3.4 | 2.1 | 4.6 | 6.2 | 10.8 | 23.6 | 21.6 | 19.8 | 14.8 | 52
Ecuador | 1.7 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 2.8 | 4.3 | 47
Argentina | 3.6 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 3.3 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 4.9 | 4.1 | 42
Brazil | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 52
Spain | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 2.1 | 4.1 | 3.4 | 2.5 | 1.9 | 33
China | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 35
United States | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 46
Dominican Republic | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 2.9 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 54
Paraguay | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 62
Mexico | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 50
Cuba | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 47
Other countries | 3.2 | 3.3 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 4.6 | 4.9 | 5.2 | 5.3 | 5.9 | 5.0 | ..
Total | 37.0 | 53.1 | 43.6 | 35.9 | 41.4 | 50.7 | 65.2 | 84.4 | 83.5 | 101.9 | 135.5 | 45
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
CZECH REPUBLIC
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Slovak Republic | 6.8 | 13.9 | 7.6 | 5.6 | 5.1 | 4.4 | 4.8 | 6.5 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 47
Ukraine | 30.2 | 39.6 | 18.7 | 8.1 | 3.5 | 2.0 | 5.9 | 3.7 | 8.4 | 5.5 | 5.8 | 51
Russia | 4.7 | 6.7 | 5.8 | 4.1 | 3.7 | 2.1 | 3.2 | 3.1 | 4.9 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 60
Viet Nam | 6.4 | 12.3 | 13.4 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 0.7 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 1.8 | 52
Romania | 0.4 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.6 | 32
Bulgaria | 0.8 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 37
United States | 1.8 | 1.7 | 2.2 | 2.5 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 47
Germany | 0.8 | 1.9 | 4.3 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 22
Hungary | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 36
India | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 32
Poland | 0.9 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 44
Mongolia | 1.5 | 3.3 | 3.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 47
Kazakhstan | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 54
China | 1.4 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 54
Korea | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 46
Other countries | 9.3 | 15.7 | 15.0 | 9.2 | 6.8 | 5.6 | 6.5 | 6.2 | 7.8 | 6.9 | 8.3 | ..
Total | 66.1 | 102.5 | 76.2 | 38.2 | 28.0 | 20.7 | 28.6 | 27.8 | 38.5 | 31.6 | 34.8 | 44
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
DENMARK
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Syria | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 1.6 | 5.4 | 11.4 | 11.4 | 43
Romania | 0.3 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 2.7 | 3.2 | 3.6 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.3 | 36
Poland | 2.5 | 4.3 | 6.5 | 3.4 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.1 | 36
Eritrea | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 25
Germany | 1.9 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 52
India | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 37
Norway | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 58
Lithuania | 0.8 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 41
Italy | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 36
United Kingdom | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 40
Bulgaria | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 40
Philippines | 0.8 | 1.3 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 92
Sweden | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 54
China | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 55
United States | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 50
Other countries | 11.8 | 14.3 | 15.1 | 14.5 | 15.2 | 14.9 | 15.0 | 18.0 | 19.6 | 20.0 | 20.0 | ..
Total | 24.0 | 31.4 | 37.0 | 32.0 | 33.4 | 34.6 | 35.5 | 41.3 | 49.0 | 58.7 | 58.7 | 45
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
ESTONIA
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Russia | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 50
Ukraine | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 30
Finland | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 35
Germany | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 50
Latvia | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 38
Italy | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 44
France | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 38
Lithuania | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 38
Spain | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 42
Sweden | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 16
Belarus | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 47
United Kingdom | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 18
United States | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 33
India | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 20
Nigeria | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 25
Other countries | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 1.9 | 2.1 | ..
Total | 1.5 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 7.3 | 7.7 | ..
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
FINLAND
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Iraq | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 3.2 | 32
Estonia | 2.5 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 3.2 | 3.9 | 4.7 | 6.0 | 5.9 | 4.7 | 3.4 | 2.6 | 40
Russia | 2.1 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.8 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 2.5 | 58
Afghanistan | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 1.9 | 25
Syria | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 1.7 | 39
Viet Nam | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 53
China | 0.5 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 53
Somalia | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 46
India | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 42
Sweden | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 39
Ukraine | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 51
Thailand | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 80
Romania | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 34
Iran | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 39
Poland | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 35
Other countries | 5.5 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 6.6 | 6.1 | 6.9 | 8.1 | 8.1 | 9.1 | 8.7 | 9.3 | ..
Total | 13.9 | 17.5 | 19.9 | 18.1 | 18.2 | 20.4 | 23.3 | 23.9 | 23.6 | 21.4 | 27.3 | 42
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
FRANCE
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Algeria | 31.1 | 26.8 | 24.4 | 23.1 | 21.4 | 21.2 | 23.7 | 23.6 | 24.1 | 22.4 | 21.3 | ..
Morocco | 23.0 | 22.1 | 24.9 | 21.5 | 20.1 | 18.8 | 19.8 | 20.0 | 21.1 | 18.4 | 18.4 | ..
Italy | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 12.2 | 12.7 | 13.2 | 13.9 | 49
Portugal | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 18.8 | 14.7 | 11.6 | 12.4 | 47
United Kingdom | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 10.4 | 9.3 | 9.8 | 11.6 | 48
Tunisia | 9.3 | 8.8 | 8.8 | 10.3 | 10.7 | 10.3 | 11.3 | 11.6 | 11.9 | 10.5 | 11.0 | ..
Spain | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 13.7 | 12.9 | 12.4 | 10.7 | 47
Romania | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 6.1 | 8.1 | 10.1 | 8.5 | 50
Belgium | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 6.6 | 6.5 | 6.4 | 6.7 | 49
Germany | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 7.7 | 6.4 | 7.1 | 6.2 | 57
Turkey | 9.3 | 7.9 | 7.2 | 6.7 | 5.7 | 5.5 | 5.8 | 5.9 | 5.3 | 4.9 | 4.9 | ..
China | 6.0 | 5.0 | 5.2 | 5.5 | 5.7 | 5.5 | 6.3 | 7.6 | 7.6 | 5.0 | 4.8 | ..
Dem. Rep. of the Congo | 4.0 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 4.3 | 4.3 | 4.2 | 4.3 | ..
Russia | 3.2 | 2.9 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 4.1 | 4.3 | 3.9 | 3.9 | ..
Comoros | 2.8 | 2.8 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 2.9 | 2.5 | 3.1 | 4.8 | 5.6 | 7.3 | 3.8 | ..
Other countries | 140.1 | 133.8 | 135.7 | 134.0 | 148.4 | 156.9 | 169.5 | 99.0 | 100.8 | 105.3 | 98.5 | ..
Total | 228.7 | 213.7 | 216.0 | 211.4 | 221.8 | 228.1 | 247.0 | 256.5 | 255.7 | 252.6 | 240.9 | 51
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
GERMANY
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Romania | 23.4 | 42.9 | 48.2 | 57.3 | 75.5 | 97.5 | 120.5 | 139.5 | 198.7 | 221.4 | 222.3 | 34
Syria | 1.7 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 3.0 | 4.6 | 8.5 | 19.0 | 69.1 | 309.7 | 179.5 | 42
Poland | 151.7 | 140.0 | 119.9 | 112.0 | 115.6 | 164.7 | 177.8 | 190.4 | 192.2 | 190.8 | 160.7 | 34
Bulgaria | 7.5 | 20.5 | 24.1 | 29.2 | 39.8 | 52.4 | 60.2 | 60.9 | 80.1 | 86.3 | 83.0 | 39
Afghanistan | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.9 | 4.6 | 7.4 | 9.3 | 8.6 | 9.1 | 12.9 | 84.9 | 75.8 | 30
Iraq | 3.4 | 5.0 | 8.9 | 13.1 | 9.5 | 7.5 | 6.7 | 5.2 | 7.1 | 64.8 | 68.1 | 40
Croatia | 8.3 | 8.4 | 8.7 | 9.1 | 10.2 | 11.5 | 12.9 | 25.8 | 46.1 | 61.0 | 62.1 | 36
Italy | 17.7 | 18.2 | 20.1 | 22.2 | 23.9 | 28.1 | 36.9 | 47.5 | 56.7 | 57.2 | 52.6 | 40
Hungary | 18.6 | 22.2 | 25.2 | 25.3 | 29.3 | 41.1 | 54.5 | 60.0 | 58.8 | 58.1 | 51.6 | 32
Turkey | 29.6 | 26.7 | 26.7 | 27.2 | 27.6 | 28.6 | 26.2 | 23.2 | 22.1 | 23.7 | 28.6 | 37
India | 8.9 | 9.4 | 11.4 | 12.0 | 13.2 | 15.4 | 18.1 | 19.5 | 22.4 | 26.1 | 27.7 | 34
Greece | 8.2 | 8.0 | 8.3 | 8.6 | 12.3 | 23.0 | 32.7 | 32.1 | 28.8 | 28.3 | 27.1 | 41
China | 12.9 | 13.6 | 14.3 | 15.4 | 16.2 | 18.3 | 19.7 | 22.4 | 23.2 | 25.5 | 26.6 | 52
Serbia | 10.9 | 2.2 | 7.0 | 9.1 | 19.1 | 18.4 | 24.1 | 28.7 | 41.1 | 45.2 | 25.1 | 37
Russia | 16.4 | 15.0 | 15.1 | 15.7 | 16.1 | 17.5 | 18.8 | 31.4 | 20.6 | 21.6 | 23.1 | 58
Other countries | 237.9 | 240.0 | 232.3 | 243.2 | 265.0 | 303.8 | 339.9 | 393.5 | 462.8 | 711.6 | 606.4 | ..
Total | 558.5 | 574.8 | 573.8 | 606.3 | 683.5 | 841.7 | 965.9 | 1 108.1 | 1 342.5 | 2 016.2 | 1 720.2 | 38
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
GREECE
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Albania | .. | .. | 18 | 19 | 16 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 13 | 26 | 31 | ..
Georgia | .. | .. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ..
China including Hong Kong | .. | .. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ..
Russia | .. | .. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ..
Ukraine | .. | .. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ..
Philippines | .. | .. | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ..
Egypt | .. | .. | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ..
India | .. | .. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ..
Pakistan | .. | .. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ..
Bangladesh | .. | .. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ..
Syria | .. | .. | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ..
United States | .. | .. | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ..
Armenia | .. | .. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ..
Turkey | .. | .. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ..
Serbia | .. | .. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ..
Other countries | .. | .. | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | ..
Total | .. | .. | 27 | 28 | 26 | 17 | 16 | 18 | 22 | 37 | 44 | ..
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
HUNGARY
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Romania | 7.9 | 6.7 | 10.0 | 7.1 | 6.6 | 5.8 | 4.2 | 4.0 | 3.7 | 3.5 | 3.1 | 33
Germany | 0.7 | 0.7 | 3.2 | 2.7 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 43
China | 1.4 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 2.2 | 4.7 | 3.5 | 1.5 | 54
Slovak Republic | 0.6 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 57
Ukraine | 3.7 | 2.9 | 4.1 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 35
United States | 0.6 | 0.4 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 50
Turkey | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 40
Russia | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 62
Iran | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 49
Serbia | 2.4 | 4.4 | 4.1 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 25
Italy | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 29
India | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 41
Japan | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 46
United Kingdom | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 35
Austria | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 35
Other countries | 3.8 | 3.1 | 6.4 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.8 | 6.1 | 6.6 | 8.0 | 8.2 | 8.3 | ..
Total | 23.6 | 22.6 | 35.5 | 25.6 | 23.9 | 22.5 | 20.3 | 21.3 | 26.0 | 25.8 | 23.8 | 43
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
ICELAND
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Poland | 3.3 | 5.7 | 3.9 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 2.9 | 30
Lithuania | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 20
United States | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 51
Germany | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 64
Romania | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 37
Portugal | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 37
Spain | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 37
United Kingdom | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 41
Czech Republic | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 50
Denmark | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 49
Slovak Republic | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 25
Latvia | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 29
France | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 51
Hungary | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 41
Philippines | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 68
Other countries | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.8 | ..
Total | 7.1 | 9.3 | 7.5 | 3.4 | 3.0 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 3.9 | 4.3 | 5.0 | 7.9 | 38
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
ISRAEL
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Former USSR | 7.5 | 6.5 | 5.6 | 6.8 | 7.0 | 7.2 | 7.2 | 7.3 | 11.6 | 14.7 | 14.5 | 52
France | 2.4 | 2.3 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 2.9 | 6.5 | 6.6 | 4.2 | 52
United States | 2.2 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.7 | 51
United Kingdom | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 49
Brazil | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 52
Canada | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 49
Argentina | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 56
Turkey | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 52
South Africa | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 49
Belgium | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 49
Italy | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 53
Germany | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 50
Switzerland | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 50
Australia | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 52
Mexico | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 51
Other countries | 5.2 | 5.2 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 2.7 | 3.7 | 3.4 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.6 | ..
Total | 19.3 | 18.1 | 13.7 | 14.6 | 16.6 | 16.9 | 16.6 | 16.9 | 24.1 | 27.9 | 26.0 | 51
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
ITALY
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Romania | 39.7 | 271.4 | 174.6 | 105.6 | 92.1 | 90.1 | 81.7 | 58.2 | 50.7 | 46.4 | 45.2 | 63
Pakistan | 4.1 | 3.5 | 5.7 | 7.9 | 10.8 | 7.5 | 8.8 | 7.8 | 9.6 | 11.4 | 14.7 | 17
Nigeria | 2.6 | 2.5 | 3.7 | 4.0 | 4.8 | 4.5 | 6.7 | 6.3 | 5.3 | 8.9 | 14.7 | 21
Morocco | 21.8 | 23.5 | 37.3 | 33.1 | 30.0 | 23.9 | 19.6 | 19.6 | 17.6 | 15.0 | 14.7 | 54
Albania | 23.1 | 23.3 | 35.7 | 27.5 | 22.6 | 16.6 | 14.1 | 12.2 | 11.4 | 11.5 | 13.0 | 56
China | 13.6 | 9.7 | 12.8 | 16.8 | 22.9 | 20.1 | 20.5 | 17.6 | 15.8 | 14.9 | 12.4 | 52
Bangladesh | 5.6 | 5.2 | 9.3 | 8.9 | 9.7 | 10.3 | 10.1 | 10.5 | 12.7 | 12.4 | 10.7 | 19
Brazil | 10.2 | 11.9 | 12.6 | 9.7 | 8.6 | 7.1 | 5.7 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.5 | 51
India | 6.3 | 7.1 | 12.5 | 12.8 | 15.2 | 13.3 | 11.2 | 10.8 | 11.1 | 11.2 | 10.0 | 44
Ukraine | 14.8 | 15.5 | 24.0 | 22.6 | 30.4 | 17.9 | 11.5 | 12.8 | 9.7 | 9.3 | 8.7 | 68
Senegal | 2.3 | 2.3 | 4.8 | 4.9 | 8.9 | 6.6 | 5.5 | 6.5 | 6.3 | 7.5 | 8.5 | 19
Egypt | 5.0 | 3.7 | 5.3 | 8.0 | 9.3 | 9.6 | 8.6 | 9.8 | 8.7 | 7.4 | 6.6 | 36
Gambia | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 1.7 | 5.1 | 6.6 | 1
Mali | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 2.0 | 4.8 | 5.2 | 2
Ghana | 2.0 | 2.1 | 4.4 | 3.2 | 3.6 | 3.1 | 4.0 | 3.5 | 2.4 | 3.0 | 4.1 | 16
Other countries | 103.4 | 133.3 | 153.6 | 141.6 | 155.2 | 123.4 | 111.6 | 96.9 | 78.6 | 74.6 | 77.2 | ..
Total | 254.6 | 515.2 | 496.5 | 406.7 | 424.5 | 354.3 | 321.3 | 279.0 | 248.4 | 250.5 | 262.9 | 44
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
JAPAN
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
China | 112.5 | 125.3 | 134.2 | 121.2 | 107.9 | 100.4 | 107.0 | 93.0 | 98.6 | 100.6 | 103.3 | ..
Viet Nam | 8.5 | 9.9 | 12.5 | 10.9 | 11.9 | 13.9 | 19.5 | 31.7 | 43.0 | 65.9 | 77.5 | ..
Philippines | 28.3 | 25.3 | 21.0 | 15.8 | 13.3 | 13.6 | 15.4 | 16.4 | 19.9 | 24.0 | 26.2 | ..
Korea | 24.7 | 28.1 | 30.0 | 27.0 | 27.9 | 23.4 | 25.7 | 24.2 | 21.1 | 22.6 | 25.6 | ..
United States | 22.2 | 22.8 | 24.0 | 23.5 | 22.7 | 19.3 | 21.0 | 21.1 | 22.0 | 21.5 | 22.2 | ..
Indonesia | 11.4 | 10.1 | 10.1 | 7.5 | 8.3 | 8.4 | 9.3 | 9.6 | 11.8 | 14.3 | 16.8 | ..
Thailand | 8.7 | 9.0 | 10.5 | 9.9 | 10.9 | 13.6 | 15.4 | 15.4 | 14.3 | 14.5 | 15.4 | ..
Nepal | 1.6 | 2.2 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 2.9 | 3.5 | 4.8 | 8.3 | 11.5 | 13.4 | 14.1 | ..
Brazil | 27.0 | 22.9 | 14.4 | 3.0 | 4.7 | 4.5 | 5.8 | 4.8 | 6.1 | 9.1 | 12.8 | ..
Chinese Taipei | 4.5 | 4.9 | 5.5 | 5.4 | 6.6 | 5.6 | 6.6 | 6.6 | 7.7 | 10.8 | 12.2 | ..
India | 4.9 | 5.8 | 5.7 | 4.6 | 4.9 | 4.7 | 5.6 | 5.6 | 6.9 | 6.9 | 7.0 | ..
United Kingdom | 6.6 | 5.8 | 6.0 | 5.3 | 5.8 | 5.2 | 5.5 | 6.1 | 5.9 | 6.7 | 6.6 | ..
Myanmar | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 2.1 | 3.3 | 5.2 | 6.1 | ..
France | 3.8 | 4.2 | 4.5 | 3.9 | 4.0 | 2.9 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 5.6 | ..
Germany | 4.7 | 4.9 | 4.8 | 4.5 | 4.3 | 3.7 | 4.1 | 4.1 | 4.3 | 4.8 | 5.3 | ..
Other countries | 55.1 | 54.1 | 56.2 | 49.5 | 50.0 | 43.2 | 52.7 | 53.2 | 55.5 | 66.1 | 70.6 | ..
Total | 325.6 | 336.6 | 344.5 | 297.1 | 287.1 | 266.9 | 303.9 | 306.7 | 336.5 | 391.2 | 427.6 | ..
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
KOREA
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
China | 161.2 | 177.0 | 161.7 | 117.6 | 155.3 | 149.2 | 127.3 | 178.6 | 192.9 | 177.0 | 165.5 | 51
Viet Nam | 20.0 | 21.2 | 24.0 | 16.4 | 22.9 | 27.9 | 24.7 | 22.2 | 28.0 | 30.2 | 40.1 | 52
Thailand | 15.8 | 10.5 | 8.6 | 5.8 | 6.9 | 10.3 | 13.8 | 18.3 | 48.3 | 20.1 | 28.5 | 56
United States | 17.8 | 18.9 | 23.4 | 27.1 | 28.3 | 28.1 | 28.9 | 26.6 | 24.5 | 22.7 | 21.8 | 53
Uzbekistan | 4.8 | 4.9 | 9.4 | 4.7 | 8.6 | 8.2 | 11.4 | 12.3 | 12.9 | 14.2 | 16.2 | 39
Russia | 3.7 | 3.4 | 2.6 | 2.9 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 3.2 | 6.8 | 15.0 | 43
Cambodia | 2.2 | 1.9 | 3.4 | 2.6 | 3.7 | 6.4 | 9.5 | 10.5 | 9.5 | 9.6 | 10.2 | 33
Philippines | 17.9 | 12.2 | 9.1 | 8.9 | 9.1 | 9.6 | 9.9 | 12.0 | 10.7 | 9.9 | 9.5 | 42
Indonesia | 6.9 | 5.2 | 9.7 | 3.3 | 5.3 | 8.1 | 8.3 | 11.8 | 10.5 | 8.5 | 9.0 | 14
Nepal | 1.1 | 0.8 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 4.3 | 6.9 | 6.0 | 6.8 | 6.5 | 8.7 | 10
Mongolia | 9.6 | 8.6 | 8.1 | 5.3 | 5.4 | 4.3 | 5.7 | 4.3 | 4.0 | 8.3 | 8.2 | 53
Kazakhstan | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 3.5 | 7.7 | 36
Sri Lanka | 4.1 | 2.5 | 4.8 | 1.7 | 4.2 | 5.9 | 4.7 | 5.3 | 4.8 | 5.5 | 7.1 | 3
Myanmar | 1.8 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 2.6 | 4.1 | 4.6 | 5.1 | 5.2 | 6.7 | 4
Canada | 5.6 | 6.0 | 6.4 | 6.5 | 6.5 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 5.6 | 5.5 | 5.3 | 5.3 | 57
Other countries | 29.7 | 26.3 | 27.6 | 25.2 | 30.2 | 33.2 | 35.3 | 38.3 | 39.0 | 39.5 | 42.8 | ..
Total | 303.0 | 300.4 | 302.2 | 232.8 | 293.1 | 307.2 | 300.2 | 360.5 | 407.1 | 372.9 | 402.2 | 46
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
LATVIA
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Russia | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.3 | .. | ..
Ukraine | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.5 | .. | ..
Belarus | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.3 | .. | ..
Germany | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.2 | .. | ..
Lithuania | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.2 | .. | ..
Uzbekistan | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.1 | .. | ..
Sweden | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.1 | .. | ..
United Kingdom | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.1 | .. | ..
China | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.1 | .. | ..
Philippines | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.1 | .. | ..
India | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.1 | .. | ..
Finland | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.0 | .. | ..
Italy | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.0 | .. | ..
Norway | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.0 | .. | ..
Kazakhstan | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.0 | .. | ..
Other countries | 1.1 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 1.2 | 1.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.3 | .. | ..
Total | 2.8 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 3.7 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 3.4 | 36
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
LITHUANIA
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Ukraine | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 23
Belarus | 0.6 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 1.2 | 25
Russia | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 50
India | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | .. | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 18
Syria | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 48
Latvia | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 47
Moldova | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | .. | 0.0 | 0.0 | .. | 0.1 | 4
China | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | .. | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 44
Georgia | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | .. | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 33
Azerbaijan | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | .. | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 29
Romania | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | .. | .. | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 9
Germany | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 20
Iran | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 28
Poland | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 37
United States | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 50
Other countries | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 1.0 | ..
Total | 2.2 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 1.7 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 4.8 | 3.7 | 6.0 | 30
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
LUXEMBOURG
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
France | 2.5 | 2.8 | 3.2 | 2.7 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 4.0 | 44
Portugal | 3.8 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 5.0 | 5.2 | 4.6 | 3.8 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 43
Italy | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 38
Belgium | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 42
Germany | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 47
Spain | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 49
Romania | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 55
United Kingdom | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 43
Greece | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 52
Poland | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 55
China | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 55
United States | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 50
India | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 42
Serbia | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 47
Syria | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 45
Other countries | 3.1 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.4 | 3.7 | 4.2 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 4.7 | 5.7 | 5.5 | ..
Total | 13.7 | 15.8 | 16.8 | 14.6 | 15.8 | 19.1 | 19.4 | 19.8 | 21.0 | 22.6 | 21.6 | 46
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
MEXICO
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
United States | .. | 1.4 | 2.2 | 2.9 | 4.0 | 4.3 | 4.0 | 14.4 | 9.4 | 7.1 | 6.8 | 44
Honduras | .. | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 2.4 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 2.6 | 57
Venezuela | .. | 0.3 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 2.8 | 2.6 | 2.2 | 2.5 | 55
Cuba | .. | 0.3 | 1.0 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 3.2 | 2.7 | 2.6 | 2.4 | 53
Colombia | .. | 0.3 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 3.2 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 57
China | .. | 0.6 | 1.3 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 5.2 | 2.6 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 40
El Salvador | .. | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.8 | 49
Spain | .. | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 33
Canada | .. | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 3.5 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 45
Guatemala | .. | 0.1 | 1.0 | 2.1 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 3.1 | 2.6 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 55
Argentina | .. | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 3.2 | 2.1 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 45
Italy | .. | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 30
France | .. | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 39
Brazil | .. | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 56
Korea | .. | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 45
Other countries | .. | 2.2 | 4.2 | 5.1 | 5.3 | 4.3 | 3.5 | 12.3 | 8.3 | 6.3 | 6.5 | ..
Total | 6.9 | 7.2 | 15.9 | 23.9 | 26.2 | 22.0 | 18.2 | 63.0 | 43.5 | 34.4 | 35.9 | 47
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
NETHERLANDS
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Syria | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 6.9 | 17.3 | 25.1 | 39
Poland | 6.8 | 9.2 | 13.3 | 12.7 | 14.5 | 18.6 | 18.3 | 20.4 | 23.8 | 23.0 | 23.1 | 45
Germany | 7.2 | 7.5 | 9.0 | 8.7 | 9.8 | 9.6 | 8.7 | 8.1 | 8.2 | 8.6 | 9.4 | 56
India | 2.0 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 5.1 | 6.1 | 7.2 | 41
United Kingdom | 3.6 | 4.0 | 4.7 | 4.4 | 4.4 | 4.4 | 4.7 | 5.1 | 5.3 | 5.8 | 6.5 | 43
Italy | 1.6 | 1.9 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.8 | 3.1 | 3.6 | 4.2 | 5.1 | 5.7 | 6.5 | 43
Eritrea | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 2.9 | 5.7 | 5.9 | 42
China | 2.9 | 3.4 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 5.5 | 5.2 | 4.7 | 4.8 | 5.4 | 5.7 | 58
Romania | 0.7 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.2 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 4.6 | 4.3 | 5.2 | 46
Spain | 1.4 | 1.5 | 2.3 | 2.6 | 3.1 | 3.7 | 4.6 | 5.3 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.2 | 51
Bulgaria | 0.5 | 4.9 | 5.2 | 4.3 | 4.3 | 5.4 | 5.0 | 4.5 | 5.2 | 4.8 | 5.0 | 45
United States | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.4 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 3.6 | 3.8 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 57
France | 2.0 | 2.2 | 3.0 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 3.2 | 3.6 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 50
Turkey | 2.8 | 2.4 | 3.3 | 3.5 | 3.7 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 3.0 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 3.2 | 49
Belgium | 1.7 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 3.2 | 50
Other countries | 31.5 | 33.3 | 44.2 | 48.0 | 48.9 | 49.2 | 46.3 | 50.0 | 49.6 | 53.5 | 61.5 | ..
Total | 67.7 | 80.3 | 103.4 | 104.4 | 110.2 | 118.5 | 115.7 | 122.3 | 139.3 | 159.5 | 182.2 | 47
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
NEW ZEALAND
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
China | 4.4 | 4.0 | 4.7 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 7.2 | 7.6 | 7.9 | 9.1 | 10.7 | 12.1 | 54
India | 3.1 | 4.3 | 6.3 | 7.1 | 7.8 | 6.6 | 6.9 | 7.1 | 12.2 | 15.5 | 11.1 | 37
United Kingdom | 14.8 | 12.6 | 11.6 | 10.1 | 8.9 | 9.5 | 9.3 | 9.8 | 10.2 | 10.3 | 10.8 | 46
Australia | 4.8 | 4.9 | 4.3 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 3.7 | 3.6 | 4.4 | 4.9 | 5.5 | 6.0 | 50
Philippines | 2.6 | 3.6 | 4.1 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 4.7 | 6.3 | 6.0 | 47
France | 0.7 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2.7 | 3.8 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 45
Germany | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.4 | 2.7 | 2.6 | 3.3 | 3.7 | 4.0 | 4.6 | 54
South Africa | 1.8 | 2.1 | 3.1 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 2.3 | 4.5 | 51
United States | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 54
Korea | 1.9 | 2.1 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 2.5 | 56
Japan | 2.8 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 65
Fiji | 2.5 | 2.7 | 3.1 | 2.7 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 49
Canada | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 57
Samoa | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 48
Malaysia | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 54
Other countries | 11.1 | 11.8 | 13.0 | 12.7 | 13.2 | 14.7 | 15.4 | 16.8 | 18.5 | 19.8 | 20.8 | ..
Total | 58.7 | 59.6 | 63.9 | 60.3 | 57.6 | 61.0 | 62.0 | 67.5 | 80.3 | 91.8 | 95.6 | 49
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
NORWAY
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Syria | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 2.1 | 4.0 | 11.2 | 37
Poland | 7.4 | 14.2 | 14.4 | 10.5 | 11.3 | 12.9 | 11.5 | 10.5 | 9.9 | 8.2 | 6.0 | 40
Eritrea | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 3.3 | 2.7 | 40
Lithuania | 1.3 | 2.4 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 6.6 | 7.7 | 6.6 | 5.6 | 4.4 | 3.3 | 2.5 | 43
Sweden | 3.4 | 4.4 | 5.7 | 6.0 | 7.6 | 8.2 | 5.7 | 5.3 | 4.6 | 3.6 | 2.5 | 46
Afghanistan | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 2.2 | 26
Philippines | 1.1 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 2.1 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 85
Thailand | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 82
India | 0.6 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 44
Denmark | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 46
Germany | 2.3 | 3.8 | 4.3 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 55
Romania | 0.2 | 0.6 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 44
Spain | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 42
Somalia | 1.2 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 3.6 | 2.8 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 53
United Kingdom | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 36
Other countries | 15.2 | 18.8 | 20.4 | 21.9 | 22.8 | 24.3 | 25.0 | 23.8 | 22.1 | 21.6 | 19.9 | ..
Total | 37.4 | 53.5 | 58.8 | 56.7 | 65.1 | 70.8 | 70.0 | 66.9 | 61.4 | 59.1 | 58.5 | 46
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
POLAND
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Ukraine | 9.6 | 9.4 | 10.3 | 10.1 | 10.3 | 10.1 | 11.8 | 11.9 | 7.8 | 45.2 | 63.8 | 40
China | 0.4 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 3.8 | 3.9 | 48
Belarus | 2.3 | 2.6 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 2.9 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 3.2 | 3.5 | 47
Viet Nam | 1.7 | 1.8 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 4.0 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 3.3 | 3.2 | 45
India | 0.7 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 1.9 | 2.8 | 23
Russia | 1.8 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 56
Germany | 4.6 | 6.7 | 2.9 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 2.3 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 18
Turkey | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 18
Italy | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 23
Armenia | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 44
Uzbekistan | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 16
Korea | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 43
Saudi Arabia | .. | .. | .. | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 33
Serbia | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 22
Moldova | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 44
Other countries | 9.7 | 12.9 | 13.7 | 13.6 | 13.7 | 14.1 | 14.7 | 16.0 | 11.2 | 16.6 | 17.2 | ..
Total | 34.2 | 40.6 | 41.8 | 41.3 | 41.1 | 41.3 | 47.1 | 46.6 | 32.0 | 86.1 | 107.0 | 38
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
PORTUGAL
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Brazil | 6.1 | 5.0 | 32.8 | 23.1 | 16.2 | 12.9 | 11.7 | 6.7 | 5.6 | 5.7 | 7.1 | 58
France | 0.2 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 1.9 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 47
Italy | 0.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 3.1 | 39
United Kingdom | 0.8 | 3.9 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.9 | 3.1 | 46
China | 0.5 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 3.7 | 2.6 | 2.8 | 53
Romania | 0.6 | 0.2 | 5.3 | 8.1 | 6.0 | 4.6 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 40
Spain | 0.3 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 2.2 | 47
Cabo Verde | 3.3 | 4.1 | 5.3 | 4.6 | 4.2 | 4.6 | 3.4 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 54
Germany | 0.3 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.6 | 48
Angola | 0.4 | 0.4 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 50
Nepal | .. | .. | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 42
Ukraine | 1.5 | 2.0 | 3.6 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 54
Netherlands | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 46
India | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 38
Guinea-Bissau | 1.3 | 1.6 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 55
Other countries | 6.3 | 8.3 | 11.1 | 10.2 | 10.1 | 9.5 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 8.3 | 9.5 | 11.9 | ..
Total | 22.5 | 32.6 | 72.8 | 61.4 | 50.7 | 45.4 | 38.5 | 33.2 | 35.3 | 37.9 | 46.9 | 49
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
RUSSIA
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Ukraine | 32.7 | 51.5 | 49.1 | 45.9 | 27.5 | 30.1 | 35.4 | 40.1 | 89.5 | 139.7 | 115.0 | 53
Uzbekistan | 37.1 | 52.8 | 43.5 | 42.5 | 24.1 | 53.7 | 75.3 | 103.3 | 115.1 | 57.1 | 44.5 | 36
Kazakhstan | 38.6 | 40.3 | 40.0 | 38.8 | 27.9 | 7.2 | 22.8 | 28.5 | 34.8 | 38.3 | 41.0 | 53
Tajikistan | 6.5 | 17.3 | 20.7 | 27.0 | 18.2 | 25.7 | 31.7 | 40.2 | 44.6 | 35.6 | 38.1 | 28
Armenia | 12.9 | 30.8 | 35.2 | 35.8 | 19.9 | 24.5 | 27.6 | 31.0 | 35.1 | 34.1 | 32.2 | 43
Azerbaijan | 8.9 | 21.0 | 23.3 | 22.9 | 14.5 | 16.6 | 17.1 | 18.0 | 21.5 | 19.4 | 18.3 | 42
Kyrgyzstan | 15.7 | 24.7 | 24.0 | 23.3 | 20.9 | 5.0 | 11.7 | 14.2 | 17.0 | 15.1 | 17.7 | 38
Moldova | 8.6 | 14.1 | 15.5 | 16.4 | 11.8 | 9.2 | 11.9 | 15.4 | 18.8 | 18.3 | 15.1 | 48
Belarus | 5.6 | 6.0 | 5.9 | 5.5 | 4.9 | 4.9 | 12.4 | 12.0 | 14.5 | 14.1 | 10.9 | 27
China | 0.5 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 6.9 | 8.4 | 8.0 | 10.5 | 8.9 | 7.9 | 33
Dem. People's Rep. of Korea | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1.9 | 4.1 | 5.0 | 6.3 | 6.1 | 7.4 | 4
Turkmenistan | 4.1 | 4.8 | 4.0 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 2.8 | 3.8 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 5.4 | 36
India | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 2.8 | 4.7 | 35
Viet Nam | 0.2 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 3.2 | 3.5 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 3.9 | 3.6 | 39
Georgia | 6.8 | 10.6 | 8.8 | 7.5 | 5.2 | 3.9 | 4.3 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 3.8 | 3.3 | 46
Other countries | 8.0 | 10.3 | 9.6 | 9.1 | 12.0 | 9.8 | 13.1 | 17.0 | 17.6 | 19.3 | 19.2 | ..
Total | 186.4 | 287.0 | 281.6 | 279.9 | 191.7 | 206.2 | 283.3 | 345.9 | 439.3 | 421.0 | 384.3 | 42
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Hungary | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 31
Czech Republic | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 49
Romania | 0.4 | 3.0 | 2.3 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 24
Poland | 1.1 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 42
Italy | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 22
Ukraine | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 53
Iraq | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | .. | 0.0 | 0.2 | 54
Bulgaria | 0.1 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 16
Germany | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 28
Croatia | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 24
United Kingdom | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 34
Spain | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 36
France | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 37
Austria | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 21
Russia | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 53
Other countries | 4.2 | 4.6 | 6.2 | 5.9 | 5.2 | 3.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.5 | ..
Total | 11.3 | 14.8 | 16.5 | 14.4 | 12.7 | 8.2 | 2.9 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 3.8 | 3.6 | 35
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
SLOVENIA
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Bosnia and Herzegovina | .. | 13.8 | 17.9 | 5.3 | 3.7 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 3.7 | 5.1 | 5.9 | 6.8 | 25
Serbia | .. | 6.3 | 7.6 | 2.6 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 2.4 | 2.8 | 16
Croatia | .. | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 2.2 | 0.8 | 2.4 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 34
Bulgaria | .. | 1.4 | 2.3 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 15
Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia | .. | 2.7 | 5.0 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 38
Italy | .. | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 32
Russia | .. | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 47
Hungary | .. | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 19
Slovak Republic | .. | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 42
Spain | .. | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 51
Ukraine | .. | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 52
Czech Republic | .. | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 52
Germany | .. | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 48
Romania | .. | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 26
Poland | .. | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 69
Other countries | .. | 1.7 | 6.2 | 9.2 | 2.7 | 3.2 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 3.6 | 3.1 | ..
Total | .. | 30.5 | 43.8 | 24.2 | 11.3 | 18.0 | 17.3 | 15.7 | 18.4 | 19.9 | 20.0 | 30
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
SPAIN
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Morocco | 78.5 | 85.0 | 71.8 | 43.2 | 30.2 | 28.0 | 22.4 | 20.5 | 20.0 | 23.8 | 30.0 | 43
Romania | 131.5 | 197.6 | 61.3 | 44.1 | 51.9 | 50.8 | 27.3 | 22.8 | 29.7 | 28.8 | 28.9 | 48
Colombia | 35.6 | 41.7 | 36.0 | 20.4 | 13.7 | 13.2 | 10.0 | 8.7 | 8.5 | 9.4 | 22.8 | 57
Italy | 18.6 | 21.2 | 15.9 | 11.8 | 11.2 | 11.6 | 12.0 | 12.2 | 14.9 | 18.6 | 21.7 | 45
United Kingdom | 42.5 | 38.2 | 23.8 | 17.9 | 16.2 | 15.7 | 16.4 | 14.1 | 14.2 | 15.0 | 18.5 | 46
Venezuela | 11.7 | 12.9 | 8.7 | 5.7 | 6.5 | 6.8 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 7.2 | 10.5 | 18.5 | 56
Honduras | 6.5 | 8.8 | 4.6 | 3.7 | 4.7 | 6.3 | 5.3 | 4.3 | 5.7 | 7.6 | 11.0 | 74
China | 16.9 | 20.4 | 20.1 | 11.9 | 10.5 | 10.7 | 9.2 | 9.1 | 9.4 | 10.1 | 10.3 | 55
Brazil | 32.6 | 36.1 | 20.5 | 10.5 | 8.7 | 7.9 | 6.4 | 5.1 | 5.6 | 7.1 | 9.8 | 57
France | 12.7 | 13.0 | 8.9 | 7.7 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.4 | 7.3 | 8.1 | 9.0 | 9.4 | 49
Dominican Republic | 14.7 | 18.1 | 16.2 | 9.5 | 6.9 | 10.4 | 10.0 | 8.1 | 7.7 | 6.7 | 8.1 | 55
Peru | 21.7 | 27.4 | 27.5 | 13.7 | 8.0 | 7.7 | 5.6 | 4.8 | 4.7 | 5.3 | 8.1 | 58
Germany | 16.9 | 17.8 | 11.3 | 9.3 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 8.0 | 7.2 | 6.8 | 6.7 | 7.3 | 50
Paraguay | 21.6 | 24.0 | 17.4 | 10.8 | 9.4 | 8.2 | 4.8 | 3.8 | 4.2 | 4.7 | 7.2 | 64
Ecuador | 21.4 | 30.2 | 32.5 | 13.5 | 6.9 | 6.5 | 5.6 | 5.3 | 4.9 | 5.3 | 6.9 | 49
Other countries | 319.6 | 328.2 | 191.1 | 131.8 | 129.5 | 136.0 | 117.6 | 110.3 | 112.8 | 121.4 | 136.1 | ..
Total | 803.0 | 920.5 | 567.4 | 365.4 | 330.3 | 335.9 | 272.5 | 248.4 | 264.5 | 290.0 | 354.5 | 51
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
SWEDEN
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Syria | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 4.7 | 11.7 | 21.7 | 28.0 | 49.0 | 39
Eritrea | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 3.3 | 5.9 | 7.6 | 7.6 | 41
Poland | 6.3 | 7.5 | 7.0 | 5.2 | 4.4 | 4.4 | 4.4 | 4.6 | 5.1 | 5.6 | 5.0 | 39
India | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 4.2 | 39
Afghanistan | 1.7 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 3.4 | 4.7 | 4.2 | 3.8 | 3.4 | 4.1 | 32
Somalia | 3.0 | 3.8 | 4.1 | 6.9 | 6.8 | 3.1 | 4.5 | 11.0 | 4.2 | 3.5 | 3.8 | 53
Iraq | 10.9 | 15.2 | 12.1 | 8.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 3.6 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.8 | 3.4 | 46
Finland | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.6 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 59
Germany | 2.9 | 3.6 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 51
Romania | 0.3 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 41
China | 2.0 | 2.4 | 2.7 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 2.4 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 53
Norway | 2.5 | 2.4 | 2.3 | 1.9 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 51
Denmark | 5.1 | 5.1 | 4.1 | 3.8 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 44
United Kingdom | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 35
Iran | 2.0 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 2.4 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 1.7 | 51
Other countries | 36.9 | 32.2 | 35.0 | 37.8 | 37.4 | 36.8 | 39.4 | 39.4 | 43.2 | 42.7 | 48.0 | ..
Total | 80.4 | 83.5 | 83.3 | 83.8 | 79.0 | 75.9 | 82.6 | 95.4 | 106.1 | 113.9 | 143.0 | 44
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
SWITZERLAND
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Germany | 24.8 | 41.1 | 46.4 | 33.9 | 30.7 | 30.5 | 27.1 | 26.6 | 23.8 | 22.1 | 20.9 | 44
Italy | 5.5 | 8.4 | 9.9 | 8.5 | 10.1 | 10.8 | 13.6 | 17.5 | 17.8 | 18.2 | 18.1 | 39
France | 7.6 | 11.5 | 13.7 | 10.9 | 11.5 | 11.5 | 11.4 | 13.5 | 13.8 | 14.8 | 13.8 | 44
Portugal | 12.5 | 15.5 | 17.8 | 13.7 | 12.8 | 15.4 | 18.6 | 19.9 | 14.9 | 12.6 | 10.1 | 43
Spain | 1.6 | 2.1 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 3.3 | 4.6 | 6.5 | 8.8 | 7.6 | 7.0 | 5.8 | 48
Poland | 1.3 | 2.1 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 3.4 | 3.3 | 2.9 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 4.1 | 45
United Kingdom | 3.4 | 5.1 | 5.6 | 4.8 | 5.5 | 5.4 | 4.4 | 4.6 | 4.2 | 3.9 | 3.6 | 41
Hungary | 0.5 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 2.1 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 4.2 | 3.9 | 3.6 | 45
China | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.9 | 2.1 | 2.4 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 3.3 | 3.2 | 59
Austria | 2.0 | 2.8 | 3.2 | 2.8 | 2.6 | 2.9 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 3.2 | 2.9 | 43
United States | 3.2 | .. | .. | .. | 4.0 | 4.2 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 51
India | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.4 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 41
Romania | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 2.3 | 2.7 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 2.9 | 59
Eritrea | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.1 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 2.6 | 32
Slovak Republic | 0.2 | 0.2 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 2.7 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 43
Other countries | 39.6 | 49.6 | 52.8 | 50.1 | 41.6 | 41.3 | 39.8 | 41.7 | 42.5 | 44.0 | 43.4 | ..
Total | 102.7 | 139.7 | 157.3 | 132.4 | 134.2 | 142.5 | 143.8 | 155.4 | 152.1 | 150.4 | 143.1 | 47
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
TURKEY
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Azerbaijan | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.5 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 52
Afghanistan | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 36
Russia | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 76
Germany | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 57
United States | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.5 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 54
Iran | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.5 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 40
Kazakhstan | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 55
Turkmenistan | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 47
Iraq | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 43
United Kingdom | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 51
Bulgaria | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 71
Kyrgyzstan | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 54
Ukraine | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 85
Syria | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 79
China | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 24
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | .. | 9.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Total | .. | .. | .. | .. | 29.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 54
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
UNITED KINGDOM
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Romania | .. | .. | .. | 10 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 19 | 37 | 56 | 55 | ..
India | 57 | 55 | 48 | 64 | 68 | 61 | 36 | 30 | 46 | 36 | 35 | ..
China | 23 | 21 | 18 | 22 | 28 | 45 | 41 | 46 | 39 | 43 | 35 | ..
Poland | 60 | 88 | 55 | 32 | 34 | 33 | 30 | 28 | 32 | 40 | 29 | ..
Italy | .. | .. | 14 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 17 | 17 | 26 | 26 | ..
France | .. | .. | .. | 14 | 11 | 17 | 14 | 15 | 24 | 15 | 25 | ..
Spain | .. | .. | .. | 11 | 5 | 8 | 17 | 21 | 21 | 20 | 18 | ..
United States | 16 | 15 | 17 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 17 | 12 | 20 | 18 | 17 | ..
Australia | 26 | 18 | 14 | 12 | 18 | 13 | 16 | 11 | 15 | 16 | 13 | ..
Portugal | .. | .. | .. | .. | 4 | 5 | 7 | 12 | 15 | 10 | 12 | ..
Pakistan | 31 | 27 | 17 | 17 | 30 | 43 | 19 | 10 | 11 | 8 | 11 | ..
Ireland | .. | .. | .. | 11 | 14 | 10 | 4 | 10 | 6 | 5 | 11 | ..
Germany | 13 | 15 | 18 | 11 | 7 | 13 | 8 | 10 | 13 | 10 | 9 | ..
Turkey | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 7 | ..
Bulgaria | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 4 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 5 | 6 | ..
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | 201 | 208 | 166 | 154 | 156 | 196 | 171 | 145 | ..
Total | 452 | 455 | 456 | 430 | 459 | 453 | 383 | 406 | 504 | 481 | 454 | 48
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table B.1. Inflows of foreign population by nationality
UNITED STATES (permanent)
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Mexico | 173.7 | 148.6 | 190.0 | 164.9 | 139.1 | 143.4 | 146.4 | 135.0 | 134.1 | 158.6 | 174.5 | 55
China | 87.3 | 76.7 | 80.3 | 64.2 | 70.9 | 87.0 | 81.8 | 71.8 | 76.1 | 74.6 | 81.8 | 57
Cuba | 45.6 | 29.1 | 49.5 | 39.0 | 33.6 | 36.5 | 32.8 | 32.2 | 46.7 | 54.4 | 66.5 | 48
India | 61.4 | 65.4 | 63.4 | 57.3 | 69.2 | 69.0 | 66.4 | 68.5 | 77.9 | 64.1 | 64.7 | 52
Dominican Rep. | 38.1 | 28.0 | 31.9 | 49.4 | 53.9 | 46.1 | 41.6 | 41.3 | 44.6 | 50.6 | 61.2 | 55
Philippines | 74.6 | 72.6 | 54.0 | 60.0 | 58.2 | 57.0 | 57.3 | 54.4 | 50.0 | 56.5 | 53.3 | 64
Viet Nam | 30.7 | 28.7 | 31.5 | 29.2 | 30.6 | 34.2 | 28.3 | 27.1 | 30.3 | 30.8 | 41.5 | 60
Haiti | 22.2 | 30.4 | 26.0 | 24.3 | 22.6 | 22.1 | 22.8 | 20.4 | 15.3 | 17.0 | 23.6 | 55
El Salvador | 31.8 | 21.1 | 19.7 | 19.9 | 18.8 | 18.7 | 16.3 | 18.3 | 19.3 | 19.5 | 23.4 | 56
Jamaica | 25.0 | 19.4 | 18.5 | 21.8 | 19.8 | 19.7 | 20.7 | 19.4 | 19.0 | 17.6 | 23.4 | 56
Korea | 24.4 | 22.4 | 26.7 | 25.9 | 22.2 | 22.8 | 20.8 | 23.2 | 20.4 | 17.1 | 21.8 | 56
Pakistan | 17.4 | 13.5 | 19.7 | 21.6 | 18.3 | 15.5 | 14.7 | 13.3 | 18.6 | 18.1 | 19.3 | 53
Iraq | 4.3 | 3.8 | 4.8 | 12.1 | 19.9 | 21.1 | 20.4 | 9.6 | 19.2 | 21.1 | 18.9 | 49
Bangladesh | 14.6 | 12.1 | 11.8 | 16.7 | 14.8 | 16.7 | 14.7 | 12.1 | 14.6 | 13.6 | 18.7 | 55
Colombia | 43.1 | 33.2 | 30.2 | 27.8 | 22.4 | 22.6 | 20.9 | 21.1 | 18.2 | 17.3 | 18.6 | 62
Other countries | 571.8 | 447.5 | 449.3 | 496.7 | 428.5 | 429.6 | 425.6 | 423.0 | 412.4 | 420.1 | 472.4 | ..
Total | 1 266.1 | 1 052.4 | 1 107.1 | 1 130.8 | 1 042.6 | 1 062.0 | 1 031.6 | 990.6 | 1 016.5 | 1 051.0 | 1 183.5 | 54
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752182

Table A.2. Outflows of foreign population from selected OECD countries
Thousands
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016
Australia | 29.0 | 29.7 | 30.9 | 27.6 | 29.3 | 31.2 | 29.9 | 31.7 | 32.6 | 34.3 | ..
Austria | 55.0 | 56.6 | 60.2 | 67.2 | 68.4 | 72.8 | 74.4 | 74.5 | 76.5 | 80.1 | 89.0
Belgium | 39.4 | 38.5 | 44.9 | 49.1 | 50.8 | 56.6 | 69.5 | 78.8 | 64.9 | 59.8 | 48.7
Czech Republic | 31.4 | 18.4 | 3.8 | 9.4 | 12.5 | 2.5 | 16.7 | 27.2 | 16.1 | 15.0 | 13.4
Denmark | 17.3 | 19.0 | 23.3 | 26.6 | 27.1 | 26.6 | 29.1 | 29.7 | 30.4 | .. | ..
Estonia | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 3.3 | 3.4
Finland | 2.7 | 3.1 | 4.5 | 4.0 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 5.5 | 6.7 | 7.5
Germany | 483.8 | 475.8 | 563.1 | 578.8 | 529.6 | 538.8 | 578.8 | 657.6 | 765.6 | 859.3 | 1 085.4
Hungary | 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.2 | 5.6 | 6.0 | 2.7 | 9.9 | 13.1 | 10.8 | 10.4 | 10.5
Iceland | 1.5 | 4.0 | 5.9 | 5.8 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 3.6
Ireland | 20.7 | 33.4 | 36.1 | 52.8 | 40.3 | 38.6 | 33.3 | 33.0 | 30.0 | 27.5 | 29.1
Italy | 17.0 | 20.3 | 27.0 | 32.3 | 32.8 | 32.4 | 38.2 | 43.6 | 48.0 | 44.7 | ..
Japan | 218.8 | 214.9 | 234.2 | 262.0 | 242.6 | 230.9 | 219.4 | 213.4 | 212.9 | 223.5 | 233.5
Korea | 174.2 | 152.1 | 210.0 | 233.5 | 196.1 | 217.7 | 290.0 | 268.1 | 270.5 | 301.0 | 325.0
Latvia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 6.7 | 4.7 | 3.4 | 1.4 | 2.6 | ..
Luxembourg | 7.7 | 8.6 | 8.0 | 7.3 | 7.7 | 7.5 | 8.6 | 8.9 | 9.5 | 10.4 | 11.3
Netherlands | 52.5 | 47.9 | 49.8 | 57.5 | 64.0 | 70.2 | 80.8 | 83.1 | 83.4 | 85.2 | 89.9
New Zealand | 20.5 | 21.4 | 23.0 | 23.6 | 26.3 | 26.4 | 24.4 | 23.2 | 21.7 | 22.1 | 23.2
Norway | 12.5 | 13.3 | 15.2 | 18.4 | 22.5 | 22.9 | 21.3 | 25.0 | 23.3 | 27.4 | 30.7
Slovak Republic | 1.5 | 2.0 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 2.9 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 2.8 | 0.1 | 0.0 | ..
Slovenia | 11.0 | 11.8 | 7.3 | 15.1 | 12.0 | 2.1 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.7 | ..
Spain | 120.3 | 199.0 | 254.9 | 344.1 | 363.2 | 353.6 | 389.3 | 459.0 | 320.0 | 249.2 | 241.8
Sweden | 20.0 | 20.4 | 19.2 | 18.4 | 22.1 | 23.7 | 26.6 | 24.6 | 26.4 | 31.3 | 23.5
Switzerland | 53.0 | 56.2 | 54.1 | 55.2 | 65.5 | 64.0 | 65.9 | 70.0 | 69.2 | 73.4 | 77.6
United Kingdom | 173.4 | 158.0 | 243.0 | 211.0 | 185.0 | 190.0 | 165.0 | 170.0 | 171.0 | 164.0 | 195.0
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata in the following table.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752087

Metadata related to Tables A.1., B.1. and A.2. Inflows and outflows of foreign population

Country | Types of migrant recorded in the data | Other comments | Source

Australia

Permanent migrants: Includes persons who arrive from overseas and are entitled to stay permanently in Australia (Settler Arrivals) and persons who while already in Australia on a temporary basis are granted permanent residence status. Settler arrivals include holders of a permanent visa, holders of a temporary (provisional) visa where there is a clear intention to settle, citizens of New Zealand indicating an intention to settle and persons otherwise eligible to settle. Temporary migrants: Temporary entry visas granted (excluding visitors): Working Holiday Maker; International students; Skilled temporary residents and visas for social, cultural, international relations, training and research purposes, and for undertaking highly specialised short-stay work. Outflows: People leaving Australia for 12 months or more in a 16-month period. Net Overseas Migration (NOM).

Data refer to the fiscal year (July to June of the year indicated). Table B.1 presents the inflow of permanent migrants. From 2014, figures inferior to 5 individuals are not shown.

Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

Austria | Inflows and outflows: Foreigners holding a residence permit and who have actually stayed for at least 3 months. | Until 2001, data are from local population registers. Starting in 2002, they are from the central population register. The data for 2002-2007 were revised to match with the results of the register-based census of 2006. Outflows include administrative corrections. | Population Registers, Statistics Austria.
Belgium | Inflows: Foreigners holding a residence permit and intending to stay in the country for at least 3 months. Outflows: Include administrative corrections. | From 2012, asylum seekers are included in inflow and outflow data. | Population Register, Directorate for Statistics and Economic Information (DGSIE).

Canada

Permanent migrants: Total number of people who have been granted permanent resident status in Canada. Temporary migrants: Inflows (first entries) of people who are lawfully in Canada on a temporary basis under the authority of a temporary resident permit. Temporary residents include foreign workers (including seasonal workers), foreign students, refugee claimants, people allowed to remain temporarily in Canada on humanitarian grounds and other individuals entering Canada on a temporary basis who are not under a work or student permit and who are not seeking protection.

Table B.1 presents the inflow of persons who have acquired permanent resident status only. Country of origin refers to country of last permanent residence. Due to privacy considerations, the figures have been subjected to random rounding. Under this method, all figures in the table are randomly rounded either up or down to multiples of 5.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

Chile | Total number of people who obtained a temporary visa for the first time. |  | Register of residence permits, Department of Foreigners and Migration, Ministry of the Interior.

Czech Republic

Inflows: Foreigners holding a permanent or a long-term residence permit (visa over 90 days) or who were granted asylum in the given year. Excludes nationals of EU countries if they intend to stay for less than 30 days in the country. Outflows: Departures of foreigners who were staying in the country on a permanent or temporary basis.

Country of origin refers to country of last permanent or temporary residence. Inflows and outflows of nationals of EU countries are likely to be underestimated.

Register of Foreigners, Czech Statistical Office.

Denmark

Inflows: Foreigners who live legally in Denmark, are registered in the Central population register, and have been living in the country for at least one year. From 2006 on, Statistics Denmark changed its methodology. The data from 2006 on are therefore not comparable with previous years. Outflows: Include administrative corrections.

Excludes asylum seekers and all those with temporary residence permits.

Central Population Register, Statistics Denmark.

Estonia | Foreigners expecting to stay in the country (out of the country in the case outflows) for at least 12 months. | The number of nationals from other EU countries who are staying temporarily in the country for at least 12 months may be underestimated. | Statistics Estonia.
Finland | Inflows and outflows: Foreign nationals with a residence permit valid for more than one year and nationals of EU countries who intend to stay in the country for more than 12 months. Nordic citizens who are moving for less than 6 months are not included. | Includes foreign persons of Finnish origin. Excludes asylum seekers and persons with temporary residence permits. Inflows and outflows of nationals of EU countries can be underestimated. | Central Population Register, Statistics Finland.
France | Based on the first permanent-type permits delivered. Includes status changes from a temporary-type permit to a permanent-type permit. |  | Ministry of the Interior.
Germany | Inflows: Foreigners who had previously no registered address in Germany and intending to stay at least one week in the country. Outflows: Deregistrations from population registers of persons who move out of their address without taking a new address in the country and administrative deregistrations. | Includes asylum seekers living in private households. Excludes inflows of ethnic Germans (Aussiedler). In 2008, local authorities started to purge registers of inactive records. As a result, higher emigration figures were reported from this year. | Central Population Register, Federal Statistical Office.
Greece | Permits valid for more than 12 months delivered to third country nationals. |  | Eurostat.

Hungary

Inflows: Foreigners expecting to stay in the country for at least 90 days. Outflows: Foreign citizens having a residence or a settlement document and who left Hungary in the given year with no intention to return, or whose permission’s validity has expired and did not apply for a new one or whose permission was invalidated by authority due to withdrawal. From 2012, it contains estimations.

Population Register, Office of Immigration and Nationality, Central Statistical Office.

Iceland | Inflows and outflows: Foreigners expecting to stay in the country for a period of at least 12 months. |  | Register of Migration Data, Statistics Iceland.

Ireland

Figures are derived from the quarterly National Household Survey (QNHS) series.

Inflows:

The estimates relate to those persons resident in the country at the time of the survey and who were living abroad one year before (Table A.1)

Outflows:

Persons resident in the country at a point in the previous twelve-month period who are now living abroad (Table A.2).

 All figures are based on May to April of the year indicated.

Central Statistics Office.

Israel | Data refer to permanent immigrants by last country of residence. | The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law. | Population register, Central Bureau of Statistics.
Italy | Inflows and outflows: Transfers of residence. | Excludes seasonal workers. Administrative corrections are made following censuses (the last census took place in 2011). | Administrative Population Register (Anagrafe) analysed by ISTAT.
Japan | Inflows: Foreigners who entered the country, excluding temporary visitors and re-entries. Outflows: Foreigners who left Japan without re-entry permission. Excludes temporary visitors. |  | Ministry of Justice, Immigration Bureau.
Korea | Data refer to long-term inflows/outflows (more than 90 days). |  | Ministry of Justice.
Latvia |  |  | Population Register, Central Statistical Office.
Lithuania | Foreign citizens who have been residing in the country for at least 6 months. |  | Lithuanian Department of Migration.
Luxembourg | Inflows: Foreigners holding a residence permit and intending to stay in the country for at least 12 months. Outflows: Foreigners who left the country with the intention to live abroad for at least 12 months. |  | Central Population Register, Central Office of Statistics and Economic Studies (Statec).

Mexico

Until 2012, number of foreigners who are issued an immigrant permit for the first time ("inmigrante" FM2). 2011 and 2012 also include new and former refugees who obtained immigrant status ("inmigrado"). From 2013 on, number of foreigners who are issued a permanent residence card, as the 2011 Migration Act came into effect.

The sharp increase in the numbers of 2013 is explained by administrative changes with the implementation of the 2011 Migration Act. Most of these "new residents" are foreigners already in the country on a temporary status.

National Migration Institute, Unit for Migration Policy, Ministry of Interior.

Netherlands | Inflows: Foreigners holding a residence permit and intending to stay in the country for at least four of the next six months. Outflows: Outflows include the "net administrative corrections", i.e. unreported emigration of foreigners. | Inflows exclude asylum seekers who are staying in reception centres. | Population Register, Central Bureau of Statistics.
New Zealand | Inflows: Permanent and long-term arrivals to live in the country for 12 months or more. Outflows: Permanent and long-term departures: Foreign-born returning to live overseas after a stay of 12 months or more in New Zealand. |  | Statistics New Zealand.

Norway

Inflows: Foreigners holding a residence or work permit and intending to stay in the country for at least 6 months. Outflows: Foreigners holding a residence or work permit and who stayed in the country for at least 6 months.

Asylum seekers are registered as immigrants only after having settled in a Norwegian municipality following a positive outcome of their application. An asylum seeker whose application has been rejected will not be registered as an ‘immigrant’, even if the application process has taken a long time and the return to the home country is delayed for a significant period.

Central Population Register, Statistics Norway.

Poland

Number of permanent and "fixed-term" residence permits issued. Since 26 August 2006, nationals of European Union Member States and their family members are no longer issued residence permits. However, they still need to register their stay in Poland, provided that they are planning to stay in Poland for more than three months.

Office for Foreigners.

Portugal | Data based on residence permits. From 2008 on, following the new legislation, the data include the new residence permits delivered to every foreigner with a citizenship from an EU or non-EU country. Includes continuous regularisation. | In 2006 and 2007, figures include long-term visas for non-EU 25 citizens and new residence titles attributed to EU 25 citizens (who do not need a visa). | Immigration and Border Control Office (SEF); National Statistical Institute (INE); Ministry of Foreign Affairs (before 2008).
Russia | Grants of temporary and permanent residence permits. Data from 2006 to 2010 refer to the country of previous residence. Data from 2011 refer to citizenship. |  | Federal Migration Service.
Slovak Republic | Inflows and outflows: Includes permanent, temporary, and tolerated residents. |  | Register of Foreigners, Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic.
Slovenia | Inflows: Number of first temporary residence permits. Outflows: Temporary and permanent migrants declaring moving abroad. |  | Central Population Register, Ministry of the Interior, and National Statistical Office.
Spain | Inflows and outflows: Changes in regular residence for at least 12 months declared by foreigners. | From 2008 on, data correspond to Migration Statistics estimates that are based on the number of registrations and cancellations in the Municipal Registers by all foreigners, irrespective of their legal status. | Municipal Population Registers (Padron municipal de habitantes), National Statistical Institute (INE).
Sweden | Inflows: Foreigners holding a residence permit and intending to stay in the country for at least one year (including nationals of EU countries). Outflows: Departures of foreigners who have the intention to live abroad for at least one year. | Excludes asylum seekers and temporary workers. | Population Register, Statistics Sweden.

Switzerland

Inflows: Foreigners holding a permanent or an annual residence permit. Holders of an L-permit (short duration) are also included if their stay in the country is longer than 12 months. Outflows: Departures of foreigners holding a permanent or an annual residence permit and of holders of an L-permit who stayed in the country for at least one year. The data include administrative corrections, so that, for example, foreigners whose permit expired are considered to have left the country.

Register of Foreigners, Federal Office of Migration.

Turkey | Residence permits issued for the first time to foreigners intending to stay 12 months or more in the country. |  | General Directorate of Security, Ministry of the Interior.
United Kingdom | Inflows: Non-British citizens admitted to the United Kingdom. Outflows: Non-British citizens leaving the territory of the United Kingdom. | Statistics whose coefficient of variation exceeds 30% are not shown separately but grouped under "Other countries". | International Passenger Survey, Office for National Statistics.

United States

Permanent migrants: Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) ("green card" recipients). Temporary migrants: Data refer to non-immigrant visas issued, excluding visitors and transit passengers (B and C visas) and crewmembers (D visas). Includes family members.

Includes persons already present in the United States who changed status. Certain LPRs are admitted conditionally and are required to remove their conditional status after two years; they are counted as LPRs when they first enter. Data cover the fiscal year (October to September of the year indicated).

Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security; Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

Note: Data for Serbia include persons from Serbia, Montenegro and Serbia and Montenegro. Some statements may refer to nationalities/countries of birth not shown in this annex but available on line at: http://stats.oecd.org/.

Inflows of asylum seekers

Most statistics on asylum seekers published in this annex are based on data provided by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. Since 1950, the UNHCR, which has a mission of conducting and co-ordinating international initiatives on behalf of refugees, has regularly produced complete statistics on refugees and asylum seekers in OECD countries and other countries of the world (http://www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html).

These statistics are most often derived from administrative sources, but there are differences depending on the nature of the data provided. In some countries, asylum seekers are enumerated when the application is accepted. Consequently, they are shown in the statistics at that time rather than at the date when they arrived in the country. Acceptance of the application means that the administrative authorities will review the applicants’ claims and grant them certain rights during this review procedure. In other countries, the data do not include the applicants’ family members, who are admitted under different provisions (France), while other countries count the entire family (Switzerland).

The figures presented in the summary table (Table A.3) generally concern initial applications (primary processing stage) and sometimes differ significantly from the totals presented in Tables B.3, which give data by country of origin. This is because the data received by the UNHCR by country of origin combine both initial applications and appeals, and it is sometimes difficult to separate these two categories retrospectively. The reference for total asylum applications remains the figures shown in summary Table A.3.

Table A.3. New asylum requests in OECD countries and Russia
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Australia | 3 980 | 4 770 | 6 210 | 8 250 | 11 510 | 15 790 | 11 740 | 8 960 | 12 360 | 27 200 | 35 170
Austria | 11 920 | 12 840 | 15 820 | 11 010 | 14 420 | 17 410 | 17 500 | 28 060 | 85 620 | 39 880 | 22 160
Belgium | 11 120 | 12 250 | 17 190 | 21 760 | 26 000 | 18 530 | 12 500 | 13 870 | 38 700 | 14 250 | 14 040
Canada | 28 340 | 34 800 | 33 970 | 22 540 | 24 990 | 20 220 | 10 360 | 13 450 | 16 070 | 23 830 | 50 470
Chile | 760 | 870 | .. | 260 | 310 | 170 | 250 | 280 | 630 | 2 300 | ..
Czech Republic | 1 880 | 1 710 | 1 360 | 980 | 760 | 750 | 500 | 920 | 1 250 | 1 210 | 1 130
Denmark | 1 850 | 2 360 | 3 820 | 4 970 | 3 810 | 6 190 | 7 560 | 14 820 | 21 230 | 6 050 | 3 130
Estonia | 10 | 10 | 40 | 30 | 70 | 80 | 100 | 150 | 230 | 150 | 190
Finland | 1 430 | 4 020 | 5 910 | 4 020 | 3 090 | 2 920 | 3 020 | 3 520 | 32 270 | 5 280 | 4 330
France | 29 390 | 35 400 | 42 120 | 48 070 | 52 150 | 55 070 | 60 230 | 59 030 | 74 300 | 76 790 | 91 070
Germany | 19 160 | 22 090 | 27 650 | 41 330 | 45 740 | 64 540 | 109 580 | 173 070 | 441 900 | 722 270 | 198 260
Greece | 25 110 | 19 880 | 15 930 | 10 270 | 9 310 | 9 580 | 8 220 | 9 450 | 11 370 | 49 880 | 57 020
Hungary | 3 430 | 3 120 | 4 670 | 2 100 | 1 690 | 2 160 | 18 570 | 41 370 | 174 430 | 28 220 | 3 100
Iceland | 40 | 80 | 40 | 50 | 80 | 110 | 170 | 160 | 360 | 1 110 | 1 070
Ireland | 3 990 | 3 870 | 2 690 | 1 940 | 1 420 | 1 100 | 950 | 1 440 | 3 280 | 2 310 | 2 920
Israel | 5 760 | 4 630 | 4 140 | 5 580 | 6 460 | 5 700 | 4 760 | 5 560 | 5 010 | 14 840 | ..
Italy | 14 050 | 30 320 | 17 600 | 10 050 | 34 120 | 17 350 | 25 720 | 63 660 | 83 240 | 121 190 | 126 550
Japan | 820 | 1 600 | 1 390 | 1 200 | 1 870 | 2 550 | 3 260 | 5 000 | 7 580 | 10 900 | 19 250
Korea | 720 | 360 | 320 | 430 | 1 010 | 1 140 | 1 570 | 2 900 | 5 710 | 7 540 | 9 940
Latvia | .. | .. | .. | .. | 335 | 189 | 185 | 364 | 330 | 350 | 350
Luxembourg | 430 | 460 | 480 | 740 | 2 080 | 2 000 | 990 | 970 | 2 300 | 2 060 | 2 330
Mexico | 370 | 320 | 680 | 1 040 | 750 | 810 | 1 300 | 1 520 | 3 420 | 8 800 | 14 600
Netherlands | 7 100 | 13 400 | 14 910 | 13 330 | 11 590 | 9 660 | 14 400 | 23 850 | 43 100 | 19 290 | 16 090
New Zealand | 250 | 250 | 340 | 340 | 310 | 320 | 290 | 290 | 350 | 520 | 560
Norway | 6 530 | 14 430 | 17 230 | 10 060 | 9 050 | 9 790 | 11 470 | 12 640 | 30 520 | 3 250 | 3 350
Poland | 7 210 | 7 200 | 10 590 | 6 530 | 5 090 | 9 170 | 13 760 | 6 810 | 10 250 | 9 790 | 3 000
Portugal | 220 | 160 | 140 | 160 | 280 | 300 | 510 | 440 | 900 | 710 | 1 010
Russia | 3 370 | 5 420 | 5 700 | 2 180 | 1 270 | 1 240 | 1 960 | 6 670 | 1 267 | 26 410 | .. 
Slovak Republic | 2 640 | 910 | 820 | 540 | 490 | 730 | 280 | 230 | 270 | 100 | 160
Slovenia | 430 | 240 | 180 | 250 | 370 | 310 | 240 | 360 | 260 | 1 270 | 1 440
Spain | 7 660 | 4 520 | 3 010 | 2 740 | 3 410 | 2 580 | 4 510 | 5 900 | 13 370 | 15 570 | 25 270
Sweden | 36 370 | 24 350 | 24 190 | 31 820 | 29 650 | 43 880 | 54 260 | 75 090 | 156 460 | 22 330 | 22 190
Switzerland | 10 390 | 16 610 | 16 010 | 13 520 | 19 440 | 25 950 | 19 440 | 22 110 | 38 120 | 25 820 | 16 610
Turkey | 7 650 | 12 980 | 7 830 | 9 230 | 16 020 | 26 470 | 44 810 | 87 820 | 133 590 | 77 850 | 123 920
United Kingdom | 28 300 | 31 320 | 30 680 | 22 640 | 25 900 | 27 980 | 29 400 | 31 260 | 39 970 | 39 240 | 33 320
United States | 40 450 | 39 360 | 38 080 | 42 970 | 60 590 | 66 100 | 68 240 | 121 160 | 172 740 | 261 970 | 329 800
OECD | 319 760 | 361 490 | 366 040 | 350 750 | 424 165 | 467 599 | 560 645 | 836 484 | 1 661 490 | 1 644 120 | 1 233 800
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the Tables B.3.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752106

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
AUSTRALIA
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Malaysia | 145 | 238 | 231 | 249 | 182 | 173 | 209 | 704 | 2 767 | 7 258 | ..
Iran | 84 | 161 | 312 | 458 | 2 152 | 1 851 | 967 | 262 | 844 | 2 971 | ..
Sri Lanka | 445 | 422 | 555 | 589 | 370 | 2 468 | 806 | 176 | 806 | 2 662 | ..
Afghanistan | 20 | 52 | 940 | 1 265 | 1 720 | 3 064 | 370 | 123 | 567 | 2 563 | ..
China | 1 207 | 1 232 | 1 192 | 1 187 | 1 189 | 1 155 | 1 537 | 1 541 | 1 456 | 1 914 | ..
Iraq | 216 | 199 | 298 | 373 | 490 | 778 | 362 | 422 | 1 043 | 1 378 | ..
Pakistan | 145 | 220 | 260 | 428 | 817 | 1 538 | 1 104 | 828 | 642 | 1 334 | ..
India | 349 | 373 | 213 | 409 | 769 | 949 | 1 163 | 964 | 652 | 1 117 | ..
Viet Nam | 34 | 52 | 37 | 78 | 130 | 81 | 128 | 264 | 223 | 772 | ..
Bangladesh | 66 | 131 | 69 | 97 | 127 | 162 | 382 | 250 | 217 | 433 | ..
Fiji | 70 | 81 | 262 | 375 | 277 | 236 | 413 | 287 | 250 | 390 | ..
Indonesia | 183 | 238 | 192 | 179 | 174 | 126 | 190 | 152 | 208 | 318 | ..
Lebanon | 75 | 91 | 115 | 200 | 158 | 326 | 349 | 246 | 157 | 238 | ..
Thailand | 27 | 5 | 8 | 27 | 17 | 24 | 22 | 16 | 98 | 204 | ..
Sudan | 13 | 14 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 12 | 18 | .. | .. | 186 | ..
Other countries | 901 | 1 262 | 1 514 | 2 327 | 2 929 | 2 843 | 3 721 | 2 753 | 2 430 | 3 894 | ..
Total | 3 980 | 4 771 | 6 206 | 8 246 | 11 505 | 15 786 | 11 741 | 8 988 | 12 360 | 27 632 | ..
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
AUSTRIA
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Syria | 166 | 140 | 279 | 194 | 422 | 922 | 1 991 | 7 661 | 24 314 | 8 723 | 7 255
Afghanistan | 761 | 1 382 | 2 237 | 1 582 | 3 609 | 4 003 | 2 589 | 4 916 | 25 143 | 11 506 | 3 525
Pakistan | 103 | 106 | 183 | 276 | 949 | 1 827 | 1 037 | 330 | 2 892 | 2 414 | 1 445
Iraq | 472 | 490 | 399 | 336 | 484 | 491 | 468 | 1 051 | 13 285 | 2 737 | 1 345
Nigeria | 394 | 535 | 837 | 573 | 414 | 400 | 691 | 544 | 1 245 | 1 659 | 1 135
Russia | 2 676 | 3 435 | 3 559 | 2 322 | 2 314 | 3 098 | 2 841 | 1 484 | 1 340 | 1 235 | 1 035
Iran | 248 | 250 | 340 | 387 | 457 | 761 | 595 | 726 | 3 381 | 2 415 | 950
Somalia | 467 | 411 | 344 | 190 | 610 | 483 | 433 | 1 152 | 2 040 | 1 500 | 655
Ukraine | 182 | 139 | 120 | 82 | 63 | 79 | 64 | 419 | 481 | 338 | 435
Georgia | 400 | 511 | 975 | 370 | 261 | 300 | 257 | 348 | 355 | 290 | 380
India | 385 | 355 | 427 | 433 | 476 | 401 | 339 | 266 | 371 | 407 | 310
Turkey | 659 | 417 | 554 | 369 | 414 | 273 | 302 | 165 | 190 | 310 | 260
Algeria | 109 | 173 | 248 | 304 | 447 | 573 | 949 | 442 | 821 | 867 | 220
Morocco | 55 | 140 | 90 | 137 | 313 | 353 | 516 | 220 | 666 | 953 | 205
China | 223 | 236 | 398 | 217 | 238 | 241 | 237 | 228 | 290 | 245 | 195
Other countries | 4 621 | 4 121 | 4 831 | 3 240 | 2 945 | 3 208 | 4 194 | 8 108 | 8 806 | 4 353 | 3 120
Total | 11 921 | 12 841 | 15 821 | 11 012 | 14 416 | 17 413 | 17 503 | 28 060 | 85 620 | 39 952 | 22 470
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
BELGIUM
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Syria | 199 | 281 | 347 | 374 | 494 | 798 | 944 | 2 524 | 10 185 | 2 612 | 2 625
Afghanistan | 696 | 879 | 1 659 | 1 124 | 2 774 | 2 349 | 892 | 744 | 7 562 | 2 227 | 995
Palestinian authority | 7 | .. | 9 | 39 | 55 | 26 | 27 | .. | 51 | 139 | 815
Guinea | 526 | 661 | 1 052 | 1 455 | 2 046 | 1 370 | 1 023 | 657 | 619 | 721 | 750
Albania | 193 | 172 | 256 | 208 | 1 152 | 607 | 472 | 487 | 599 | 649 | 670
Eritrea | 27 | 35 | 69 | 106 | 62 | 65 | 57 | 745 | 333 | 331 | 665
Iraq | 825 | 1 070 | 1 386 | 1 637 | 2 005 | 636 | 295 | 965 | 9 180 | 759 | 600
Dem. Rep. of the Congo | 716 | 579 | 670 | 813 | 1 080 | 1 392 | 1 166 | 632 | 620 | 503 | 550
Turkey | 250 | 284 | 259 | 275 | 430 | 340 | 204 | 144 | 182 | 652 | 465
Georgia | 156 | 222 | 327 | 336 | 347 | 386 | 229 | 280 | 199 | 184 | 415
Russia | 1 436 | 1 620 | 1 605 | 1 886 | 1 747 | 1 190 | 791 | 536 | 535 | 410 | 390
Cameroon | 279 | 367 | 302 | 289 | 451 | 457 | 360 | 345 | 278 | 257 | 350
Somalia | 168 | 163 | 216 | 262 | 454 | 293 | 156 | 260 | 1 994 | 727 | 295
Burundi | 80 | 106 | 120 | 149 | 149 | 133 | 133 | 51 | 251 | 271 | 235
Morocco | 25 | 36 | 53 | 43 | 99 | 106 | 124 | 130 | 169 | 187 | 210
Other countries | 5 532 | 5 777 | 8 856 | 12 759 | 12 658 | 8 377 | 5 627 | 5 376 | 5 943 | 4 041 | 4 025
Total | 11 115 | 12 252 | 17 186 | 21 755 | 26 003 | 18 525 | 12 500 | 13 876 | 38 700 | 14 670 | 14 055
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
CANADA
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Haiti | 3 741 | 4 936 | 1 597 | 1 062 | 523 | 419 | 329 | 364 | 295 | 616 | 7 921
Nigeria | 759 | 766 | 760 | 846 | 696 | 700 | 468 | 578 | 793 | 1 493 | 5 840
United States | 949 | 969 | 468 | 344 | 308 | 386 | 127 | 166 | 184 | 375 | 2 553
Turkey | 172 | 232 | 247 | 299 | 332 | 369 | 178 | 174 | 263 | 1 096 | 2 194
Pakistan | 361 | 403 | 437 | 526 | 882 | 808 | 630 | 776 | 897 | 1 137 | 1 746
Mexico | 7 028 | 8 069 | 9 296 | 1 299 | 763 | 324 | 84 | 73 | 110 | 259 | 1 511
India | 554 | 561 | 502 | 532 | 632 | 765 | 228 | 294 | 374 | 557 | 1 484
Syria | 67 | 70 | 84 | 126 | 181 | 336 | 493 | 558 | 581 | 958 | 1 438
Colombia | 2 632 | 3 132 | 2 299 | 1 384 | 904 | 724 | 597 | 579 | 701 | 848 | 1 413
Venezuela | 148 | 170 | 180 | 149 | 111 | 106 | 27 | 161 | 257 | 565 | 1 245
Eritrea | 164 | 212 | 200 | 138 | 171 | 92 | 230 | 252 | 288 | 779 | 1 209
China | 1 456 | 1 711 | 1 592 | 1 650 | 1 922 | 1 741 | 762 | 1 189 | 1 500 | 1 180 | 1 078
Burundi | 278 | 264 | 125 | 116 | 152 | 185 | 201 | 98 | 260 | 694 | 1 027
Yemen | 14 | 21 | 14 | 19 | 15 | 25 | 33 | 24 | 160 | 344 | 924
Iraq | 264 | 282 | 198 | 130 | 143 | 174 | 237 | 576 | 597 | 1 119 | 900
Other countries | 9 755 | 13 002 | 15 971 | 13 923 | 17 250 | 13 069 | 5 732 | 7 799 | 8 810 | 11 813 | 16 942
Total | 28 342 | 34 800 | 33 970 | 22 543 | 24 985 | 20 223 | 10 356 | 13 661 | 16 070 | 23 833 | 49 425
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
CHILE
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Colombia | 713 | 816 | 601 | 220 | 267 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1 804 | ..
Venezuela | .. | .. | 3 | .. | 2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 245 | ..
Dominican Republic | .. | 1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 64 | ..
Cuba | 4 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 56 | ..
Haiti | 9 | 17 | 6 | 1 | 2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 23 | ..
Ecuador | 4 | 19 | 4 | 1 | 4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 20 | ..
El Salvador | .. | .. | .. | .. | 3 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 14 | ..
Peru | 3 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 13 | ..
Syria | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 12 | ..
Turkey | .. | 4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 9 | ..
Palestinian authority | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 7 | ..
Russia | 1 | .. | .. | .. | 2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 5 | ..
Mexico | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 5 | ..
Iraq | .. | .. | 2 | 1 | 1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 4 | ..
United States | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2 | ..
Other countries | 22 | 5 | 20 | 18 | 14 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 16 | ..
Total | 756 | 872 | 644 | 260 | 305 | 168 | 249 | 282 | 630 | 2 299 | ..
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
CZECH REPUBLIC
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Ukraine | 293 | 323 | 220 | 141 | 152 | 101 | 68 | 416 | 574 | 356 | 295
Azerbaijan | 6 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 8 | 2 | .. | .. | 49 | 120
Armenia | 37 | 33 | 23 | 19 | 11 | 19 | 29 | .. | 11 | 51 | 115
Georgia | 45 | 39 | 33 | 9 | 17 | 6 | 12 | .. | 5 | 46 | 110
Syria | 31 | 36 | 54 | 17 | 23 | 57 | 69 | 102 | 121 | 73 | 70
Viet Nam | 100 | 109 | 65 | 49 | 46 | 35 | 37 | 42 | 37 | 53 | 60
Cuba | 94 | 19 | 12 | 18 | 20 | 14 | 36 | 15 | 107 | 80 | 55
Iraq | 49 | 30 | 12 | 7 | 9 | 5 | 11 | 6 | 22 | 141 | 45
Russia | 99 | 85 | 66 | 62 | 47 | 29 | 40 | 5 | 12 | 53 | 40
Kazakhstan | 30 | 80 | 192 | 57 | 18 | 18 | 17 | .. | 5 | 19 | 35
Turkey | 213 | 253 | 69 | 68 | 32 | 10 | 11 | .. | .. | 23 | 25
Moldova | 31 | 17 | 22 | 13 | 8 | 6 | 10 | 7 | .. | 5 | 15
Belarus | 130 | 81 | 60 | 67 | 71 | 33 | 13 | .. | .. | 8 | 15
Afghanistan | 20 | 36 | 4 | 10 | 26 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 36 | 15
Uzbekistan | 25 | 17 | 19 | 16 | 26 | 9 | 6 | .. | .. | 17 | 10
Other countries | 675 | 550 | 503 | 421 | 249 | 393 | 134 | 315 | 350 | 204 | 115
Total | 1 878 | 1 711 | 1 355 | 979 | 756 | 753 | 503 | 914 | 1 250 | 1 214 | 1 140
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
DENMARK
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Syria | 71 | 105 | 380 | 821 | 428 | 907 | 1 702 | 7 185 | 8 604 | 1 251 | 765
Morocco | 7 | 19 | 31 | 29 | 45 | 108 | 162 | 226 | 183 | 347 | 300
Eritrea | 6 | 15 | 37 | 26 | 20 | 57 | 98 | 2 293 | 1 738 | 267 | 295
Afghanistan | 138 | 418 | 1 049 | 1 476 | 903 | 576 | 425 | 321 | 2 288 | 1 122 | 170
Iran | 106 | 196 | 334 | 597 | 461 | 548 | 374 | 285 | 2 771 | 299 | 145
Iraq | 695 | 543 | 305 | 237 | 115 | 133 | 115 | 148 | 1 531 | 449 | 130
Somalia | 35 | 58 | 177 | 110 | 107 | 914 | 964 | 688 | 259 | 262 | 85
Algeria | 16 | 38 | 46 | 46 | 103 | 134 | 111 | 120 | 92 | 164 | 80
Libya | 4 | 6 | 18 | 12 | 67 | 79 | 57 | 36 | 44 | 171 | 70
Georgia | 6 | 25 | 17 | 15 | 19 | 75 | 69 | 104 | 94 | 73 | 70
Albania | 7 | 15 | 12 | 6 | 4 | 39 | 66 | 47 | 65 | 88 | 70
Nigeria | 22 | 29 | 53 | 24 | 52 | 115 | 142 | 93 | 110 | 121 | 65
Belarus | 3 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 23 | 148 | 52 | 55 | 68 | 44 | 50
Russia | 114 | 183 | 335 | 340 | 304 | 521 | 983 | 526 | 175 | 81 | 45
Ukraine | 5 | 7 | 9 | 6 | 19 | 15 | 38 | 118 | 92 | 96 | 40
Other countries | 617 | 697 | 1 008 | 1 214 | 1 141 | 1 817 | 2 199 | 2 529 | 3 116 | 1 400 | 760
Total | 1 852 | 2 360 | 3 819 | 4 965 | 3 811 | 6 186 | 7 557 | 14 774 | 21 230 | 6 235 | 3 140
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
ESTONIA
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Syria | .. | .. | 5 | .. | .. | 4 | 17 | .. | 8 | .. | 80
Russia | 3 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 8 | 15 | .. | 6 | 8 | 15
Ukraine | .. | 1 | .. | .. | 2 | .. | .. | 37 | 84 | 9 | 10
Georgia | .. | 2 | 6 | .. | 6 | 35 | 9 | .. | 5 | 3 | 10
Venezuela | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 5
Sri Lanka | 4 | .. | .. | 3 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 5
Iraq | .. | 1 | 2 | .. | 2 | .. | .. | .. | 11 | .. | 5
Iran | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 3 | .. | .. | 10 | 5
Egypt | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 5
Cuba | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2 | .. | .. | .. | 5
Belarus | 7 | 4 | .. | 1 | 4 | 4 | 3 | .. | .. | 1 | 5
Albania | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1 | 3 | .. | .. | 8 | 5
Afghanistan | .. | .. | 9 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 1 | .. | 11 | .. | 5
Other countries | .. | .. | 9 | .. | .. | 20 | 44 | .. | 105 | .. | 20
Total | 14 | 14 | 36 | 30 | 67 | 77 | 97 | 143 | 230 | 69 | 180
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
FINLAND
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Iraq | 327 | 1 253 | 1 183 | 575 | 588 | 784 | 764 | 807 | 20 427 | 1 083 | 1 000
Syria | 8 | 24 | 36 | 41 | 109 | 180 | 148 | 146 | 876 | 600 | 740
Eritrea | 1 | 3 | 12 | 14 | 7 | 5 | 2 | .. | 104 | 279 | 435
Russia | 172 | 208 | 599 | 436 | 294 | 199 | 219 | 167 | 160 | 174 | 395
Afghanistan | 96 | 249 | 445 | 265 | 292 | 188 | 172 | 198 | 5 198 | 697 | 305
Georgia | 6 | 13 | 22 | 61 | 70 | 29 | 14 | 16 | .. | 19 | 120
Turkey | 73 | 65 | 140 | 117 | 74 | 56 | 55 | 13 | 40 | 98 | 110
Somalia | 82 | 1 176 | 1 169 | 571 | 365 | 173 | 196 | 407 | 1 974 | 426 | 100
Albania | 13 | 16 | 9 | 12 | 11 | 18 | 51 | 98 | 753 | 83 | 100
Nigeria | 41 | 76 | 130 | 84 | 105 | 93 | 202 | 157 | 153 | 162 | 95
Iran | 79 | 143 | 159 | 142 | 125 | 121 | 147 | 84 | 601 | 141 | 90
Yemen | .. | .. | 3 | 3 | 1 | .. | 4 | .. | 51 | 64 | 60
Algeria | 24 | 27 | 48 | 47 | 55 | 54 | 81 | 79 | 81 | 28 | 55
Morocco | 4 | 12 | 29 | 15 | 28 | 37 | 70 | 70 | 115 | 96 | 45
Cameroon | 12 | 20 | 24 | 21 | 21 | 22 | 37 | 29 | 28 | 86 | 45
Other countries | 496 | 731 | 1 902 | 1 614 | 941 | 963 | 861 | 1 246 | 1 709 | 1 283 | 655
Total | 1 434 | 4 016 | 5 910 | 4 018 | 3 086 | 2 922 | 3 023 | 3 517 | 32 270 | 5 319 | 4 350
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
FRANCE
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Albania | 198 | 334 | 536 | 479 | 477 | 2 647 | 5 016 | 2 843 | 3 228 | 5 769 | 11 425
Afghanistan | 184 | 263 | 688 | 772 | 653 | 522 | 526 | 605 | 2 453 | 5 466 | 6 600
Haiti | 677 | 930 | 1 458 | 2 008 | 2 016 | 1 602 | 1 473 | 1 854 | 3 198 | 4 936 | 5 600
Syria | 45 | 32 | 61 | 192 | 119 | 629 | 1 303 | 3 129 | 5 110 | 5 521 | 4 695
Sudan | 404 | 399 | 811 | 817 | 785 | 752 | 840 | 1 948 | 5 338 | 5 144 | 4 680
Guinea | 981 | 1 270 | 1 671 | 2 034 | 2 033 | 1 884 | 2 445 | 2 166 | 2 131 | 2 387 | 4 130
Dem. Rep. of the Congo | 2 154 | 2 543 | 2 800 | 3 426 | 3 845 | 5 321 | 5 263 | 5 170 | 3 984 | 3 063 | 3 805
Côte d'Ivoire | 632 | 632 | 510 | 536 | 1 671 | 986 | 968 | 949 | 1 278 | 1 504 | 3 620
Algeria | 967 | 978 | 1 118 | 1 171 | 1 132 | 1 162 | 1 479 | 1 601 | 2 323 | 2 290 | 2 995
Bangladesh | 960 | 1 249 | 1 441 | 3 145 | 3 572 | 1 093 | 3 069 | 2 646 | 3 358 | 2 198 | 2 620
Iraq | 144 | 637 | 588 | 437 | 254 | 174 | 93 | 904 | 3 077 | 2 424 | 2 345
Russia | 3 265 | 3 595 | 3 392 | 4 334 | 4 062 | 5 366 | 4 676 | 3 596 | 2 974 | 1 631 | 2 215
Armenia | 1 929 | 2 075 | 3 112 | 1 775 | 3 639 | 2 187 | 1 722 | 1 539 | 1 391 | 1 096 | 2 165
China | 1 286 | 821 | 1 602 | 1 937 | 2 187 | 2 226 | 2 293 | 2 675 | 2 961 | 1 853 | 2 070
Nigeria | 446 | 462 | 689 | 744 | 802 | 967 | 1 306 | 1 375 | 1 586 | 1 612 | 2 030
Other countries | 15 115 | 19 184 | 21 641 | 24 267 | 24 900 | 27 550 | 27 762 | 26 041 | 29 910 | 23 854 | 30 970
Total | 29 387 | 35 404 | 42 118 | 48 074 | 52 147 | 55 068 | 60 234 | 59 041 | 74 300 | 70 748 | 91 965
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
GERMANY
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Syria | 634 | 775 | 819 | 1 490 | 2 634 | 6 201 | 11 851 | 39 332 | 158 657 | 266 248 | 48 970
Iraq | 4 327 | 6 836 | 6 538 | 5 555 | 5 831 | 5 352 | 3 958 | 5 345 | 29 784 | 96 115 | 21 930
Afghanistan | 338 | 657 | 3 375 | 5 905 | 7 767 | 7 498 | 7 735 | 9 115 | 31 382 | 127 011 | 16 425
Eritrea | 335 | 262 | 346 | 642 | 632 | 650 | 3 616 | 13 198 | 10 876 | 18 854 | 10 225
Iran | 631 | 815 | 1 170 | 2 475 | 3 352 | 4 348 | 4 424 | 3 194 | 5 394 | 26 426 | 8 610
Turkey | 1 437 | 1 408 | 1 429 | 1 340 | 1 578 | 1 457 | 1 521 | 1 565 | 1 500 | 5 383 | 8 025
Nigeria | 503 | 561 | 791 | 716 | 759 | 892 | 1 923 | 3 924 | 5 207 | 12 709 | 7 810
Somalia | 121 | 165 | 346 | 2 235 | 984 | 1 243 | 3 786 | 5 528 | 5 126 | 9 851 | 6 835
Russia | 772 | 792 | 936 | 1 199 | 1 689 | 3 202 | 14 887 | 4 411 | 5 257 | 10 985 | 4 885
Guinea | 132 | 199 | 237 | 229 | 281 | 428 | 1 260 | 1 148 | 662 | 3 458 | 3 955
Albania | 70 | 63 | 49 | 39 | 78 | 232 | 1 247 | 7 865 | 53 805 | 14 853 | 3 775
Pakistan | 301 | 320 | 481 | 840 | 2 539 | 3 412 | 4 101 | 3 968 | 8 199 | 14 484 | 3 670
Armenia | 239 | 198 | 264 | 296 | 335 | 570 | 1 159 | 2 113 | 1 965 | 5 185 | 3 485
Georgia | 181 | 232 | 560 | 664 | 471 | 1 298 | 2 336 | 2 873 | 2 782 | 3 448 | 3 080
Azerbaijan | 274 | 360 | 652 | 469 | 646 | 547 | 905 | 1 192 | 1 335 | 4 573 | 3 030
Other countries | 8 869 | 8 442 | 9 656 | 17 238 | 16 165 | 27 209 | 44 871 | 68 301 | 119 969 | 102 781 | 43 600
Total | 19 164 | 22 085 | 27 649 | 41 332 | 45 741 | 64 539 | 109 580 | 173 072 | 441 900 | 722 364 | 198 310
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
GREECE
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Syria | 1 311 | 808 | 965 | 167 | 352 | 275 | 485 | 791 | 3 319 | 26 614 | 16 305
Pakistan | 9 144 | 6 914 | 3 716 | 2 748 | 2 309 | 2 339 | 1 358 | 1 623 | 1 503 | 4 417 | 8 345
Iraq | 5 474 | 1 760 | 886 | 342 | 257 | 315 | 145 | 175 | 579 | 4 773 | 7 870
Afghanistan | 1 556 | 2 287 | 1 510 | 524 | 637 | 584 | 1 223 | 1 711 | 1 544 | 4 293 | 7 480
Albania | 51 | 202 | 517 | 693 | 276 | 384 | 579 | 570 | 913 | 1 295 | 2 345
Turkey | 133 | 53 | 71 | 71 | 34 | 32 | 30 | 26 | 20 | 182 | 1 820
Palestinian authority | .. | .. | .. | 150 | 27 | 28 | 41 | 61 | 48 | 848 | 1 305
Iran | 354 | 312 | 303 | 125 | 247 | 211 | 188 | 358 | 187 | 1 084 | 1 295
Bangladesh | 2 965 | 1 778 | 1 809 | 987 | 615 | 1 007 | 727 | 635 | 536 | 1 053 | 1 255
Dem. Rep. of the Congo | 1 | 12 | 11 | 16 | 12 | 20 | 153 | 75 | 112 | 224 | 1 085
Georgia | 1 559 | 2 241 | 2 170 | 1 162 | 1 121 | 893 | 532 | 350 | 297 | 583 | 985
Egypt | 75 | 95 | 145 | 104 | 306 | 249 | 308 | 280 | 233 | 259 | 810
Algeria | 19 | 18 | 44 | 79 | 79 | 105 | 144 | 187 | 93 | 869 | 755
Cameroon | 4 | 29 | 44 | 20 | 39 | 24 | 84 | 281 | 155 | 211 | 455
Morocco | 9 | 18 | 156 | 57 | 161 | 91 | 114 | 100 | 50 | 459 | 425
Other countries | 2 458 | 3 357 | 3 581 | 3 028 | 2 839 | 3 020 | 2 113 | 2 209 | 1 781 | 2 683 | 4 415
Total | 25 113 | 19 884 | 15 928 | 10 273 | 9 311 | 9 577 | 8 224 | 9 432 | 11 370 | 49 847 | 56 950
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
HUNGARY
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Afghanistan | 35 | 116 | 1 194 | 702 | 649 | 880 | 2 279 | 8 539 | 45 560 | 10 774 | 1 365
Iraq | 136 | 125 | 57 | 48 | 54 | 28 | 56 | 468 | 9 173 | 3 357 | 795
Syria | 48 | 16 | 19 | 23 | 91 | 145 | 960 | 6 749 | 64 081 | 4 735 | 565
Pakistan | 15 | 246 | 41 | 41 | 121 | 327 | 3 052 | 296 | 15 011 | 3 652 | 100
Iran | 14 | 10 | 87 | 62 | 33 | 45 | 59 | 247 | 1 780 | 1 248 | 95
Algeria | 48 | 19 | 11 | 35 | 56 | 59 | 1 105 | 18 | 529 | 606 | 25
Turkey | 56 | 70 | 114 | 59 | 25 | 30 | 84 | 99 | 275 | 411 | 20
Palestinian authority | 52 | 41 | 23 | 225 | 36 | 17 | 86 | 829 | 1 010 | 195 | 15
Cuba | 31 | 18 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 32 | 205 | 169 | 91 | 15
Morocco | 5 | 4 | 5 | 14 | 30 | 47 | 494 | 5 | 245 | 937 | 10
Cameroon | 6 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 52 | 83 | 628 | 9 | 10
Bangladesh | 10 | 35 | 26 | 4 | 3 | 15 | 678 | 222 | 4 000 | 256 | 10
Ukraine | 19 | 4 | 9 | 9 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 20 | 13 | 20 | 5
Somalia | 99 | 185 | 75 | 51 | 61 | 69 | 185 | 171 | 335 | 321 | 5
Nigeria | 86 | 56 | 66 | 37 | 22 | 27 | 441 | 169 | 937 | 47 | 5
Other countries | 2 765 | 2 169 | 2 930 | 786 | 500 | 461 | 8 995 | 22 991 | 30 684 | 1 411 | 80
Total | 3 425 | 3 118 | 4 672 | 2 104 | 1 693 | 2 157 | 18 565 | 41 111 | 174 430 | 28 070 | 3 120
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
ICELAND
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Georgia | .. | 4 | .. | 1 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 5 | .. | 42 | 290
Albania | 5 | 5 | 3 | .. | 2 | 11 | 22 | 10 | 103 | 231 | 255
Iraq | 1 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 19 | 73 | 110
Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia | .. | .. | .. | 4 | 2 | .. | 2 | 5 | 10 | 468 | 50
Pakistan | 1 | 2 | .. | 1 | 2 | 3 | .. | .. | .. | 13 | 35
Syria | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 13 | 37 | 30
Somalia | .. | 2 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | .. | .. | 21 | 30
Iran | 1 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 3 | 12 | 1 | .. | .. | 20 | 25
Palestinian authority | .. | 1 | .. | .. | 2 | 2 | .. | .. | .. | 15 | 15
Morocco | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2 | .. | .. | .. | 14 | 15
Afghanistan | 1 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 9 | 4 | .. | 14 | 23 | 15
Ukraine | 1 | 1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 15 | .. | 11 | 10
Nigeria | 1 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 17 | 2 | .. | .. | 21 | 10
Egypt | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1 | .. | .. | .. | 3 | 10
Bosnia and Herzegovina | .. | 1 | .. | .. | .. | 1 | .. | .. | .. | 3 | 10
Other countries | .. | 43 | .. | 18 | 43 | 40 | 126 | 125 | .. | 137 | 155
Total | 42 | 77 | 35 | 51 | 76 | 113 | 172 | 170 | 360 | 1 132 | 1 065
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
IRELAND
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Syria | 9 | 17 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 14 | 37 | 5 | 68 | 244 | 545
Georgia | 174 | 181 | 88 | 98 | 44 | 18 | 15 | .. | 9 | 75 | 300
Albania | 71 | 51 | 47 | 49 | 54 | 46 | 48 | 91 | 214 | 221 | 280
Zimbabwe | 87 | 114 | 91 | 126 | 107 | 48 | 70 | 74 | 88 | 192 | 260
Pakistan | 185 | 237 | 257 | 347 | 295 | 104 | 91 | 291 | 1 353 | 233 | 195
Nigeria | 1 028 | 1 009 | 569 | 630 | 340 | 158 | 129 | 139 | 186 | 176 | 185
South Africa | 39 | 75 | 54 | 71 | 73 | 33 | 28 | 33 | 39 | 94 | 105
Dem. Rep. of the Congo | 149 | 173 | 102 | 148 | 136 | 58 | 72 | 61 | 44 | 66 | 95
Iraq | 285 | 203 | 76 | 73 | 37 | 11 | 27 | 12 | 18 | 99 | 85
Algeria | 47 | 65 | 71 | 70 | 79 | 29 | 51 | 73 | 77 | 63 | 80
Afghanistan | 78 | 79 | 68 | 92 | 127 | 31 | 32 | 7 | 119 | 121 | 75
Libya | 1 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 5 | .. | 40 | 69 | 60
Bangladesh | 24 | 47 | 30 | 97 | 45 | 21 | 29 | 93 | 285 | 55 | 60
Malawi | 14 | 22 | 14 | 30 | 35 | 23 | 55 | 36 | 93 | 50 | 50
Egypt | 17 | 36 | 34 | 18 | 33 | 14 | 14 | .. | 10 | 15 | 35
Other countries | 1 780 | 1 550 | 1 182 | 83 | - 6 | 489 | 243 | 533 | 637 | 464 | 500
Total | 3 988 | 3 866 | 2 689 | 1 939 | 1 419 | 1 104 | 946 | 1 448 | 3 280 | 2 237 | 2 910
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
ITALY
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Nigeria | 1 336 | 5 673 | 3 991 | 1 385 | 6 208 | 1 613 | 3 170 | 9 689 | 17 779 | 26 698 | 24 950
Bangladesh | 315 | 1 684 | 1 338 | 222 | 1 595 | 566 | 460 | 4 524 | 6 017 | 6 611 | 12 125
Pakistan | 176 | 1 143 | 1 362 | 929 | 2 058 | 2 601 | 3 175 | 7 095 | 10 287 | 13 516 | 9 470
Gambia | 142 | 413 | 307 | 80 | 282 | 321 | 1 701 | 8 492 | 8 015 | 8 874 | 8 705
Côte d'Ivoire | 982 | 1 653 | 643 | 235 | 1 938 | 629 | 237 | 1 481 | 3 084 | 7 464 | 8 380
Senegal | 67 | 131 | 156 | 162 | 775 | 939 | 988 | 4 661 | 6 371 | 7 584 | 8 295
Guinea | 217 | 465 | 242 | 167 | 517 | 183 | 153 | 933 | 1 683 | 6 088 | 7 795
Mali | 268 | 419 | 215 | 67 | 2 582 | 785 | 1 714 | 9 758 | 5 446 | 6 347 | 7 495
Eritrea | 2 260 | 2 934 | 890 | 181 | 498 | 734 | 2 088 | 476 | 698 | 7 457 | 6 370
Ghana | 673 | 1 815 | 991 | 278 | 3 128 | 846 | 478 | 2 102 | 3 621 | 4 515 | 4 990
Ukraine | 26 | 14 | 18 | 21 | 17 | 37 | 34 | 2 071 | 4 681 | 2 567 | 2 720
Somalia | 757 | 4 864 | 1 604 | 84 | 1 205 | 807 | 2 761 | 807 | 719 | 2 405 | 2 010
Cameroon | 120 | 194 | 136 | 56 | 176 | 74 | 70 | 184 | 332 | 1 989 | 1 995
Morocco | 25 | 194 | 160 | 81 | 265 | 282 | 307 | 312 | 576 | 1 554 | 1 860
Iraq | 189 | 758 | 417 | 380 | 309 | 403 | 552 | 781 | 505 | 1 530 | 1 650
Other countries | 6 500 | 7 970 | 5 133 | 5 724 | 12 564 | 6 532 | 7 832 | 10 291 | 13 426 | 16 925 | 17 750
Total | 14 053 | 30 324 | 17 603 | 10 052 | 34 117 | 17 352 | 25 720 | 63 657 | 83 240 | 122 124 | 126 560
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
JAPAN
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Indonesia | .. | .. | .. | 3 | 3 | 15 | 19 | .. | 969 | 1 829 | ..
Nepal | 4 | 20 | 29 | 109 | 251 | 320 | 544 | 1 293 | 1 768 | 1 451 | ..
Philippines | 1 | 4 | 10 | 9 | 15 | 18 | 57 | 73 | 295 | 1 412 | ..
Turkey | 76 | 156 | 94 | 126 | 234 | 422 | 655 | 845 | 925 | 1 143 | ..
Viet Nam | 3 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 30 | 287 | 573 | 1 072 | ..
Sri Lanka | 43 | 90 | 234 | 171 | 224 | 255 | 346 | 485 | 468 | 939 | ..
Myanmar | 500 | 979 | 568 | 342 | 491 | 368 | 380 | 434 | 808 | 651 | ..
India | 2 | 17 | 59 | 91 | 51 | 125 | 163 | 225 | 228 | 470 | ..
Cambodia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 61 | 318 | ..
Pakistan | 27 | 37 | 92 | 83 | 169 | 298 | 241 | 212 | 296 | 289 | ..
Bangladesh | 14 | 33 | 51 | 33 | 98 | 169 | 190 | 284 | 244 | 241 | ..
Ghana | 1 | 4 | 3 | 13 | 15 | 104 | 111 | 50 | 36 | 174 | ..
China | 17 | 18 | 18 | 17 | 20 | 32 | 35 | 43 | 159 | 156 | ..
Nigeria | 6 | 10 | 17 | 33 | 51 | 112 | 68 | 79 | 148 | 108 | ..
Iran | 19 | 38 | 40 | 35 | 48 | 46 | 51 | 56 | 50 | 107 | ..
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | 136 | 192 | 254 | 370 | .. | 552 | 541 | ..
Total | 816 | 1 599 | 1 388 | 1 203 | 1 867 | 2 545 | 3 260 | 5 000 | 7 580 | 10 901 | 19 250
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
KOREA
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
China | 29 | 30 | 19 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 46 | 359 | 401 | 1 062 | ..
Egypt | 3 | 1 | 3 | .. | 4 | 6 | 97 | 568 | 812 | 1 002 | ..
Pakistan | 4 | 47 | 95 | 129 | 434 | 244 | 275 | 396 | 1 143 | 809 | ..
Kazakhstan | .. | .. | .. | 2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 39 | 539 | ..
Bangladesh | 23 | 30 | 41 | 41 | 38 | 32 | 45 | 52 | 388 | 335 | ..
Russia | 3 | 1 | 5 | .. | 4 | 1 | 2 | .. | 16 | 324 | ..
Nigeria | 100 | 27 | 16 | 19 | 39 | 102 | 206 | 203 | 265 | 324 | ..
Viet Nam | 1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1 | .. | 202 | 275 | ..
Philippines | .. | .. | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 | .. | 128 | 260 | ..
India | 1 | .. | 2 | 6 | 15 | 7 | 2 | 34 | 292 | 218 | ..
Nepal | 275 | 12 | 2 | 5 | 14 | 43 | 90 | 79 | 230 | 217 | ..
Syria | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2 | 146 | 295 | 204 | 404 | 171 | ..
Liberia | 15 | 15 | 1 | 4 | 20 | 28 | 42 | 59 | 68 | 155 | ..
Uzbekistan | 2 | .. | 2 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | .. | 71 | 145 | ..
Thailand | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1 | .. | .. | .. | 96 | 139 | ..
Other countries | 261 | 201 | 136 | 203 | 429 | 524 | 470 | 942 | 1 155 | 1 567 | ..
Total | 717 | 364 | 324 | 425 | 1 011 | 1 143 | 1 574 | 2 896 | 5 710 | 7 542 | 9 940
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
LATVIA
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Syria | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 18 | 15 | 24 | 5 | 149 | 140
Viet Nam | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 8 | 69 | 4 | 40
Russia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 8 | 5 | .. | .. | 27 | 25
Eritrea | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1 | .. | .. | 10 | 20
Tajikistan | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 14 | 15
Kazakhstan | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1 | .. | .. | 1 | 15
Afghanistan | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 4 | .. | 5 | 33 | 35 | 15
Turkey | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2 | 1 | .. | .. | 4 | 10
Georgia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 106 | 144 | 163 | 25 | 4 | 10
Uzbekistan | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 3 | .. | .. | 2 | 5
Ukraine | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 66 | 39 | 6 | 5
Philippines | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 5
Lebanon | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 5
Kyrgyzstan | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 3 | .. | .. | .. | 2 | 5
Iraq | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2 | 15 | 85 | 6 | 5
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 48 | 13 | 83 | 74 | 80 | 35
Total | .. | .. | .. | .. | 335 | 189 | 185 | 364 | 330 | 344 | 355
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
LUXEMBOURG
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Syria | .. | .. | 1 | 19 | 10 | 14 | 24 | 78 | 635 | 289 | 405
Eritrea | .. | 11 | 11 | 11 | 14 | 7 | 5 | 15 | 23 | 105 | 230
Morocco | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 25 | .. | 6 | 74 | 205
Algeria | 11 | 4 | 11 | 43 | 30 | 33 | 38 | 26 | 6 | 75 | 160
Iraq | 14 | 29 | 37 | 95 | 41 | 31 | 27 | .. | 527 | 161 | 140
Georgia | 1 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 16 | 6 | 16 | .. | 12 | 63 | 135
Albania | 16 | 14 | 26 | 18 | 24 | 302 | 70 | 80 | 122 | 212 | 130
Tunisia | 1 | .. | 2 | 3 | 42 | 46 | 52 | 18 | .. | 38 | 100
Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia | 5 | 7 | 6 | 13 | 452 | 169 | 33 | .. | 15 | 39 | 40
Afghanistan | 3 | 4 | 13 | 15 | 22 | 11 | 17 | .. | 211 | 56 | 40
Ukraine | 3 | 3 | .. | 6 | .. | 2 | 2 | 5 | 18 | 32 | 35
Guinea | 8 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 5 | .. | .. | 18 | 35
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 24 | 31 | 35 | 11 | 38 | 286 | 139 | 144 | 44 | 59 | 35
Sudan | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | .. | .. | 14 | 30
Nigeria | 7 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 9 | 24 | 53 | 15 | 12 | 60 | 30
Other countries | .. | .. | 316 | 486 | 1 370 | 1 052 | 479 | 592 | 669 | 643 | 575
Total | 426 | 463 | 477 | 744 | 2 076 | 2 003 | 989 | 973 | 2 300 | 1 938 | 2 325
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
MEXICO
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Honduras | 31 | 55 | 184 | 135 | 168 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 4 119 | ..
El Salvador | 45 | 51 | 119 | 159 | 181 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 3 488 | ..
Guatemala | 15 | 18 | 39 | 59 | 69 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 437 | ..
Venezuela | 4 | 1 | .. | 6 | 2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 361 | ..
Nicaragua | 7 | 9 | 29 | 15 | 6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 70 | ..
Haiti | 41 | 61 | 65 | 39 | 38 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 47 | ..
Colombia | 57 | 41 | 62 | 82 | 43 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 44 | ..
Cuba | 27 | 7 | 42 | 42 | 48 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 43 | ..
Cameroon | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 23 | ..
Ecuador | 1 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 20 | ..
Ghana | 1 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 14 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 16 | ..
United States | 2 | 1 | 4 | 10 | 4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 15 | ..
Iraq | 8 | 18 | 3 | 6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 9 | ..
Albania | 1 | .. | .. | 1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 9 | ..
Russia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 8 | ..
Other countries | 131 | 45 | 127 | 470 | 170 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 72 | ..
Total | 374 | 317 | 680 | 1 039 | 753 | 811 | 1 296 | 1 524 | 3 420 | 8 781 | 14 600
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
NETHERLANDS
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Syria | 36 | 48 | 101 | 125 | 168 | 454 | 2 673 | 8 748 | 18 675 | 2 226 | 2 965
Eritrea | 153 | 236 | 475 | 392 | 458 | 424 | 978 | 3 833 | 7 344 | 1 523 | 1 590
Morocco | 9 | 16 | 23 | 26 | 22 | 24 | 69 | 42 | 76 | 1 274 | 980
Algeria | 28 | 23 | 36 | 21 | 13 | 28 | 29 | .. | 29 | 992 | 890
Iraq | 2 004 | 5 027 | 1 991 | 1 383 | 1 435 | 1 391 | 1 094 | 616 | 3 009 | 952 | 845
Iran | 187 | 322 | 502 | 785 | 929 | 834 | 728 | 505 | 1 890 | 890 | 720
Georgia | 66 | 64 | 412 | 587 | 189 | 226 | 209 | 319 | 261 | 584 | 485
Turkey | 103 | 71 | 69 | 92 | 96 | 89 | 59 | 35 | 33 | 298 | 480
Albania | 24 | 11 | 15 | 17 | 20 | 16 | 42 | 83 | 1 008 | 1 673 | 365
Libya | 22 | 63 | 101 | 165 | 136 | 96 | 147 | 94 | 58 | 341 | 355
Moldova | 8 | 3 | 4 | 9 | 2 | 10 | 2 | .. | 5 | 15 | 340
Guinea | 102 | 154 | 235 | 230 | 209 | 186 | 158 | 51 | 73 | 112 | 330
Afghanistan | 143 | 395 | 1 281 | 1 364 | 1 885 | 1 022 | 673 | 452 | 2 550 | 1 045 | 320
Russia | 81 | 95 | 151 | 207 | 451 | 743 | 263 | 163 | 126 | 123 | 315
Sudan | 57 | 53 | 116 | 166 | 162 | 121 | 139 | 177 | 234 | 191 | 260
Other countries | 4 079 | 6 818 | 9 393 | 7 764 | 5 415 | 4 000 | 7 136 | 8 732 | 7 729 | 6 175 | 4 850
Total | 7 102 | 13 399 | 14 905 | 13 333 | 11 590 | 9 664 | 14 399 | 23 850 | 43 100 | 18 414 | 16 090
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
NEW ZEALAND
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
China | 26 | 24 | 20 | 22 | 20 | 33 | 21 | 6 | 7 | 64 | 65
India | 7 | 14 | 24 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 2 | .. | .. | 31 | 31
Turkey | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 9 | 12 | .. | .. | 20 | 22
Sri Lanka | 25 | 25 | 30 | 28 | 19 | 25 | 41 | 6 | 7 | 11 | 19
Bangladesh | 18 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 6 | .. | .. | 11 | 14
Russia | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | .. | .. | .. | 5 | 13
Philippines | 1 | 1 | .. | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | .. | .. | 3 | 7
Hungary | 8 | 3 | .. | 2 | 10 | 2 | 4 | .. | .. | 9 | 6
Iraq | 30 | 33 | 25 | 11 | 11 | 6 | 15 | .. | .. | 24 | 5
Afghanistan | 3 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 11 | 9 | 7 | .. | .. | 6 | 5
Other countries | 123 | 141 | 224 | 258 | 219 | 220 | 181 | 276 | 336 | 203 | 0
Total | 245 | 254 | 336 | 340 | 305 | 324 | 291 | 288 | 350 | 387 | 187
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
NORWAY
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Syria | 49 | 115 | 278 | 119 | 198 | 312 | 868 | 1 978 | 10 520 | 510 | 1 000
Eritrea | 789 | 1 799 | 2 667 | 1 711 | 1 256 | 1 600 | 3 766 | 2 805 | 2 785 | 353 | 840
Turkey | 49 | 82 | 82 | 74 | 42 | 38 | 62 | 34 | 78 | 89 | 160
Iraq | 1 227 | 3 137 | 1 214 | 460 | 357 | 229 | 179 | 165 | 2 939 | 214 | 140
Afghanistan | 234 | 1 363 | 3 871 | 979 | 979 | 987 | 720 | 549 | 6 916 | 373 | 135
Iran | 222 | 720 | 574 | 429 | 355 | 435 | 274 | 84 | 1 308 | 132 | 85
Ethiopia | 241 | 354 | 706 | 505 | 293 | 221 | 356 | 365 | 662 | 157 | 85
Albania | 31 | 53 | 29 | 24 | 43 | 167 | 179 | 202 | 431 | 130 | 85
Somalia | 187 | 1 293 | 1 901 | 1 397 | 2 216 | 2 803 | 2 530 | 756 | 501 | 154 | 45
Russia | 863 | 1 078 | 867 | 628 | 365 | 294 | 339 | 172 | 105 | 76 | 45
Morocco | 16 | 44 | 72 | 95 | 87 | 136 | 110 | 132 | 137 | 87 | 45
Sudan | 37 | 118 | 251 | 181 | 209 | 486 | 622 | 792 | 362 | 42 | 40
Nigeria | 108 | 436 | 582 | 354 | 240 | 331 | 480 | 318 | 112 | 52 | 35
Georgia | 2 | 19 | 47 | 85 | 49 | 105 | 66 | 17 | 19 | 9 | 35
Ukraine | 6 | 18 | 27 | 9 | 16 | 29 | 24 | 126 | 83 | 24 | 30
Other countries | 2 467 | 3 802 | 4 058 | 3 014 | 2 348 | 1 612 | 892 | 4 145 | 3 562 | 800 | 580
Total | 6 528 | 14 431 | 17 226 | 10 064 | 9 053 | 9 785 | 11 467 | 12 640 | 30 520 | 3 202 | 3 385
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
POLAND
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Russia | 6 668 | 6 647 | 5 726 | 4 795 | 3 034 | 4 940 | 11 933 | 2 079 | 6 985 | 7 488 | 2 120
Ukraine | 26 | 25 | 36 | 45 | 43 | 58 | 32 | 2 147 | 1 573 | 589 | 300
Tajikistan | 1 | .. | 2 | .. | .. | 9 | 5 | 107 | 526 | 835 | 85
Armenia | 22 | 33 | 147 | 107 | 168 | 380 | 150 | 99 | 160 | 321 | 65
Turkey | 10 | 17 | 11 | 19 | 11 | 8 | 12 | .. | 10 | 65 | 45
Syria | 4 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 11 | 107 | 255 | 98 | 278 | 42 | 40
Iraq | 22 | 66 | 21 | 27 | 25 | 25 | 24 | 19 | 33 | 41 | 40
Belarus | 62 | 33 | 37 | 46 | 64 | 61 | 23 | .. | .. | 35 | 30
Azerbaijan | 5 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 2 | 4 | 3 | .. | 5 | 21 | 25
Afghanistan | 9 | 4 | 14 | 25 | 35 | 88 | 43 | 14 | 5 | 19 | 25
Viet Nam | 40 | 57 | 67 | 47 | 26 | 50 | 32 | 33 | 41 | 72 | 20
Pakistan | 25 | 15 | 19 | 27 | 8 | 34 | 24 | 22 | .. | 20 | 20
Georgia | 12 | 54 | 4 213 | 1 082 | 1 427 | 2 960 | 1 057 | 561 | 232 | 56 | 20
Kyrgyzstan | 7 | 5 | 13 | 37 | 41 | 30 | 53 | 96 | 114 | 43 | 15
Egypt | 2 | 6 | 4 | 11 | 5 | 102 | 33 | .. | .. | 11 | 15
Other countries | 290 | 232 | 260 | 248 | 186 | 311 | 79 | 1 535 | 288 | 182 | 140
Total | 7 205 | 7 203 | 10 587 | 6 534 | 5 086 | 9 167 | 13 758 | 6 810 | 10 250 | 9 840 | 3 005
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
PORTUGAL
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Dem. Rep. of the Congo | 11 | 20 | 5 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 13 | .. | 5 | 42 | 160
Ukraine | .. | 1 | 5 | .. | 6 | 2 | 2 | 154 | 366 | 141 | 125
Angola | 5 | 3 | 4 | 12 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 30 | 120
Congo | .. | 2 | .. | .. | 3 | 2 | 3 | .. | .. | 50 | 55
Guinea | 14 | 8 | 18 | 43 | 46 | 64 | 81 | .. | 25 | 52 | 45
Venezuela | 2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 16 | 35
Sierra Leone | 3 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 5 | .. | .. | 24 | 35
Russia | 6 | .. | 2 | 5 | 9 | 6 | 7 | .. | .. | 11 | 30
Iraq | 3 | 4 | .. | .. | 5 | 1 | 4 | .. | 12 | 117 | 30
Cameroon | 2 | .. | 3 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 2 | .. | .. | 10 | 30
Afghanistan | 7 | 1 | .. | 2 | 4 | 5 | 2 | .. | .. | 18 | 30
Senegal | 1 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 36 | .. | .. | 26 | 25
Pakistan | 2 | .. | 1 | 4 | 11 | 9 | 26 | .. | 44 | 25 | 20
Iran | 2 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 11 | 5 | 4 | .. | .. | 11 | 20
Gambia | .. | .. | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 6 | .. | .. | 22 | 20
Other countries | 166 | 113 | 91 | 67 | 143 | 167 | 314 | .. | 441 | 868 | 235
Total | 224 | 161 | 139 | 160 | 275 | 299 | 507 | 442 | 900 | 1 463 | 1 015
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
RUSSIA
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Ukraine | 20 | 19 | 10 | 17 | 11 | 11 | 13 | .. | .. | 23 534 | ..
Syria | .. | 18 | 6 | 3 | 31 | 197 | 1 073 | .. | .. | 1 265 | ..
Afghanistan | 2 211 | 2 047 | 1 577 | 884 | 540 | 493 | 382 | .. | .. | 788 | ..
Uzbekistan | 63 | 90 | 136 | 96 | 70 | 69 | 54 | .. | .. | 103 | ..
Georgia | 586 | 2 684 | 3 580 | 641 | 314 | 238 | 137 | .. | .. | 101 | ..
Yemen | .. | .. | .. | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | .. | .. | 58 | ..
Democratic People's Republic of Korea | 11 | 26 | 59 | 21 | 67 | 32 | 27 | .. | .. | 58 | ..
Iraq | 36 | 61 | 37 | 6 | 12 | 11 | 8 | .. | .. | 51 | ..
Tajikistan | 43 | 48 | 29 | 20 | 19 | 17 | 14 | .. | .. | 38 | ..
Belarus | 15 | 16 | 4 | 6 | 14 | 7 | 5 | .. | .. | 34 | ..
Democratic Republic of the Congo | 34 | 23 | 11 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 14 | .. | .. | 32 | ..
Moldova | 7 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 4 | .. | .. | 30 | ..
Azerbaijan | 31 | 48 | 4 | 16 | 8 | 2 | 6 | .. | .. | 26 | ..
Kyrgyzstan | 5 | 3 | 7 | 246 | 39 | 29 | 16 | .. | .. | 21 | ..
Turkmenistan | 27 | 36 | 27 | 6 | 2 | 13 | 2 | .. | .. | 20 | ..
Other countries | 280 | 291 | 210 | 201 | 110 | 109 | 207 | .. | .. | 250 | ..
Total | 3 369 | 5 418 | 5 701 | 2 181 | 1 265 | 1 243 | 1 962 | 6 980 | 1 267 | 26 409 | ..
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Afghanistan | 67 | 72 | 51 | 76 | 75 | 63 | 84 | 67 | 23 | 8 | 25
Viet Nam | 58 | 41 | 56 | 32 | 22 | 2 | .. | 15 | .. | .. | 20
Syria | 38 | 7 | 10 | 4 | 10 | 4 | 13 | 27 | .. | 10 | 10
Pakistan | 648 | 109 | 168 | 34 | 15 | 5 | 8 | .. | .. | 13 | 10
Iraq | 131 | 42 | 13 | 9 | 8 | .. | 6 | .. | 165 | 12 | 10
Cuba | 7 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 1 | .. | .. | 1 | 10
Ukraine | 36 | 32 | 13 | 20 | 8 | 5 | 5 | .. | .. | 15 | 5
Turkey | 9 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 12 | 11 | 3 | .. | .. | .. | 5
Sri Lanka | 20 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1 | 5
Russia | 307 | 100 | 72 | 66 | 38 | 6 | 6 | .. | .. | 1 | 5
Poland | 1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 5
Morocco | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | .. | 6 | .. | .. | .. | 1 | 5
Libya | 1 | .. | 1 | .. | 1 | 1 | 3 | .. | .. | 7 | 5
Iran | 2 | 5 | 10 | 12 | 13 | .. | 3 | .. | .. | 4 | 5
China | 96 | 44 | 39 | 31 | 13 | 3 | 5 | .. | .. | .. | 5
Other countries | 1 221 | 431 | 362 | 240 | 272 | 618 | 144 | 119 | 82 | 27 | 25
Total | 2 643 | 910 | 822 | 541 | 491 | 732 | 281 | 228 | 270 | 100 | 155
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
SLOVENIA
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Afghanistan | 12 | 10 | 11 | 31 | 69 | 50 | 14 | 58 | 31 | 409 | 575
Algeria | .. | 2 | 2 | 6 | 11 | 23 | 14 | .. | .. | 41 | 190
Pakistan | 11 | 4 | 6 | .. | 29 | 6 | 19 | 20 | 17 | 104 | 140
Turkey | 38 | 72 | 12 | 32 | 51 | 26 | 11 | 5 | .. | 60 | 100
Syria | .. | .. | .. | 4 | 11 | 32 | 56 | 77 | 8 | 273 | 90
Iran | 2 | 11 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 73 | 50
Morocco | .. | .. | 1 | 4 | 9 | 7 | 9 | .. | .. | 38 | 40
Eritrea | .. | .. | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 2 | .. | .. | 26 | 40
Libya | .. | .. | .. | .. | 6 | 3 | 1 | .. | .. | 17 | 30
Iraq | 4 | .. | 3 | 10 | 8 | 1 | .. | .. | 32 | 108 | 20
Tunisia | .. | .. | .. | 3 | 25 | 8 | 3 | .. | .. | 11 | 15
Palestinian authority | 4 | .. | 1 | 10 | 7 | 5 | 4 | .. | .. | 1 | 10
Nigeria | 4 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 5 | .. | 8 | 10
Egypt | .. | .. | .. | .. | 6 | 1 | 1 | 5 | .. | 1 | 10
Cuba | .. | 4 | .. | 1 | .. | 7 | 7 | .. | .. | 4 | 10
Other countries | 350 | 128 | 128 | 119 | 124 | 124 | 91 | 185 | 167 | 89 | 110
Total | 425 | 238 | 183 | 246 | 373 | 305 | 243 | 361 | 260 | 1 263 | 1 440
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
SPAIN
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Venezuela | 46 | 48 | 29 | 19 | 52 | 28 | 35 | 122 | 515 | 4 099 | 10 325
Syria | 31 | 97 | 30 | 19 | 97 | 255 | 725 | 1 666 | 5 627 | 3 052 | 4 150
Colombia | 2 497 | 752 | 255 | 123 | 104 | 60 | 62 | 91 | 87 | 641 | 2 410
Ukraine | 5 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 12 | 21 | 14 | 937 | 2 570 | 2 422 | 2 185
Palestinian authority | 70 | 56 | 59 | 106 | 131 | 78 | 130 | 208 | 776 | 367 | 1 140
Algeria | 247 | 152 | 181 | 176 | 122 | 202 | 351 | 302 | 650 | 752 | 1 140
El Salvador | 21 | 6 | 12 | 35 | 21 | 36 | 23 | 48 | 90 | 439 | 1 100
Honduras | 10 | 10 | 15 | 42 | 45 | 41 | 38 | 39 | 111 | 397 | 960
Cameroon | 57 | 71 | 111 | 156 | 129 | 121 | 86 | 88 | 136 | 124 | 740
Morocco | 263 | 121 | 73 | 114 | 37 | 47 | 46 | 91 | 397 | 343 | 510
Guinea | 91 | 98 | 130 | 166 | 150 | 73 | 89 | 57 | 61 | 213 | 405
Côte d'Ivoire | 335 | 500 | 304 | 119 | 550 | 106 | 72 | 69 | 50 | 133 | 340
Russia | 88 | 66 | 55 | 44 | 65 | 36 | 57 | 51 | 54 | 183 | 330
Gambia | 64 | 44 | 52 | 63 | 53 | 25 | 17 | 5 | 37 | 73 | 285
Mali | 7 | 11 | 29 | 14 | 41 | 101 | 1 478 | 619 | 176 | 229 | 265
Other countries | 3 830 | 2 481 | 1 664 | 1 544 | 1 805 | 1 349 | 1 290 | 1 554 | 2 033 | 2 807 | 4 160
Total | 7 662 | 4 517 | 3 007 | 2 744 | 3 414 | 2 579 | 4 513 | 5 947 | 13 370 | 16 274 | 30 445
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
SWEDEN
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Syria | 440 | 551 | 587 | 421 | 640 | 7 814 | 16 317 | 30 313 | 50 909 | 4 731 | 5 250
Eritrea | 878 | 857 | 1 000 | 1 443 | 1 647 | 2 356 | 4 844 | 11 057 | 6 513 | 744 | 1 540
Iraq | 18 559 | 6 083 | 2 297 | 1 977 | 1 633 | 1 322 | 1 476 | 1 743 | 20 259 | 2 046 | 1 475
Afghanistan | 609 | 784 | 1 694 | 2 393 | 4 122 | 4 755 | 3 011 | 2 882 | 41 281 | 2 144 | 1 245
Georgia | 143 | 211 | 359 | 291 | 280 | 748 | 625 | 735 | 782 | 638 | 1 005
Iran | 485 | 799 | 1 144 | 1 182 | 1 120 | 1 529 | 1 172 | 799 | 4 281 | 935 | 905
Turkey | 290 | 254 | 272 | 240 | 139 | 149 | 187 | 152 | 222 | 690 | 825
Albania | 118 | 118 | 114 | 61 | 263 | 1 490 | 1 156 | 1 636 | 2 559 | 729 | 685
Somalia | 3 349 | 3 361 | 5 874 | 5 553 | 3 981 | 5 644 | 3 901 | 3 783 | 4 695 | 1 279 | 550
Ukraine | 68 | 60 | 139 | 118 | 194 | 133 | 173 | 1 278 | 1 327 | 543 | 460
Morocco | 75 | 62 | 78 | 100 | 154 | 381 | 648 | 714 | 791 | 312 | 395
Mongolia | 519 | 791 | 753 | 727 | 773 | 463 | 487 | 546 | 972 | 348 | 335
Nigeria | 136 | 176 | 321 | 321 | 340 | 501 | 601 | 438 | 409 | 303 | 320
Russia | 788 | 933 | 1 058 | 988 | 933 | 941 | 1 036 | 712 | 497 | 261 | 315
Ethiopia | 113 | 127 | 192 | 194 | 269 | 339 | 383 | 467 | 1 602 | 376 | 295
Other countries | 9 800 | 9 186 | 8 312 | 15 814 | 13 160 | 15 311 | 18 242 | 17 841 | 19 361 | 6 332 | 6 625
Total | 36 370 | 24 353 | 24 194 | 31 823 | 29 648 | 43 876 | 54 259 | 75 096 | 156 460 | 22 411 | 22 225
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
SWITZERLAND
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Eritrea | 1 662 | 2 849 | 1 724 | 1 708 | 3 225 | 4 295 | 2 490 | 6 820 | 9 859 | 5 040 | 3 155
Syria | 290 | 388 | 400 | 387 | 688 | 1 146 | 1 852 | 3 768 | 4 649 | 2 040 | 1 810
Afghanistan | 307 | 405 | 751 | 632 | 1 006 | 1 349 | 863 | 727 | 7 800 | 3 183 | 1 180
Somalia | 395 | 2 014 | 753 | 302 | 558 | 762 | 552 | 769 | 1 214 | 1 530 | 795
Guinea | 102 | 239 | 301 | 239 | 295 | 323 | 307 | 206 | 259 | 883 | 785
Turkey | 621 | 519 | 559 | 462 | 508 | 515 | 373 | 264 | 387 | 475 | 770
Sri Lanka | 618 | 1 262 | 1 415 | 892 | 433 | 443 | 455 | 906 | 1 777 | 1 317 | 730
Nigeria | 310 | 988 | 1 786 | 1 597 | 1 303 | 2 353 | 1 574 | 848 | 906 | 1 065 | 665
Georgia | 199 | 481 | 638 | 531 | 281 | 614 | 565 | 402 | 365 | 396 | 615
Iraq | 935 | 1 440 | 935 | 501 | 378 | 382 | 351 | 279 | 2 286 | 1 251 | 545
Algeria | 132 | 236 | 300 | 313 | 464 | 681 | 714 | 337 | 284 | 521 | 515
Morocco | 30 | 37 | 36 | 113 | 429 | 860 | 974 | 666 | 372 | 793 | 420
Gambia | 21 | 204 | 178 | 192 | 295 | 533 | 441 | 371 | 950 | 1 033 | 380
Côte d'Ivoire | 150 | 157 | 137 | 88 | 197 | 114 | 87 | 37 | 74 | 339 | 345
Ethiopia | 245 | 231 | 183 | 142 | 184 | 293 | 221 | 312 | 565 | 1 008 | 305
Other countries | 4 370 | 5 156 | 5 909 | 5 422 | 9 195 | 11 285 | 7 621 | 5 401 | 6 373 | 4 998 | 3 655
Total | 10 387 | 16 606 | 16 005 | 13 521 | 19 439 | 25 948 | 19 440 | 22 113 | 38 120 | 25 872 | 16 670
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
TURKEY
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Afghanistan | 705 | 2 642 | 1 009 | 1 248 | 2 486 | 14 146 | 8 726 | 15 652 | 63 292 | 34 669 | 66 459
Iraq | 3 470 | 6 904 | 3 763 | 3 656 | 7 912 | 6 942 | 25 280 | 50 510 | 56 332 | 28 479 | 43 711
Iran | 1 685 | 2 116 | 1 981 | 2 881 | 3 411 | 3 589 | 5 897 | 8 202 | 11 023 | 11 856 | 8 828
Somalia | 1 125 | 647 | 295 | 448 | 744 | 776 | 1 276 | 642 | 618 | 474 | 1 427
Pakistan | 12 | 9 | 36 | 42 | 29 | 24 | 528 | 1 597 | 429 | 660 | 955
Dem. Rep. of the Congo | 76 | 71 | 41 | 66 | 76 | 77 | 114 | 184 | 11 | 24 | 329
China | 16 | 27 | 12 | 11 | 32 | 5 | 16 | 29 | 5 | 57 | 292
Turkmenistan | 2 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 14 | 44 | 103 | 143 | 146 | 201 | 284
Yemen | .. | .. | 2 | .. | 72 | 58 | 192 | 123 | 118 | 53 | 233
Uzbekistan | 42 | 35 | 38 | 101 | 147 | 76 | 181 | 162 | 152 | 143 | 224
Palestinian authority | 157 | .. | 72 | 64 | 157 | 236 | 686 | 367 | 435 | 254 | 218
Uganda | .. | 1 | .. | 1 | 48 | 13 | 218 | 359 | 137 | 256 | 96
Ethiopia | 54 | 17 | 23 | 39 | 29 | 51 | 100 | 103 | 47 | 69 | 96
Egypt | 1 | 8 | 7 | 4 | 8 | 20 | 86 | 76 | 70 | 71 | 85
Tajikistan | .. | .. | 22 | 37 | 27 | 14 | 50 | 54 | 72 | 91 | 70
Other countries | 301 | 501 | 530 | 620 | 829 | 399 | 1 354 | 9 617 | 703 | 494 | 290
Total | 7 646 | 12 981 | 7 834 | 9 226 | 16 021 | 26 470 | 44 807 | 87 820 | 133 590 | 77 851 | 123 597
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
UNITED KINGDOM
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Iraq | 2 075 | 2 040 | 995 | 495 | 367 | 411 | 450 | 911 | 2 648 | 3 644 | 3 260
Pakistan | 1 765 | 2 075 | 2 100 | 2 150 | 3 947 | 4 783 | 4 576 | 3 976 | 3 365 | 3 701 | 3 125
Iran | 2 510 | 2 595 | 2 145 | 2 225 | 3 047 | 3 155 | 2 967 | 2 499 | 3 716 | 4 780 | 3 050
Bangladesh | 590 | 510 | 495 | 500 | 666 | 1 155 | 1 246 | 919 | 1 320 | 2 226 | 1 980
Afghanistan | 2 815 | 3 725 | 3 540 | 1 845 | 1 528 | 1 234 | 1 456 | 1 753 | 2 852 | 3 099 | 1 915
Sudan | 400 | 290 | 255 | 645 | 791 | 732 | 834 | 1 615 | 3 018 | 1 462 | 1 830
India | 600 | 775 | 715 | 610 | 611 | 1 180 | 1 111 | 922 | 1 324 | 2 008 | 1 770
Albania | 190 | 175 | 235 | 220 | 427 | 987 | 1 641 | 1 972 | 1 998 | 1 756 | 1 690
Nigeria | 905 | 1 070 | 910 | 1 150 | 1 058 | 1 428 | 1 450 | 1 519 | 1 590 | 1 827 | 1 580
Eritrea | 1 905 | 2 335 | 1 410 | 770 | 836 | 764 | 1 431 | 3 291 | 3 756 | 1 278 | 1 125
Viet Nam | 185 | 235 | 470 | 465 | 329 | 412 | 466 | 400 | 620 | 774 | 1 085
China | 2 185 | 1 615 | 1 585 | 1 375 | 921 | 859 | 1 086 | 1 117 | 770 | 906 | 1 000
Sri Lanka | 1 250 | 1 865 | 1 445 | 1 635 | 2 126 | 2 128 | 2 278 | 1 715 | 1 411 | 1 233 | 945
Libya | 55 | 75 | 100 | 125 | 1 187 | 408 | 497 | 733 | 953 | 595 | 915
Syria | 190 | 180 | 185 | 160 | 499 | 1 289 | 2 020 | 2 353 | 2 794 | 1 587 | 795
Other countries | 10 680 | 11 755 | 14 090 | 8 274 | 7 558 | 7 053 | 5 886 | 6 649 | 7 835 | 7 504 | 7 315
Total | 28 300 | 31 315 | 30 675 | 22 644 | 25 898 | 27 978 | 29 395 | 32 344 | 39 970 | 38 380 | 33 380
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Table B.3. New asylum requests by nationality
UNITED STATES
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
El Salvador | 3 455 | 2 789 | 2 366 | 2 685 | 4 324 | 4 587 | 5 692 | 10 093 | 18 883 | 33 620 | ..
Mexico | 2 551 | 2 713 | 2 295 | 3 879 | 8 304 | 11 067 | 10 077 | 13 987 | 19 294 | 27 879 | ..
Guatemala | 2 388 | 1 853 | 1 740 | 2 171 | 3 671 | 4 152 | 4 865 | 9 098 | 16 419 | 25 723 | ..
China | 8 781 | 9 825 | 10 725 | 12 510 | 15 649 | 15 884 | 12 295 | 13 716 | 15 083 | 19 868 | ..
Honduras | 1 096 | 893 | 850 | 1 030 | 1 559 | 2 115 | 3 165 | 6 798 | 14 255 | 19 470 | ..
Venezuela | 754 | 709 | 430 | 584 | 764 | 716 | 882 | 3 113 | 7 354 | 18 312 | ..
India | 576 | 734 | 751 | 755 | 2 477 | 1 998 | 1 633 | 3 395 | 3 650 | 6 162 | ..
Ecuador | 89 | 168 | 174 | 404 | 807 | 1 394 | 1 848 | 3 545 | 3 732 | 4 423 | ..
Haiti | 3 079 | 2 078 | 1 649 | 1 223 | 1 377 | 1 612 | 1 879 | 2 196 | 2 220 | 3 969 | ..
Ukraine | 232 | 182 | 263 | 264 | 318 | 358 | 398 | 1 271 | 2 194 | 2 350 | ..
Russia | 615 | 677 | 806 | 828 | 888 | 881 | 950 | 1 103 | 1 699 | 2 158 | ..
Nepal | 532 | 680 | 1 068 | 1 054 | 1 321 | 1 666 | 1 507 | 1 316 | 1 294 | 2 097 | ..
Ethiopia | 1 124 | 1 168 | 1 249 | 1 193 | 1 066 | 1 145 | 1 493 | 1 456 | 1 416 | 1 989 | ..
Colombia | 1 399 | 910 | 650 | 623 | 642 | 574 | 631 | 817 | 1 058 | 1 767 | ..
Pakistan | 433 | 491 | 491 | 538 | 674 | 586 | 578 | 729 | 1 064 | 1 559 | ..
Other countries | 13 345 | 13 492 | 12 573 | 13 230 | 16 746 | 17 366 | 20 350 | 48 527 | 63 125 | 33 464 | ..
Total | 40 449 | 39 362 | 38 080 | 42 971 | 60 587 | 66 101 | 68 243 | 121 160 | 172 740 | 204 810 | 329 800
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752201

Metadata related to Tables A.3. and B.3. Inflows of asylum seekers

Totals in Table A.3 might differ from the tables by nationality (Tables B.3) because the former totals get revised retroactively while the origin breakdown does not. Data for Table A.3 generally refer to first instance/new applications only and exclude repeat/review/appeal applications while data by origin (Tables B.3) may include some repeat/review/appeal applications. Data by country of origin since 2014 may be slightly underestimated as they are the sum of monthly data where only cells with 5 people and above were filled.

Comments on countries of asylum:

France: Data include unaccompanied minors.

Germany: Germany has a pre-registration system (EASY system). Asylum requests officially registered and presented in this section are lower than the pre-registrations in the EASY system (1.1 million in 2015).

United Kingdom: All figures are rounded to the nearest multiple of 5.

United States: Data for 2004-10 are a combination of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS – number of cases) affirmative asylum applications, and of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR – number of persons) defensive asylum applications, if the person is under threat of removal. Factors have been applied to more recent years totals in Table A.3. to reflect the estimated number of cases.

Comments on countries of origin:

Serbia (and Kosovo): Data may include asylum-seekers from Serbia, Montenegro, Serbia and Montenegro, and/or Former Yugoslavia.

Source for all countries: Governments, compiled by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Population Data Unit (http://popstas.unhcr.or/en/overview); Eurostat (2017 data).

Stocks of foreign and foreign-born populations

Who is an immigrant?

There are major differences in how immigrants are defined across OECD countries. Some countries have traditionally focused on producing data on foreign residents (European countries, Japan and Korea) whilst others refer to the foreign-born (settlement countries, i.e. Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States). This difference in focus relates in part to the nature and history of immigration systems and legislation on citizenship and naturalisation.

The foreign-born population can be viewed as representing first-generation migrants, and may consist of both foreign and national citizens. The size and composition of the foreign-born population is influenced by the history of migration flows and mortality amongst the foreign-born. For example, where inflows have been declining over time, the stock of the foreign-born will tend to age and represent an increasingly established community.

The concept of foreign population may include persons born abroad who retained the nationality of their country of origin but also second and third generations born in the host country. The characteristics of the population of foreign nationals depend on a number of factors: the history of migration flows, natural increase in the foreign population and naturalisations. Both the nature of legislation on citizenship and the incentives to naturalise play a role in determining the extent to which native-born persons may or may not be foreign nationals.

Sources for and problems in measuring the immigrant population

Four types of sources are used: population registers, residence permits, labour force surveys and censuses. In countries which have a population register and in those which use residence permit data, stocks and flows of immigrants are most often calculated using the same source. There are exceptions, however, with some countries using census or labour force survey data to estimate the stock of the immigrant population. In studying stocks and flows, the same problems are encountered whether population register or permit data are used (in particular, the risk of underestimation when minors are registered on the permit of one of the parents or if the migrants are not required to have permits because of a free movement agreement). To this must be added the difficulty of purging the files regularly to remove the records of persons who have left the country.

Census data enable comprehensive, albeit infrequent analysis of the stock of immigrants (censuses are generally conducted every five to ten years). In addition, many labour force surveys now include questions about nationality and place of birth, thus providing a source of annual stock data. The OECD produces estimates of stocks for some countries

Some care has to be taken with detailed breakdowns of the immigrant population from survey data since sample sizes can be small. Both census and survey data may underestimate the number of immigrants, because they can be missed in the census or because they do not live in private households (labour force surveys may not cover those living in collective dwelling such as reception centres and hostels for immigrants). Both these sources may cover a portion of the unauthorised population, which is by definition excluded from population registers and residence permit systems.

Table A.4. Stocks of foreign-born population in OECD countries and in Russia
Thousands and percentages
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Australia | 5 031.6 | 5 233.3 | 5 477.9 | 5 729.9 | 5 881.4 | 6 018.2 | 6 209.5 | 6 399.4 | 6 557.6 | 6 710.9 | 6 873.1
% of total population | 24.0 | 24.5 | 25.2 | 25.9 | 26.1 | 26.3 | 26.7 | 27.1 | 27.4 | 27.8 | 28.1
Austria | 1 215.7 | 1 235.7 | 1 260.3 | 1 275.5 | 1 294.7 | 1 323.1 | 1 364.8 | 1 414.6 | 1 484.6 | 1 594.7 | 1 656.3
% of total population | 14.6 | 14.8 | 15.1 | 15.2 | 15.4 | 15.6 | 16.1 | 16.6 | 17.4 | 18.3 | 19.0
Belgium | 1 319.3 | 1 380.3 | 1 443.9 | 1 503.8 | 1 628.8 | 1 643.6 | 1 748.3 | 1 775.6 | 1 786.1 | 1 849.3 | 1 893.4
% of total population | 12.3 | 12.8 | 13.3 | 13.8 | 14.8 | 14.8 | 15.7 | 15.8 | 15.8 | 16.3 | 16.6
Canada | 6 331.7 | 6 471.9 | 6 617.6 | 6 777.6 | 6 775.8 | 6 913.6 | 7 029.1 | 7 155.9 | 7 286.9 | 7 433.4 | ..
% of total population | 19.0 | 19.2 | 19.4 | 19.6 | 19.4 | 19.6 | 19.8 | 19.9 | 20.1 | 20.3 | 0.0
Chile | 258.8 | 290.9 | 317.1 | 352.3 | 369.4 | 388.2 | 415.5 | 441.5 | 465.3 | .. | ..
% of total population | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 | .. | ..
Czech Republic | 636.1 | 679.6 | 672.0 | 661.2 | 745.2 | 744.1 | 744.8 | 755.0 | 769.6 | 798.3 | ..
% of total population | 6.1 | 6.5 | 6.4 | 6.3 | 7.1 | 7.1 | 7.1 | 7.2 | 7.3 | 7.5 | ..
Denmark | 360.9 | 378.7 | 401.8 | 414.4 | 428.9 | 441.5 | 456.4 | 476.1 | 501.1 | 540.5 | 641.3
% of total population | 6.6 | 6.9 | 7.3 | 7.5 | 7.7 | 7.9 | 8.1 | 8.4 | 8.8 | 9.5 | 11.2
Estonia | 226.5 | 224.3 | 221.9 | 217.9 | 212.7 | 132.3 | 132.0 | 132.6 | 133.2 | 134.4 | 135.9
% of total population | 16.9 | 16.7 | 16.6 | 16.4 | 16.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.1 | 10.1 | 10.2 | 10.4
Finland | 187.9 | 202.5 | 218.6 | 233.2 | 248.1 | 266.1 | 285.5 | 304.3 | 322.0 | 337.2 | 357.5
% of total population | 3.6 | 3.8 | 4.1 | 4.3 | 4.6 | 4.9 | 5.2 | 5.6 | 5.9 | 6.1 | 6.5
France | 7 129.3 | 7 202.1 | 7 287.8 | 7 372.7 | 7 474.7 | 7 590.9 | 7 778.1 | 7 967.7 | 7 952.0 | 8 210.1 | ..
% of total population | 11.4 | 11.5 | 11.6 | 11.7 | 11.8 | 11.9 | 12.1 | 12.4 | 12.3 | 12.6 | ..
Germany | 10 431.0 | 10 529.0 | 10 623.0 | 10 582.0 | 10 591.0 | 9 807.0 | 10 102.0 | 10 465.0 | 10 853.0 | 11 453.0 | 12 738.0
% of total population | 12.9 | 13.1 | 13.2 | 13.2 | 13.2 | 12.2 | 12.5 | 13.0 | 13.5 | 14.0 | 15.5
Greece | .. | .. | .. | 828.4 | 750.7 | 729.9 | .. | 727.5 | .. | 648.5 | ..
% of total population | .. | .. | .. | 7.4 | 6.8 | 6.6 | .. | 6.6 | .. | 5.8 | ..
Hungary | 344.6 | 381.8 | 394.2 | 407.3 | 443.3 | 402.7 | 424.2 | 447.7 | 476.1 | 504.3 | 514.1
% of total population | 3.4 | 3.8 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 4.4 | 4.0 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 4.8 | 5.2 | 5.3
Iceland | 30.4 | 35.9 | 37.6 | 35.1 | 34.7 | 34.7 | 35.4 | 37.2 | 39.2 | 42.0 | 46.5
% of total population | 9.9 | 11.6 | 11.9 | 11.0 | 10.8 | 10.7 | 10.9 | 11.4 | 11.9 | 12.6 | 13.9
Ireland | .. | .. | .. | 766.8 | 752.5 | 754.3 | 759.9 | 767.9 | 781.1 | 810.4 | ..
% of total population | .. | .. | .. | 16.6 | 16.1 | 16.1 | 16.3 | 16.4 | 16.5 | 17.0 | ..
Israel | 1 930.0 | 1 916.2 | 1 899.4 | 1 877.7 | 1 869.0 | 1 850.0 | 1 835.0 | 1 821.0 | 1 817.0 | 1 817.5 | ..
% of total population | 27.9 | 27.0 | 26.2 | 25.3 | 24.7 | 24.0 | 23.5 | 22.9 | 22.5 | 22.2 | ..
Italy | .. | .. | 5 813.8 | 5 787.9 | 5 759.0 | 5 715.1 | 5 695.9 | 5 737.2 | 5 805.3 | 5 907.5 | 6 054.0
% of total population | .. | .. | 9.8 | 9.7 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.5 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 9.9 | 10.2
Japan | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
% of total population | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Korea |  | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
% of total population | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Latvia | .. | 335.8 | 324.9 | 313.8 | 302.8 | 298.0 | 279.2 | 271.1 | 265.4 | 258.9 | 251.5
% of total population | .. | 15.7 | 15.3 | 15.0 | 14.7 | 14.6 | 13.9 | 13.6 | 13.5 | 13.1 | 12.9
Luxembourg | 183.7 | 194.5 | 197.2 | 205.2 | 215.3 | 226.1 | 237.7 | 248.9 | 260.6 | 270.0 | ..
% of total population | 37.9 | 39.2 | 38.8 | 39.5 | 40.4 | 41.5 | 42.7 | 43.9 | 45.3 | 46.3 | ..
Mexico | 722.6 | 772.5 | 885.7 | 961.1 | 966.8 | 973.7 | 991.2 | 939.9 | 1 007.1 | .. | ..
% of total population | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.8 | .. | ..
Netherlands | 1 732.4 | 1 751.0 | 1 793.7 | 1 832.5 | 1 868.7 | 1 906.3 | 1 927.7 | 1 953.4 | 1 996.3 | 2 056.5 | 2 137.2
% of total population | 10.5 | 10.6 | 10.8 | 11.0 | 11.2 | 11.4 | 11.5 | 11.6 | 11.8 | 12.1 | 12.5
New Zealand | 898.3 | 916.6 | 931.0 | 945.7 | 956.3 | 965.0 | 1 001.8 | 1 050.2 | 1 108.5 | 1 168.8 | ..
% of total population | 21.0 | 21.2 | 21.3 | 21.5 | 21.6 | 21.6 | 22.3 | 23.2 | 23.8 | 24.8 | ..
Norway | 405.1 | 445.4 | 488.8 | 526.8 | 569.1 | 616.3 | 663.9 | 704.5 | 741.8 | 772.5 | 799.8
% of total population | 8.6 | 9.3 | 10.1 | 10.8 | 11.5 | 12.3 | 13.1 | 13.7 | 14.2 | 14.7 | 15.1
Poland | .. | .. | .. | .. | 674.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
% of total population | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Portugal | 769.6 | 790.3 | 834.8 | 851.5 | 871.8 | 902.5 | 879.6 | 885.4 | 893.3 | .. | ..
% of total population | 7.3 | 7.5 | 7.9 | 8.1 | 8.3 | 8.6 | 8.5 | 8.6 | 8.6 | .. | ..
Russia | .. | .. | .. | 11 194.7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
% of total population | .. | .. | .. | 7.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Slovak Republic | 301.6 | 366.0 | 442.6 | 140.7 | 145.7 | 156.9 | 158.2 | 174.9 | 177.6 | 181.6 | 186.2
% of total population | 5.6 | 6.8 | 8.2 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.4
Slovenia | .. | .. | .. | .. | 228.6 | 271.8 | 299.7 | 331.0 | 341.2 | 340.3 | 350.3
% of total population | .. | .. | .. | .. | 11.1 | 13.2 | 14.5 | 16.0 | 16.5 | 16.4 | 16.8..
Spain | 5 250.0 | 5 878.9 | 6 225.5 | 6 280.1 | 6 282.2 | 6 295.0 | 6 174.7 | 5 958.3 | 5 891.2 | 5 918.3 | 6 025.1
% of total population | 11.6 | 12.8 | 13.4 | 13.5 | 13.4 | 13.5 | 13.3 | 12.9 | 12.8 | 12.8 | 13.0
Sweden | 1 175.2 | 1 227.8 | 1 281.6 | 1 338.0 | 1 384.9 | 1 427.3 | 1 473.3 | 1 533.5 | 1 603.6 | 1 676.3 | 1 784.5
% of total population | 12.8 | 13.3 | 13.8 | 14.3 | 14.6 | 15.0 | 15.3 | 15.8 | 16.4 | 17.0 | 18.0
Switzerland | 1 811.2 | 1 882.6 | 1 974.2 | 2 037.5 | 2 075.2 | 2 158.4 | 2 218.4 | 2 289.6 | 2 354.8 | 2 416.4 | 2 480.0
% of total population | 24.0 | 24.6 | 25.5 | 26.0 | 26.2 | 26.9 | 27.3 | 27.9 | 28.4 | 28.8 | 29.3
Turkey | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1 592.4 | 1 777.3 | ..
% of total population | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.0 | 2.2 | ..
United Kingdom | 5 757.0 | 6 192.0 | 6 633.0 | 6 899.0 | 7 430.0 | 7 588.0 | 7 860.0 | 8 064.0 | 8 482.0 | 8 988.0 | 9 369.0
% of total population | 9.4 | 10.0 | 10.7 | 11.0 | 11.8 | 11.9 | 12.3 | 12.5 | 13.1 | 13.7 | 14.2
United States | 37 469.4 | 38 048.5 | 38 016.1 | 38 452.8 | 39 916.9 | 40 381.6 | 40 738.2 | 41 344.4 | 42 390.7 | 43 289.6 | 43 738.9
% of total population | 12.4 | 12.5 | 12.4 | 12.4 | 12.8 | 12.8 | 12.8 | 12.9 | 13.2 | 13.4 | 13.5
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the Tables B.4. Estimates are in italic.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752125

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
AUSTRALIA
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
United Kingdom | 1 133.5 | 1 150.6 | 1 168.5 | 1 182.9 | 1 187.9 | 1 196.0 | 1 212.1 | 1 221.7 | 1 217.6 | 1 209.8 | 1 198.0 | 49
New Zealand | 437.9 | 458.0 | 483.7 | 504.4 | 517.8 | 544.0 | 577.1 | 600.8 | 605.8 | 605.8 | 607.2 | 49
China | 252.0 | 278.3 | 313.0 | 345.0 | 371.6 | 387.4 | 401.6 | 422.6 | 451.8 | 487.1 | 526.0 | 56
India | 169.7 | 204.4 | 251.2 | 307.6 | 329.5 | 337.1 | 354.1 | 375.7 | 407.9 | 442.9 | 468.8 | 46
Philippines | 141.9 | 151.2 | 163.0 | 175.0 | 183.8 | 193.0 | 206.3 | 218.9 | 230.5 | 240.4 | 246.4 | 61
Viet Nam | 178.0 | 182.7 | 189.5 | 197.8 | 203.8 | 207.6 | 211.7 | 218.9 | 227.1 | 232.9 | 236.8 | 55
Italy | 218.0 | 215.0 | 211.3 | 208.1 | 204.7 | 201.7 | 199.9 | 199.7 | 198.8 | 196.8 | 194.9 | 48
South Africa | 119.5 | 127.6 | 138.3 | 150.7 | 156.0 | 161.6 | 168.0 | 172.9 | 176.0 | 178.7 | 181.5 | 50
Malaysia | 105.7 | 111.5 | 118.4 | 124.8 | 129.9 | 134.1 | 139.5 | 144.2 | 147.8 | 154.6 | 166.2 | 53
Germany | 124.7 | 125.8 | 126.5 | 126.4 | 126.3 | 125.8 | 125.8 | 125.4 | 124.2 | 123.6 | 124.3 | 52
Sri Lanka | 73.8 | 78.9 | 85.6 | 92.1 | 96.5 | 99.7 | 103.9 | 108.5 | 111.8 | 115.1 | 117.7 | 49
Greece | 129.0 | 127.5 | 125.8 | 124.2 | 122.5 | 121.2 | 121.2 | 121.2 | 120.4 | 118.6 | 116.6 | 51
Korea | 56.0 | 64.7 | 73.8 | 81.4 | 84.2 | 85.9 | 89.7 | 94.0 | 96.1 | 99.6 | 106.7 | 52
United States | 74.7 | 78.9 | 80.7 | 82.2 | 85.3 | 90.1 | 95.6 | 98.8 | 100.4 | 102.2 | 104.3 | 50
Hong Kong, China | 81.4 | 82.3 | 83.3 | 84.4 | 85.5 | 86.0 | 86.4 | 88.1 | 89.9 | 92.2 | 96.9 | 52
Other countries | 1 736.0 | 1 795.8 | 1 865.4 | 1 943.0 | 1 996.4 | 2 047.0 | 2 116.7 | 2 188.0 | 2 251.7 | 2 310.2 | 2 380.7 |
Total | 5 031.6 | 5 233.3 | 5 477.9 | 5 729.9 | 5 881.4 | 6 018.2 | 6 209.5 | 6 399.4 | 6 557.7 | 6 710.5 | 6 873.1 | 51
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
AUSTRIA
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Germany | 169.8 | 178.7 | 186.2 | 191.2 | 196.9 | 201.4 | 205.9 | 210.7 | 215.0 | 219.9 | 224.0 | 53
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 132.1 | 149.4 | 149.9 | 149.6 | 149.7 | 150.5 | 151.7 | 155.1 | 158.9 | 162.0 | 164.3 | 50
Turkey | 154.1 | 155.1 | 156.6 | 157.8 | 158.5 | 158.7 | 159.2 | 160.0 | 160.0 | 160.2 | 160.4 | 47
Serbia | 188.5 | 133.7 | 132.8 | 131.9 | 132.4 | 131.7 | 132.4 | 134.2 | 136.4 | 138.8 | 141.0 | 52
Romania | 48.2 | 53.0 | 57.0 | 60.0 | 64.5 | 69.1 | 73.9 | 79.3 | 91.3 | 98.7 | 105.6 | 53
Poland | 54.2 | 56.4 | 57.1 | 57.0 | 57.8 | 60.5 | 63.2 | 66.8 | 69.9 | 72.2 | 73.8 | 52
Hungary | 33.9 | 34.7 | 36.2 | 37.6 | 39.3 | 42.6 | 48.1 | 55.0 | 61.5 | 67.7 | 72.4 | 54
Afghanistan | 5.1 | 5.6 | 6.4 | 7.5 | 8.4 | 11.0 | 13.6 | 18.2 | 20.3 | 36.6 | 44.7 | 30
Croatia | 35.1 | 40.3 | 40.0 | 39.7 | 39.3 | 39.1 | 39.0 | 39.8 | 41.7 | 43.3 | 44.5 | 53
Syria | 2.4 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 3.4 | 4.2 | 5.2 | 12.3 | 33.6 | 41.6 | 37
Slovak Republic | 19.3 | 22.5 | 24.5 | 25.3 | 26.0 | 27.7 | 30.0 | 32.6 | 35.5 | 38.0 | 40.0 | 63
Czech Republic | 51.5 | 47.8 | 46.4 | 45.0 | 43.6 | 42.5 | 41.6 | 40.8 | 40.3 | 39.6 | 38.7 | 63
Russia | 22.8 | 23.5 | 25.1 | 25.9 | 26.4 | 27.5 | 29.4 | 30.2 | 31.7 | 33.0 | 33.9 | 59
Italy | 25.5 | 25.1 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.2 | 25.3 | 26.2 | 27.7 | 29.3 | 31.2 | 32.3 | 47
Bulgaria | 10.3 | 11.5 | 12.7 | 13.5 | 14.6 | 15.7 | 17.0 | 18.5 | 21.6 | 23.8 | 25.7 | 55
Other countries | 262.8 | 295.7 | 301.8 | 305.6 | 309.0 | 316.3 | 329.3 | 340.5 | 358.8 | 396.0 | 413.6 |
Total | 1 215.7 | 1 235.7 | 1 260.3 | 1 275.5 | 1 294.7 | 1 323.1 | 1 364.8 | 1 414.6 | 1 484.6 | 1 594.7 | 1 656.3 | 51
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
BELGIUM
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Morocco | 155.1 | 162.6 | 170.2 | 178.9 | 189.1 | 197.1 | 201.9 | 204.8 | 208.1 | 211.2 | 214.5 | 49
France | 159.3 | 164.6 | 169.0 | 171.3 | 175.0 | 177.0 | 179.3 | 180.9 | 182.2 | 183.7 | 185.9 | 54
Netherlands | 115.8 | 120.4 | 123.8 | 124.8 | 126.4 | 127.0 | 127.6 | 128.1 | 128.5 | 129.4 | 130.1 | 50
Italy | 123.6 | 122.2 | 121.4 | 120.5 | 120.2 | 119.7 | 119.7 | 119.9 | 120.0 | 120.1 | 120.1 | 49
Turkey | 86.4 | 89.0 | 91.4 | 93.6 | 97.0 | 97.4 | 99.0 | 98.9 | 98.3 | 98.3 | 98.8 | 48
Dem. Rep. of the Congo | 70.5 | 72.4 | 74.2 | 76.2 | 81.3 | 80.0 | 84.3 | 84.7 | 83.6 | 84.1 | 84.6 | 54
Germany | 83.6 | 83.8 | 84.2 | 84.1 | 84.2 | 83.8 | 83.4 | 82.6 | 81.5 | 81.1 | 81.0 | 54
Romania | 15.3 | 20.4 | 26.2 | 30.6 | 37.7 | 45.0 | 53.1 | 58.2 | 65.2 | 71.7 | 78.3 | 47
Poland | 33.7 | 40.5 | 45.5 | 51.7 | 57.7 | 63.1 | 68.0 | 71.1 | 73.4 | 75.5 | 76.9 | 56
Former USSR | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 54.6 | 54.3 | 51.8 | 51.2 | 52.0 | 61
Spain | 35.4 | 35.5 | 36.1 | 37.0 | 38.8 | 40.5 | 42.9 | 44.8 | 46.0 | 47.0 | 47.8 | 53
Former Yugoslavia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 41.0 | 47.9 | 47.1 | 43.1 | 42.9 | 43.1 | 50
Portugal | 24.0 | 25.0 | 26.5 | 27.5 | 28.3 | 29.5 | 31.6 | 33.4 | 34.3 | 35.2 | 36.3 | 49
Bulgaria | .. | 8.2 | 11.7 | 14.4 | 18.7 | 21.0 | 24.2 | 26.4 | 28.7 | 31.3 | 33.3 | 50
Algeria | 19.4 | 20.3 | 21.2 | 22.4 | 24.3 | 24.6 | 25.7 | 25.8 | 25.7 | 26.0 | 26.3 | 44
Other countries | 397.1 | 415.6 | 442.5 | 470.8 | 550.1 | 496.9 | 505.2 | 514.6 | 515.6 | 560.4 | 584.4 |
Total | 1 319.3 | 1 380.3 | 1 443.9 | 1 503.8 | 1 628.8 | 1 643.6 | 1 748.3 | 1 775.6 | 1 786.1 | 1 849.3 | 1 893.4 | 51
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
CANADA
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2011 (%)
India | .. | .. | .. | .. | 547.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 50
China | .. | .. | .. | .. | 545.5 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 55
United Kingdom | .. | .. | .. | .. | 537.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 52
Philippines | .. | .. | .. | .. | 454.3 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 58
United States | .. | .. | .. | .. | 263.5 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 56
Italy | .. | .. | .. | .. | 256.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 49
Hong Kong, China | .. | .. | .. | .. | 205.4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 53
Viet Nam | .. | .. | .. | .. | 165.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 53
Pakistan | .. | .. | .. | .. | 156.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 49
Germany | .. | .. | .. | .. | 152.3 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 53
Poland | .. | .. | .. | .. | 152.3 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 55
Portugal | .. | .. | .. | .. | 138.5 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 51
Sri Lanka | .. | .. | .. | .. | 132.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 50
Jamaica | .. | .. | .. | .. | 126.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 58
Iran | .. | .. | .. | .. | 120.7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 49
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2 821.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
Total | .. | .. | .. | .. | 6 775.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 52
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
CHILE
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2012 (%)
Peru | 66.1 | 83.4 | 107.6 | 130.9 | 138.5 | 146.6 | 157.7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Argentina | 57.7 | 59.7 | 59.2 | 60.6 | 61.9 | 63.2 | 64.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Bolivia | 14.7 | 20.2 | 22.2 | 24.1 | 25.1 | 26.7 | 30.5 | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Ecuador | 13.3 | 14.7 | 17.5 | 19.1 | 20.0 | 20.9 | 21.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Colombia | 7.7 | 9.2 | 10.9 | 12.9 | 14.4 | 16.1 | 19.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Spain | .. | .. | .. | 11.0 | 11.3 | 11.6 | 12.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Brazil | .. | .. | .. | 9.6 | 10.1 | 10.5 | 11.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
United States | .. | .. | .. | 9.7 | 10.0 | 10.4 | 10.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Germany | .. | .. | .. | 6.5 | 6.7 | 6.9 | 7.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
China | .. | .. | .. | 4.6 | 5.2 | 5.9 | 6.6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Other countries | 99.3 | 103.8 | 99.8 | 63.2 | 66.2 | 69.4 | 73.5 | .. | .. | .. | .. |
Total | 258.8 | 290.9 | 317.1 | 352.3 | 369.4 | 388.2 | 415.5 | 441.5 | 465.3 | .. | .. | ..
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
CZECH REPUBLIC
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2011 (%)
Slovak Republic | .. | .. | .. | .. | 289.6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 53
Ukraine | .. | .. | .. | .. | 138.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 45
Viet Nam | .. | .. | .. | .. | 52.4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 40
Russia | .. | .. | .. | .. | 35.7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 57
Poland | .. | .. | .. | .. | 26.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 62
Germany | .. | .. | .. | .. | 16.7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 32
Romania | .. | .. | .. | .. | 12.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 51
Moldova | .. | .. | .. | .. | 9.4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 38
Bulgaria | .. | .. | .. | .. | 9.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 39
United States | .. | .. | .. | .. | 7.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 45
Kazakhstan | .. | .. | .. | .. | 6.7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 51
Mongolia | .. | .. | .. | .. | 5.6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 59
China | .. | .. | .. | .. | 4.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 45
Hungary | .. | .. | .. | .. | 4.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 57
United Kingdom | .. | .. | .. | .. | 4.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 24
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | .. | 121.7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
Total | .. | .. | .. | .. | 745.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 48
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
DENMARK
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Poland | 14.7 | 18.5 | 24.4 | 25.4 | 26.6 | 28.0 | 29.9 | 32.0 | 34.5 | 37.1 | 39.4 | 47
Germany | 23.9 | 25.8 | 27.8 | 28.2 | 28.5 | 28.6 | 28.7 | 28.7 | 28.7 | 29.1 | 35.7 | 51
Syria | .. | 1.8 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 3.1 | 4.0 | 5.8 | 11.6 | 24.1 | 33.5 | 43
Turkey | 31.1 | 31.4 | 31.8 | 32.3 | 32.5 | 32.4 | 32.2 | 32.4 | 32.4 | 32.5 | 32.4 | 48
Romania | 2.6 | 3.3 | 4.6 | 5.9 | 7.7 | 10.1 | 12.9 | 15.7 | 18.7 | 21.9 | 24.4 | 42
Sweden | 12.7 | 12.9 | 13.2 | 13.2 | 13.2 | 13.1 | 13.1 | 13.2 | 13.4 | 13.6 | 22.9 | 56
Iraq | 20.7 | 21.2 | 21.3 | 21.3 | 21.3 | 21.2 | 21.2 | 21.1 | 21.2 | 21.2 | 21.2 | 45
Norway | 14.2 | 14.3 | 14.5 | 14.7 | 14.7 | 14.9 | 14.9 | 14.9 | 15.1 | 15.6 | 20.2 | 61
United Kingdom | 11.1 | 11.4 | 11.8 | 11.8 | 12.1 | 12.2 | 12.5 | 12.8 | 13.0 | 13.4 | 19.5 | 39
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 17.6 | 18.0 | 18.0 | 17.9 | 17.8 | 17.6 | 17.4 | 17.3 | 17.3 | 17.2 | 17.1 | 50
Iran | 11.8 | 11.9 | 11.9 | 12.1 | 12.5 | 12.9 | 13.3 | 14.1 | 14.9 | 15.6 | 15.8 | 42
Pakistan | 10.5 | 10.6 | 10.8 | 11.2 | 11.7 | 12.1 | 12.3 | 12.9 | 13.5 | 13.8 | 13.8 | 47
China | .. | 7.5 | 8.2 | 8.5 | 8.6 | 8.6 | 8.8 | 9.4 | 10.0 | 10.6 | 13.5 | 62
Thailand | 7.3 | 7.8 | 8.3 | 8.8 | 9.5 | 9.7 | 9.9 | 10.3 | 10.6 | 10.9 | 13.2 | 80
United States | .. | .. | .. | 6.8 | 7.1 | 7.7 | 7.4 | 7.6 | 7.6 | 8.5 | 13.2 | 50
Other countries | 182.8 | 182.4 | 193.2 | 194.1 | 202.8 | 209.5 | 217.9 | 227.7 | 238.7 | 255.4 | 305.3 |
Total | 360.9 | 378.7 | 401.8 | 414.4 | 428.9 | 441.5 | 456.4 | 476.1 | 501.1 | 540.5 | 641.3 | 50
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
ESTONIA
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Russia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 83.8 | 81.7 | 79.5 | 77.5 | 75.5 | 73.5 | 59
Ukraine | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 15.7 | 15.5 | 15.4 | 15.6 | 16.1 | 16.5 | 45
Belarus | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 9.1 | 8.8 | 8.6 | 8.4 | 8.2 | 8.0 | 57
Finland | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 4.1 | 4.7 | 5.4 | 5.9 | 6.5 | 7.2 | 33
Latvia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.7 | 3.0 | 3.3 | 3.5 | 3.8 | 4.1 | 47
Germany | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.5 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 2.5 | 2.8 | 45
Kazakhstan | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 50
Lithuania | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 50
Italy | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 34
France | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 40
Azerbaijan | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 38
Poland | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 42
United Kingdom | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 21
Georgia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 42
Spain | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 40
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 6.8 | 7.4 | 8.5 | 9.5 | 10.6 | 11.8 |
Total | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 132.3 | 132.0 | 132.6 | 133.2 | 134.4 | 135.9 | 51
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
FINLAND
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Former USSR | 41.9 | 43.8 | 45.8 | 47.3 | 48.7 | 50.5 | 52.3 | 53.7 | 54.7 | 55.6 | 56.5 | 62
Estonia | 14.5 | 16.7 | 19.2 | 21.8 | 25.0 | 29.5 | 35.0 | 39.5 | 42.7 | 44.5 | 45.7 | 50
Sweden | 29.8 | 30.2 | 30.6 | 31.0 | 31.2 | 31.4 | 31.6 | 31.8 | 31.9 | 32.0 | 32.1 | 48
Iraq | 4.4 | 4.8 | 5.3 | 6.2 | 7.2 | 7.9 | 8.4 | 9.3 | 10.0 | 10.7 | 13.8 | 36
Russia | 5.3 | 5.9 | 6.7 | 7.3 | 8.0 | 9.0 | 10.0 | 11.1 | 12.0 | 12.8 | 13.7 | 55
Somalia | 5.3 | 5.8 | 6.4 | 7.1 | 8.1 | 8.8 | 9.1 | 9.6 | 10.1 | 10.6 | 11.1 | 47
China | 4.6 | 5.3 | 6.0 | 6.6 | 7.0 | 7.7 | 8.3 | 8.9 | 9.4 | 10.0 | 10.4 | 58
Thailand | 4.1 | 4.8 | 5.4 | 6.1 | 6.7 | 7.4 | 8.1 | 8.7 | 9.2 | 9.7 | 10.2 | 79
Viet Nam | 3.4 | 3.7 | 4.0 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 4.8 | 5.2 | 5.5 | 6.0 | 6.6 | 7.5 | 55
Former Yugoslavia | 5.2 | 5.5 | 5.8 | 6.1 | 6.3 | 6.4 | 6.5 | 6.7 | 6.9 | 7.1 | 7.3 | 44
Turkey | 3.7 | 4.1 | 4.5 | 4.9 | 5.1 | 5.4 | 5.7 | 6.1 | 6.3 | 6.5 | 6.8 | 30
Iran | 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.8 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 4.4 | 4.9 | 5.3 | 5.8 | 6.1 | 6.8 | 43
Germany | 4.9 | 5.3 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 5.9 | 6.1 | 6.2 | 6.4 | 6.5 | 6.6 | 6.6 | 44
United Kingdom | 3.7 | 4.0 | 4.2 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.8 | 5.1 | 5.3 | 5.5 | 5.7 | 5.9 | 28
India | 2.5 | 2.8 | 3.2 | 3.6 | 4.0 | 4.3 | 4.6 | 4.9 | 5.4 | 5.7 | 5.8 | 40
Other countries | 51.1 | 56.4 | 62.2 | 66.9 | 71.8 | 77.8 | 84.5 | 91.5 | 99.5 | 107.0 | 117.3 |
Total | 187.9 | 202.5 | 218.6 | 233.2 | 248.1 | 266.1 | 285.5 | 304.3 | 322.0 | 337.2 | 357.5 | 49
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
FRANCE
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2012 (%)
Algeria | 1 366.5 | 1 361.0 | 1 364.5 | 1 357.5 | 1 359.8 | 1 363.9 | 1 368.4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 50
Morocco | 870.9 | 881.3 | 888.0 | 895.6 | 907.8 | 924.0 | 935.4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 49
Portugal | 604.7 | 608.6 | 614.2 | 618.3 | 625.2 | 633.2 | 642.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 49
Tunisia | 370.6 | 370.7 | 374.7 | 377.3 | 381.2 | 387.6 | 393.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 45
Italy | 357.0 | 350.2 | 343.3 | 337.5 | 331.7 | 327.6 | 325.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 52
Spain | 295.9 | 290.3 | 286.2 | 282.5 | 282.5 | 283.4 | 284.6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 56
Turkey | 246.8 | 251.1 | 255.8 | 257.6 | 259.5 | 260.2 | 261.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 47
Germany | 223.5 | 221.7 | 219.0 | 217.6 | 213.8 | 211.6 | 209.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 57
United Kingdom | 164.0 | 166.8 | 169.1 | 169.9 | 170.1 | 168.0 | 167.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 51
Belgium | 143.6 | 145.8 | 146.9 | 148.2 | 148.5 | 149.7 | 151.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 55
Viet Nam | 120.1 | 119.7 | 118.9 | 119.4 | 120.2 | 119.0 | 118.4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 55
Madagascar | 112.5 | 114.5 | 115.8 | 118.1 | 120.1 | 122.3 | 124.7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 59
Senegal | 108.3 | 112.1 | 114.0 | 116.4 | 119.6 | 124.1 | 127.7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 47
Poland | 102.6 | 102.9 | 102.4 | 102.8 | 102.5 | 102.3 | 101.6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 62
China | 85.3 | 90.2 | 95.4 | 98.5 | 102.2 | 105.3 | 106.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 59
Other countries | 1 957.0 | 2 015.2 | 2 079.6 | 2 155.7 | 2 229.9 | 2 308.9 | 2 397.3 | .. | .. | .. | .. |
Total | 7 129.3 | 7 202.1 | 7 287.8 | 7 372.7 | 7 474.7 | 7 590.9 | 7 715.1 | 7 967.7 | 7 952.0 | 8 210.1 | .. | 52
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
GERMANY
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Poland | 797 | 1 067 | 1 102 | 1 117 | 1 116 | 1 081 | 1 151 | 1 207 | 1 260 | 1 334 | 1 468 | 52
Turkey | 1 478 | 1 511 | 1 502 | 1 460 | 1 474 | 1 301 | 1 296 | 1 318 | 1 347 | 1 364 | 1 324 | 49
Russia | 947 | 1 011 | 1 151 | 1 009 | 984 | 964 | 954 | 963 | 939 | 957 | 960 | 55
Kazakhstan | 358 | 529 | 564 | 636 | 699 | 736 | 729 | 731 | 727 | 737 | 737 | 52
Romania | 330 | 384 | 383 | 389 | 373 | 379 | 424 | 462 | 487 | 547 | 657 | 51
Italy | 432 | 433 | 434 | 431 | 416 | 374 | 373 | 418 | 427 | 442 | 508 | 39
Syria | .. | .. | .. | .. | 42 | 36 | 44 | 55 | 71 | 143 | 479 | 35
Croatia | 256 | 254 | 263 | 250 | 226 | 200 | 205 | 209 | 220 | 255 | 306 | 50
Greece | 229 | 240 | 232 | 225 | 230 | 199 | 212 | 222 | 234 | 257 | 282 | 45
Ukraine | 206 | 233 | 228 | 229 | 228 | 206 | 206 | 211 | 215 | 212 | 224 | 61
Bulgaria | 50 | 46 | 52 | 62 | 64 | 67 | 91 | 97 | 119 | 146 | 215 | 49
Serbia | .. | 338 | 326 | 209 | 204 | 177 | 193 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 208 | 51
Hungary | 81 | 103 | 106 | 104 | 103 | 102 | 111 | 135 | 154 | 186 | 207 | 48
Former USSR | .. | 214 | 228 | 290 | 220 | 140 | 139 | 132 | 152 | 154 | 201 | 53
Austria | 192 | 195 | 199 | 191 | 194 | 167 | 180 | 188 | 186 | 191 | 190 | 49
Other countries | 5 054 | 3 947 | 3 813 | 3 955 | 3 978 | 3 678 | 3 794 | 3 914 | 4 111 | 4 323 | 4 772 |
Total | 10 410 | 10 505 | 10 583 | 10 557 | 10 551 | 9 807 | 10 102 | 10 465 | 10 853 | 11 453 | 12 738 | 49
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
GREECE
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Albania | .. | .. | .. | 384.6 | 346.2 | 357.1 | .. | 337.7 | .. | 312.7 | .. | 49
Georgia | .. | .. | .. | 62.6 | 53.0 | 54.2 | .. | 45.1 | .. | 43.3 | .. | 62
Russia | .. | .. | .. | 55.7 | 44.4 | 37.8 | .. | 43.0 | .. | 35.3 | .. | 67
Bulgaria | .. | .. | .. | 45.7 | 43.9 | 35.0 | .. | 40.9 | .. | 31.0 | .. | 71
Germany | .. | .. | .. | 29.3 | 25.1 | 21.2 | .. | 25.7 | .. | 26.7 | .. | 61
Romania | .. | .. | .. | 32.4 | 34.9 | 32.7 | .. | 27.2 | .. | 22.1 | .. | 58
Ukraine | .. | .. | .. | 13.3 | 13.5 | 11.5 | .. | 10.7 | .. | 16.6 | .. | 78
Pakistan | .. | .. | .. | 20.1 | 22.5 | 24.0 | .. | 18.0 | .. | 16.5 | .. | 5
Armenia | .. | .. | .. | 9.1 | 10.6 | 9.6 | .. | 7.7 | .. | 11.4 | .. | 63
Poland | .. | .. | .. | 10.8 | 7.3 | 9.4 | .. | 16.6 | .. | 10.8 | .. | 61
Cyprus1,2 | .. | .. | .. | 10.2 | 12.8 | 10.3 | .. | 10.9 | .. | 9.8 | .. | 50
Turkey | .. | .. | .. | 9.5 | 6.1 | 9.4 | .. | 12.5 | .. | 9.4 | .. | 50
United States | .. | .. | .. | 7.5 | 6.2 | 7.4 | .. | 5.3 | .. | 8.7 | .. | 58
Egypt | .. | .. | .. | 10.2 | 13.6 | 11.4 | .. | 9.8 | .. | 7.7 | .. | 49
Moldova | .. | .. | .. | 4.9 | 3.4 | 1.8 | .. | 4.9 | .. | 6.3 | .. | 72
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | 122.3 | 107.3 | 97.3 | .. | 111.5 | .. | 80.2 | .. |
Total | .. | .. | .. | 828.4 | 750.7 | 729.9 | .. | 727.5 | .. | 648.5 | .. | 54
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
HUNGARY
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Romania | 170.4 | 196.1 | 202.2 | 198.2 | 201.9 | 183.1 | 190.9 | 198.4 | 203.4 | 208.4 | 206.3 | 51
Ukraine | 4.9 | 4.9 | 4.6 | 6.5 | 13.4 | 25.5 | 28.8 | 33.3 | 42.0 | 50.2 | 55.8 | 51
Serbia | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 8.6 | 24.4 | 27.4 | 30.3 | 32.6 | 34.3 | 42.1 | 45
Germany | 24.5 | 27.4 | 28.7 | 31.3 | 29.4 | 25.7 | 27.3 | 29.2 | 30.2 | 31.7 | 32.4 | 48
Slovak Republic | 2.1 | 3.0 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 5.7 | 21.1 | 21.3 | 21.3 | 21.1 | 21.1 | 21.1 | 61
China | 4.7 | 5.0 | 5.4 | 5.6 | 10.9 | 9.0 | 9.9 | 11.1 | 14.8 | 18.2 | 17.5 | 50
Former USSR | 27.4 | 28.5 | 30.1 | 31.2 | 30.7 | 13.1 | 14.1 | 13.5 | 13.2 | 13.3 | 12.7 | 64
United Kingdom | 3.2 | 3.8 | 4.3 | 4.8 | 4.7 | 4.9 | 5.6 | 6.8 | 7.9 | 9.4 | 11.2 | 45
Austria | 6.2 | 6.9 | 7.3 | 7.9 | 7.8 | 7.6 | 8.1 | 8.8 | 9.3 | 9.9 | 10.3 | 45
United States | 4.0 | 4.3 | 4.6 | 5.0 | 6.9 | 7.0 | 7.2 | 7.4 | 7.8 | 8.2 | 8.4 | 47
Former Czechoslovakia | 30.4 | 29.6 | 28.5 | 28.5 | 24.1 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 6.0 | 6.2 | 6.2 | 5.8 | 65
Italy | 2.6 | 3.0 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 3.9 | 4.3 | 4.7 | 5.3 | 5.6 | 35
France | 3.1 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 3.6 | 3.5 | 3.7 | 3.9 | 4.2 | 4.4 | 4.4 | 45
Russia | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 2.8 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 3.7 | 4.1 | 4.1 | 61
Netherlands | 1.6 | 1.9 | 2.3 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 2.7 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 3.5 | 3.8 | 42
Other countries | 58.6 | 62.8 | 64.9 | 73.7 | 86.5 | 63.3 | 64.3 | 67.0 | 71.7 | 76.1 | 72.7 |
Total | 344.6 | 381.8 | 394.2 | 407.3 | 443.3 | 402.7 | 424.2 | 447.7 | 476.1 | 504.3 | 514.1 | 50
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
ICELAND
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Poland | 6.6 | 10.5 | 11.6 | 10.1 | 9.5 | 9.3 | 9.4 | 10.2 | 11.0 | 12.0 | 13.8 | 43
Denmark | 2.8 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 51
United States | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 46
Sweden | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 51
Lithuania | 0.9 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 43
Germany | 1.6 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 61
Philippines | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 66
United Kingdom | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 40
Thailand | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 74
Norway | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 52
Latvia | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 48
Portugal | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 37
Viet Nam | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 57
Romania | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 42
Spain | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 42
Other countries | 8.7 | 8.8 | 8.9 | 8.5 | 8.6 | 8.7 | 9.0 | 9.4 | 9.9 | 10.7 | 12.1 |
Total | 30.4 | 35.9 | 37.6 | 35.1 | 34.7 | 34.7 | 35.4 | 37.2 | 39.2 | 42.0 | 46.5 | 49
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
IRELAND
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2015 (%)
United Kingdom | .. | .. | .. | 288.6 | 281.1 | .. | .. | .. | 277.2 | .. | .. | 51
Poland | .. | .. | .. | 115.2 | 114.3 | .. | .. | .. | 115.2 | .. | .. | 50
Lithuania | .. | .. | .. | 34.8 | 34.6 | .. | .. | .. | 33.3 | .. | .. | 54
Romania | .. | .. | .. | 18.0 | 17.8 | .. | .. | .. | 28.7 | .. | .. | 49
United States | .. | .. | .. | 27.7 | 26.9 | .. | .. | .. | 28.7 | .. | .. | 55
India | .. | .. | .. | 17.9 | 17.7 | .. | .. | .. | 21.0 | .. | .. | 45
Latvia | .. | .. | .. | 20.0 | 19.8 | .. | .. | .. | 19.0 | .. | .. | 57
Nigeria | .. | .. | .. | 19.8 | 19.4 | .. | .. | .. | 16.6 | .. | .. | 53
Brazil | .. | .. | .. | 9.3 | 9.2 | .. | .. | .. | 15.8 | .. | .. | 53
Philippines | .. | .. | .. | 13.8 | 13.6 | .. | .. | .. | 14.7 | .. | .. | 59
Germany | .. | .. | .. | 13.0 | 12.7 | .. | .. | .. | 13.0 | .. | .. | 56
Pakistan | .. | .. | .. | 8.3 | 8.2 | .. | .. | .. | 12.9 | .. | .. | 35
France | .. | .. | .. | 10.1 | 9.9 | .. | .. | .. | 11.9 | .. | .. | 50
Spain | .. | .. | .. | 7.0 | 6.9 | .. | .. | .. | 11.8 | .. | .. | 60
China | .. | .. | .. | 11.5 | 11.3 | .. | .. | .. | 11.3 | .. | .. | 56
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | 151.8 | 149.1 | .. | .. | .. | 179.5 | .. | .. |
Total | .. | .. | .. | 766.8 | 752.5 | .. | .. | .. | 810.4 | .. | .. | 51
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
ISRAEL
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Former USSR | 929.1 | 921.7 | 913.8 | 877.5 | 875.5 | 867.0 | 862.4 | 858.7 | 859.4 | 863.1 | .. | 55
Morocco | 153.2 | 150.7 | 148.5 | 154.7 | 152.0 | 149.6 | 147.2 | 145.4 | 143.1 | 140.9 | .. | 53
United States | .. | .. | .. | .. | 82.7 | 84.8 | 86.2 | 88.0 | 90.5 | 92.6 | .. | 52
Ethiopia | 76.1 | 79.4 | 80.8 | 77.4 | 78.9 | 81.9 | 84.6 | 85.9 | 85.6 | 85.7 | .. | 50
Romania | 103.7 | 100.2 | 96.9 | 96.4 | 93.1 | 90.0 | 87.0 | 84.0 | 80.8 | 77.8 | .. | 56
France | 37.6 | 39.6 | 40.9 | 41.4 | 42.9 | 43.5 | 44.2 | 46.3 | 51.1 | 57.0 | .. | 54
Iraq | 66.7 | 65.1 | 63.5 | 63.7 | 61.8 | 60.0 | 58.5 | 56.8 | 54.9 | 53.0 | .. | 53
Iran | 48.2 | 47.6 | 46.8 | 49.8 | 48.9 | 48.1 | 47.4 | 46.7 | 46.0 | 45.2 | .. | 51
Poland | 57.0 | 53.4 | 50.1 | 54.0 | 50.7 | 48.0 | 45.0 | 42.2 | 39.7 | 37.2 | .. | 57
Argentina | 37.7 | 37.2 | 36.7 | 37.6 | 37.5 | 37.6 | 36.8 | 36.3 | 36.0 | 35.6 | .. | 53
Tunisia | .. | .. | .. | .. | 29.9 | 29.2 | 28.8 | 28.4 | 28.6 | 28.3 | .. | 54
United Kingdom | 21.1 | 21.7 | 22.2 | 21.8 | 22.5 | 23.0 | 23.0 | 23.2 | 23.5 | 24.0 | .. | 53
Turkey | 26.9 | 26.2 | 25.6 | 26.1 | 25.6 | 24.9 | 24.1 | 23.4 | 22.8 | 22.1 | .. | 53
Yemen | 30.8 | 29.9 | 28.9 | 28.9 | 27.9 | 26.9 | 24.1 | 25.4 | 22.5 | 21.6 | .. | 56
Germany | .. | .. | .. | .. | 21.4 | 20.7 | 20.2 | 19.7 | 19.2 | 18.7 | .. | 57
Other countries | 341.9 | 343.3 | 344.3 | 348.8 | 217.7 | 214.8 | 215.4 | 210.9 | 213.4 | 214.8 | .. |
Total | 1 930.0 | 1 916.0 | 1 899.0 | 1 878.0 | 1 869.0 | 1 850.0 | 1 835.0 | 1 821.0 | 1 817.0 | 1 817.5 | .. | 55
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
ITALY
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Romania | .. | .. | 1 021.4 | 1 016.9 | 1 011.7 | 1 003.7 | 1 000.1 | 1 004.6 | 1 016.0 | 1 024.1 | 1 036.0 | 60
Albania | .. | .. | 443.2 | 440.6 | 438.0 | 434.3 | 432.7 | 440.1 | 446.6 | 449.7 | 458.2 | 49
Morocco | .. | .. | 419.0 | 416.8 | 414.5 | 411.1 | 409.6 | 418.1 | 424.1 | 428.9 | 434.5 | 45
Ukraine | .. | .. | 214.7 | 213.6 | 212.4 | 210.8 | 210.0 | 218.5 | 222.9 | 231.6 | 237.6 | 79
China | .. | .. | 195.7 | 194.7 | 193.5 | 192.0 | 191.3 | 197.1 | 200.4 | 212.2 | 220.1 | 50
Germany | .. | .. | 223.7 | 222.7 | 221.5 | 219.9 | 220.0 | 216.3 | 214.3 | 211.6 | 210.4 | 57
Switzerland | .. | .. | 195.5 | 194.5 | 193.5 | 192.1 | 191.5 | 194.9 | 194.0 | 192.8 | 192.1 | 54
Moldova | .. | .. | 160.7 | 159.9 | 159.0 | 157.7 | 157.1 | 164.0 | 171.3 | 176.2 | 182.2 | 68
India | .. | .. | 129.7 | 129.0 | 128.3 | 127.3 | 126.8 | 134.1 | 139.1 | 149.5 | 155.6 | 40
Philippines | .. | .. | 138.6 | 137.8 | 137.0 | 135.9 | 135.4 | 141.1 | 143.2 | 145.5 | 147.8 | 60
France | .. | .. | 138.2 | 137.7 | 137.3 | 136.5 | 136.7 | 132.2 | 127.9 | 128.4 | 128.1 | 61
Bangladesh | .. | .. | 89.6 | 89.1 | 88.6 | 87.9 | 87.5 | 95.4 | 105.5 | 111.3 | 119.5 | 25
Egypt | .. | .. | 107.3 | 107.1 | 106.6 | 105.8 | 105.5 | 106.7 | 108.9 | 112.8 | 117.7 | 30
Poland | .. | .. | 125.3 | 124.7 | 124.1 | 123.1 | 122.7 | 116.7 | 115.0 | 114.4 | 114.4 | 77
Peru | .. | .. | 115.7 | 115.0 | 114.4 | 113.4 | 113.0 | 114.1 | 113.2 | 112.9 | 113.0 | 62
Other countries | .. | .. | 2 095.5 | 2 087.7 | 2 078.5 | 2 063.5 | 2 055.9 | 2 043.3 | 2 062.8 | 2 105.5 | 2 186.8 |
Total | .. | .. | 5 813.8 | 5 787.9 | 5 759.0 | 5 715.1 | 5 695.9 | 5 737.2 | 5 805.3 | 5 907.5 | 6 054.0 | 54
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
LATVIA
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Russia | .. | .. | .. | .. | 159.9 | 152.3 | 146.3 | 140.7 | 136.4 | 131.8 | 126.9 | ..
Belarus | .. | .. | .. | .. | 55.1 | 53.2 | 51.5 | 50.0 | 48.6 | 47.2 | 45.5 | ..
Ukraine | .. | .. | .. | .. | 38.4 | 36.8 | 35.7 | 34.7 | 34.1 | 34.0 | 33.0 | ..
Lithuania | .. | .. | .. | .. | 19.7 | 18.6 | 17.9 | 17.2 | 16.7 | 16.1 | 15.4 | ..
Kazakhstan | .. | .. | .. | .. | 6.7 | 6.4 | 6.2 | 6.0 | 5.9 | 5.9 | 5.8 | ..
United Kingdom | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.7 | 2.2 | 2.6 | 3.2 | ..
Estonia | .. | .. | .. | .. | 3.2 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 3.0 | ..
Uzbekistan | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.2 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 2.1 | ..
Germany | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.5 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 2.1 | ..
Azerbaijan | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.2 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.9 | ..
Moldova | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.7 | ..
Georgia | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 | ..
Israel | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.9 | ..
Ireland | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 | ..
Poland | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | ..
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | .. | 7.1 | 6.5 | 6.6 | 7.0 | 7.4 | 7.5 | 7.0 |
Total | .. | 335.8 | 324.9 | 313.8 | 302.8 | 289.0 | 279.2 | 271.1 | 265.4 | 258.9 | 251.5 | ..
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
LUXEMBOURG
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Portugal | .. | .. | .. | 60.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 72.5 | .. | 48
France | .. | .. | .. | 28.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 39.0 | .. | 47
Belgium | .. | .. | .. | 16.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 20.5 | .. | 46
Italy | .. | .. | .. | 13.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 17.0 | .. | 42
Germany | .. | .. | .. | 14.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 16.5 | .. | 53
Cabo Verde | .. | .. | .. | 4.6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 6.4 | .. | 53
United Kingdom | .. | .. | .. | 4.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 5.1 | .. | 43
Spain | .. | .. | .. | 2.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 4.9 | .. | 50
Poland | .. | .. | .. | 2.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 4.5 | .. | 58
Romania | .. | .. | .. | 1.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 4.2 | .. | 61
Netherlands | .. | .. | .. | 3.5 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 3.9 | .. | 47
China | .. | .. | .. | 1.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 3.5 | .. | 53
Brazil | .. | .. | .. | 1.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.9 | .. | 63
United States | .. | .. | .. | 1.6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.6 | .. | 48
Greece | .. | .. | .. | 1.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.5 | .. | 49
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | 44.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 64.8 | .. |
Total | .. | .. | .. | 205.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 270.7 | .. | 49
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
MEXICO
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2015 (%)
United States | .. | .. | .. | 738.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 739.2 | .. | .. | 50
Guatemala | .. | .. | .. | 35.3 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 42.9 | .. | .. | 54
Spain | .. | .. | .. | 18.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 22.6 | .. | .. | 44
Colombia | .. | .. | .. | 13.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 18.7 | .. | .. | 57
Venezuela | .. | .. | .. | 10.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 15.7 | .. | .. | 56
Argentina | .. | .. | .. | 13.7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 14.7 | .. | .. | 46
Honduras | .. | .. | .. | 11.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 14.5 | .. | .. | 54
Cuba | .. | .. | .. | 12.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 12.8 | .. | .. | 47
El Salvador | .. | .. | .. | 8.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 10.6 | .. | .. | 49
Canada | .. | .. | .. | 7.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 9.8 | .. | .. | 49
China | .. | .. | .. | 6.7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 8.9 | .. | .. | 39
France | .. | .. | .. | 7.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 8.6 | .. | .. | 49
Italy | .. | .. | .. | 5.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 6.4 | .. | .. | 33
Germany | .. | .. | .. | 6.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 6.4 | .. | .. | 45
Brazil | .. | .. | .. | 4.5 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 5.8 | .. | .. | 59
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | 62.5 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 69.4 | .. | .. |
Total | 722.6 | 772.5 | 885.7 | 961.1 | 966.8 | 973.7 | 991.2 | 939.9 | 1 007.1 | .. | .. | 50
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
NETHERLANDS
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Turkey | 195.4 | 194.8 | 195.7 | 196.7 | 197.4 | 197.4 | 196.5 | 195.1 | 192.7 | 191.0 | 190.8 | 49
Suriname | 187.8 | 187.0 | 186.7 | 186.8 | 186.2 | 185.5 | 184.1 | 182.6 | 181.0 | 179.5 | 178.6 | 55
Morocco | 168.0 | 167.2 | 166.9 | 167.4 | 167.7 | 168.3 | 168.2 | 168.5 | 168.6 | 168.5 | 168.7 | 48
Poland | 35.3 | 42.1 | 51.1 | 58.1 | 66.6 | 78.2 | 86.5 | 96.2 | 108.5 | 117.9 | 126.6 | 54
Indonesia | 149.7 | 146.7 | 143.7 | 140.7 | 137.8 | 135.1 | 132.0 | 129.2 | 126.4 | 123.5 | 120.8 | 56
Germany | 116.4 | 117.0 | 119.2 | 120.5 | 122.3 | 122.8 | 121.8 | 120.5 | 119.1 | 118.6 | 118.8 | 58
Syria | 6.6 | 6.7 | 6.9 | 6.9 | 7.1 | 7.3 | 7.7 | 9.5 | 17.9 | 38.5 | 65.9 | 40
Former USSR | 36.0 | 37.4 | 39.4 | 41.9 | 45.6 | 49.2 | 51.8 | 53.7 | 56.4 | 59.1 | 62.2 | 63
Belgium | 47.4 | 47.9 | 48.6 | 49.2 | 50.0 | 50.9 | 51.9 | 52.8 | 54.0 | 55.3 | 56.9 | 55
China | 35.5 | 37.1 | 40.0 | 42.5 | 44.7 | 47.5 | 49.7 | 51.3 | 52.5 | 54.4 | 56.1 | 58
Former Yugoslavia | 53.0 | 52.8 | 52.7 | 52.8 | 52.7 | 52.7 | 52.5 | 52.5 | 52.6 | 52.7 | 53.1 | 52
United Kingdom | 45.8 | 45.8 | 46.7 | 47.1 | 47.2 | 47.5 | 47.8 | 48.4 | 49.1 | 50.2 | 51.7 | 45
Iraq | 34.8 | 35.7 | 38.7 | 40.9 | 41.0 | 40.8 | 40.6 | 40.5 | 40.7 | 40.9 | 43.1 | 43
Afghanistan | 31.3 | 31.0 | 30.7 | 31.1 | 31.8 | 32.6 | 32.8 | 33.1 | 33.1 | 33.0 | 34.7 | 46
Iran | 23.8 | 24.2 | 24.8 | 25.4 | 26.2 | 27.2 | 28.0 | 28.7 | 29.2 | 29.7 | 31.5 | 46
Other countries | 565.7 | 577.8 | 602.0 | 624.4 | 644.4 | 663.2 | 675.7 | 690.7 | 714.6 | 743.7 | 777.7 |
Total | 1 732.4 | 1 751.0 | 1 793.7 | 1 832.5 | 1 868.7 | 1 906.3 | 1 927.7 | 1 953.4 | 1 996.3 | 2 056.5 | 2 137.2 | 52
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
NEW ZEALAND
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2013 (%)
United Kingdom | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 255.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 50
China | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 89.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 54
India | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 67.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 44
Australia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 62.7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 53
South Africa | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 54.3 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 51
Fiji | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 52.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 52
Samoa | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 50.7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 52
Philippines | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 37.3 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 57
Korea | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 26.6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 53
Tonga | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 22.4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 50
United States | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 22.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 53
Netherlands | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 19.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 49
Malaysia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 16.4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 54
Cook Islands | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 13.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 53
Germany | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 12.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 56
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 199.5 | .. | .. | .. | .. |
Total | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1 001.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 52
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
NORWAY
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Poland | 18.0 | 30.8 | 42.7 | 49.5 | 57.1 | 67.6 | 76.9 | 84.2 | 91.2 | 96.1 | 97.6 | 36
Sweden | 35.0 | 36.8 | 39.4 | 41.8 | 44.6 | 47.0 | 47.8 | 48.6 | 49.2 | 49.1 | 48.3 | 49
Lithuania | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.3 | 9.9 | 15.6 | 22.7 | 28.6 | 33.0 | 35.9 | 37.4 | 37.7 | 42
Somalia | 14.5 | 16.0 | 16.9 | 18.0 | 19.4 | 20.7 | 23.7 | 25.9 | 27.0 | 28.3 | 28.7 | 47
Germany | 16.7 | 19.7 | 23.0 | 24.9 | 26.2 | 27.3 | 27.8 | 27.9 | 28.2 | 28.2 | 28.0 | 48
Denmark | 22.3 | 22.5 | 22.6 | 22.7 | 22.9 | 23.3 | 23.8 | 24.4 | 25.3 | 25.1 | 24.8 | 48
Iraq | 17.4 | 18.2 | 19.4 | 20.6 | 21.4 | 22.0 | 22.1 | 22.1 | 22.2 | 22.2 | 22.5 | 44
Philippines | 9.6 | 10.9 | 12.3 | 13.5 | 14.7 | 16.3 | 17.8 | 19.5 | 20.6 | 21.4 | 22.2 | 77
Syria | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 3.1 | 5.5 | 9.7 | 20.8 | 37
Pakistan | 15.9 | 16.2 | 16.7 | 17.2 | 17.6 | 18.0 | 18.6 | 19.0 | 19.4 | 19.7 | 20.1 | 48
Thailand | 9.3 | 10.5 | 11.8 | 13.1 | 14.1 | 15.2 | 16.4 | 17.3 | 18.0 | 18.9 | 20.1 | 81
Eritrea | 2.4 | 2.7 | 3.3 | 4.8 | 6.6 | 8.2 | 10.1 | 12.4 | 14.8 | 17.7 | 20.1 | 40
United Kingdom | 15.1 | 15.6 | 16.2 | 16.9 | 17.5 | 18.1 | 18.6 | 19.0 | 19.3 | 19.5 | 19.4 | 39
Russia | 10.9 | 12.2 | 13.1 | 13.8 | 14.6 | 15.3 | 16.2 | 16.8 | 17.2 | 17.5 | 17.7 | 66
United States | 14.8 | 15.2 | 15.7 | 16.0 | 16.3 | 16.6 | 17.0 | 17.3 | 17.5 | 17.6 | 17.7 | 51
Other countries | 199.1 | 211.9 | 227.0 | 242.8 | 259.0 | 276.6 | 296.4 | 313.9 | 330.4 | 344.0 | 354.1 |
Total | 405.1 | 445.4 | 488.8 | 526.8 | 569.1 | 616.3 | 663.9 | 704.5 | 741.8 | 772.5 | 799.8 | 48
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
POLAND
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2011 (%)
Ukraine | .. | .. | .. | .. | 227.5 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Germany | .. | .. | .. | .. | 84.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Belarus | .. | .. | .. | .. | 83.6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Lithuania | .. | .. | .. | .. | 55.6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
United Kingdom | .. | .. | .. | .. | 38.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Ireland | .. | .. | .. | .. | 8.4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | .. | 177.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
Total | .. | .. | .. | .. | 674.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
PORTUGAL
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2011 (%)
Angola | .. | .. | .. | .. | 162.6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 54
Brazil | .. | .. | .. | .. | 139.7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 58
France | .. | .. | .. | .. | 94.5 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 54
Mozambique | .. | .. | .. | .. | 73.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 54
Cabo Verde | .. | .. | .. | .. | 62.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 53
Guinea-Bissau | .. | .. | .. | .. | 29.6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 44
Germany | .. | .. | .. | .. | 28.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 52
Venezuela | .. | .. | .. | .. | 25.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 54
Romania | .. | .. | .. | .. | 23.7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 49
United Kingdom | .. | .. | .. | .. | 19.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 50
Sao Tome and Principe | .. | .. | .. | .. | 18.6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 56
Spain | .. | .. | .. | .. | 16.5 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 57
Switzerland | .. | .. | .. | .. | 16.5 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 49
South Africa | .. | .. | .. | .. | 11.5 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 53
China | .. | .. | .. | .. | 10.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 48
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | .. | 140.5 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
Total | .. | .. | .. | .. | 871.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 53
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
RUSSIA
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2011 (%)
Ukraine | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2 942.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 54
Kazakhstan | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2 481.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 54
Uzbekistan | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1 111.7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 47
Azerbaijan | .. | .. | .. | .. | 743.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 44
Belarus | .. | .. | .. | .. | 740.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 57
Kyrgyzstan | .. | .. | .. | .. | 573.3 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 51
Armenia | .. | .. | .. | .. | 511.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 44
Tajikistan | .. | .. | .. | .. | 452.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 41
Georgia | .. | .. | .. | .. | 436.4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 46
Moldova | .. | .. | .. | .. | 285.3 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 47
Turkmenistan | .. | .. | .. | .. | 180.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 52
Germany | .. | .. | .. | .. | 137.7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 50
Latvia | .. | .. | .. | .. | 86.7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 53
Lithuania | .. | .. | .. | .. | 68.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 53
Estonia | .. | .. | .. | .. | 57.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 53
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | .. | 385.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
Total | .. | .. | .. | .. | 11 194.7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 51
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Czech Republic | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 86.4 | 88.2 | 88.0 | 87.8 | 88.0 | 55
Hungary | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 16.6 | 17.3 | 17.1 | 16.8 | 16.6 | 50
Ukraine | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 9.8 | 9.9 | 10.1 | 10.5 | 10.7 | 59
Romania | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 5.3 | 8.1 | 8.3 | 8.7 | 9.1 | 36
United Kingdom | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 4.9 | 4.8 | 5.5 | 6.3 | 7.2 | 44
Poland | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 4.6 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 6.9 | 7.0 | 52
Germany | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 3.0 | 4.6 | 4.8 | 5.1 | 5.4 | 34
Austria | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.6 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 3.7 | 4.0 | 41
Italy | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.9 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 25
France | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.3 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 45
Russia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.3 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 64
Bulgaria | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.3 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 31
United States | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.3 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 47
Viet Nam | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.6 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 39
Serbia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.6 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 36
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 11.6 | 15.7 | 16.7 | 18.2 | 19.6 |
Total | .. | .. | .. | 140.7 | 145.7 | 156.9 | 158.2 | 174.9 | 177.6 | 181.6 | 186.2 | 49
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
SLOVENIA
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Bosnia and Herzegovina | .. | .. | .. | .. | 96.9 | 106.8 | 112.0 | 115.1 | 119.1 | 118.6 | 122.9 | 39
Croatia | .. | .. | .. | .. | 49.2 | 56.6 | 63.3 | 62.2 | 61.6 | 61.6 | 61.3 | 51
Serbia | .. | .. | .. | .. | 29.2 | 34.7 | 36.7 | 38.4 | 39.5 | 39.4 | 40.7 | 43
Germany | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 15.4 | 21.5 | 21.7 | 22.0 | 22.0 | 22.3 | 50
Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia | .. | .. | .. | .. | 13.7 | 16.0 | 17.5 | 18.5 | 19.2 | 19.1 | 19.8 | 40
Italy | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 4.6 | 8.5 | 9.1 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.8 | 45
Austria | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 5.9 | 8.4 | 8.7 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 9.4 | 51
Argentina | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.4 | 4.6 | 4.8 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.1 | 51
Switzerland | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.0 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.2 | 48
France | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.8 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 50
Russia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.3 | 1.9 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.2 | 57
Canada | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.5 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 51
Ukraine | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.8 | 1.9 | 2.1 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 65
United States | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.9 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 48
Australia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.5 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 50
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | .. | 39.7 | 22.6 | 9.9 | 34.1 | 36.6 | 36.4 | 38.4 |
Total | .. | .. | .. | .. | 228.6 | 271.8 | 299.7 | 331.0 | 341.2 | 340.3 | 350.3 | 44
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
SPAIN
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Morocco | 621.3 | 688.7 | 743.5 | 763.7 | 767.0 | 762.4 | 740.1 | 712.5 | 699.9 | 696.8 | 700.4 | 45
Romania | 511.0 | 692.9 | 727.5 | 727.5 | 736.3 | 750.4 | 715.0 | 670.1 | 646.2 | 627.8 | 606.5 | 51
Ecuador | 434.7 | 477.1 | 499.0 | 496.7 | 484.8 | 471.3 | 452.4 | 429.4 | 416.4 | 409.4 | 408.7 | 53
Colombia | 291.7 | 341.2 | 368.5 | 376.2 | 375.9 | 373.6 | 366.0 | 353.2 | 347.5 | 347.2 | 362.2 | 59
United Kingdom | 322.0 | 308.2 | 317.7 | 319.1 | 317.5 | 318.7 | 321.1 | 314.4 | 306.0 | 300.3 | 297.5 | 50
Argentina | 273.0 | 282.2 | 288.0 | 282.6 | 276.4 | 270.9 | 264.0 | 255.3 | 251.8 | 252.1 | 255.7 | 49
France | 208.8 | 207.6 | 210.6 | 210.0 | 208.3 | 209.2 | 208.4 | 205.4 | 203.7 | 204.4 | 205.4 | 51
Venezuela | 130.6 | 138.2 | 145.6 | 148.1 | 151.9 | 155.8 | 156.3 | 154.3 | 160.5 | 174.0 | 199.4 | 54
Germany | 222.1 | 209.1 | 212.9 | 212.9 | 210.8 | 210.2 | 209.6 | 204.5 | 200.6 | 197.2 | 196.0 | 51
Peru | 137.0 | 164.9 | 189.7 | 197.8 | 198.6 | 198.0 | 193.6 | 186.9 | 184.8 | 185.8 | 190.9 | 56
Dominican Republic | 96.7 | 114.6 | 129.8 | 137.0 | 141.2 | 148.0 | 152.9 | 154.1 | 156.9 | 159.7 | 164.3 | 61
China | 108.3 | 127.8 | 146.4 | 154.9 | 161.0 | 163.7 | 160.5 | 155.7 | 155.7 | 158.7 | 162.0 | 54
Bolivia | 200.7 | 237.2 | 230.1 | 216.0 | 201.6 | 188.7 | 174.3 | 157.5 | 150.7 | 148.3 | 148.8 | 61
Cuba | 83.1 | 91.1 | 99.1 | 103.2 | 109.5 | 118.6 | 124.0 | 127.5 | 131.1 | 134.8 | 139.3 | 55
Italy | 69.6 | 77.5 | 84.1 | 87.3 | 89.9 | 94.8 | 99.3 | 102.1 | 106.3 | 114.2 | 123.0 | 40
Other countries | 1 539.6 | 1 720.4 | 1 833.0 | 1 847.0 | 1 851.6 | 1 860.5 | 1 837.1 | 1 775.3 | 1 773.1 | 1 807.6 | 1 865.2 |
Total | 5 250.0 | 5 878.9 | 6 225.5 | 6 280.1 | 6 282.2 | 6 295.0 | 6 174.7 | 5 958.3 | 5 891.2 | 5 918.3 | 6 025.1 | 52
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
SWEDEN
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017(%)
Finland | 180.9 | 178.2 | 175.1 | 172.2 | 169.5 | 166.7 | 163.9 | 161.1 | 158.5 | 156.0 | 153.6 | 60
Syria | 17.8 | 18.2 | 18.8 | 19.6 | 20.8 | 22.4 | 27.5 | 41.7 | 67.7 | 98.2 | 149.4 | 41
Iraq | 82.8 | 97.5 | 109.4 | 117.9 | 121.8 | 125.5 | 127.9 | 128.9 | 130.2 | 131.9 | 135.1 | 46
Poland | 51.7 | 58.2 | 63.8 | 67.5 | 70.3 | 72.9 | 75.3 | 78.2 | 81.7 | 85.5 | 88.7 | 54
Iran | 55.7 | 56.5 | 57.7 | 59.9 | 62.1 | 63.8 | 65.6 | 67.2 | 68.4 | 69.1 | 70.6 | 48
Former Yugoslavia | 73.7 | 72.9 | 72.3 | 71.6 | 70.8 | 70.1 | 69.3 | 68.6 | 67.9 | 67.2 | 66.5 | 50
Somalia | 18.3 | 21.6 | 25.2 | 31.7 | 37.8 | 40.2 | 44.0 | 54.2 | 57.9 | 60.6 | 63.9 | 50
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 55.5 | 55.7 | 56.0 | 56.1 | 56.2 | 56.3 | 56.6 | 56.8 | 57.3 | 57.7 | 58.2 | 50
Germany | 43.0 | 45.0 | 46.9 | 47.8 | 48.2 | 48.4 | 48.7 | 49.0 | 49.4 | 49.6 | 50.2 | 53
Turkey | 37.1 | 38.2 | 39.2 | 40.8 | 42.5 | 43.9 | 45.1 | 45.7 | 46.1 | 46.4 | 47.1 | 45
Norway | 44.7 | 44.6 | 44.3 | 43.8 | 43.4 | 43.1 | 42.9 | 42.5 | 42.3 | 42.1 | 42.1 | 55
Denmark | 44.4 | 45.9 | 46.2 | 46.0 | 45.5 | 45.0 | 44.2 | 43.2 | 42.4 | 41.9 | 41.2 | 47
Thailand | 20.5 | 22.9 | 25.9 | 28.7 | 31.4 | 33.6 | 35.6 | 37.0 | 38.1 | 38.8 | 39.9 | 78
Eritrea | 6.1 | 6.8 | 7.8 | 9.0 | 10.3 | 12.0 | 13.7 | 16.6 | 21.8 | 28.6 | 35.1 | 44
Afghanistan | 9.9 | 10.6 | 11.4 | 12.7 | 14.4 | 17.5 | 21.5 | 25.1 | 28.4 | 31.3 | 34.8 | 39
Other countries | 432.9 | 454.9 | 481.7 | 512.5 | 539.9 | 566.1 | 591.5 | 617.6 | 645.4 | 671.4 | 708.1 |
Total | 1 175.2 | 1 227.8 | 1 281.6 | 1 338.0 | 1 384.9 | 1 427.3 | 1 473.3 | 1 533.5 | 1 603.6 | 1 676.3 | 1 784.5 | 50
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
SWITZERLAND
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Germany | .. | .. | .. | .. | 318.9 | 330.0 | 337.4 | 343.6 | 348.1 | 350.5 | 352.2 | 50
Italy | .. | .. | .. | .. | 233.1 | 241.0 | 244.7 | 251.3 | 258.3 | 263.3 | 267.3 | 44
Portugal | .. | .. | .. | .. | 172.3 | 187.4 | 199.2 | 211.5 | 218.7 | 222.3 | 223.1 | 46
France | .. | .. | .. | .. | 132.3 | 138.4 | 141.4 | 146.8 | 153.1 | 158.6 | 162.5 | 51
Turkey | .. | .. | .. | .. | 76.0 | 76.9 | 77.4 | 77.9 | 78.2 | 78.7 | 79.2 | 47
Spain | .. | .. | .. | .. | 53.5 | 57.2 | 59.8 | 64.1 | 67.1 | 68.9 | 69.4 | 49
Serbia | .. | .. | .. | .. | 59.1 | 61.7 | 62.7 | 65.6 | 66.2 | 67.4 | 68.2 | 51
Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia | .. | .. | .. | .. | 51.7 | 53.5 | 55.1 | 57.0 | 59.2 | 61.4 | 64.3 | 48
Austria | .. | .. | .. | .. | 58.8 | 59.2 | 59.7 | 59.9 | 60.0 | 60.1 | 59.8 | 60
Bosnia and Herzegovina | .. | .. | .. | .. | 51.1 | 52.4 | 53.2 | 54.1 | 55.4 | 56.4 | 56.9 | 52
United Kingdom | .. | .. | .. | .. | 41.1 | 43.7 | 44.2 | 44.8 | 45.2 | 45.2 | 45.0 | 47
Brazil | .. | .. | .. | .. | 32.3 | 33.4 | 34.4 | 35.5 | 36.6 | 37.8 | 39.1 | 70
United States | .. | .. | .. | .. | 33.7 | 34.9 | 35.4 | 35.9 | 36.3 | 36.6 | 37.0 | 52
Poland | .. | .. | .. | .. | 21.5 | 24.0 | 26.2 | 28.1 | 31.6 | 34.7 | 36.7 | 55
Sri Lanka | .. | .. | .. | .. | 28.6 | 29.6 | 30.0 | 30.6 | 31.3 | 32.6 | 34.2 | 46
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | .. | 711.2 | 734.9 | 757.7 | 782.9 | 809.6 | 841.8 | 885.1 |
Total | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2 075.2 | 2 158.4 | 2 218.4 | 2 289.6 | 2 354.8 | 2 416.4 | 2 480.0 | 51
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
TURKEY
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Bulgaria | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 378.7 | 374.0 | 54
Germany | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 263.3 | 272.7 | 53
Iraq | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 97.5 | 146.1 | 45
Syria | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 76.4 | 98.1 | 42
Azerbaijan | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 52.8 | 64.2 | 56
Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 43.4 | 59.3 | 43
Afghanistan | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 38.7 | 47.5 | 47
Iran | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 36.2 | 43.7 | 65
Uzbekistan | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 36.1 | 42.3 | 54
Russia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 34.5 | 37.8 | 70
Netherlands | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 32.3 | 34.1 | 54
United Kingdom | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 32.1 | 33.3 | 50
France | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 28.5 | 32.4 | 54
Greece | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 26.9 | 30.3 | 64
Belgium | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 26.5 | 28.4 | 54
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 388.3 | 433.2 |
Total | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1 592.4 | 1 777.3 | 53
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
UNITED KINGDOM
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Poland | 423 | 495 | 540 | 534 | 617 | 658 | 650 | 764 | 783 | 936 | 878 | 51
India | 553 | 601 | 661 | 687 | 686 | 750 | 746 | 733 | 784 | 755 | 799 | 49
Pakistan | 357 | 422 | 427 | 382 | 441 | 432 | 476 | 419 | 510 | 482 | 535 | 47
Romania | 26 | 39 | 55 | 77 | 82 | 118 | 151 | 162 | 220 | 306 | 373 | 48
Ireland | 410 | 420 | 401 | 401 | 429 | 429 | 400 | 346 | 372 | 365 | 372 | 56
Germany | 253 | 273 | 296 | 301 | 292 | 303 | 343 | 279 | 252 | 337 | 304 | 61
South Africa | 194 | 204 | 220 | 227 | 208 | 208 | 224 | 201 | 178 | 195 | 275 | 54
Bangladesh | 202 | 193 | 199 | 193 | 219 | 191 | 184 | 187 | 198 | 230 | 261 | 48
Italy | 102 | 108 | 117 | 130 | 150 | 135 | 142 | 159 | 168 | 239 | 240 | 51
Nigeria | 147 | 137 | 166 | 167 | 203 | 162 | 202 | 170 | 206 | 222 | 201 | 50
France | 134 | 129 | 144 | 122 | 132 | 146 | 128 | 127 | 174 | 167 | 191 | 46
Lithuania | 55 | 70 | 62 | 91 | 118 | 117 | 140 | 137 | 171 | 178 | 172 | 53
Portugal | 73 | 91 | 81 | 91 | 104 | 84 | 114 | 111 | 141 | 157 | 161 | 57
Philippines | 107 | 101 | 134 | 110 | 140 | 134 | 129 | 124 | 150 | 145 | 158 | 62
Spain | 62 | 65 | 50 | 67 | 52 | 85 | 73 | 118 | 128 | 130 | 155 | 52
Other countries | 3 094 | 3 285 | 3 346 | 3 476 | 3 557 | 3 636 | 3 758 | 4 027 | 4 047 | 4 144 | 4 294 |
Total | 6 192 | 6 633 | 6 899 | 7 056 | 7 430 | 7 588 | 7 860 | 8 064 | 8 482 | 8 988 | 9 369 | 52
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Table B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population by country of birth
UNITED STATES
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Mexico | 11 535.0 | 11 739.6 | 11 451.3 | 11 478.2 | 11 746.5 | 11 691.6 | 11 489.4 | 11 556.5 | 11 714.5 | 11 643.3 | 11 573.7 | ..
India | 1 505.4 | 1 514.0 | 1 626.9 | 1 665.1 | 1 796.5 | 1 855.7 | 1 974.3 | 2 036.3 | 2 205.9 | 2 389.6 | 2 434.5 | ..
China | 1 357.5 | 1 367.8 | 1 339.1 | 1 425.8 | 1 604.4 | 1 651.5 | 1 719.8 | 1 786.1 | 1 929.5 | 2 065.4 | 2 130.4 | ..
Philippines | 1 634.1 | 1 708.5 | 1 685.1 | 1 733.9 | 1 766.5 | 1 814.9 | 1 862.0 | 1 863.5 | 1 926.3 | 1 982.4 | 1 941.7 | ..
El Salvador | 1 042.2 | 1 108.3 | 1 078.3 | 1 157.2 | 1 207.1 | 1 245.5 | 1 254.5 | 1 247.5 | 1 315.5 | 1 352.4 | 1 387.0 | ..
Viet Nam | 1 116.2 | 1 102.2 | 1 154.7 | 1 149.4 | 1 243.8 | 1 253.9 | 1 264.2 | 1 308.2 | 1 291.8 | 1 300.5 | 1 352.8 | ..
Cuba | 932.6 | 980.0 | 987.8 | 982.9 | 1 112.1 | 1 090.6 | 1 114.9 | 1 138.2 | 1 172.9 | 1 210.7 | 1 271.6 | ..
Dominican Republic | 764.9 | 747.9 | 779.2 | 791.6 | 879.9 | 878.9 | 960.2 | 1 010.7 | 997.7 | 1 063.2 | 1 085.3 | ..
Korea | 1 021.2 | 1 050.7 | 1 034.7 | 1 012.9 | 1 086.9 | 1 095.1 | 1 105.7 | 1 081.2 | 1 079.8 | 1 060.0 | 1 041.7 | ..
Guatemala | 741.0 | 683.8 | 743.8 | 790.5 | 797.3 | 844.3 | 880.9 | 900.5 | 915.6 | 927.6 | 935.7 | ..
Canada | 847.2 | 816.4 | 824.3 | 814.1 | 785.6 | 787.5 | 799.1 | 841.1 | 806.4 | 830.6 | 783.2 | ..
Jamaica | 643.1 | 587.6 | 631.7 | 645.0 | 650.8 | 694.6 | 668.8 | 705.3 | 705.8 | 711.1 | 736.3 | ..
Colombia | 589.1 | 603.7 | 603.3 | 617.7 | 648.3 | 655.1 | 705.0 | 679.6 | 706.8 | 699.4 | 704.6 | ..
United Kingdom | 677.1 | 678.1 | 692.4 | 688.3 | 676.6 | 684.6 | 686.7 | 706.0 | 679.1 | 683.5 | 696.9 | ..
Haiti | 495.8 | 544.5 | 545.8 | 536.0 | 596.4 | 602.7 | 616.0 | 599.6 | 628.0 | 675.5 | 668.2 | ..
Other countries | 12 567.1 | 12 815.5 | 12 837.6 | 12 964.4 | 13 318.2 | 13 535.1 | 13 636.9 | 13 883.9 | 14 315.1 | 14 694.3 | 14 995.3 |
Total | 37 469.4 | 38 048.5 | 38 016.1 | 38 452.8 | 39 916.9 | 40 381.6 | 40 738.2 | 41 344.4 | 42 390.7 | 43 289.6 | 43 738.9 | ..
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752220

Metadata related to Tables A.4. and B.4. Stocks of foreign-born population
Country | Comments | Source
Australia | ® Estimated residential population. Reference date: 30 June. | Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).
Austria | ® Stock of foreign-born residents recorded in the population register. Revised data for 2002-07 to be consistent with the results of the 2006 census. Reference date: 1 January. | Population Register, Statistics Austria.
Belgium | ® Stock of foreign-born recorded in the population register. Includes asylum seekers from 2008 on. | Population Register, Directorate for Statistics and Economic Information (DGSIE).

Canada

® 2006 and 2011: National Household Survey. The foreign-born population covers all persons who are or have ever been a landed immigrant/permanent resident in Canada. The foreign-born population does not include non-permanent residents, on employment or student authorizations, or who are refugee claimants.

ɛ PM for other years.

Statistics Canada.

Chile | ® Register of residence permits. | Department of Foreigners and Migration, Ministry of the Interior.
Czech Republic | ® 2011 Census. Numbers of persons born abroad, of foreign or Czech nationality. ɛ CM for other years. | Czech Statistical Office.
Denmark | ® Immigrants according to the national definition, e.g. persons born abroad to parents both foreigner or born abroad. When no information is available on the parents' nationality/country of birth, foreign-born persons are classified as immigrants. | Statistics Denmark.
Estonia | ® National population register. | Ministry of the Interior.
Finland | ® Population register. Includes foreign-born persons of Finnish origin. | Central Population Register, Statistics Finland.
France | From 2006 on, annual censuses. 2012 to 2015 estimated totals are based on Eurostat data. Includes the département of Mayotte from 2014. Including persons who were born French abroad. | National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE).
Germany | ® Microcensus. Includes ethnic Germans (Aussiedler). | Federal Statistical Office.
Greece | ® From 2010 on: Labour Force Surveys. Prior to 2014: 4th quarter; From 2014 on: 2nd quarter. | Hellenic Statistical authority.
Hungary | ® Includes foreigners and nationals. From 2010 on, includes third-country nationals holding a temporary residence permit (for a year or more). From 2011 on, includes persons under subsidiary protection. Data for 2011 were adjusted to match the October census results. Reference date: 1 January. | Office of Immigration and Nationality; Central Office Administrative and Electronic Public Services (Central Population Register); Central Statistical Office.
Iceland | ® National population register. Numbers from the register are likely to be overestimated. Reference date: 1 January. | Statistics Iceland.
Ireland | ® 2011 and 2016 Censuses. Persons usually resident and present in their usual residence on census night. | Central Statistics Office.

Israel

Estimates are based on the results of the Population Censuses and on the changes that occurred in the population after the Censuses, as recorded in the Population Register. They include Jews and foreign-born members of other religions (usually family members of Jewish immigrants). The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

Central Bureau of Statistics.

Italy | ® Population register. | National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT).
Latvia | ® Population register. Reference date: 1 January. | Central Statistical Office.
Luxembourg | ® 2010: Census. ɛ CM for other years. | Central Office of Statistics and Economic Studies (Statec).
Mexico | ® 2010 census; 2015 Intercensal Survey. ɛ Other years, estimation from the National Survey on Occupation and Employment (ENOE). | National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI).
Netherlands | ® Reference date: 1 January. | Population register, Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS).
New Zealand | ® 2006 and 2013 Censuses. ɛ PM for other years. | Statistics New Zealand.
Norway | ® Reference date: 1 January. | Central Population Register, Statistics Norway.
Poland | ®2011 Census. Excluding foreign temporary residents who, at the time of the census, had been staying at a given address in Poland for less than 12 months. Country of birth in accordance with administrative boundaries at the time of the census. | Central Statistical Office.
Portugal | ® 2011 census. | National Statistical Institute (INE).
Russia | ® 2010 Census. | Federal state statistics service (Rosstat).
Slovak Republic | ® Population Register. | Ministry of the Interior.
Slovenia | ® Central Population Register. | Ministry of the Interior.
Spain | ® Population register. Foreign-born recorded in the Municipal Registers irrespective of their legal status. Reference date: 1 January. | Municipal Registers, National Statistics Institute (INE).
Sweden | ® Reference date: 1 January. | Population Register, Statistics Sweden.
Switzerland | ® 2010 Population Register of the Confederation. ɛ CM for other years. | Federal Statistical Office.
Turkey |  | Ministry of Labour and Social Security
United Kingdom | ® From 2006 on: Labour Force Survey. Foreign-born residents. ɛ PM for other years. Figures are rounded to the closest thousand. | Office for National Statistics.
United States | ® Includes persons who are naturalised and persons who are in an unauthorised status. Excludes children born abroad to US citizen parents. | American Community Survey, Census Bureau.
Notes: ® Observed figures.

ɛ Estimates (in italic) made by means of the complement method (CM) or the parametric method (PM). No estimate is made by country of birth (Tables B.4). Data for Serbia include persons from Serbia, Montenegro and Serbia and Montenegro. Some statements may refer to nationalities/countries of birth not shown in this annex but available on line at: http://stats.oecd.org/.

Table A.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality in OECD countries and in Russia
Thousands and percentages
|  | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
Austria | 804.8 | 829.7 | 860.0 | 883.6 | 913.2 | 951.4 | 1 004.3 | 1 066.1 | 1 146.1 | 1 267.7 | 1 341.9
% of total population | 9.7 | 10.0 | 10.3 | 10.5 | 10.8 | 11.3 | 11.8 | 12.5 | 13.4 | 14.6 | 15.4
Belgium | 932.2 | 971.4 | 1 013.3 | 1 057.7 | 1 119.3 | 1 169.1 | 1 257.2 | 1 268.1 | 1 276.9 | 1 333.2 | 1 366.5
% of total population | 8.7 | 9.0 | 9.3 | 9.7 | 10.2 | 10.6 | 11.3 | 11.3 | 11.3 | 11.7 | 12.0
Canada | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1 957.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
% of total population | .. | .. | .. | .. | 5.6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Czech Republic | 321.5 | 392.3 | 437.6 | 432.5 | 424.3 | 434.2 | 435.9 | 439.2 | 449.4 | 464.7 | 493.4
% of total population | 3.1 | 3.8 | 4.2 | 4.1 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.1 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.6
Denmark | 278.1 | 298.5 | 320.2 | 329.9 | 346.0 | 358.9 | 374.7 | 397.3 | 422.6 | 463.1 | 485.0
% of total population | 5.1 | 5.4 | 5.8 | 5.9 | 6.2 | 6.4 | 6.7 | 7.0 | 7.5 | 8.1 | 8.5
Estonia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 211.1 | 210.9 | 211.7 | 211.4 | 211.5 | 212.2
% of total population | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 15.9 | 16.0 | 16.1 | 16.1 | 16.1 | 16.2
Finland | 121.7 | 132.7 | 143.3 | 155.7 | 168.0 | 183.1 | 195.5 | 207.5 | 219.7 | 229.8 | 243.6
% of total population | 2.3 | 2.5 | 2.7 | 2.9 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 4.2 | 4.4
France | 3 731.2 | 3 773.2 | 3 821.5 | 3 892.8 | 3 980.6 | 4 083.9 | 4 177.7 | 4 351.0 | 4 399.7 | 4 632.1 | ..
% of total population | 6.0 | 6.0 | 6.1 | 6.2 | 6.3 | 6.4 | 6.5 | 6.8 | 6.8 | 7.1 | ..
Germany | 6 751.0 | 6 744.9 | 6 727.6 | 6 694.8 | 6 753.6 | 6 930.9 | 7 213.7 | 7 633.6 | 8 153.0 | 9 107.9 | 10 039.1
% of total population | 8.3 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.3 | 8.4 | 8.6 | 9.0 | 9.5 | 10.1 | 11.1 | 12.2
Greece | 643.1 | 733.6 | 839.7 | 810.0 | 757.4 | 768.1 | 687.1 | 706.7 | 686.4 | 538.4 | ..
% of total population | 5.8 | 6.6 | 7.5 | 7.3 | 6.8 | 6.9 | 6.2 | 6.5 | 6.1 | 4.8 | ..
Hungary | 166.0 | 174.7 | 184.4 | 197.8 | 209.2 | 143.4 | 141.4 | 140.5 | 146.0 | 156.6 | 151.1
% of total population | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.6
Iceland | 18.6 | 23.4 | 24.4 | 21.7 | 21.1 | 21.0 | 21.4 | 22.7 | 24.3 | 26.5 | 30.3
% of total population | 6.1 | 7.6 | 7.8 | 6.8 | 6.6 | 6.5 | 6.6 | 6.9 | 7.4 | 8.0 | 9.0
Ireland | 519.6 | 575.6 | 575.4 | 598.1 | 537.0 | 550.4 | 554.5 | 564.3 | 607.4 | .. | ..
% of total population | 11.6 | 12.6 | 12.5 | 12.9 | 11.5 | 11.8 | 11.9 | 12.0 | 12.9 | .. | ..
Italy | 2 938.9 | 3 432.7 | 3 402.4 | 3 648.1 | 3 879.2 | 4 052.1 | 4 387.7 | 4 921.3 | 5 014.4 | 5 026.9 | 5 047.0
% of total population | 5.0 | 5.8 | 5.7 | 6.1 | 6.5 | 6.8 | 7.3 | 8.2 | 8.4 | 8.5 | 8.5
Japan | 2 083.2 | 2 151.4 | 2 215.9 | 2 184.7 | 2 132.9 | 2 078.5 | 2 033.7 | 2 066.4 | 2 121.8 | 2 232.2 | 2 382.8
% of total population | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.9
Korea | 800.3 | 895.5 | 920.9 | 1 002.7 | 982.5 | 933.0 | 985.9 | 1 091.5 | 1 143.1 | 1 161.7 | ..
% of total population | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.3 | ..
Latvia | 433.0 | 404.9 | 382.7 | 362.4 | 342.8 | 324.3 | 315.4 | 304.8 | 298.4 | 288.9 | 279.4
% of total population | 19.9 | 18.9 | 18.1 | 17.3 | 16.6 | 15.9 | 15.7 | 15.3 | 15.1 | 14.7 | 14.3
Luxembourg | 198.3 | 205.9 | 215.5 | 216.3 | 220.5 | 229.9 | 238.8 | 248.9 | 258.7 | 269.2 | 281.5
% of total population | 41.8 | 42.4 | 43.4 | 42.6 | 42.4 | 43.2 | 43.8 | 44.7 | 45.6 | 46.8 | 48.2
Mexico | .. | .. | .. | 262.7 | 281.1 | 303.9 | 296.4 | .. | 326.0 | 355.2 | 381.7
% of total population | .. | .. | .. | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | .. | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3
Netherlands | 681.9 | 688.4 | 719.5 | 735.2 | 760.4 | 786.1 | 796.2 | 816.0 | 847.3 | 900.5 | 972.3
% of total population | 4.1 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.8 | 5.0 | 5.3 | 5.7
Norway | 238.3 | 266.3 | 303.0 | 333.9 | 369.2 | 407.3 | 448.8 | 483.2 | 512.2 | 538.2 | 559.2
% of total population | 5.1 | 5.6 | 6.3 | 6.8 | 7.5 | 8.1 | 8.8 | 9.4 | 9.8 | 10.2 | 10.5
Poland | 54.9 | 57.5 | 60.4 | 49.6 | .. | 55.4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
% of total population | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | .. | 0.1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Portugal | 420.2 | 435.7 | 440.6 | 454.2 | 445.3 | 436.8 | 417.0 | 401.3 | 395.2 | 388.7 | 397.7
% of total population | 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 4.0 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 3.7 | 3.9
Russia | .. | .. | .. | 687.0 | 490.3 | 621.0 | 715.8 | 872.6 | 1 039.0 | 1 104.7 | ..
% of total population | .. | .. | .. | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | ..
Slovak Republic | 32.1 | 40.9 | 52.5 | 62.9 | 68.0 | 70.7 | 72.9 | 59.2 | 61.8 | 65.8 | 69.7
% of total population | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3
Slovenia | .. | .. | .. | 99.8 | 95.7 | 101.9 | 103.3 | 110.9 | 117.7 | 126.9 | 150.9
% of total population | .. | .. | .. | 4.9 | 4.6 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 5.4 | 5.7 | 6.1 | 7.3
Spain | 4 519.6 | 5 086.3 | 5 386.7 | 5 402.6 | 5 312.4 | 5 236.0 | 5 072.7 | 4 677.1 | 4 454.4 | 4 417.5 | 4 424.4
% of total population | 10.0 | 11.1 | 11.6 | 11.6 | 11.4 | 11.2 | 10.9 | 10.1 | 9.7 | 9.5 | 9.5
Sweden | 492.0 | 524.5 | 562.1 | 602.9 | 633.3 | 655.1 | 667.2 | 694.7 | 739.4 | 782.8 | 851.9
% of total population | 5.4 | 5.7 | 6.0 | 6.4 | 6.7 | 6.9 | 6.9 | 7.2 | 7.6 | 8.0 | 8.6
Switzerland | 1 523.6 | 1 571.0 | 1 638.9 | 1 680.2 | 1 720.4 | 1 772.3 | 1 825.1 | 1 886.6 | 1 947.0 | 1 993.9 | 2 029.5
% of total population | 20.2 | 20.5 | 21.2 | 21.5 | 21.7 | 22.1 | 22.5 | 23.0 | 23.5 | 23.7 | 23.9
Turkey | .. | 98.1 | 104.4 | 167.3 | 190.5 | 242.1 | 278.7 | 456.5 | 518.3 | 650.3 | 816.4
% of total population | .. | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 1.0
United Kingdom | 3 824.0 | 4 186.0 | 4 348.0 | 4 524.0 | 4 785.0 | 4 788.0 | 4 941.0 | 5 154.0 | 5 592.0 | 5 951.0 | 6 137.0
% of total population | 6.3 | 6.8 | 7.0 | 7.2 | 7.6 | 7.5 | 7.7 | 8.0 | 8.6 | 9.0 | 9.3
United States | 21 696.3 | 21 843.6 | 21 685.7 | 21 641.0 | 22 460.6 | 22 225.5 | 22 115.0 | 22 016.4 | 22 263.4 | 22 426.2 | 22 415.3
% of total population | 7.2 | 7.2 | 7.1 | 7.0 | 7.2 | 7.1 | 7.0 | 6.9 | 6.9 | 7.0 | 6.9
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the Tables B.5.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752144

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
AUSTRIA
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Germany | 109.2 | 118.9 | 128.7 | 136.0 | 144.1 | 150.9 | 157.8 | 164.8 | 170.5 | 176.5 | 181.6 | 50
Serbia | 135.8 | 123.6 | 123.1 | 110.3 | 111.4 | 111.4 | 112.2 | 113.5 | 115.4 | 117.9 | 119.7 | 49
Turkey | 108.2 | 108.8 | 110.0 | 111.3 | 112.5 | 112.9 | 113.7 | 114.7 | 115.4 | 116.0 | 116.8 | 49
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 86.2 | 92.6 | 91.8 | 90.5 | 89.6 | 89.6 | 89.9 | 91.0 | 92.5 | 94.0 | 94.6 | 46
Romania | 21.9 | 27.7 | 32.2 | 36.0 | 41.6 | 47.3 | 53.3 | 59.7 | 73.4 | 82.9 | 92.1 | 52
Croatia | 56.8 | 59.2 | 58.9 | 58.5 | 58.3 | 58.3 | 58.6 | 62.0 | 66.5 | 70.2 | 73.3 | 47
Hungary | 17.4 | 19.2 | 21.3 | 23.3 | 25.6 | 29.8 | 37.0 | 46.3 | 54.9 | 63.6 | 70.6 | 52
Poland | 33.3 | 35.3 | 36.6 | 37.2 | 38.6 | 42.1 | 46.0 | 50.3 | 54.3 | 57.6 | 60.1 | 48
Afghanistan | 3.1 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 5.7 | 6.7 | 9.4 | 12.4 | 14.0 | 16.8 | 35.6 | 45.3 | 30
Syria | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 2.7 | 4.3 | 11.3 | 33.3 | 41.7 | 38
Slovak Republic | 14.2 | 15.8 | 17.9 | 19.2 | 20.4 | 22.5 | 25.3 | 28.6 | 32.1 | 35.3 | 38.1 | 61
Russia | 18.8 | 21.1 | 22.5 | 23.4 | 24.2 | 25.5 | 27.3 | 28.8 | 30.0 | 31.2 | 32.0 | 57
Italy | 12.7 | 13.2 | 13.9 | 14.5 | 15.4 | 16.2 | 17.8 | 20.2 | 22.5 | 25.3 | 27.3 | 42
Bulgaria | 6.4 | 7.6 | 8.9 | 9.8 | 11.2 | 12.5 | 14.1 | 15.9 | 19.6 | 22.4 | 24.9 | 52
Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia | 16.3 | 17.5 | 17.9 | 18.1 | 18.6 | 18.9 | 19.4 | 20.1 | 20.9 | 21.7 | 22.4 | 48
Other countries | 163.6 | 164.0 | 170.6 | 188.2 | 193.6 | 202.3 | 216.7 | 231.9 | 250.1 | 284.1 | 301.4 |
Total | 804.8 | 829.7 | 860.0 | 883.6 | 913.2 | 951.4 | 1 004.3 | 1 066.1 | 1 146.1 | 1 267.7 | 1 341.9 | 49
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
BELGIUM
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
France | 125.1 | 130.6 | 136.6 | 140.2 | 145.3 | 150.0 | 153.4 | 156.1 | 158.8 | 161.8 | 165.2 | 52
Italy | 171.9 | 169.0 | 167.0 | 165.1 | 162.8 | 159.7 | 157.4 | 156.6 | 156.6 | 156.8 | 156.8 | 46
Netherlands | 117.0 | 123.5 | 130.2 | 133.5 | 137.8 | 141.2 | 144.0 | 146.2 | 148.9 | 151.7 | 153.8 | 47
Morocco | 80.6 | 79.9 | 79.4 | 81.9 | 84.7 | 86.1 | 83.5 | 81.0 | 82.3 | 83.0 | 82.9 | 51
Romania | 10.2 | 15.3 | 21.4 | 26.4 | 33.6 | 42.4 | 51.3 | 57.0 | 65.3 | 73.2 | 80.9 | 45
Poland | 23.2 | 30.4 | 36.3 | 43.1 | 49.7 | 56.1 | 61.5 | 65.1 | 68.1 | 70.4 | 71.7 | 53
Spain | 42.8 | 42.7 | 43.6 | 45.2 | 48.0 | 50.9 | 54.4 | 57.4 | 59.9 | 61.7 | 63.2 | 49
Portugal | 28.7 | 29.8 | 31.7 | 33.1 | 34.5 | 36.1 | 38.8 | 41.2 | 42.6 | 44.2 | 45.9 | 47
Germany | 37.6 | 38.4 | 39.1 | 39.4 | 39.8 | 40.0 | 39.8 | 39.5 | 39.1 | 39.3 | 39.6 | 51
Turkey | 39.4 | 39.5 | 39.6 | 39.6 | 39.8 | 39.4 | 39.2 | 37.9 | 37.2 | 37.1 | 37.2 | 49
Bulgaria | 3.9 | 6.7 | 10.4 | 13.2 | 17.3 | 20.4 | 23.7 | 25.9 | 28.6 | 31.3 | 33.3 | 49
United Kingdom | 25.1 | 25.1 | 25.5 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 24.8 | 24.5 | 24.1 | 23.9 | 23.5 | 23.1 | 44
Dem. Rep. of the Congo | 14.2 | 15.0 | 16.8 | 18.1 | 19.6 | 20.6 | 23.8 | 23.4 | 22.1 | 22.3 | 22.5 | 52
Syria | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.1 | .. | 4.0 | 4.8 | 7.4 | 18.0 | 22.1 | 41
Afghanistan | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.8 | 3.8 | 9.6 | 9.4 | 9.6 | 17.5 | 19.1 | 24
Other countries | 212.4 | 225.6 | 235.6 | 253.9 | 276.5 | 297.6 | 348.2 | 342.4 | 326.6 | 341.7 | 349.2 |
Total | 932.2 | 971.4 | 1 013.3 | 1 057.7 | 1 119.3 | 1 169.1 | 1 257.2 | 1 268.1 | 1 276.9 | 1 333.2 | 1 366.5 | 49
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
CZECH REPUBLIC
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Ukraine | 102.6 | 126.7 | 131.9 | 131.9 | 124.3 | 118.9 | 112.5 | 105.1 | 104.2 | 105.6 | 109.9 | 47
Slovak Republic | 58.4 | 67.9 | 76.0 | 73.4 | 71.8 | 81.3 | 85.8 | 90.9 | 96.2 | 101.6 | 107.3 | 46
Viet Nam | 40.8 | 51.1 | 60.3 | 61.1 | 60.3 | 58.2 | 57.3 | 57.3 | 56.6 | 56.9 | 58.0 | 45
Russia | 18.6 | 23.3 | 27.1 | 30.3 | 31.8 | 32.4 | 33.0 | 33.1 | 34.4 | 34.7 | 35.8 | 58
Germany | 10.1 | 15.7 | 17.5 | 13.8 | 13.9 | 15.8 | 17.1 | 18.5 | 19.7 | 20.5 | 21.2 | 19
Poland | 18.9 | 20.6 | 21.7 | 19.3 | 18.2 | 19.1 | 19.2 | 19.5 | 19.6 | 19.8 | 20.3 | 49
Bulgaria | 4.6 | 5.0 | 5.9 | 6.4 | 6.9 | 7.4 | 8.2 | 9.1 | 10.1 | 11.0 | 12.3 | 38
Romania | 2.9 | 3.2 | 3.6 | 4.1 | 4.4 | 4.8 | 5.7 | 6.8 | 7.7 | 9.1 | 10.8 | 34
United States | 4.2 | 4.5 | 5.3 | 5.6 | 6.1 | 7.3 | 7.0 | 7.1 | 6.5 | 6.5 | 8.8 | 44
Mongolia | .. | 6.0 | 8.6 | 5.7 | 5.6 | 5.4 | 5.3 | 5.3 | 5.5 | 6.0 | 6.8 | 56
United Kingdom | 3.5 | 3.8 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.4 | 4.9 | 5.2 | 5.4 | 5.6 | 6.0 | 6.3 | 23
China | 4.2 | 5.0 | 5.2 | 5.4 | 5.5 | 5.6 | 5.6 | 5.5 | 5.6 | 5.7 | 6.1 | 48
Kazakhstan | .. | 3.0 | 3.4 | 3.9 | 4.2 | 4.5 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 5.0 | 5.1 | 5.5 | 56
Moldova | 6.2 | 8.0 | 10.6 | 10.0 | 8.9 | 7.6 | 6.4 | 5.7 | 5.3 | 5.0 | 5.2 | 45
Belarus | 3.2 | 3.7 | 3.9 | 4.0 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.7 | 60
Other countries | 43.3 | 44.9 | 52.1 | 53.1 | 53.9 | 56.8 | 58.5 | 60.6 | 63.0 | 66.6 | 74.6 |
Total | 321.5 | 392.3 | 437.6 | 432.5 | 424.3 | 434.2 | 435.9 | 439.2 | 449.4 | 464.7 | 493.4 | 44
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
DENMARK
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Poland | 9.7 | 13.8 | 19.9 | 21.1 | 22.6 | 24.5 | 26.8 | 29.3 | 32.3 | 35.3 | 37.6 | 45
Syria | .. | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 2.7 | 4.4 | 9.8 | 21.6 | 31.0 | 43
Turkey | 28.8 | 28.8 | 28.9 | 29.0 | 29.2 | 29.0 | 28.8 | 28.9 | 28.8 | 28.8 | 28.1 | 49
Romania | .. | 2.4 | 3.7 | 5.1 | 6.9 | 9.5 | 12.4 | 15.4 | 18.8 | 22.4 | 25.3 | 42
Germany | 15.4 | 18.0 | 20.4 | 21.1 | 21.6 | 22.1 | 22.4 | 22.7 | 23.0 | 23.7 | 24.4 | 49
United Kingdom | 13.2 | 13.7 | 14.2 | 14.3 | 14.7 | 15.0 | 15.4 | 15.8 | 16.1 | 16.7 | 17.6 | 36
Norway | 14.2 | 14.4 | 14.8 | 15.0 | 15.1 | 15.3 | 15.3 | 15.5 | 15.8 | 16.4 | 16.7 | 61
Sweden | 11.6 | 12.1 | 12.7 | 12.8 | 12.9 | 13.1 | 13.4 | 13.9 | 14.4 | 14.9 | 15.1 | 58
Lithuania | .. | 3.5 | 4.3 | 5.2 | 6.5 | 7.7 | 8.7 | 9.7 | 10.4 | 11.5 | 12.4 | 48
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 12.2 | 12.1 | 11.8 | 11.5 | 11.4 | 11.1 | 11.0 | 10.9 | 10.9 | 10.7 | 10.2 | 48
China | 6.1 | 6.6 | 7.2 | 7.4 | 7.6 | 7.5 | 7.8 | 8.4 | 8.9 | 9.6 | 10.1 | 57
Thailand | 6.2 | 6.7 | 7.3 | 7.7 | 8.3 | 8.6 | 8.8 | 9.2 | 9.5 | 9.8 | 10.0 | 85
Pakistan | 6.6 | 6.7 | 6.9 | 7.1 | 7.8 | 8.2 | 8.6 | 9.2 | 9.8 | 10.1 | 9.9 | 50
Iraq | 18.1 | 18.3 | 17.6 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 15.7 | 15.2 | 14.9 | 13.6 | 12.6 | 9.9 | 47
Ukraine | .. | 4.7 | 5.8 | 6.1 | 6.1 | 6.3 | 6.6 | 7.0 | 7.9 | 8.6 | 9.2 | 51
Other countries | 136.0 | 136.0 | 144.0 | 148.9 | 157.4 | 163.5 | 171.0 | 182.1 | 192.5 | 210.5 | 217.5 |
Total | 278.1 | 298.5 | 320.2 | 329.9 | 346.0 | 358.9 | 374.7 | 397.3 | 422.6 | 463.1 | 485.0 | 49
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
ESTONIA
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Russia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 96.5 | 95.1 | 93.6 | 92.6 | 91.4 | 90.3 | 53
Ukraine | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 5.4 | 5.5 | 5.7 | 6.3 | 7.2 | 7.8 | 43
Finland | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 4.3 | 5.0 | 5.7 | 6.3 | 6.9 | 7.6 | 35
Latvia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.6 | 2.9 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 4.2 | 46
Germany | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.4 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 2.2 | 2.6 | 3.0 | 44
Lithuania | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.8 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 45
Belarus | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 54
Italy | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 34
France | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 39
United Kingdom | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 23
Sweden | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 23
Spain | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 40
Poland | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 41
United States | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 34
Romania | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 23
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 93.6 | 92.7 | 92.2 | 90.5 | 88.6 | 87.2 |
Total | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 211.1 | 210.9 | 211.7 | 211.4 | 211.5 | 212.2 | 48
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
FINLAND
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Estonia | 17.6 | 20.0 | 22.6 | 25.5 | 29.1 | 34.0 | 39.8 | 44.8 | 48.4 | 50.4 | 51.5 | 50
Russia | 25.3 | 26.2 | 26.9 | 28.2 | 28.4 | 29.6 | 30.2 | 30.8 | 30.6 | 30.8 | 31.0 | 56
Iraq | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.2 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.7 | 5.9 | 6.4 | 6.8 | 7.1 | 9.8 | 34
China | 3.4 | 4.0 | 4.6 | 5.2 | 5.6 | 6.2 | 6.6 | 7.1 | 7.6 | 8.0 | 8.5 | 54
Sweden | 8.3 | 8.3 | 8.4 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.3 | 8.2 | 8.0 | 41
Thailand | 3.0 | 3.5 | 3.9 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 5.5 | 6.0 | 6.5 | 6.9 | 7.2 | 7.5 | 86
Somalia | 4.6 | 4.9 | 4.9 | 5.6 | 6.6 | 7.4 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.4 | 7.3 | 7.0 | 47
Afghanistan | 2.0 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 3.2 | 3.5 | 3.7 | 5.3 | 39
Viet Nam | 1.8 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 2.8 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 4.0 | 4.6 | 5.3 | 54
India | 2.0 | 2.3 | 2.7 | 3.2 | 3.5 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 4.4 | 4.7 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 38
Turkey | 2.9 | 3.2 | 3.4 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 34
United Kingdom | 2.9 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.5 | 3.7 | 3.9 | 4.0 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.6 | 20
Serbia | 3.4 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.8 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 43
Poland | 1.1 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.5 | 2.9 | 3.3 | 3.7 | 4.0 | 4.2 | 41
Germany | 3.0 | 3.3 | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 3.9 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.1 | 41
Other countries | 37.5 | 41.7 | 45.9 | 49.8 | 53.8 | 58.4 | 61.9 | 65.4 | 71.0 | 76.2 | 82.8 |
Total | 121.7 | 132.7 | 143.3 | 155.7 | 168.0 | 183.1 | 195.5 | 207.5 | 219.7 | 229.8 | 243.6 | 46
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
FRANCE
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Portugal | 492.5 | 493.9 | 497.6 | 501.8 | 509.3 | 519.5 | 530.6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 46
Algeria | 471.3 | 469.0 | 466.4 | 466.6 | 469.6 | 476.5 | 483.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 47
Morocco | 444.8 | 440.7 | 435.2 | 433.4 | 436.4 | 443.4 | 448.5 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 49
Turkey | 220.1 | 220.7 | 221.2 | 219.8 | 217.8 | 216.4 | 215.7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 47
Italy | 174.3 | 173.5 | 172.7 | 172.6 | 174.9 | 177.2 | 181.3 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 45
United Kingdom | 151.8 | 154.0 | 156.3 | 157.0 | 156.4 | 153.6 | 151.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 49
Tunisia | 143.9 | 144.0 | 147.1 | 150.4 | 155.0 | 161.5 | 168.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 40
Spain | 130.1 | 128.5 | 128.0 | 129.1 | 133.4 | 138.7 | 144.4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 51
Belgium | 87.7 | 90.9 | 92.9 | 94.7 | 95.1 | 96.1 | 97.4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 51
China | 76.7 | 81.4 | 86.2 | 90.1 | 93.8 | 96.2 | 97.6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 56
Germany | 93.9 | 95.0 | 93.3 | 93.7 | 93.4 | 91.7 | 90.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 55
Mali | 59.7 | 62.2 | 63.3 | 64.9 | 66.8 | 69.7 | 71.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 40
Romania | 32.9 | 41.9 | 49.3 | 57.6 | 64.8 | 74.3 | 86.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 51
Haiti | 62.2 | 56.6 | 58.0 | 62.7 | 64.2 | 65.8 | 68.6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 54
Senegal | 50.2 | 51.5 | 51.7 | 52.6 | 54.8 | 57.4 | 59.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 44
Other countries | 1 039.1 | 1 069.2 | 1 102.2 | 1 145.8 | 1 194.9 | 1 245.9 | 1 303.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. |
Total | 3 731.2 | 3 773.2 | 3 821.5 | 3 892.8 | 3 980.6 | 4 083.9 | 4 199.9 | 4 351.0 | 4 399.7 | 4632.1 | .. | 49
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
GERMANY
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Turkey | 1 738.8 | 1 713.6 | 1 688.4 | 1 658.1 | 1 629.5 | 1 607.2 | 1 575.7 | 1 549.8 | 1 527.1 | 1 506.1 | 1 492.6 | 48
Poland | 361.7 | 384.8 | 393.8 | 398.5 | 419.4 | 468.5 | 532.4 | 609.9 | 674.2 | 741.0 | 783.1 | 46
Syria | 28.1 | 28.2 | 28.5 | 28.9 | 30.1 | 32.9 | 40.4 | 56.9 | 118.2 | 366.6 | 637.8 | 36
Italy | 534.7 | 528.3 | 523.2 | 517.5 | 517.5 | 520.2 | 529.4 | 552.9 | 574.5 | 596.1 | 611.5 | 41
Romania | 73.4 | 84.6 | 94.3 | 105.0 | 126.5 | 159.2 | 205.0 | 267.4 | 355.3 | 452.7 | 533.7 | 43
Greece | 303.8 | 294.9 | 287.2 | 278.1 | 276.7 | 283.7 | 298.3 | 316.3 | 328.6 | 339.9 | 348.5 | 46
Croatia | 227.5 | 225.3 | 223.1 | 221.2 | 220.2 | 223.0 | 225.0 | 240.5 | 263.3 | 297.9 | 332.6 | 47
Serbia | 316.8 | 330.6 | 319.9 | 298.0 | 285.0 | 267.8 | 258.8 | 258.5 | 271.4 | 283.0 | 272.4 | 49
Bulgaria | 39.1 | 46.8 | 54.0 | 61.9 | 74.9 | 93.9 | 118.8 | 146.8 | 183.3 | 226.9 | 263.3 | 46
Afghanistan | 52.2 | 49.8 | 48.4 | 48.8 | 51.3 | 56.6 | 61.8 | 67.0 | 75.4 | 131.5 | 253.5 | 33
Russia | 187.5 | 187.8 | 188.3 | 189.3 | 191.3 | 195.3 | 202.1 | 216.3 | 221.4 | 231.0 | 245.4 | 62
Iraq | 73.6 | 72.6 | 74.5 | 79.4 | 81.3 | 82.4 | 84.1 | 85.5 | 88.7 | 136.4 | 227.2 | 39
Hungary | 52.3 | 56.2 | 60.0 | 61.4 | 68.9 | 82.8 | 107.4 | 135.6 | 156.8 | 178.2 | 192.3 | 41
Austria | 175.7 | 175.9 | 175.4 | 174.5 | 175.2 | 175.9 | 176.3 | 178.8 | 179.8 | 181.8 | 183.6 | 48
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 157.1 | 158.2 | 156.8 | 154.6 | 152.4 | 153.5 | 155.3 | 157.5 | 163.5 | 168.0 | 172.6 | 48
Other countries | 2 428.9 | 2 407.4 | 2 411.9 | 2 419.6 | 2 453.3 | 2 528.2 | 2 643.0 | 2 793.9 | 2 971.4 | 3 270.9 | 3 489.1 |
Total | 6 751.0 | 6 744.9 | 6 727.6 | 6 694.8 | 6 753.6 | 6 930.9 | 7 213.7 | 7 633.6 | 8 153.0 | 9 107.9 | 10 039.1 | 46
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
GREECE
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Albania | 384.6 | 413.9 | 501.7 | 485.0 | 449.7 | 471.5 | 410.4 | 436.9 | 369.1 | 339.5 | .. | 49
Bulgaria | 30.7 | 40.2 | 54.5 | 48.4 | 47.3 | 38.4 | 46.2 | 43.3 | 31.1 | 29.1 | .. | 70
Romania | 25.7 | 29.5 | 33.8 | 33.3 | 40.6 | 38.5 | 30.9 | 28.8 | 23.8 | 23.5 | .. | 52
Pakistan | 13.9 | 18.0 | 23.0 | 21.2 | 24.1 | 24.5 | 17.0 | 19.0 | 12.0 | 16.1 | .. | 9
Georgia | 23.8 | 33.6 | 33.9 | 32.8 | 28.0 | 23.5 | 19.8 | 19.4 | 16.2 | 13.3 | .. | 73
Ukraine | 14.1 | 12.0 | 13.7 | 12.2 | 10.8 | 10.7 | 8.3 | 8.1 | 11.0 | 12.7 | .. | 81
Cyprus1,2 | 11.2 | 14.2 | 11.8 | 9.9 | 12.1 | 11.2 | 12.0 | 10.4 | 9.0 | 8.7 | .. | 56
Russia | 21.6 | 16.7 | 19.5 | 14.1 | 12.0 | 15.1 | 12.4 | 10.9 | 11.8 | 6.6 | .. | 80
Poland | 21.4 | 18.9 | 11.2 | 10.2 | 7.5 | 11.3 | 15.0 | 20.3 | 9.3 | 6.2 | .. | 71
Germany | 7.1 | 8.1 | 7.3 | 9.6 | 6.2 | 5.2 | 6.8 | 4.6 | 7.0 | 5.7 | .. | 55
Armenia | 5.0 | 9.1 | 12.3 | 6.7 | 9.5 | 7.5 | 6.8 | 2.5 | .. | 5.3 | .. | ..
Moldova | 4.2 | 5.1 | 4.7 | 5.4 | 4.0 | 1.4 | 2.5 | 3.7 | .. | 5.2 | .. | ..
United Kingdom | 8.0 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.3 | 7.6 | 9.5 | 8.7 | 12.0 | 5.9 | 4.9 | .. | 74
Syria | 6.0 | 9.2 | 12.4 | 6.5 | 10.1 | 13.4 | 12.6 | 11.2 | .. | 4.2 | .. | ..
Egypt | 5.2 | 12.6 | 10.3 | 9.5 | 10.9 | 10.4 | 3.3 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.1 | .. | 26
Other countries | 60.4 | 85.1 | 82.1 | 97.9 | 76.9 | 76.0 | 74.4 | 70.9 | 175.4 | 53.3 | .. |
Total | 643.1 | 733.6 | 839.7 | 810.0 | 757.4 | 768.1 | 687.1 | 706.7 | 686.4 | 538.4 | .. | ..
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
HUNGARY
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Romania | 67.0 | 65.8 | 66.4 | 72.7 | 76.9 | 41.6 | 34.8 | 30.9 | 28.6 | 29.7 | 24.0 | 35
China | 9.0 | 10.2 | 10.7 | 11.2 | 11.8 | 10.1 | 11.5 | 12.7 | 16.5 | 19.8 | 19.1 | 49
Germany | 15.0 | 14.4 | 16.7 | 18.7 | 20.2 | 15.8 | 17.4 | 18.7 | 18.8 | 19.4 | 18.6 | 45
Slovak Republic | 4.3 | 4.9 | 6.1 | 6.4 | 7.3 | 6.7 | 7.6 | 8.3 | 8.7 | 9.4 | 9.5 | 58
Ukraine | 15.9 | 17.3 | 17.6 | 17.2 | 16.5 | 11.9 | 10.8 | 8.3 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 5.8 | 54
Russia | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 3.3 | 3.5 | 2.9 | 3.4 | 3.7 | 4.3 | 4.9 | 4.9 | 61
Austria | 2.2 | 2.6 | 3.0 | 3.7 | 3.9 | 3.3 | 3.7 | 3.9 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 37
Italy | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 2.7 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 25
Viet Nam | 3.1 | 3.0 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 2.6 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 52
United States | 1.9 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 3.2 | 45
United Kingdom | 1.9 | 2.1 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 3.1 | 34
Netherlands | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 40
France | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 41
Iran | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 2.4 | 43
Serbia | 8.5 | 13.7 | 13.7 | 11.5 | 10.7 | 8.2 | 4.9 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 30
Other countries | 30.1 | 30.5 | 33.1 | 37.7 | 42.0 | 28.0 | 30.8 | 33.6 | 37.3 | 40.1 | 42.1 |
Total | 166.0 | 174.7 | 184.4 | 197.8 | 209.2 | 143.4 | 141.4 | 140.5 | 146.0 | 156.6 | 151.1 | 44
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
ICELAND
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Poland | 6.0 | 9.9 | 11.0 | 9.6 | 9.1 | 9.0 | 9.4 | 10.2 | 11.1 | 12.1 | 13.8 | 42
Lithuania | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 2.3 | 40
Germany | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 64
Denmark | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 54
Latvia | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 47
United Kingdom | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 32
Portugal | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 37
United States | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 46
Spain | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 41
Romania | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 42
Philippines | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 60
Thailand | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 70
France | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 46
Slovak Republic | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 33
Czech Republic | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 48
Other countries | 5.5 | 5.3 | 4.8 | 4.3 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 4.8 | 5.6 |
Total | 18.6 | 23.4 | 24.4 | 21.7 | 21.1 | 21.0 | 21.4 | 22.7 | 24.3 | 26.5 | 30.3 | 45
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
IRELAND
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Poland | 62.7 | .. | .. | .. | 22.6 | 121.7 | .. | .. | .. | 122.5 | .. | 50
United Kingdom | 110.6 | 115.5 | 117.9 | 117.1 | 112.3 | 110.0 | 113.0 | 113.4 | 114.9 | 103.1 | .. | 49
Lithuania | 24.4 | .. | .. | .. | 36.7 | 36.4 | .. | .. | .. | 36.6 | .. | 54
Romania | 7.6 | .. | .. | .. | 17.3 | 17.1 | .. | .. | .. | 29.2 | .. | 48
Latvia | 13.2 | .. | .. | .. | 20.6 | 20.4 | .. | .. | .. | 19.9 | .. | 57
Brazil | 4.3 | .. | .. | .. | 8.7 | 8.6 | .. | .. | .. | 13.6 | .. | 53
Spain | 6.0 | .. | .. | .. | 6.8 | 6.7 | .. | .. | .. | 12.1 | .. | 60
Italy | 6.1 | .. | .. | .. | 7.7 | 7.6 | .. | .. | .. | 11.7 | .. | 45
France | 8.9 | .. | .. | .. | 9.7 | 9.6 | .. | .. | .. | 11.7 | .. | 50
Germany | 10.1 | .. | .. | .. | 11.3 | 11.1 | .. | .. | .. | 11.5 | .. | 57
India | 8.3 | .. | .. | .. | 17.0 | 16.9 | .. | .. | .. | 11.5 | .. | 37
United States | 12.3 | .. | .. | .. | 11.0 | 10.8 | .. | .. | .. | 10.5 | .. | 58
Slovak Republic | 8.0 | .. | .. | .. | 10.8 | 10.7 | .. | .. | .. | 9.7 | .. | 50
Hungary | .. | .. | .. | .. | 8.0 | 8.0 | .. | .. | .. | 9.3 | .. | 49
Pakistan | 4.9 | .. | .. | .. | 6.8 | 6.8 | .. | .. | .. | 7.4 | .. | 31
Other countries | 125.8 | .. | .. | .. | 290.8 | 134.7 | .. | .. | .. | 187.1 | .. |
Total | 413.2 | 519.6 | 575.6 | 575.4 | 598.1 | 537.0 | 550.4 | 554.5 | 564.3 | 607.4 | .. | 50
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
ITALY
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Romania | 342.2 | 625.3 | 658.8 | 726.2 | 782.0 | 834.5 | 933.4 | 1 081.4 | 1 131.8 | 1 151.4 | 1 168.6 | 57
Albania | 375.9 | 401.9 | 422.1 | 441.2 | 450.2 | 450.9 | 465.0 | 495.7 | 490.5 | 467.7 | 448.4 | 49
Morocco | 343.2 | 365.9 | 368.6 | 388.4 | 400.7 | 408.7 | 426.8 | 454.8 | 449.1 | 437.5 | 420.7 | 46
China | 144.9 | 156.5 | 154.1 | 168.0 | 184.2 | 197.1 | 223.4 | 256.8 | 265.8 | 271.3 | 282.0 | 50
Ukraine | 120.1 | 132.7 | 134.4 | 150.5 | 171.6 | 180.1 | 191.7 | 219.1 | 226.1 | 230.7 | 234.4 | 78
Philippines | 101.3 | 105.7 | 105.4 | 112.6 | 120.0 | 129.2 | 139.8 | 162.7 | 168.2 | 165.9 | 166.5 | 57
India | 69.5 | 77.4 | 85.7 | 97.2 | 109.2 | 118.4 | 128.9 | 142.5 | 147.8 | 150.5 | 151.4 | 41
Moldova | 55.8 | 68.6 | 85.3 | 99.9 | 122.4 | 132.2 | 139.7 | 149.4 | 147.4 | 142.3 | 135.7 | 66
Bangladesh | 49.6 | 55.2 | 60.4 | 67.3 | 73.8 | 81.7 | 92.7 | 111.2 | 115.3 | 118.8 | 122.4 | 28
Egypt | 65.7 | 69.6 | 54.8 | 58.6 | 62.4 | 66.9 | 76.7 | 96.0 | 103.7 | 109.9 | 112.8 | 32
Pakistan | 46.1 | 49.3 | 50.1 | 57.8 | 66.3 | 71.0 | 80.7 | 90.6 | 96.2 | 101.8 | 108.2 | 31
Sri Lanka | 56.7 | 61.1 | 57.8 | 62.0 | 65.3 | 71.6 | 79.5 | 95.0 | 100.6 | 102.3 | 104.9 | 46
Senegal | 59.9 | 62.6 | 60.4 | 63.9 | 69.5 | 73.7 | 80.3 | 90.9 | 94.0 | 98.2 | 101.2 | 27
Peru | 66.5 | 70.8 | 72.3 | 80.5 | 88.9 | 93.8 | 99.2 | 109.9 | 109.7 | 103.7 | 99.1 | 58
Poland | 72.5 | 90.2 | 77.9 | 81.6 | 83.2 | 84.7 | 88.8 | 97.6 | 98.7 | 98.0 | 97.1 | 74
Other countries | 969.1 | 1 039.8 | 954.4 | 992.5 | 1 029.8 | 1 057.6 | 1 141.1 | 1 267.8 | 1 269.6 | 1 277.0 | 1 293.9 |
Total | 2 938.9 | 3 432.7 | 3 402.4 | 3 648.1 | 3 879.2 | 4 052.1 | 4 387.7 | 4 921.3 | 5 014.4 | 5 026.9 | 5 047.0 | 52
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
JAPAN
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
China | 560.7 | 606.9 | 655.4 | 680.5 | 687.2 | 674.9 | 652.6 | 649.1 | 654.8 | 665.8 | 695.5 | 56
Korea | 598.2 | 593.5 | 589.2 | 578.5 | 566.0 | 545.4 | 530.0 | 519.7 | 501.2 | 457.8 | 453.1 | 55
Philippines | 193.5 | 202.6 | 210.6 | 211.7 | 210.2 | 209.4 | 203.0 | 209.2 | 217.6 | 229.6 | 243.7 | 73
Viet Nam | 32.5 | 36.9 | 41.1 | 41.0 | 41.8 | 44.7 | 52.4 | 72.3 | 99.9 | 147.0 | 200.0 | 43
Brazil | 313.0 | 317.0 | 312.6 | 267.5 | 230.6 | 210.0 | 190.6 | 181.3 | 175.4 | 173.4 | 180.9 | 46
Nepal | 7.8 | 9.4 | 12.3 | 15.3 | 17.5 | 20.4 | 24.1 | 31.5 | 42.3 | 54.8 | 67.5 | 36
United States | 51.3 | 51.9 | 52.7 | 52.1 | 50.7 | 49.8 | 48.4 | 50.0 | 51.3 | 52.3 | 53.7 | 33
Chinese Taipei | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 22.8 | 33.3 | 40.2 | 48.7 | 52.8 | 69
Peru | 58.7 | 59.7 | 59.7 | 57.5 | 54.6 | 52.8 | 49.2 | 48.6 | 48.0 | 47.7 | 47.7 | 48
Thailand | 39.6 | 41.4 | 42.6 | 42.7 | 41.3 | 42.8 | 40.1 | 41.2 | 43.1 | 45.4 | 47.6 | 73
Indonesia | 24.9 | 25.6 | 27.3 | 25.5 | 24.9 | 24.7 | 25.5 | 27.2 | 30.2 | 35.9 | 42.9 | 32
Dem. People's Republic of Korea | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.9 | 32.5 | 46
India | 18.9 | 20.6 | 22.3 | 22.9 | 22.5 | 21.5 | 21.7 | 22.5 | 24.5 | 26.2 | 28.7 | 31
Myanmar | 5.9 | 6.7 | 7.8 | 8.4 | 8.6 | 8.7 | 8.0 | 8.6 | 10.3 | 13.7 | 17.8 | 54
Sri Lanka | 8.9 | 8.7 | 8.8 | 9.0 | 9.1 | 9.3 | 8.4 | 9.2 | 10.7 | 13.2 | 17.3 | 27
Other countries | 169.3 | 170.7 | 173.5 | 172.2 | 168.1 | 164.2 | 156.9 | 162.7 | 172.4 | 186.7 | 201.2 |
Total | 2 083.2 | 2 151.4 | 2 215.9 | 2 184.7 | 2 132.9 | 2 078.5 | 2 033.7 | 2 066.4 | 2 121.8 | 2 232.2 | 2 382.8 | 52
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
KOREA
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
China | 421.5 | 487.1 | 489.1 | 505.4 | 536.7 | 474.8 | 161.1 | 546.7 | 568.0 | 549.1 | .. | 51
Viet Nam | 67.2 | 79.8 | 86.2 | 98.2 | 110.6 | 114.2 | 113.8 | 122.6 | 128.0 | 137.8 | .. | 52
Philippines | 42.9 | 39.4 | 38.4 | 39.5 | 38.4 | 33.2 | 38.7 | 43.2 | 45.3 | 46.1 | .. | 44
Cambodia | 4.6 | 7.0 | 8.8 | 11.7 | 16.8 | 23.4 | 30.7 | 37.3 | 42.0 | 44.5 | .. | 31
Uzbekistan | 10.9 | 15.0 | 15.9 | 20.8 | 24.4 | 28.0 | 30.7 | 34.7 | 36.9 | 42.1 | .. | 31
Indonesia | 23.7 | 27.4 | 25.9 | 27.4 | 29.6 | 29.8 | 33.2 | 38.7 | 40.0 | 39.1 | .. | 9
Nepal | 4.6 | 5.9 | 7.4 | 9.2 | 12.6 | 17.8 | 20.7 | 25.5 | 29.2 | 33.1 | .. | 11
Thailand | 31.7 | 30.1 | 28.7 | 27.6 | 26.0 | 21.4 | 26.2 | 26.8 | 27.9 | 29.3 | .. | 27
Sri Lanka | 12.1 | 14.3 | 14.4 | 17.4 | 20.5 | 21.0 | 21.9 | 24.6 | 25.2 | 26.0 | .. | 3
United States | 51.1 | 56.2 | 63.1 | 57.6 | 26.5 | 23.4 | 24.0 | 24.9 | 24.1 | 23.9 | .. | 42
Japan | 18.4 | 18.6 | 18.6 | 19.4 | 21.1 | 22.6 | 23.1 | 23.2 | 23.0 | 23.3 | .. | 73
Myanmar | 3.2 | 2.9 | 3.6 | 3.8 | 5.6 | 8.3 | 11.5 | 14.7 | 18.1 | 21.3 | .. | 3
Chinese Taipei | 22.1 | 27.0 | 21.7 | 21.5 | 21.4 | 21.2 | 21.2 | 21.0 | 20.5 | 20.4 | .. | 51
Mongolia | 20.5 | 21.2 | 21.0 | 21.8 | 21.3 | 19.8 | 18.4 | 17.3 | 18.5 | 20.1 | .. | 49
Bangladesh | 7.8 | 7.7 | 7.3 | 9.3 | 10.6 | 10.8 | 10.9 | 12.1 | 12.3 | 13.2 | .. | 6
Other countries | 57.8 | 56.0 | 70.8 | 112.1 | 60.6 | 63.3 | 399.9 | 78.2 | 83.9 | 92.4 | .. |
Total | 800.3 | 895.5 | 920.9 | 1 002.7 | 982.5 | 933.0 | 985.9 | 1 091.5 | 1 143.1 | 1 161.7 | .. | 43
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
LATVIA
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Russia | .. | .. | .. | .. | 33.8 | 37.0 | 36.1 | 38.8 | 51.6 | 56.0 | 55.4 | ..
Ukraine | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.5 | 2.4 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 4.1 | 5.9 | 6.4 | ..
Lithuania | .. | .. | .. | .. | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 4.3 | 4.6 | 4.8 | ..
Belarus | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 2.6 | 2.9 | 3.0 | ..
Germany | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 2.4 | ..
Uzbekistan | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.0 | 1.6 | 1.6 | ..
Estonia | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.2 | ..
China | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.9 | 1.3 | 1.2 | ..
Sweden | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 | ..
United Kingdom | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.8 | 0.9 | ..
Bulgaria | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 | ..
India | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.6 | 0.9 | ..
Kazakhstan | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 | ..
Poland | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | ..
Italy | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | ..
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | .. | 300.4 | 279.0 | 271.1 | 257.5 | 227.9 | 208.3 | 197.7 |
Total | 433.0 | 404.9 | 382.7 | 362.4 | 342.8 | 324.3 | 315.4 | 304.8 | 298.4 | 288.9 | 279.4 | ..
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
LUXEMBOURG
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Portugal | 73.7 | 76.6 | 80.0 | 79.8 | 82.4 | 85.3 | 88.2 | 90.8 | 92.1 | 93.1 | 96.8 | ..
France | 25.2 | 26.6 | 28.5 | 29.7 | 31.5 | 33.1 | 35.2 | 37.2 | 39.4 | 41.7 | 44.3 | ..
Italy | 19.1 | 19.1 | 19.4 | 18.2 | 18.1 | 18.1 | 18.3 | 18.8 | 19.5 | 20.3 | 21.3 | ..
Belgium | 16.5 | 16.5 | 16.7 | 16.8 | 16.9 | 17.2 | 17.6 | 18.2 | 18.8 | 19.4 | 20.0 | ..
Germany | 11.3 | 11.6 | 12.0 | 12.1 | 12.0 | 12.3 | 12.4 | 12.7 | 12.8 | 12.8 | 13.1 | ..
Serbia | .. | .. | .. | .. | 6.0 | 6.5 | 6.4 | 6.3 | 6.3 | 6.2 | 6.7 | ..
Spain | 3.2 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.7 | 4.0 | 4.3 | 4.7 | 5.1 | 5.5 | 6.1 | ..
United Kingdom | 4.9 | 5.0 | 5.3 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.6 | 5.7 | 5.9 | 6.0 | 6.1 | 6.1 | ..
Poland | 1.6 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 2.5 | 2.7 | 3.0 | 3.2 | 3.4 | 3.8 | 4.1 | 4.3 | ..
Netherlands | 3.8 | 3.8 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.3 | ..
Romania | 0.6 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 2.2 | 2.5 | 3.2 | 3.8 | 4.1 | ..
China | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 2.5 | 2.8 | 3.2 | ..
Greece | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 2.6 | 2.9 | ..
Cabo Verde | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 2.9 | ..
Bosnia and Herzegovina | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.3 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 2.2 | ..
Other countries | 37.1 | 39.5 | 41.5 | 42.0 | 28.5 | 30.8 | 32.8 | 35.3 | 37.7 | 41.7 | 43.2 |
Total | 198.3 | 205.9 | 215.5 | 216.3 | 220.5 | 229.9 | 238.8 | 248.9 | 258.7 | 269.2 | 281.5 | ..
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
MEXICO
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
United States | .. | .. | .. | 60.0 | 64.9 | 68.5 | 63.4 | .. | 65.3 | 67.5 | 68.9 | 44
Spain | .. | .. | .. | 18.6 | 18.8 | 19.6 | 20.7 | .. | 24.7 | 26.7 | 27.7 | 41
Colombia | .. | .. | .. | 14.6 | 15.5 | 16.9 | 16.7 | .. | 18.3 | 20.6 | 23.0 | 55
Venezuela | .. | .. | .. | 10.1 | 11.8 | 12.8 | 12.9 | .. | 15.3 | 18.6 | 22.3 | 54
China | .. | .. | .. | 10.2 | 12.5 | 15.2 | 15.6 | .. | 18.3 | 20.5 | 21.5 | 41
Cuba | .. | .. | .. | 10.3 | 11.8 | 14.0 | 14.5 | .. | 17.0 | 18.4 | 20.4 | 52
Argentina | .. | .. | .. | 15.2 | 15.6 | 15.8 | 15.3 | .. | 16.8 | 18.0 | 19.0 | 47
Canada | .. | .. | .. | 10.9 | 12.7 | 13.6 | 12.9 | .. | 13.2 | 14.1 | 14.6 | 45
Guatemala | .. | .. | .. | 8.4 | 9.8 | 10.9 | 9.7 | .. | 10.3 | 11.6 | 13.2 | 57
Honduras | .. | .. | .. | 4.9 | 6.3 | 7.6 | 6.9 | .. | 7.8 | 9.3 | 12.0 | 58
France | .. | .. | .. | 9.4 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 9.0 | .. | 9.8 | 10.5 | 10.9 | 45
Germany | .. | .. | .. | 8.9 | 8.8 | 9.0 | 8.8 | .. | 9.5 | 10.5 | 10.9 | 43
Japan | .. | .. | .. | 4.9 | 5.1 | 5.2 | 5.6 | .. | 8.0 | 9.0 | 9.9 | 41
Korea | .. | .. | .. | 6.0 | 6.4 | 6.8 | 6.8 | .. | 7.7 | 9.3 | 9.9 | 44
Brazil | .. | .. | .. | 6.3 | 6.3 | 7.1 | 6.5 | .. | 7.2 | 8.2 | 9.3 | 53
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | 64.0 | 65.8 | 71.8 | 71.0 | .. | 76.8 | 82.4 | 88.2 |
Total | .. | .. | .. | 262.7 | 281.1 | 303.9 | 296.4 | .. | 326.0 | 355.2 | 381.7 | 47
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
NETHERLANDS
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Poland | 19.6 | 26.2 | 35.5 | 43.1 | 52.5 | 65.1 | 74.6 | 85.8 | 99.6 | 110.9 | 121.4 | 51
Turkey | 96.8 | 93.7 | 92.7 | 90.8 | 88.0 | 84.8 | 81.9 | 80.1 | 77.5 | 75.4 | 74.1 | 49
Germany | 60.2 | 62.4 | 65.9 | 68.4 | 71.4 | 72.8 | 72.6 | 72.2 | 71.8 | 72.3 | 73.3 | 55
Syria | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 8.2 | 25.4 | 51.4 | 40
United Kingdom | 40.3 | 40.2 | 41.1 | 41.4 | 41.4 | 41.4 | 41.7 | 42.3 | 43.0 | 44.2 | 45.3 | 41
Morocco | 80.5 | 74.9 | 70.8 | 66.6 | 61.9 | 56.6 | 51.0 | 48.1 | 44.9 | 42.3 | 39.9 | 48
Italy | 18.6 | 19.0 | 20.3 | 21.1 | 21.9 | 22.6 | 23.6 | 25.0 | 27.1 | 29.5 | 32.3 | 40
Belgium | 26.0 | 26.2 | 26.6 | 26.9 | 27.2 | 27.6 | 28.2 | 28.8 | 29.6 | 30.6 | 31.9 | 54
China | 15.3 | 16.2 | 18.1 | 19.8 | 21.4 | 23.9 | 25.9 | 27.2 | 28.2 | 29.7 | 31.4 | 54
Spain | 16.5 | 16.5 | 17.3 | 18.1 | 19.2 | 20.3 | 21.9 | 23.9 | 25.3 | 26.8 | 28.3 | 51
Bulgaria | 2.2 | 6.4 | 10.2 | 12.3 | 14.1 | 16.8 | 17.6 | 17.8 | 19.8 | 21.9 | 24.1 | 50
France | 14.7 | 15.1 | 16.4 | 17.2 | 17.8 | 18.1 | 18.3 | 18.7 | 19.7 | 20.9 | 22.6 | 52
India | 5.4 | 6.4 | 8.0 | 8.7 | 9.6 | 10.8 | 11.7 | 13.1 | 14.7 | 17.1 | 20.4 | 41
Portugal | 12.2 | 12.9 | 14.2 | 15.4 | 15.7 | 16.4 | 17.3 | 18.1 | 18.7 | 19.4 | 20.2 | 46
United States | 14.6 | 14.5 | 14.9 | 14.6 | 14.8 | 15.3 | 15.6 | 15.6 | 16.2 | 17.2 | 18.0 | 53
Other countries | 258.3 | 257.0 | 266.9 | 270.2 | 283.0 | 292.8 | 293.4 | 297.9 | 302.9 | 316.8 | 337.7 |
Total | 681.9 | 688.4 | 719.5 | 735.2 | 760.4 | 786.1 | 796.2 | 816.0 | 847.3 | 900.5 | 972.3 | 50
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
NORWAY
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Poland | 13.6 | 26.8 | 39.2 | 46.7 | 55.2 | 66.6 | 77.1 | 85.6 | 93.6 | 99.6 | 102.0 | 36
Sweden | 27.9 | 29.9 | 32.8 | 35.8 | 39.2 | 42.0 | 43.1 | 44.2 | 45.1 | 45.1 | 44.4 | 48
Lithuania | 3.0 | 5.1 | 7.6 | 10.4 | 16.4 | 24.1 | 30.7 | 35.8 | 39.5 | 41.7 | 42.5 | 42
Germany | 12.2 | 15.3 | 18.9 | 20.8 | 22.4 | 23.7 | 24.4 | 24.6 | 25.0 | 25.2 | 24.9 | 47
Denmark | 20.3 | 20.5 | 20.6 | 20.7 | 20.9 | 21.4 | 21.9 | 22.6 | 23.5 | 23.3 | 23.0 | 45
Eritrea | 1.0 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 3.8 | 5.7 | 7.6 | 10.0 | 12.7 | 15.2 | 17.7 | 19.0 | 40
Syria | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 1.5 | 3.6 | 7.6 | 18.9 | 37
Somalia | 10.8 | 10.6 | 10.9 | 10.8 | 11.1 | 10.8 | 13.0 | 14.4 | 15.1 | 16.8 | 16.8 | 48
United Kingdom | 11.6 | 12.0 | 12.6 | 13.3 | 14.0 | 14.7 | 15.5 | 15.8 | 16.3 | 16.3 | 16.3 | 35
Romania | 0.9 | 1.4 | 2.4 | 3.4 | 4.5 | 5.7 | 7.5 | 10.0 | 12.0 | 13.8 | 14.5 | 43
Philippines | 3.9 | 4.8 | 6.1 | 6.8 | 7.8 | 8.9 | 10.1 | 11.4 | 11.7 | 11.8 | 12.1 | 79
Thailand | 6.4 | 6.9 | 7.9 | 8.6 | 9.3 | 10.0 | 10.8 | 11.4 | 11.5 | 11.6 | 12.1 | 85
Russia | 8.8 | 9.7 | 10.4 | 10.6 | 10.8 | 10.9 | 11.2 | 11.4 | 11.5 | 11.5 | 11.4 | 66
Latvia | 0.9 | 1.2 | 1.7 | 2.8 | 4.9 | 6.9 | 8.5 | 9.4 | 10.3 | 10.8 | 11.0 | 42
Iceland | 3.8 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 5.3 | 6.4 | 7.6 | 8.2 | 8.7 | 9.2 | 9.6 | 9.2 | 48
Other countries | 112.9 | 116.4 | 125.4 | 133.8 | 140.2 | 146.0 | 156.1 | 163.8 | 169.1 | 175.8 | 181.1 |
Total | 238.3 | 266.3 | 303.0 | 333.9 | 369.2 | 407.3 | 448.8 | 483.2 | 512.2 | 538.2 | 559.2 | 46
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
POLAND
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Ukraine | 5.2 | 6.1 | 7.2 | 10.2 | .. | 13.4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Germany | 11.4 | 11.8 | 12.2 | 4.4 | .. | 5.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Russia | 3.3 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 4.2 | .. | 4.2 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Belarus | 1.5 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 3.2 | .. | 3.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Viet Nam | 1.9 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 2.9 | .. | 2.6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Armenia | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.4 | .. | 1.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Other countries | 30.8 | 31.5 | 32.3 | 23.3 | .. | 24.4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
Total | 54.9 | 57.5 | 60.4 | 49.6 | .. | 55.4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
PORTUGAL
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Brazil | 68.0 | 66.4 | 107.0 | 116.2 | 119.4 | 111.4 | 105.6 | 92.1 | 87.5 | 82.6 | 81.3 | 62
Cabo Verde | 65.5 | 63.9 | 51.4 | 48.8 | 44.0 | 43.9 | 42.9 | 42.4 | 40.9 | 38.7 | 36.6 | 54
Ukraine | 41.5 | 39.5 | 52.5 | 52.3 | 49.5 | 48.0 | 44.1 | 41.1 | 37.9 | 35.8 | 34.5 | 52
Romania | 11.4 | 19.2 | 27.4 | 32.5 | 36.8 | 39.3 | 35.2 | 34.2 | 31.5 | 30.5 | 30.2 | 46
China | 10.2 | 10.4 | 13.3 | 14.4 | 15.7 | 16.8 | 17.4 | 18.6 | 21.4 | 21.3 | 22.5 | 50
United Kingdom | 19.8 | 23.6 | 15.4 | 16.4 | 17.2 | 17.7 | 16.6 | 16.5 | 16.6 | 17.2 | 19.8 | 46
Angola | 33.7 | 32.7 | 27.6 | 26.6 | 23.5 | 21.6 | 20.3 | 20.2 | 19.7 | 18.2 | 17.0 | 54
Guinea-Bissau | 23.8 | 23.7 | 24.4 | 22.9 | 19.8 | 18.5 | 17.8 | 17.8 | 18.0 | 17.1 | 15.7 | 47
France | 9.7 | 10.6 | 4.6 | 4.9 | 5.1 | 5.3 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 6.5 | 8.4 | 11.3 | 47
Spain | 16.6 | 18.0 | 7.2 | 8.1 | 8.9 | 9.3 | 9.4 | 9.5 | 9.7 | 10.0 | 11.1 | 50
Germany | 13.9 | 15.5 | 8.2 | 8.6 | 9.0 | 9.1 | 8.6 | 8.6 | 8.8 | 9.0 | 10.0 | 49
Sao Tome and Principe | 10.8 | 10.6 | 11.7 | 11.5 | 10.5 | 10.5 | 10.4 | 10.3 | 10.2 | 9.5 | 9.0 | 55
Italy | 6.0 | 6.0 | 3.9 | 4.5 | 5.1 | 5.3 | 5.2 | 5.1 | 5.3 | 6.1 | 8.5 | 41
India | 3.8 | 4.1 | 5.5 | 5.8 | 5.3 | 5.4 | 5.7 | 6.0 | 6.4 | 6.9 | 7.2 | 32
Bulgaria | 3.3 | 5.0 | 6.5 | 7.2 | 8.2 | 8.6 | 7.4 | 7.6 | 7.0 | 6.7 | 7.0 | 50
Other countries | 82.2 | 86.5 | 74.1 | 73.6 | 67.4 | 66.1 | 65.2 | 66.0 | 67.8 | 70.4 | 76.0 |
Total | 420.2 | 435.7 | 440.6 | 454.2 | 445.3 | 436.8 | 417.0 | 401.3 | 395.2 | 388.7 | 397.7 | 52
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
RUSSIA
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Ukraine | .. | .. | .. | 93.4 | 92.0 | 110.2 | 122.3 | 192.7 | 306.0 | 345.8 | .. | 53
Uzbekistan | .. | .. | .. | 131.1 | 86.4 | 103.1 | 115.3 | 127.5 | 138.4 | 141.1 | .. | 42
Armenia | .. | .. | .. | 59.4 | 73.0 | 90.0 | 102.3 | 115.0 | 116.1 | 114.8 | .. | 47
Tajikistan | .. | .. | .. | 87.1 | 64.4 | 75.7 | 82.9 | 91.8 | 100.3 | 110.2 | .. | 27
Kazakhstan | .. | .. | .. | 28.1 | 16.3 | 42.2 | 65.5 | 79.4 | 85.7 | 93.2 | .. | 56
Azerbaijan | .. | .. | .. | 67.9 | 53.0 | 62.8 | 67.2 | 77.3 | 85.5 | 90.0 | .. | 42
Moldova | .. | .. | .. | 33.9 | 28.2 | 36.3 | 41.2 | 51.6 | 60.1 | 62.4 | .. | 46
Kyrgyzstan | .. | .. | .. | 44.6 | 4.4 | 14.0 | 22.4 | 30.8 | 34.2 | 30.7 | .. | 53
Belarus | .. | .. | .. | 27.7 | 6.1 | 9.8 | 14.0 | 17.7 | 20.2 | 24.9 | .. | 53
Georgia | .. | .. | .. | 12.1 | 12.1 | 15.6 | 17.1 | 18.7 | 19.3 | 18.8 | .. | 46
Viet Nam | .. | .. | .. | 11.1 | 8.8 | 10.2 | 10.7 | 11.5 | 12.1 | 12.1 | .. | 42
China | .. | .. | .. | 28.4 | 7.6 | 8.5 | 8.0 | 8.9 | 8.5 | 8.6 | .. | 36
Turkmenistan | .. | .. | .. | 5.6 | 3.8 | 4.1 | 4.4 | 5.0 | 4.6 | 4.6 | .. | 53
Lithuania | .. | .. | .. | 2.6 | 4.2 | 4.6 | 4.9 | 4.0 | 4.4 | 4.3 | .. | 45
Turkey | .. | .. | .. | 5.4 | 3.4 | 3.8 | 4.2 | 4.4 | 4.4 | 4.3 | .. | 5
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | 48.8 | 26.7 | 30.1 | 33.4 | 36.2 | 39.2 | 39.0 | .. |
Total | .. | .. | .. | 687.0 | 490.3 | 621.0 | 715.8 | 872.6 | 1 039.0 | 1 104.7 | .. | 46
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Czech Republic | 5.1 | 6.0 | 6.9 | 8.3 | 9.0 | 14.6 | 14.7 | 11.4 | 11.9 | 12.5 | 13.0 | 47
Hungary | 2.1 | 2.7 | 3.6 | 4.6 | 5.3 | 9.3 | 9.9 | 8.1 | 8.6 | 9.2 | 9.8 | 34
Romania | 0.7 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 5.4 | 5.8 | 5.7 | 6.0 | 4.9 | 5.3 | 5.8 | 6.3 | 29
Poland | 3.6 | 4.0 | 4.4 | 5.4 | 5.6 | 6.9 | 7.0 | 5.1 | 5.2 | 5.4 | 5.6 | 48
Germany | 2.3 | 2.9 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 3.9 | 26
Ukraine | 3.9 | 3.7 | 4.7 | 5.9 | 6.3 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 64
Italy | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 18
Austria | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 25
Bulgaria | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 25
United Kingdom | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 29
France | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 29
Viet Nam | 1.1 | 1.4 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 44
Russia | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 63
China | 0.9 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 49
Croatia | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 23
Other countries | 6.7 | 8.8 | 11.6 | 14.7 | 16.2 | 11.9 | 12.2 | 10.9 | 11.4 | 12.2 | 12.9 |
Total | 32.1 | 40.9 | 52.5 | 62.9 | 68.0 | 70.7 | 72.9 | 59.2 | 61.8 | 65.8 | 69.7 | 38
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
SLOVENIA
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Bosnia and Herzegovina | .. | .. | .. | 42.5 | 41.7 | 42.7 | 45.0 | 46.8 | 50.2 | 53.1 | 66.7 | 27
Serbia | .. | .. | .. | 10.0 | 7.5 | 9.7 | 10.2 | 10.8 | 11.4 | 12.4 | 16.2 | 27
Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia | .. | .. | .. | 10.1 | 9.5 | 10.0 | 10.2 | 10.6 | 10.9 | 11.2 | 12.9 | 43
Croatia | .. | .. | .. | 10.2 | 10.3 | 10.8 | 11.6 | 10.9 | 10.3 | 10.4 | 11.4 | 35
Bulgaria | .. | .. | .. | 1.6 | 2.3 | 3.1 | 1.1 | 3.5 | 3.9 | 4.0 | 4.7 | 23
Italy | .. | .. | .. | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 2.5 | 3.1 | 31
Russia | .. | .. | .. | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 2.1 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 55
Ukraine | .. | .. | .. | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 63
China | .. | .. | .. | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 44
Germany | .. | .. | .. | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 46
Hungary | .. | .. | .. | 0.3 | 0.3 | .. | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 33
Slovak Republic | .. | .. | .. | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 57
Romania | .. | .. | .. | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 40
United Kingdom | .. | .. | .. | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 38
Austria | .. | .. | .. | 0.4 | 0.5 | .. | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 40
Other countries | .. | .. | .. | 18.6 | 17.0 | 18.3 | 16.5 | 18.4 | 20.0 | 23.4 | 24.7 |
Total | .. | .. | .. | 99.8 | 95.7 | 101.9 | 103.3 | 110.9 | 117.7 | 126.9 | 150.9 | 33
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
SPAIN
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Romania | 527.0 | 720.8 | 764.4 | 770.4 | 783.2 | 799.0 | 769.6 | 728.3 | 708.4 | 695.0 | 678.1 | 50
Morocco | 582.9 | 660.1 | 727.2 | 761.2 | 774.2 | 771.6 | 759.3 | 718.0 | 688.7 | 680.5 | 667.2 | 46
United Kingdom | 315.0 | 302.5 | 312.6 | 314.2 | 312.2 | 313.0 | 316.4 | 310.1 | 301.8 | 296.4 | 294.3 | 50
Italy | 135.1 | 151.0 | 163.5 | 168.8 | 172.1 | 178.2 | 181.0 | 180.8 | 182.7 | 191.6 | 203.1 | 43
China | 106.7 | 129.6 | 150.0 | 160.4 | 167.6 | 170.8 | 169.6 | 166.0 | 167.5 | 172.2 | 177.7 | 50
Ecuador | 427.1 | 421.6 | 420.3 | 399.4 | 350.3 | 309.8 | 269.4 | 214.0 | 174.4 | 159.0 | 145.9 | 47
Germany | 164.4 | 153.4 | 157.3 | 157.0 | 154.2 | 153.6 | 153.4 | 148.5 | 145.0 | 142.1 | 141.5 | 51
Colombia | 261.5 | 284.5 | 296.8 | 288.8 | 265.8 | 245.8 | 223.1 | 173.2 | 145.5 | 135.9 | 139.2 | 56
Bulgaria | 122.1 | 146.7 | 152.5 | 150.8 | 149.3 | 151.5 | 147.3 | 139.9 | 134.4 | 130.5 | 126.4 | 49
France | 100.4 | 101.6 | 104.3 | 103.2 | 100.4 | 101.1 | 101.5 | 99.5 | 98.7 | 100.7 | 103.1 | 50
Portugal | 100.6 | 123.2 | 131.2 | 128.8 | 123.8 | 121.3 | 116.4 | 109.0 | 103.8 | 101.8 | 100.8 | 40
Ukraine | 70.0 | 78.4 | 81.6 | 82.3 | 83.3 | 84.4 | 84.1 | 81.8 | 84.1 | 90.8 | 94.8 | 57
Bolivia | 200.5 | 234.3 | 226.6 | 213.3 | 196.8 | 180.7 | 162.5 | 127.5 | 101.3 | 89.6 | 76.1 | 58
Russia | 39.8 | 43.8 | 46.5 | 48.4 | 51.1 | 55.1 | 59.5 | 62.0 | 65.9 | 69.6 | 72.0 | 66
Argentina | 141.2 | 146.4 | 142.1 | 129.9 | 115.8 | 103.5 | 95.4 | 80.9 | 73.2 | 71.3 | 71.6 | 51
Other countries | 1 225.3 | 1 388.5 | 1 509.6 | 1 525.7 | 1 512.4 | 1 496.6 | 1 464.0 | 1 337.6 | 1 278.8 | 1 290.6 | 1 332.6 |
Total | 4 519.6 | 5 086.3 | 5 386.7 | 5 402.6 | 5 312.4 | 5 236.0 | 5 072.7 | 4 677.1 | 4 454.4 | 4 417.5 | 4 424.4 | 50
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
SWEDEN
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Syria | 3.2 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 4.1 | 5.0 | 9.1 | 20.5 | 42.2 | 70.0 | 116.4 | 40
Finland | 83.5 | 80.4 | 77.1 | 74.1 | 70.6 | 67.9 | 65.3 | 62.8 | 59.7 | 57.6 | 55.8 | 58
Poland | 22.4 | 28.9 | 34.7 | 38.6 | 40.9 | 42.7 | 44.6 | 46.1 | 48.2 | 50.8 | 52.5 | 46
Somalia | 11.6 | 14.7 | 18.3 | 24.7 | 30.8 | 33.0 | 36.1 | 45.0 | 47.1 | 46.2 | 41.3 | 50
Denmark | 35.8 | 38.4 | 39.7 | 40.3 | 40.5 | 40.5 | 40.2 | 39.3 | 38.4 | 37.1 | 35.2 | 43
Norway | 35.5 | 35.6 | 35.5 | 35.2 | 34.9 | 34.8 | 34.8 | 34.6 | 34.5 | 34.4 | 34.6 | 51
Eritrea | 2.2 | 2.9 | 3.9 | 5.0 | 6.4 | 8.4 | 10.0 | 12.8 | 18.0 | 25.1 | 32.1 | 42
Germany | 22.5 | 24.7 | 26.6 | 27.5 | 27.6 | 27.8 | 28.0 | 28.1 | 28.2 | 28.2 | 28.7 | 49
Afghanistan | 7.7 | 7.9 | 8.2 | 8.6 | 9.8 | 12.7 | 16.7 | 20.3 | 23.6 | 26.0 | 28.0 | 37
Iraq | 30.3 | 40.0 | 48.6 | 55.1 | 56.6 | 55.8 | 43.2 | 31.2 | 25.9 | 23.2 | 22.7 | 44
United Kingdom | 15.1 | 15.7 | 16.5 | 17.3 | 17.4 | 18.1 | 18.4 | 18.8 | 19.4 | 19.8 | 19.9 | 30
China | 6.9 | 7.7 | 9.4 | 11.8 | 14.1 | 15.5 | 16.3 | 17.1 | 17.5 | 16.6 | 17.3 | 54
Romania | 2.3 | 4.4 | 6.5 | 7.7 | 8.8 | 10.2 | 11.2 | 12.0 | 13.0 | 14.4 | 15.5 | 45
Iran | 10.5 | 10.2 | 10.6 | 11.8 | 13.5 | 14.3 | 14.5 | 14.8 | 14.9 | 14.1 | 14.2 | 48
Thailand | 12.5 | 13.9 | 15.5 | 17.1 | 18.3 | 19.0 | 19.1 | 18.5 | 17.7 | 15.4 | 13.9 | 79
Other countries | 190.0 | 195.9 | 207.8 | 224.6 | 239.0 | 249.4 | 259.7 | 272.9 | 291.3 | 303.8 | 323.9 |
Total | 492.0 | 524.5 | 562.1 | 602.9 | 633.3 | 655.1 | 667.2 | 694.7 | 739.4 | 782.8 | 851.9 | 46
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
SWITZERLAND
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Italy | 291.7 | 289.6 | 290.0 | 289.1 | 289.1 | 290.5 | 294.4 | 301.3 | 308.6 | 313.7 | 318.7 | 42
Germany | 172.6 | 201.9 | 233.4 | 250.5 | 264.2 | 276.8 | 285.4 | 293.2 | 298.6 | 301.5 | 304.7 | 45
Portugal | 173.5 | 182.3 | 196.2 | 205.3 | 213.2 | 224.2 | 238.4 | 253.8 | 263.0 | 268.1 | 269.5 | 45
France | 71.5 | 77.4 | 85.6 | 90.6 | 95.1 | 99.5 | 103.9 | 110.2 | 116.8 | 123.1 | 127.3 | 45
Spain | 68.2 | 65.1 | 64.4 | 64.1 | 64.2 | 66.0 | 69.8 | 75.4 | 79.5 | 82.4 | 83.5 | 45
Turkey | 73.9 | 72.6 | 71.7 | 71.0 | 70.6 | 70.2 | 69.6 | 69.2 | 69.1 | 68.6 | 68.0 | 47
Serbia | 190.8 | 187.4 | 180.3 | 149.9 | 115.0 | 104.8 | 96.8 | 81.6 | 72.2 | 67.7 | 66.8 | 50
Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia | 60.1 | 60.0 | 59.7 | 59.8 | 60.2 | 60.8 | 61.6 | 62.5 | 63.3 | 64.2 | 65.2 | 49
Austria | 32.9 | 34.0 | 35.5 | 36.5 | 37.2 | 38.2 | 39.0 | 39.6 | 40.4 | 41.3 | 42.1 | 46
United Kingdom | 26.0 | 28.7 | 31.9 | 34.1 | 36.4 | 38.6 | 39.4 | 40.4 | 41.1 | 41.3 | 41.0 | 43
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 41.3 | 39.3 | 37.5 | 35.8 | 34.6 | 33.5 | 32.9 | 32.2 | 31.8 | 31.3 | 30.8 | 49
Croatia | 39.1 | 37.8 | 36.1 | 34.9 | 33.8 | 32.8 | 31.8 | 30.7 | 30.2 | 29.6 | 29.0 | 50
Poland | 6.0 | 7.3 | 8.9 | 10.2 | 11.5 | 13.9 | 16.2 | 17.9 | 21.4 | 24.7 | 26.9 | 50
Sri Lanka | .. | .. | .. | .. | 24.6 | 24.6 | 23.9 | 23.7 | 24.5 | 25.4 | 25.8 | 48
Netherlands | 16.1 | 17.0 | 18.1 | 18.5 | 19.1 | 19.4 | 19.6 | 20.1 | 20.5 | 20.7 | 21.0 | 45
Other countries | 259.9 | 270.6 | 289.8 | 329.9 | 351.9 | 378.5 | 402.4 | 434.8 | 465.8 | 490.4 | 509.3 |
Total | 1 523.6 | 1 571.0 | 1 638.9 | 1 680.2 | 1 720.4 | 1 772.3 | 1 825.1 | 1 886.6 | 1 947.0 | 1 993.9 | 2 029.5 | 47
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
UNITED KINGDOM
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Poland | 406 | 498 | 549 | 550 | 658 | 713 | 679 | 826 | 855 | 1 006 | 994 | 51
Romania | 19 | 32 | 52 | 72 | 79 | 117 | 148 | 165 | 219 | 324 | 382 | 48
Ireland | 341 | 359 | 344 | 344 | 386 | 356 | 345 | 309 | 329 | 330 | 343 | 56
India | 258 | 294 | 293 | 354 | 332 | 360 | 336 | 354 | 379 | 347 | 317 | 50
Italy | 95 | 96 | 107 | 117 | 153 | 125 | 138 | 182 | 212 | 262 | 296 | 49
Portugal | 87 | 95 | 96 | 104 | 123 | 106 | 138 | 140 | 235 | 247 | 269 | 51
Lithuania | 54 | 73 | 67 | 99 | 129 | 126 | 153 | 158 | 192 | 204 | 196 | 51
Spain | 58 | 66 | 52 | 61 | 55 | 82 | 75 | 130 | 167 | 162 | 191 | 47
France | 122 | 123 | 148 | 116 | 114 | 132 | 132 | 135 | 189 | 181 | 186 | 48
Pakistan | 133 | 178 | 177 | 137 | 166 | 163 | 194 | 197 | 184 | 175 | 167 | 46
China | 89 | 109 | 76 | 107 | 106 | 87 | 93 | 106 | 122 | 113 | 132 | 54
Germany | 88 | 91 | 121 | 129 | 132 | 137 | 153 | 110 | 119 | 166 | 131 | 62
United States | 109 | 117 | 112 | 133 | 109 | 146 | 149 | 145 | 132 | 127 | 130 | 58
Latvia | 13 | 29 | 19 | 44 | 62 | 81 | 78 | 121 | 117 | 113 | 119 | 49
Bulgaria | 13 | 26 | 32 | 34 | 47 | 33 | 62 | 45 | 68 | 81 | 109 | 49
Other countries | 1 939 | 2 000 | 2 103 | 2 123 | 2 134 | 2 025 | 2 068 | 2 031 | 2 073 | 2 113 | 2 175 |
Total | 3 824 | 4 186 | 4 348 | 4 524 | 4 785 | 4 788 | 4 941 | 5 154 | 5 592 | 5 951 | 6 137 | 52
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Table B.5. Stocks of foreign population by nationality
UNITED STATES
Thousands
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Of which: Women 2017 (%)
Mexico | 9 033.8 | 9 151.9 | 8 933.8 | 8 885.1 | 9 043.0 | 8 861.2 | 8 613.0 | 8 598.6 | 8 579.5 | 8 327.0 | 8 256.8 | 47
India | 872.6 | 842.4 | 914.2 | 912.3 | 975.7 | 992.6 | 1 045.4 | 1 068.9 | 1 159.0 | 1 296.9 | 1 325.7 | 46
China | 647.2 | 655.4 | 627.8 | 662.6 | 791.9 | 797.1 | 861.4 | 868.2 | 963.6 | 1 079.0 | 1 118.9 | 53
El Salvador | 746.1 | 773.0 | 759.0 | 833.9 | 873.5 | 877.6 | 872.5 | 860.5 | 913.6 | 927.4 | 912.3 | 46
Guatemala | 564.5 | 515.0 | 562.8 | 600.5 | 602.5 | 640.3 | 650.5 | 677.4 | 670.0 | 679.6 | 674.0 | 38
Philippines | 608.2 | 616.2 | 621.6 | 598.0 | 611.5 | 638.4 | 635.9 | 595.7 | 596.1 | 615.2 | 563.8 | 60
Cuba | 377.4 | 411.9 | 410.2 | 409.6 | 498.4 | 489.0 | 474.2 | 470.5 | 502.1 | 491.4 | 536.8 | 46
Honduras | 315.5 | 328.9 | 354.4 | 361.5 | 405.9 | 386.8 | 412.8 | 421.9 | 441.3 | 462.8 | 518.7 | 47
Dominican Republic | 407.6 | 396.1 | 405.5 | 415.0 | 462.9 | 457.4 | 487.0 | 502.9 | 474.4 | 493.6 | 513.3 | 52
Canada | 470.6 | 440.9 | 455.3 | 444.2 | 430.2 | 428.8 | 444.9 | 452.8 | 422.0 | 445.9 | 405.1 | 52
Korea | 460.7 | 479.4 | 468.7 | 446.6 | 472.3 | 476.7 | 475.3 | 435.7 | 418.0 | 409.5 | 389.9 | 56
United Kingdom | 351.5 | 357.4 | 370.0 | 361.0 | 344.8 | 343.3 | 346.4 | 336.9 | 339.1 | 335.6 | 330.2 | 45
Viet Nam | 303.3 | 292.9 | 289.8 | 282.9 | 313.5 | 296.5 | 299.6 | 316.9 | 318.0 | 320.0 | 307.4 | 58
Haiti | 264.3 | 290.6 | 281.5 | 266.5 | 297.7 | 292.9 | 312.3 | 268.3 | 272.2 | 284.0 | 284.3 | 54
Colombia | 328.3 | 325.4 | 312.9 | 323.6 | 335.3 | 327.2 | 322.8 | 294.5 | 294.3 | 304.1 | 280.3 | 57
Other countries | 5 944.5 | 5 966.0 | 5 918.2 | 5 837.8 | 6 001.4 | 5 919.6 | 5 860.9 | 5 846.6 | 5 900.3 | 5 954.3 | 5 997.8 |
Total | 21 696.3 | 21 843.6 | 21 685.7 | 21 641.0 | 22 460.6 | 22 225.5 | 22 115.0 | 22 016.4 | 22 263.4 | 22 426.2 | 22 415.3 | 49
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752239

Metadata related to Tables A.5. and B.5. Stocks of foreign population
Country | Comments | Source
Austria | Stock of foreign citizens recorded in the population register. Reference date: 1 January. | Population Register, Statistics Austria.
Belgium | Stock of foreign citizens recorded in the population register. Includes asylum seekers from 2012 on. Reference date: 1 January. | Population Register, Directorate for Statistics and Economic Information.
Canada | 2006 and 2011 Censuses. | Statistics Canada.
Czech Republic | Numbers of foreigners residing in the country on the basis of permanent or temporary residence permits (i.e. long-term visa, long-term residence permit or temporary residence permit of EU nationals). Reference date: 1 January. | Ministry of the Interior, Directorate of Alien Police.
Denmark | Stock of foreign citizens recorded in the population register. Excludes asylum seekers and all persons with temporary residence permits. Reference date: 1 January. | Central Population Register, Statistics Denmark.
Estonia | Population register. Reference date: 1 January. | Ministry of the Interior.
Finland | Stock of foreign citizens recorded in the population register. Includes foreign persons of Finnish origin. Reference date: 1 January. | Central Population Register, Statistics Finland.
France | Foreigners with permanent residence in France. Including trainees, students and illegal migrants who accept to be interviewed. Excluding seasonal and cross-border workers. 2012 to 2015 totals are estimated based on Eurostat data. Includes the département of Mayotte from 2014. | Censuses, National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE).
Germany | Stock of foreign citizens recorded in the population register. Includes all foreigners regardless of their housing situation (private or non-private dwelling). Excludes ethnic Germans (Aussiedler). Reference date: 1 January. | Central Population Register, Federal Office of Statistics.
Greece | Includes some undocumented foreigners. Reference date: Prior to 2014: 4th quarter; from 2014 on: 2nd quarter. | Labour Force Survey, Hellenic Statistical authority.

Hungary

Foreigners having a residence or a settlement document. From 2010 on, includes third-country nationals holding a temporary residence permit (for a year or more). From 2011 on, includes persons under subsidiary protection. Data for 2011 were adjusted to match the October census results.

Reference date: 1 January.

Office of Immigration and Nationality, Central Statistical Office.

Iceland | Data are from the National Register of Persons. It is to be expected that figures are overestimates. Reference date: 1 January. | Statistics Iceland.
Ireland | Census data for 2006 and 2011. | Central Statistics Office (CSO).
Italy | Data refer to resident foreigners (registered in municipal registry offices). Excludes children under 18 who are registered on their parents' permit. Includes foreigners who were regularised following the 2009 programme. Reference date:1 January. | National Statistical Institute (ISTAT).
Japan | Foreigners staying in Japan for the mid- to long-term with a resident status under the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act. Reference date:1 January. | Ministry of Justice, Immigration Bureau.
Korea | Foreigners staying in Korea more than 90 days and registered in the population registers. | Ministry of Justice.
Latvia | Population register. Reference date:1 January. | Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs.
Luxembourg | Stock of foreign citizens recorded in population register. Does not include visitors (staying for less than three months) and cross-border workers. Reference date: 1 January. 2010 figures are extracted from the February 2011 census. | Population Register, Central Office of Statistics and Economic Studies (Statec).

Mexico

Number of foreigners who hold a valid permit for permanent or temporary residence. Data until 2012 are estimates under the terms of the 1974 Act; they include immigrants FM2 "inmigrante" and "inmigrado" (boths categories refer to permanent residence) and non-immigrants FM3 with specific categories (temporary residence). Data from 2014 are estimates under the terms of the 2011 Migration Act.

National Migration Institute, Unit for Migration Policy, Ministry of Interior.

Netherlands | Stock of foreign citizens recorded in the population register. Figures include administrative corrections and asylum seekers (except those staying in reception centres). Reference date: 1 January. | Population Register, Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS).
Norway | Stock of foreign citizens recorded in the population register. It excludes visitors (staying for less than six months) and cross-border workers. Reference date: 1 January. | Central Population Register, Statistics Norway.
Poland | From 2006 on, data are from the Central Population Register. | Central Population Register, Central Statistical Office.

Portugal

Holders of a valid residence permit. Data for 2006-07 include holders of a valid residence or stay permit (foreigners who renewed their stay permits) and holders of long-term visas (both issued and renewed every year). Work visas issued in 2004 and 2005 include a certain number of foreigners who benefited from the regularisation scheme and also from the specific dispositions applying to Brazilian workers following a bilateral agreement. From 2008 on, figures include holders of a valid residence permit and holders of a renewed long-term visa.

Immigration and Border Control Office (SEF); National Statistical Institute (INE).

Russia | 2010 Census: foreigners and stateless persons permanently residing in the Russian Federation. Since 2011, stocks of temporary and permanent residence permit holders on 31 December. | Federal state statistics service (Rosstat); Federal Migration Service.
Slovak Republic | Holders of a permanent or long-term residence permit. | Register of Foreigners, Ministry of the Interior.
Slovenia | Number of valid residence permits, regardless of the administrative status of the foreign national. Reference date: 1 January. | Central Population Register, Ministry of the Interior.
Spain | All foreign citizens in the Municipal Registers irrespective of their legal status. Reference date: 1 January. | Municipal Registers, National Statistics Institute (INE).
Sweden | Stock of foreign citizens recorded in the population register. Reference date: 1 January. | Population Register, Statistics Sweden.
Switzerland | Stock of all those with residence or settlement permits (permits B and C, respectively). Holders of an L-permit (short duration) are also included if their stay in the country is longer than 12 months. Does not include seasonal or cross-border workers. Reference date: 1 January. | Register of Foreigners, Federal Office of Migration.
Turkey | Reference date: 1 January. | Eurostat
United Kingdom | Foreign residents. Those with unknown nationality from the New Commonwealth are not included (around 10 000 to 15 000 persons). Reference date: 1 January. | Labour Force Survey, Home Office.
United States | Foreigners born abroad. | Current Population Survey, Census Bureau.
Note: Data for Serbia include persons from Serbia, Montenegro and Serbia and Montenegro. Some statements may refer to nationalities/countries of birth not shown in this annex but available on line at: http://stats.oecd.org/.

Acquisitions of nationality

Nationality law can have a significant impact on the measurement of the national and foreign populations. In France and Belgium, for example, where foreigners can fairly easily acquire the nationality of the country, increases in the foreign population through immigration and births can eventually contribute to a significant rise in the population of nationals. On the other hand, in countries where naturalisation is more difficult, increases in immigration and births among foreigners manifest themselves almost exclusively as growth in the foreign population. In addition, changes in rules regarding naturalisation can have significant impact. For example, during the 1980s, a number of OECD countries made naturalisation easier and this resulted in noticeable falls in the foreign population (and rises in the population of nationals).

However, host-country legislation is not the only factor affecting naturalisation. For example, where naturalisation involves forfeiting citizenship of the country of origin, there may be incentives to remain a foreign citizen. Where the difference between remaining a foreign citizen and becoming a national is marginal, naturalisation may largely be influenced by the time and effort required to make the application, and the symbolic and political value individuals attach to being citizens of one country or another.

Data on naturalisations are usually readily available from administrative sources. The statistics generally cover all means of acquiring the nationality of a country. These include standard naturalisation procedures subject to criteria such as age or residency, etc., as well as situations where nationality is acquired through a declaration or by option (following marriage, adoption or other situations related to residency or descent), recovery of former nationality and other special means of acquiring the nationality of the country.

Table A.6. Acquisitions of nationality in OECD countries and Russia
Numbers and percentages
|  | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016
Australia | 104 333 | 137 493 | 119 811 | 86 654 | 119 383 | 95 235 | 83 698 | 123 438 | 162 002 | 135 596 | 133 126
| % of foreign population | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Austria | 25 746 | 14 010 | 10 258 | 7 978 | 6 135 | 6 690 | 7 043 | 7 354 | 7 570 | 8 144 | 8 530
| % of foreign population | 3.3 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.7
Belgium | 31 860 | 36 063 | 37 710 | 32 767 | 34 635 | 29 786 | 38 612 | 34 801 | 18 726 | 27 071 | 31 935
| % of foreign population | 3.7 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 3.4 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 3.4 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 2.1 | 2.4
Canada | 260 838 | 199 894 | 176 617 | 156 363 | 143 579 | 179 451 | 111 923 | 127 470 | 259 274 | 251 144 | 148 103
| % of foreign population | .. | .. | 11.4 | .. | .. | .. | 5.7 | .. | .. | .. | ..
Chile | 503 | 705 | 623 | 811 | 741 | 1 030 | 1 226 | 678 | 1 048 | 686 | 788
| % of foreign population | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Czech Republic | 2 346 | 1 877 | 1 837 | 1 621 | 1 495 | 1 936 | 2 036 | 2 514 | 5 114 | 4 925 | 5 536
| % of foreign population | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.2
Denmark | 7 961 | 3 648 | 5 772 | 6 537 | 3 006 | 3 911 | 3 489 | 1 750 | 4 747 | 11 745 | 15 028
| % of foreign population | 3.0 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 1.3 | 3.0 | 3.6
Estonia | 4 753 | 4 230 | 2 124 | 1 670 | 1 189 | 1 518 | 1 340 | 1 330 | 1 614 | 897 | 1 775
| % of foreign population | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.8
Finland | 4 433 | 4 824 | 6 682 | 3 413 | 4 334 | 4 558 | 9 087 | 8 930 | 8 260 | 7 921 | 9 375
| % of foreign population | 4.1 | 4.2 | 5.5 | 2.6 | 3.0 | 2.9 | 5.4 | 4.9 | 4.2 | 3.8 | 4.3
France | 147 868 | 131 738 | 137 452 | 135 852 | 143 261 | 114 569 | 96 050 | 97 276 | 105 613 | 113 608 | 119 152
| % of foreign population | .. | 3.7 | 3.7 | 3.6 | 3.8 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.7
Germany | 124 566 | 113 030 | 94 470 | 96 122 | 101 570 | 106 897 | 112 348 | 112 353 | 108 422 | 107 181 | 110 383
| % of foreign population | 1.9 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.4
Greece | .. | 10 806 | 16 922 | 17 019 | 9 387 | 17 533 | 20 302 | 29 462 | 21 829 | 12 837 | 32 819
| % of foreign population | .. | 2.0 | 3.0 | 2.6 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 2.5 | 3.9 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 4.6
Hungary | 6 172 | 8 442 | 8 104 | 5 802 | 6 086 | 20 554 | 18 379 | 9 178 | 8 745 | 4 048 | 4 315
| % of foreign population | 4.3 | 5.5 | 4.9 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 10.4 | 8.8 | 6.4 | 6.2 | 2.9 | 3.0
Iceland | 844 | 647 | 914 | 728 | 450 | 370 | 413 | 597 | 595 | 801 | 703
| % of foreign population | 7.9 | 4.7 | 4.9 | 3.1 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 3.5 | 2.9
Ireland | 5 763 | 6 656 | 4 350 | 4 594 | 6 387 | 10 749 | 25 039 | 24 263 | 21 090 | 13 565 | 10 044
| % of foreign population | .. | .. | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 3.8 | 2.4 | 1.8
Italy | 35 266 | 45 485 | 53 696 | 59 369 | 65 938 | 56 153 | 65 383 | 100 712 | 129 887 | 178 035 | 201 591
| % of foreign population | 1.5 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 3.6 | 4.0
Japan | 14 108 | 14 680 | 13 218 | 14 785 | 13 072 | 10 359 | 10 622 | 8 646 | 9 277 | 9 469 | 9 554
| % of foreign population | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5
Korea | 8 125 | 10 319 | 15 258 | 26 756 | 17 323 | 18 400 | 12 528 | 13 956 | 14 200 | 13 934 | 12 854
| % of foreign population | 1.7 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 3.3 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.2
Latvia | 18 964 | 8 322 | 4 230 | 3 235 | 3 660 | 2 467 | 3 784 | 3 083 | 2 141 | 1 897 | 1 957
| % of foreign population | 3.9 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.7
Luxembourg | 1 128 | 1 236 | 1 215 | 4 022 | 4 311 | 3 405 | 4 680 | 4 411 | 4 991 | 5 306 | 7 140
| % of foreign population | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 2.8
Mexico | 4 175 | 5 470 | 4 471 | 3 489 | 2 150 | 2 633 | 3 590 | 3 581 | 2 341 | 2 736 | 2 940
| % of foreign population | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 0.8 | .. | 0.9
Netherlands | 29 089 | 30 653 | 28 229 | 29 754 | 26 275 | 28 598 | 30 955 | 25 882 | 32 578 | 27 877 | 28 534
| % of foreign population | 4.2 | 4.4 | 4.1 | 4.3 | 3.7 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 3.3 | 4.1 | 3.4 | 3.4
New Zealand | 29 165 | 29 917 | 23 781 | 18 140 | 15 331 | 19 513 | 27 607 | 28 468 | 28 759 | 28 468 | 32 862
| % of foreign population | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Norway | 11 955 | 14 877 | 10 312 | 11 442 | 11 903 | 14 637 | 12 384 | 13 223 | 15 336 | 12 432 | 14 676
| % of foreign population | 5.6 | 6.7 | 4.3 | 4.3 | 3.9 | 4.4 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 3.4 | 2.6 | 2.9
Poland | 989 | 1 528 | 1 054 | 2 503 | 2 926 | 2 325 | 3 792 | 3 462 | 4 518 | 4 048 | 4 086
| % of foreign population | .. | .. | 1.9 | 4.3 | 4.8 | 4.7 | .. | 6.2 | .. | .. | ..
Portugal | 3 627 | 6 020 | 22 408 | 24 182 | 21 750 | 23 238 | 21 819 | 24 476 | 21 124 | 20 396 | 25 104
| % of foreign population | 0.8 | 1.4 | 5.3 | 5.5 | 4.9 | 5.1 | 4.9 | 5.6 | 5.1 | 5.1 | 6.4
Russia | 346 858 | 354 887 | 350 243 | 382 694 | 102 131 | 129 802 | 91 915 | 114 927 | 138 578 | 197 379 | 254 283
| % of foreign population | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 18.9 | 18.7 | 18.5 | 19.4 | 22.6 | 24.2
Slovak Republic | 1 125 | 1 478 | 478 | 262 | 239 | 272 | 255 | 207 | 234 | 309 | 409
| % of foreign population | 5.1 | 5.8 | 1.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.7
Slovenia | .. | 841 | 1 468 | 1 706 | 1 829 | 1 812 | 768 | 1 470 | 1 262 | 1 423 | 1 354
| % of foreign population | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1.8 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.2
Spain | 62 339 | 71 810 | 84 170 | 79 597 | 123 721 | 114 599 | 115 557 | 261 295 | 93 714 | 78 000 | 93 760
| % of foreign population | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 4.6 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 2.0
Sweden | 50 897 | 33 436 | 30 254 | 29 318 | 32 197 | 36 328 | 49 746 | 49 632 | 42 918 | 48 249 | 60 343
| % of foreign population | 10.6 | 7.0 | 6.1 | 5.6 | 5.7 | 6.0 | 7.9 | 7.6 | 6.4 | 6.9 | 8.2
Switzerland | 46 711 | 43 889 | 44 365 | 43 440 | 39 314 | 36 757 | 34 121 | 34 332 | 33 325 | 40 888 | 41 587
| % of foreign population | 3.1 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 2.4 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 2.1
Turkey | 5 072 | 4 359 | 5 968 | 8 141 | 9 488 | 9 216 | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
| % of foreign population | .. | .. | .. | 7.8 | 5.7 | 4.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
United Kingdom | 154 018 | 164 637 | 129 377 | 203 789 | 195 046 | 177 785 | 194 209 | 207 989 | 125 653 | 118 053 | 149 457
| % of foreign population | 5.4 | 5.4 | 3.8 | 5.3 | 4.7 | 4.1 | 4.3 | 4.3 | 2.6 | 2.4 | 2.7
United States | 702 589 | 660 477 | 1046 539 | 743 715 | 619 913 | 694 193 | 757 434 | 779 929 | 653 416 | 730 259 | 753 060
| % of foreign population | 3.5 | 3.2 | 4.8 | 3.4 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 3.3 | 3.4
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the Tables B.6.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752163

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
AUSTRALIA
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
India | 7 638 | 13 026 | 9 119 | 9 124 | 17 788 | 12 948 | 10 076 | 19 217 | 27 827 | 24 236 | 21 989 | 47
United Kingdom | 22 637 | 26 922 | 27 032 | 18 206 | 22 284 | 19 101 | 16 401 | 20 478 | 25 884 | 20 583 | 20 949 | 47
Philippines | 3 825 | 5 187 | 3 841 | 3 453 | 4 505 | 4 051 | 5 592 | 9 090 | 11 628 | 8 996 | 8 333 | 62
China | 7 406 | 11 173 | 8 407 | 6 700 | 11 109 | 8 898 | 6 876 | 8 979 | 9 203 | 7 549 | 6 931 | 62
South Africa | 5 111 | 6 760 | 5 538 | 4 162 | 5 218 | 4 389 | 4 206 | 7 900 | 9 286 | 6 211 | 5 629 | 55
New Zealand | 7 745 | 7 531 | 6 835 | 3 761 | 4 165 | 4 304 | 3 458 | 3 794 | 5 361 | 4 091 | 4 390 | 47
Viet Nam | 2 146 | 2 634 | 2 177 | 1 522 | 2 000 | 1 688 | 1 929 | 2 568 | 3 514 | 3 835 | 4 173 | 59
Ireland | 1 236 | 1 442 | 1 423 | 881 | 1 280 | 1 302 | 1 145 | 1 796 | 2 843 | 3 092 | 3 943 | 34
Sri Lanka | 2 002 | 3 613 | 2 937 | 2 203 | 3 412 | 2 520 | 1 671 | 2 746 | 3 957 | 3 179 | 3 752 | 38
Pakistan | 1 091 | 1 468 | 1 190 | 1 194 | 1 728 | 1 057 | 990 | 2 100 | 2 739 | 2 341 | 3 077 | 32
Nepal | 309 | 518 | 440 | 298 | 550 | 520 | 589 | 1 384 | 1 810 | 2 401 | 2 959 | 37
Malaysia | 2 046 | 2 974 | 2 742 | 1 778 | 2 216 | 2 207 | 1 487 | 1 841 | 2 788 | 2 213 | 2 827 | 41
Iran | 743 | 1 080 | 737 | 823 | 918 | 779 | 1 024 | 1 657 | 2 155 | 2 198 | 2 416 | 44
Korea | 1 770 | 2 491 | 2 395 | 1 211 | 2 409 | 2 321 | 1 570 | 2 109 | 2 746 | 2 307 | 2 258 | 54
Bangladesh | 797 | 1 202 | 1 072 | 1 756 | 2 940 | 1 178 | 1 183 | 1 946 | 2 650 | 2 473 | 1 976 | 60
Other countries | 37 831 | 49 472 | 43 926 | 29 582 | 36 861 | 27 972 | 25 501 | 35 833 | 47 611 | 39 891 | 37 524 |
Total | 104 333 | 137 493 | 119 811 | 86 654 | 119 383 | 95 235 | 83 698 | 123 438 | 162 002 | 135 596 | 133 126 | 51
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
AUSTRIA
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 4 596 | 3 329 | 2 207 | 1 457 | 1 278 | 1 174 | 1 131 | 1 039 | 1 120 | 1 216 | 1 261 | 55
Turkey | 7 542 | 2 076 | 1 664 | 1 242 | 937 | 1 178 | 1 198 | 1 108 | 885 | 997 | 818 | 53
Serbia | 4 825 | 4 254 | 2 595 | 2 003 | 1 268 | 1 092 | 723 | 834 | 678 | 642 | 760 | 49
Russia | 228 | 128 | 127 | 135 | 137 | 296 | 316 | 427 | 431 | 298 | 337 | 55
Afghanistan | 261 | 43 | 106 | 108 | 113 | 157 | 179 | 28 | 232 | 187 | 332 | 25
Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia | 716 | 414 | 377 | 281 | 150 | 182 | 163 | 182 | 210 | 224 | 297 | 36
India | 159 | 137 | 122 | 90 | 84 | 82 | 171 | 165 | 207 | 233 | 277 | 45
Romania | 981 | 455 | 382 | 246 | 114 | 223 | 275 | 224 | 244 | 221 | 257 | 56
Nigeria | 189 | 35 | 54 | 36 | 57 | 50 | 57 | 15 | 158 | 156 | 238 | 26
Iran | 253 | 88 | 99 | 103 | 111 | 138 | 168 | 18 | 159 | 182 | 226 | 38
Ukraine | 145 | 81 | 70 | 80 | 75 | 106 | 99 | 134 | 136 | 298 | 225 | 101
Germany | 122 | 113 | 67 | 174 | 132 | 117 | 110 | 127 | 187 | 148 | 182 | 44
Egypt | 382 | 100 | 121 | 124 | 94 | 97 | 152 | 174 | 189 | 214 | 169 | 61
Croatia | 2 494 | 1 349 | 824 | 440 | 456 | 363 | 401 | 224 | 184 | 143 | 160 | 56
Hungary | 106 | 74 | 56 | 72 | 68 | 66 | 71 | 83 | 111 | 119 | 154 | 50
Other countries | 2 747 | 1 334 | 1 387 | 1 387 | 1 061 | 1 369 | 1 829 | 2 572 | 2 439 | 2 866 | 2 837 |
Total | 25 746 | 14 010 | 10 258 | 7 978 | 6 135 | 6 690 | 7 043 | 7 354 | 7 570 | 8 144 | 8 530 | 52
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
BELGIUM
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Morocco | 7 753 | 8 722 | 8 427 | 6 919 | 7 380 | 7 035 | 7 879 | 5 926 | 2 408 | 3 170 | 3 996 | 38
Romania | 429 | 554 | 480 | 362 | 395 | 356 | 777 | 1 155 | 824 | 1 192 | 1 535 | 39
Netherlands | 692 | 668 | 683 | 608 | 641 | 495 | 961 | 1 272 | 705 | 993 | 1 390 | 36
Poland | 550 | 586 | 619 | 640 | 523 | 394 | 729 | 888 | 742 | 1 136 | 1 243 | 58
Italy | 2 360 | 2 017 | 1 762 | 1 700 | 2 833 | 3 697 | 3 203 | 1 856 | 1 199 | 1 067 | 1 048 | 42
Russia | 487 | 1 533 | 2 599 | 1 647 | 1 641 | 1 032 | 1 439 | 1 525 | 641 | 950 | 1 029 | 51
Dem. Rep. of the Congo | 1 567 | 1 793 | 1 795 | 1 555 | 1 603 | 1 158 | 1 936 | 1 526 | 713 | 1 061 | 1 016 | 61
Turkey | 3 204 | 3 039 | 3 182 | 2 763 | 2 760 | 2 359 | 2 517 | 1 857 | 691 | 843 | 989 | 39
Armenia | 206 | 197 | 291 | 274 | 374 | 277 | 360 | 583 | 361 | 796 | 868 | 47
Cameroon | 250 | 317 | 463 | 401 | 490 | 600 | 924 | 915 | 546 | 738 | 845 | 48
Guinea | 144 | 229 | 278 | 233 | 291 | 228 | 757 | 941 | 416 | 635 | 681 | 46
France | 820 | 836 | 838 | 792 | 717 | 638 | 903 | 973 | 586 | 647 | 673 | 45
Iraq | 113 | 236 | 251 | 298 | 322 | 184 | 397 | 612 | 377 | 546 | 655 | 35
Bulgaria | 193 | 185 | 188 | 213 | 208 | 185 | 338 | 514 | 326 | 526 | 579 | 49
Albania | 341 | 392 | 423 | 310 | 334 | 216 | 369 | 427 | 256 | 460 | 560 | 42
Other countries | 12 751 | 14 759 | 15 431 | 14 052 | 14 123 | 10 932 | 15 123 | 13 831 | 7 935 | 12 311 | 14 828 |
Total | 31 860 | 36 063 | 37 710 | 32 767 | 34 635 | 29 786 | 38 612 | 34 801 | 18 726 | 27 071 | 31 935 | 42
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
CANADA
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Philippines | 15 569 | 12 198 | 11 668 | 11 069 | 11 586 | 15 902 | 10 392 | 14 583 | 27 416 | 31 729 | 23 871 | 76
India | 33 975 | 25 797 | 20 840 | 17 399 | 18 958 | 22 043 | 13 319 | 15 246 | 26 320 | 28 048 | 16 606 | 85
China | 34 607 | 24 427 | 21 083 | 16 058 | 13 464 | 15 503 | 10 382 | 10 053 | 21 620 | 20 081 | 10 843 | 107
Pakistan | 17 122 | 11 625 | 9 433 | 7 839 | 8 060 | 9 812 | 5 526 | 5 197 | 8 988 | 8 628 | 5 768 | 76
United States | 5 120 | 4 270 | 4 136 | 3 737 | 3 713 | 5 010 | 3 797 | 4 424 | 7 249 | 6 627 | 4 501 | 79
United Kingdom | 6 652 | 5 260 | 4 724 | 4 372 | 4 506 | 5 971 | 4 298 | 4 721 | 7 293 | 6 255 | 4 172 | 71
Iran | 8 086 | 5 330 | 4 984 | 3 827 | 3 585 | 4 923 | 3 506 | 3 337 | 9 357 | 8 959 | 3 925 | 117
Iraq | 2 979 | 1 759 | 1 508 | 1 187 | 1 056 | 1 581 | 1 298 | 2 359 | 4 556 | 5 175 | 2 985 | 90
Korea | 7 558 | 5 862 | 5 254 | 3 840 | 3 163 | 4 023 | 3 046 | 3 126 | 5 884 | 5 938 | 2 905 | 107
Haiti | 2 132 | 1 727 | 1 512 | 2 057 | 1 249 | 1 427 | 751 | 1 411 | 3 918 | 4 020 | 2 602 | 90
Colombia | 3 138 | 3 784 | 4 672 | 4 290 | 3 810 | 4 026 | 2 520 | 3 318 | 6 997 | 5 100 | 2 593 | 104
Sri Lanka | 5 651 | 4 705 | 3 691 | 3 188 | 2 916 | 3 321 | 1 984 | 2 425 | 4 107 | 2 986 | 2 531 | 63
Algeria | 3 332 | 2 552 | 2 150 | 3 160 | 2 456 | 3 296 | 1 585 | 1 837 | 7 173 | 5 679 | 2 467 | 113
Egypt | 1 800 | 1 634 | 1 468 | 1 196 | 1 047 | 1 458 | 990 | 1 135 | 3 471 | 4 729 | 2 394 | 93
France | 2 690 | 2 192 | 1 884 | 2 688 | 1 971 | 2 702 | 1 441 | 2 089 | 5 755 | 4 590 | 2 255 | 98
Other countries | 110 427 | 86 772 | 77 610 | 70 456 | 62 039 | 78 453 | 47 088 | 52 209 | 109 170 | 102 600 | 57 685 |
Total | 260 838 | 199 894 | 176 617 | 156 363 | 143 579 | 179 451 | 111 923 | 127 470 | 259 274 | 251 144 | 148 103 | 89
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
CHILE
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Peru | 117 | 198 | 174 | 171 | 156 | 241 | 307 | 153 | 237 | 142 | 167 | ..
Colombia | 19 | 44 | 26 | 61 | 54 | 98 | 149 | 105 | 168 | 120 | 121 | ..
Ecuador | 21 | 43 | 62 | 72 | 89 | 116 | 174 | 95 | 127 | 83 | 93 | ..
Cuba | 92 | 109 | 116 | 107 | 119 | 158 | 159 | 88 | 115 | 83 | 69 | ..
Bolivia | 98 | 97 | 71 | 119 | 95 | 136 | 118 | 59 | 92 | 54 | 64 | ..
Venezuela | 3 | 9 | 8 | 14 | 17 | 26 | 21 | 8 | 24 | 23 | 42 | ..
Iraq | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 47 | 9 | 37 | ..
Argentina | 7 | 11 | 10 | 20 | 16 | 26 | 33 | 21 | 31 | 27 | 27 | ..
India | 7 | 13 | 17 | 11 | 9 | 23 | 15 | 8 | 23 | 11 | 18 | ..
Dominican Republic | 1 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 17 | 2 | 13 | 10 | 15 | ..
Haiti | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 14 | ..
Pakistan | 7 | 10 | 4 | 17 | 15 | 20 | 17 | 12 | 4 | 3 | 13 | ..
Syria | 9 | 9 | 9 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 12 | ..
China | 25 | 24 | 16 | 46 | 29 | 28 | 29 | 18 | 19 | 17 | 9 | ..
Brazil | 0 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 8 | ..
Other countries | 95 | 132 | 103 | 153 | 128 | 137 | 170 | 96 | 133 | 94 | 79 |
Total | 503 | 705 | 623 | 811 | 741 | 1 030 | 1 226 | 678 | 1 048 | 686 | 788 | 44
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
CZECH REPUBLIC
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Ukraine | 425 | 424 | 398 | 520 | 396 | 501 | 518 | 948 | 2 075 | 1 044 | 1 429 | ..
Russia | 107 | 102 | 84 | 58 | 50 | 68 | 173 | 162 | 463 | 305 | 563 | ..
Viet Nam | 43 | 40 | 42 | 44 | 52 | 86 | 80 | 166 | 298 | 271 | 405 | ..
Slovak Republic | 786 | 625 | 521 | 431 | 377 | 378 | 331 | 270 | 574 | 111 | 372 | ..
Belarus | 27 | 39 | 27 | 20 | 15 | 38 | 49 | 53 | 137 | 94 | 135 | ..
Romania | 131 | 36 | 83 | 35 | 36 | 76 | 70 | 30 | 311 | 111 | 115 | ..
Poland | 86 | 50 | 53 | 58 | 63 | 198 | 180 | 176 | 105 | 34 | 96 | ..
Moldova | 9 | 33 | 21 | 23 | 15 | 32 | 25 | 41 | 175 | 55 | 93 | ..
Serbia | 31 | 28 | 25 | 17 | 7 | 11 | 9 | 26 | 57 | 65 | 66 | ..
Bulgaria | 48 | 14 | 11 | 12 | 21 | 28 | 19 | 27 | 52 | 51 | 65 | ..
Kazakhstan | 129 | 18 | 121 | 21 | 17 | 48 | 30 | 65 | 122 | 48 | 50 | ..
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 37 | 19 | 11 | 9 | 9 | 16 | 27 | 11 | 59 | 47 | 49 | ..
Armenia | 61 | 28 | 19 | 16 | 11 | 47 | 74 | 46 | 144 | 49 | 35 | ..
Syria | 4 | 5 | 12 | 6 | 4 | 8 | 19 | 23 | 28 | 18 | 29 | ..
Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia | 13 | 3 | 9 | 11 | 2 | 9 | 6 | 14 | 20 | 23 | 28 | ..
Other countries | 409 | 413 | 400 | 340 | 420 | 392 | 426 | 456 | 494 | 2 599 | 2 006 |
Total | 2 346 | 1 877 | 1 837 | 1 621 | 1 495 | 1 936 | 2 036 | 2 514 | 5 114 | 4 925 | 5 536 | ..
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
DENMARK
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Iraq | 1 113 | 515 | 1 166 | 1 201 | 368 | 838 | 730 | 356 | 1 588 | 1 131 | 2 917 | 18
Afghanistan | 260 | 178 | 359 | 790 | 354 | 576 | 463 | 151 | 917 | 408 | 1 621 | 11
Somalia | 923 | 317 | 527 | 264 | 142 | 233 | 185 | 58 | 404 | 229 | 995 | 12
Turkey | 1 125 | 527 | 581 | 511 | 239 | 227 | 300 | 166 | 150 | 193 | 977 | 11
Pakistan | 172 | 93 | 191 | 214 | 21 | 73 | 89 | 77 | 38 | 191 | 641 | 14
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 519 | 224 | 270 | 265 | 131 | 110 | 82 | 39 | 59 | 96 | 493 | 11
Iran | 203 | 89 | 207 | 155 | 63 | 113 | 127 | 23 | 130 | 100 | 453 | 9
China | 281 | 162 | 181 | 199 | 103 | 103 | 97 | 19 | 105 | 23 | 348 | 3
Sweden | 66 | 48 | 39 | 52 | 58 | 64 | 57 | 33 | 47 | 105 | 277 | 23
Morocco | 114 | 40 | 119 | 104 | 46 | 34 | 66 | 17 | 50 | 65 | 277 | 11
Viet Nam | 213 | 129 | 78 | 144 | 86 | 58 | 58 | 23 | 52 | 48 | 261 | 10
Iceland | 14 | 18 | 10 | 26 | 17 | 24 | 12 | 16 | 17 | 39 | 238 | 7
Sri Lanka | 148 | 73 | 127 | 74 | 20 | 58 | 45 | 13 | 48 | 56 | 234 | 11
Russia | 84 | 54 | 63 | 123 | 74 | 55 | 85 | 62 | 31 | 76 | 232 | 23
Ukraine | 38 | 22 | 32 | 30 | 16 | 35 | 44 | 32 | 10 | 72 | 228 | 28
Other countries | 2 688 | 1 159 | 1 822 | 2 385 | 1 268 | 1 310 | 1 049 | 665 | 1 101 | 8 913 | 4 836 |
Total | 7 961 | 3 648 | 5 772 | 6 537 | 3 006 | 3 911 | 3 489 | 1 750 | 4 747 | 11 745 | 15 028 | 14
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
ESTONIA
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Russia | 355 | 269 | 138 | 87 | 77 | 156 | 174 | 169 | 204 | 132 | 244 | 40
Ukraine | 15 | 19 | 16 | 20 | 18 | 10 | 24 | 18 | 30 | 19 | 29 | 48
Armenia | .. | 1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1 | .. | .. | 1 | 12 | ..
Latvia | 3 | 2 | .. | .. | .. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 8 | 12
Belarus | 5 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 3 | .. | 5 | ..
Moldova | 1 | .. | 2 | .. | 2 | .. | .. | .. | 1 | .. | 3 | ..
India | .. | 1 | .. | .. | 2 | .. | 5 | 1 | 2 | .. | 3 | ..
Georgia | .. | .. | .. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | .. | 3 | ..
Turkey | .. | 1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1 | 1 | 2 | ..
Sri Lanka | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2 | ..
Lithuania | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | .. | 2 | 1 | 1 | .. | .. | 2 | ..
Kyrgyzstan | 1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2 | ..
Korea | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2 | ..
United States | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1 | ..
Kazakhstan | 1 | .. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ..
Other countries | 4 370 | 3 935 | 1 963 | 1 557 | 1 085 | 1 344 | 1 126 | 1 136 | 1 367 | 742 | 1 456 |
Total | 4 753 | 4 230 | 2 124 | 1 670 | 1 189 | 1 518 | 1 340 | 1 330 | 1 614 | 897 | 1 775 | 30
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
FINLAND
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Russia | 1 399 | 1 665 | 2 211 | 1 026 | 1 925 | 1 652 | 2 477 | 2 103 | 2 317 | 1 728 | 2 028 | 54
Somalia | 445 | 464 | 595 | 290 | 131 | 96 | 609 | 814 | 834 | 955 | 1 066 | 42
Iraq | 405 | 443 | 379 | 207 | 78 | 106 | 457 | 521 | 405 | 560 | 534 | 38
Estonia | 176 | 182 | 262 | 166 | 243 | 302 | 521 | 436 | 382 | 420 | 459 | 55
Afghanistan | 101 | 102 | 279 | 186 | 108 | 100 | 510 | 479 | 251 | 242 | 376 | 28
Turkey | 110 | 102 | 195 | 94 | 132 | 166 | 278 | 271 | 257 | 229 | 264 | 29
Viet Nam | 64 | 79 | 78 | 42 | 54 | 82 | 150 | 150 | 114 | 146 | 225 | 37
Iran | 213 | 218 | 329 | 180 | 137 | 145 | 451 | 341 | 219 | 140 | 222 | 28
Sweden | 178 | 163 | 274 | 126 | 104 | 196 | 190 | 146 | 186 | 165 | 206 | 34
Thailand | 15 | 30 | 34 | 24 | 41 | 50 | 75 | 104 | 125 | 150 | 193 | 64
India | 8 | 26 | 28 | 27 | 73 | 76 | 117 | 99 | 152 | 137 | 193 | 40
Nigeria | 6 | 13 | 19 | 2 | 7 | 18 | 75 | 87 | 111 | 179 | 175 | 27
Ukraine | 46 | 45 | 62 | 53 | 92 | 95 | 148 | 157 | 141 | 145 | 163 | 55
Serbia | 248 | 240 | 371 | 173 | 122 | 133 | 374 | 316 | 160 | 132 | 161 | 43
Dem. Rep. of the Congo | 43 | 48 | 35 | 18 | 25 | 20 | 100 | 122 | 150 | 131 | 150 | 49
Other countries | 976 | 1 004 | 1 531 | 799 | 1 062 | 1 321 | 2 555 | 2 784 | 2 456 | 2 462 | 2 960 |
Total | 4 433 | 4 824 | 6 682 | 3 413 | 4 334 | 4 558 | 9 087 | 8 930 | 8 260 | 7 921 | 9 375 | 44
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
FRANCE
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Morocco | 27 187 | 21 163 | 28 699 | 26 353 | 28 919 | 22 612 | 18 325 | 16 662 | 18 051 | 19 110 | 17 769 | 52
Algeria | 33 702 | 19 753 | 20 256 | 20 757 | 21 299 | 15 527 | 12 991 | 13 408 | 15 142 | 17 377 | 17 662 | 47
Tunisia | 8 255 | 7 131 | 9 471 | 9 476 | 9 008 | 6 828 | 5 546 | 5 569 | 6 274 | 7 018 | 7 663 | 40
Turkey | 11 629 | 4 912 | 10 202 | 9 259 | 9 667 | 8 277 | 6 920 | 5 873 | 5 835 | 5 595 | 5 757 | 46
Mali | 1 266 | 1 245 | 2 237 | 2 786 | 3 214 | 2 616 | 2 201 | 2 645 | 3 345 | 3 621 | 4 111 | 42
Russia | 1 520 | 2 031 | 3 530 | 4 157 | 4 507 | 3 390 | 2 203 | 2 517 | 3 040 | 2 654 | 4 094 | 49
Côte d'Ivoire | 2 120 | 1 744 | 2 197 | 2 582 | 3 096 | 2 257 | 1 766 | 2 513 | 3 055 | 3 188 | 3 652 | 50
Cameroon | 3 013 | 1 893 | 2 014 | 2 425 | 2 890 | 2 425 | 1 926 | 2 579 | 3 010 | 3 125 | 3 377 | 55
Senegal | 2 485 | 1 944 | 3 038 | 3 443 | 3 839 | 3 168 | 2 755 | 2 823 | 3 048 | 3 382 | 3 369 | 50
Haiti | 3 154 | 1 655 | 2 922 | 3 070 | 3 166 | 2 204 | 1 799 | 2 121 | 2 181 | 2 228 | 2 922 | 40
Dem. Rep. of the Congo | 3 210 | 1 939 | 2 402 | 2 375 | 2 562 | 1 946 | 1 599 | 1 585 | 2 335 | 2 547 | 2 893 | 45
Comoros | 877 | 632 | 1 049 | 1 373 | 1 546 | 1 828 | 1 778 | 2 307 | 2 175 | 1 881 | 2 869 | 33
Portugal | 10 524 | 3 743 | 7 778 | 6 583 | 5 723 | 4 720 | 4 294 | 3 887 | 3 345 | 3 109 | 2 579 | 59
Congo | 2 193 | 1 644 | 2 933 | 3 309 | 3 417 | 2 018 | 1 326 | 1 808 | 1 797 | 2 089 | 2 181 | 50
China | 965 | 759 | 1 122 | 1 425 | 1 403 | 1 336 | 1 331 | 1 497 | 1 835 | 1 830 | 2 057 | 50
Other countries | 35 768 | 59 550 | 37 602 | 36 479 | 39 005 | 33 417 | 29 290 | 29 482 | 31 145 | 34 854 | 36 197 |
Total | 147 868 | 131 738 | 137 452 | 135 852 | 143 261 | 114 569 | 96 050 | 97 276 | 105 613 | 113 608 | 119 152 | 49
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
GERMANY
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Turkey | 33 388 | 28 861 | 24 449 | 24 647 | 26 192 | 28 103 | 33 246 | 27 970 | 22 463 | 19 674 | 16 290 | 55
Poland | 6 907 | 5 479 | 4 245 | 3 841 | 3 789 | 4 281 | 4 496 | 5 462 | 5 932 | 5 945 | 6 632 | 64
Ukraine | 4 536 | 4 454 | 1 953 | 2 345 | 3 118 | 4 264 | 3 691 | 4 539 | 3 142 | 4 167 | 4 048 | 63
Romania | 1 379 | 3 502 | 2 137 | 2 357 | 2 523 | 2 399 | 2 343 | 2 504 | 2 566 | 2 994 | 3 828 | 55
Italy | 1 558 | 1 265 | 1 392 | 1 273 | 1 305 | 1 707 | 2 202 | 2 754 | 3 245 | 3 403 | 3 597 | 44
Iraq | 3 693 | 4 102 | 4 229 | 5 136 | 5 228 | 4 790 | 3 510 | 3 150 | 3 172 | 3 446 | 3 553 | 43
Greece | 1 657 | 2 691 | 1 779 | 1 362 | 1 450 | 2 290 | 4 167 | 3 498 | 2 800 | 3 057 | 3 444 | 41
Croatia | 1 729 | 1 224 | 1 032 | 542 | 689 | 665 | 544 | 1 721 | 3 899 | 3 327 | 2 985 | 62
United Kingdom | 264 | 211 | 232 | 260 | 256 | 284 | 325 | 460 | 515 | 620 | 2 865 | 10
Serbia | 12 601 | 10 458 | 6 484 | 4 309 | 3 405 | 2 978 | 2 746 | 2 714 | 2 358 | 2 116 | 2 764 | 39
Iran | 3 662 | 3 121 | 2 734 | 3 184 | 3 046 | 2 728 | 2 463 | 2 560 | 2 546 | 2 527 | 2 661 | 48
Afghanistan | 3 063 | 2 831 | 2 512 | 3 549 | 3 520 | 2 711 | 2 717 | 3 054 | 3 000 | 2 572 | 2 482 | 52
Morocco | 3 546 | 3 489 | 3 130 | 3 042 | 2 806 | 3 011 | 2 852 | 2 710 | 2 689 | 2 551 | 2 450 | 47
Russia | 4 679 | 4 069 | 2 439 | 2 477 | 2 753 | 2 965 | 3 167 | 2 784 | 2 743 | 2 322 | 2 375 | 62
Syria | 1 226 | 1 108 | 1 156 | 1 342 | 1 401 | 1 454 | 1 321 | 1 508 | 1 820 | 2 023 | 2 263 | 40
Other countries | 40 678 | 36 165 | 34 567 | 36 456 | 40 089 | 42 267 | 42 558 | 44 965 | 45 532 | 46 437 | 48 146 |
Total | 124 566 | 113 030 | 94 470 | 96 122 | 101 570 | 106 897 | 112 348 | 112 353 | 108 422 | 107 181 | 110 383 | 52
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
GREECE
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Albania | .. | 5 688 | 9 996 | 14 271 | 6 059 | 15 452 | 17 396 | 25 830 | 18 409 | 10 665 | 28 251 | 16
Ukraine | .. | 68 | 167 | 129 | 178 | 130 | 235 | 246 | 231 | 188 | 504 | 24
Russia | .. | 475 | 834 | 410 | 611 | .. | 1 | 2 | 309 | 289 | 386 | 47
Moldova | .. | 22 | 29 | 32 | 44 | 91 | 131 | 159 | 124 | 114 | 365 | 20
Egypt | .. | 62 | 50 | 45 | 36 | 65 | 332 | 58 | 57 | 45 | 358 | 3
Georgia | .. | 489 | 1 285 | 550 | 763 | 252 | 152 | 359 | 226 | 189 | 331 | 33
Armenia | .. | 80 | 165 | 137 | 199 | 150 | 210 | 189 | 150 | 109 | 296 | 21
Bulgaria | .. | 105 | 89 | 62 | 70 | 101 | 75 | 192 | 200 | 142 | 287 | 28
India | .. | 6 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 35 | 122 | 16 | 18 | 18 | 255 | 1
Romania | .. | 83 | 79 | 63 | 57 | 56 | 76 | 129 | 156 | 136 | 234 | 30
Turkey | .. | 223 | 212 | 175 | 71 | 49 | 70 | 167 | 151 | 139 | 141 | 38
Serbia | .. | 4 | 10 | 39 | 25 | 282 | 209 | 378 | 67 | 36 | 128 | 20
Syria | .. | 36 | 43 | 26 | 34 | 42 | 223 | 3 | 87 | 46 | 123 | 7
Cyprus1,2 | .. | 109 | 68 | 87 | 61 | 46 | 41 | 118 | 93 | 73 | 95 | 42
Pakistan | .. | 3 | 3 | 2 | 8 | .. | .. | .. | 21 | 26 | 88 | 2
Other countries | .. | 3 353 | 3 888 | 990 | 1 165 | 782 | 1 029 | 1 616 | 1 530 | 622 | 977 |
Total | .. | 10 806 | 16 922 | 17 019 | 9 387 | 17 533 | 20 302 | 29 462 | 21 829 | 12 837 | 32 819 | ..
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
HUNGARY
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Romania | 4 303 | 6 052 | 5 535 | 3 805 | 3 939 | 15 658 | 14 392 | 6 999 | 6 200 | 2 605 | 2 874 | 42
Ukraine | 541 | 834 | 857 | 558 | 646 | 2 189 | 1 765 | 894 | 858 | 386 | 365 | 62
Slovak Republic | 206 | 116 | 106 | 97 | 97 | 414 | 307 | 202 | 310 | 208 | 282 | 46
Serbia | 357 | 757 | 758 | 672 | 721 | 1 678 | 1 330 | 647 | 411 | 158 | 144 | 42
Russia | 111 | 7 | 156 | 119 | 111 | 168 | 151 | 97 | 170 | 131 | 119 | 82
Egypt | 1 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 81 | 93 | 101 | 37
Viet Nam | 40 | 53 | 95 | 39 | 75 | 38 | 29 | 15 | 67 | 39 | 36 | 61
Iran | 7 | 11 | 6 | 18 | 14 | 7 | 14 | 11 | 16 | 10 | 21 | 29
Turkey | 4 | 6 | 13 | 10 | 9 | 12 | 8 | 20 | 58 | 19 | 20 | 20
Poland | 10 | 10 | 14 | 13 | 9 | 27 | 18 | 11 | 45 | 15 | 18 | 50
United States | 4 | 12 | 11 | 9 | 2 | 17 | 13 | 9 | 25 | 13 | 17 | 41
Slovenia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 3 | 2 | 5 | 8 | 3 | 16 | 12
Germany | 22 | 28 | 33 | 35 | 25 | 55 | 67 | 35 | 59 | 29 | 15 | 87
China | 15 | 31 | 29 | 20 | 27 | 15 | 3 | 7 | 13 | 12 | 15 | 67
Croatia | 148 | 26 | 34 | 25 | 26 | 61 | 50 | 22 | 27 | 15 | 14 | 43
Other countries | 403 | 495 | 455 | 377 | 382 | 210 | 224 | 195 | 397 | 312 | 258 |
Total | 6 172 | 8 442 | 8 104 | 5 802 | 6 086 | 20 554 | 18 379 | 9 178 | 8 745 | 4 048 | 4 315 | 46
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
ICELAND
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Poland | 222 | 162 | 164 | 153 | 50 | 35 | 30 | 89 | 149 | 265 | 224 | 73
Philippines | 105 | 69 | 126 | 106 | 67 | 35 | 49 | 89 | 52 | 74 | 55 | 65
Thailand | 54 | 45 | 62 | 40 | 28 | 27 | 26 | 26 | 43 | 42 | 48 | 69
Denmark | 15 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 11 | 35 | 17
Viet Nam | 41 | 16 | 52 | 51 | 39 | 14 | 8 | 39 | 33 | 33 | 26 | 77
Latvia | 5 | 5 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 18 | 4 | 21 | 22 | 68
Sweden | 11 | 9 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 11 | 3 | 6 | 11 | 17 | 41
Lithuania | 5 | 23 | 23 | 9 | 11 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 16 | 10 | 16 | 37
Serbia | 78 | 33 | 109 | 76 | 27 | 34 | 27 | 21 | 7 | 15 | 13 | 92
China | 17 | 19 | 24 | 15 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 13 | 62
Ukraine | 9 | 13 | 18 | 18 | 15 | 10 | 21 | 18 | 12 | 17 | 12 | 117
United States | 34 | 33 | 20 | 15 | 19 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 18 | 11 | 73
Nigeria | 5 | 7 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 10
Morocco | 4 | 9 | 22 | 3 | 8 | 5 | 9 | 7 | 9 | 7 | 9 | 44
Albania | 1 | 4 | 10 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 11
Other countries | 238 | 192 | 262 | 216 | 170 | 175 | 204 | 255 | 237 | 265 | 183 |
Total | 844 | 647 | 914 | 728 | 450 | 370 | 413 | 597 | 595 | 801 | 703 | 69
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
IRELAND
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Poland | 37 | 7 | 10 | 13 | 29 | 25 | 359 | 508 | 939 | 1 161 | 1 326 | 43
India | 126 | 119 | 166 | 339 | 443 | 944 | 2 617 | 3 009 | 2 939 | 1 611 | 1 028 | 61
Nigeria | 189 | 142 | 319 | 454 | 1 012 | 1 204 | 5 689 | 5 792 | 3 293 | 1 360 | 776 | 79
Romania | 81 | 46 | 74 | 117 | 143 | 135 | 457 | 564 | 1 029 | 901 | 756 | 58
Philippines | 70 | 37 | 84 | 410 | 630 | 1 755 | 3 830 | 2 486 | 2 184 | 1 167 | 729 | 85
Pakistan | 239 | 189 | 196 | 201 | 306 | 428 | 1 288 | 1 807 | 1 244 | 732 | 419 | 54
Latvia | 4 | 4 | 9 | 16 | 22 | 19 | 98 | 150 | 226 | 327 | 379 | 54
China | 85 | 45 | 102 | 131 | 258 | 403 | 798 | 656 | 576 | 494 | 304 | 93
Brazil | 37 | 36 | 14 | 21 | 31 | 86 | 203 | 245 | 459 | 393 | 304 | 66
United States | 1 518 | 1 841 | 875 | 156 | 112 | 148 | 263 | 217 | 304 | 246 | 233 | 63
Hungary | 13 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 38 | 77 | 137 | 172 | 216 | 37
South Africa | 363 | 219 | 205 | 318 | 343 | 418 | 708 | 489 | 563 | 0 | 213 | 0
Ukraine | 25 | 34 | 97 | 153 | 202 | 432 | 815 | 695 | 536 | 323 | 200 | 90
Thailand | 60 | 18 | 33 | 28 | 53 | 139 | 209 | 227 | 274 | 208 | 173 | 94
Lithuania | 3 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 15 | 13 | 45 | 79 | 103 | 126 | 168 | 38
Other countries | 2 913 | 3 913 | 2 163 | 2 225 | 2 786 | 4 599 | 7 622 | 7 262 | 6 284 | 4 344 | 2 820 |
Total | 5 763 | 6 656 | 4 350 | 4 594 | 6 387 | 10 749 | 25 039 | 24 263 | 21 090 | 13 565 | 10 044 | 66
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
ITALY
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Albania | 2 330 | 2 605 | 4 546 | 9 523 | 9 129 | 8 101 | 9 493 | 13 671 | 21 148 | 35 134 | 36 920 | 46
Morocco | 3 295 | 3 850 | 9 156 | 9 096 | 11 350 | 10 732 | 14 728 | 25 421 | 29 025 | 32 448 | 35 212 | 42
Romania | 2 775 | 3 509 | 2 857 | 2 735 | 4 707 | 3 921 | 3 272 | 4 386 | 6 442 | 14 403 | 12 967 | 67
India | .. | 188 | 672 | 894 | 1 261 | 1 051 | 2 366 | 4 863 | 5 015 | 6 176 | 9 527 | 26
Bangladesh | .. | 68 | 405 | 839 | 822 | 972 | 1 460 | 3 511 | 5 323 | 5 953 | 8 442 | 26
Pakistan | .. | 91 | 219 | 349 | 535 | 601 | 1 522 | 3 532 | 4 216 | 5 617 | 7 678 | 27
Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia | .. | 204 | 697 | 954 | 923 | 1 141 | 1 219 | 2 089 | 2 847 | 5 455 | 6 771 | 32
Brazil | 1 751 | 1 928 | 1 930 | 1 579 | 2 099 | 1 960 | 1 442 | 1 786 | 1 579 | 1 458 | 5 799 | ..
Peru | .. | 883 | 1 064 | 1 947 | 2 235 | 1 726 | 1 589 | 2 055 | 3 136 | 5 503 | 5 783 | 60
Moldova | .. | 754 | 707 | 580 | 1 060 | 846 | 1 222 | 1 430 | 1 475 | 2 464 | 5 605 | ..
Senegal | .. | 191 | 289 | 592 | 689 | 797 | 1 070 | 2 263 | 4 037 | 4 144 | 5 091 | ..
Tunisia | 371 | 920 | 1 666 | 2 066 | 2 003 | 2 067 | 2 555 | 3 521 | 4 411 | 5 585 | 4 882 | 48
Ecuador | .. | 757 | 714 | 746 | 951 | 599 | 677 | 854 | 1 182 | 2 660 | 4 604 | 38
Ghana | 213 | 301 | 1 121 | 1 061 | 790 | 801 | 1 288 | 2 838 | 3 700 | 3 465 | 4 416 | 37
Egypt | 217 | 704 | 1 228 | 1 394 | 1 431 | 2 352 | 1 342 | 2 130 | 3 138 | 4 422 | 3 438 | 46
Other countries | 24 314 | 28 532 | 26 425 | 25 014 | 25 953 | 18 486 | 20 138 | 26 362 | 33 213 | 43 148 | 44 456 |
Total | 35 266 | 45 485 | 53 696 | 59 369 | 65 938 | 56 153 | 65 383 | 100 712 | 129 887 | 178 035 | 201 591 | 44
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
JAPAN
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Korea | 8 531 | 8 546 | 7 412 | 7 637 | 6 668 | 5 656 | 5 581 | 4 331 | 4 744 | 5 247 | .. | ..
China | 4 347 | 4 740 | 4 322 | 5 392 | 4 816 | 3 259 | 3 598 | 2 845 | 3 060 | 2 813 | .. | ..
Other countries | 1 230 | 1 394 | 1 484 | 1 756 | 1 588 | 1 444 | 1 443 | 1 470 | 1 473 | 1 409 | .. |
Total | 14 108 | 14 680 | 13 218 | 14 785 | 13 072 | 10 359 | 10 622 | 8 646 | 9 277 | 9 469 | 9 554 | ..
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
KOREA
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
China | 7 156 | 8 178 | 12 545 | .. | .. | .. | 6 282 | 5 801 | 7 052 | 6 753 | 5 328 | ..
Viet Nam | 243 | 461 | 1 147 | .. | .. | .. | 3 011 | 4 034 | 3 044 | 2 834 | 3 429 | ..
United States | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1 414 | 1 587 | 1 764 | 1 681 | 1 498 | ..
Cambodia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 362 | 509 | 404 | 427 | 503 | ..
Philippines | 317 | 335 | 579 | .. | .. | .. | 339 | 532 | 400 | 412 | 476 | ..
Chinese Taipei | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 224 | 274 | 286 | 479 | 303 | ..
Canada | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 158 | 226 | 250 | 305 | 289 | ..
Russia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 99 | 125 | 93 | 134 | 138 | ..
Mongolia | 32 | 82 | 134 | .. | .. | .. | 110 | 123 | 133 | 119 | 125 | ..
Australia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 53 | 87 | 95 | 96 | 102 | ..
Uzbekistan | 38 | 60 | 80 | .. | .. | .. | 75 | 110 | 96 | 120 | 87 | ..
Thailand | 39 | 57 | 73 | .. | .. | .. | 72 | 91 | 84 | 81 | 75 | ..
Japan | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 57 | 84 | 82 | 95 | 68 | ..
Nepal | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 34 | 60 | 66 | 71 | 65 | ..
Kyrgyzstan | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 21 | 23 | 27 | 34 | 41 | ..
Other countries | 300 | 1 146 | 700 | .. | .. | .. | 216 | 290 | 324 | 293 | 327 |
Total | 8 125 | 10 319 | 15 258 | 26 756 | 17 323 | 18 400 | 12 527 | 13 956 | 14 200 | 13 934 | 12 854 | ..
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
LATVIA
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
United Kingdom | .. | .. | 0 | 0 | 1 | .. | 9 | 7 | 16 | 19 | 130 | 6
Russia | 177 | 132 | 93 | 54 | 67 | 49 | 82 | 71 | 109 | 70 | 127 | 34
Ireland | .. | .. | 0 | 0 | 1 | .. | 13 | 5 | 10 | 8 | 53 | 8
Ukraine | 19 | 32 | 24 | 41 | 34 | 13 | 8 | 51 | 54 | 32 | 39 | 36
Israel | .. | .. | 4 | 2 | 1 | .. | 6 | 3 | 14 | 2 | 25 | 0
United States | .. | .. | 0 | 0 | 6 | .. | 4 | 23 | 25 | 10 | 20 | 15
Germany | .. | .. | 0 | 0 | 0 | .. | 1 | 2 | 11 | 6 | 18 | 17
Belarus | 13 | 19 | 13 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 12 | 15 | 12 | 14 | 50
Lithuania | 10 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 13 | 46
Italy | .. | .. | 0 | 0 | 2 | .. | 0 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 8
Sweden | .. | .. | 0 | 0 | 0 | .. | 0 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 40
Moldova | .. | .. | 0 | 2 | 2 | .. | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 9 | 22
Australia | .. | .. | 0 | 0 | 0 | .. | 0 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 8 | 0
Poland | .. | .. | 0 | 0 | 0 | .. | 1 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 0
Azerbaijan | .. | .. | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 0
Other countries | .. | .. | 4 089 | 3 117 | 3 531 | .. | 3 638 | 2 889 | 1 863 | 1 719 | 1 466 |
Total | 18 964 | 8 322 | 4 230 | 3 235 | 3 660 | 2 467 | 3 784 | 3 083 | 2 141 | 1 897 | 1 957 | 53
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
LUXEMBOURG
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
France | 74 | 75 | 76 | 277 | 342 | 314 | 462 | 639 | 860 | 1 205 | 2 262 | 25
Belgium | 87 | 97 | 77 | 224 | 258 | 450 | 1 581 | 1 577 | 1 346 | 1 264 | 1 836 | 33
Portugal | 338 | 352 | 293 | 1 242 | 1 351 | 1 085 | 1 155 | 982 | 1 211 | 1 168 | 1 089 | 54
Italy | 161 | 138 | 109 | 362 | 665 | 425 | 411 | 314 | 418 | 313 | 304 | 53
Germany | 74 | 95 | 76 | 322 | 333 | 208 | 201 | 195 | 209 | 279 | 246 | 63
United States | 0 | 2 | 3 | 47 | 44 | 32 | 42 | 48 | 80 | 100 | 233 | 22
Serbia | 55 | 67 | 115 | 425 | 412 | 229 | 194 | 148 | 197 | 182 | 189 | 49
United Kingdom | 8 | 5 | 0 | 62 | 53 | 44 | 56 | 37 | 66 | 75 | 128 | 26
Brazil | 6 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 12 | 18 | 15 | 30 | 100 | 15
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 46 | 72 | 76 | 270 | 202 | 114 | 74 | 60 | 56 | 70 | 71 | 45
Netherlands | 20 | 10 | 20 | 31 | 50 | 38 | 54 | 27 | 54 | 54 | 57 | 63
Spain | 7 | 17 | 10 | 48 | 58 | 35 | 38 | 30 | 48 | 42 | 44 | 50
Denmark | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 42 | 2
Greece | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 14 | 11 | 14 | 15 | 21 | 23 | 33 | 24
Cabo Verde | 45 | 46 | 49 | 77 | 40 | 60 | 41 | 44 | 27 | 47 | 33 | 48
Other countries | 204 | 255 | 303 | 622 | 481 | 352 | 342 | 274 | 381 | 452 | 473 |
Total | 1 128 | 1 236 | 1 215 | 4 022 | 4 311 | 3 405 | 4 680 | 4 411 | 4 991 | 5 306 | 7 140 | 37
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
MEXICO
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Venezuela | 185 | 316 | 309 | 159 | 126 | 162 | 279 | 334 | 259 | 484 | 580 | 41
Colombia | 689 | 892 | 690 | 390 | 305 | 486 | 634 | 601 | 397 | 378 | 358 | 54
Cuba | 429 | 660 | 459 | 307 | 240 | 408 | 579 | 531 | 287 | 305 | 341 | 44
Argentina | 400 | 450 | 400 | 265 | 170 | 178 | 271 | 304 | 130 | 126 | 172 | 34
Spain | 239 | 286 | 251 | 227 | 121 | 152 | 180 | 163 | 119 | 169 | 166 | 36
United States | 334 | 287 | 246 | 266 | 117 | 79 | 108 | 119 | 120 | 136 | 119 | 41
Guatemala | 114 | 185 | 141 | 209 | 95 | 117 | 196 | 141 | 62 | 57 | 98 | 35
Honduras | 59 | 123 | 98 | 131 | 55 | 92 | 143 | 129 | 60 | 74 | 89 | 47
Dominican Republic | 47 | 69 | 48 | 50 | 29 | 22 | 75 | 59 | 53 | 63 | 81 | 38
Peru | 215 | 292 | 213 | 166 | 107 | 138 | 182 | 159 | 100 | 93 | 79 | 66
El Salvador | 137 | 159 | 118 | 163 | 81 | 82 | 99 | 109 | 66 | 66 | 75 | 41
Nigeria | 1 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 5 | 39 | 63 | 5
Italy | 89 | 94 | 108 | 76 | 39 | 45 | 53 | 66 | 31 | 38 | 59 | 22
Ecuador | 52 | 83 | 63 | 41 | 41 | 46 | 63 | 59 | 40 | 62 | 56 | 52
Bolivia | 94 | 119 | 97 | 43 | 26 | 41 | 48 | 57 | 24 | 47 | 46 | 57
Other countries | 1 091 | 1 449 | 1 228 | 996 | 598 | 578 | 672 | 747 | 588 | 599 | 558 |
Total | 4 175 | 5 470 | 4 471 | 3 489 | 2 150 | 2 633 | 3 590 | 3 581 | 2 341 | 2 736 | 2 940 | 43
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
NETHERLANDS
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Morocco | 6 896 | 6 409 | 5 034 | 5 508 | 5 797 | 6 824 | 6 238 | 3 886 | 4 251 | 3 272 | 3 364 | 53
Turkey | 3 407 | 4 073 | 3 147 | 4 167 | 4 984 | 5 029 | 4 292 | 2 872 | 3 119 | 2 824 | 2 764 | 54
Iraq | 331 | 501 | 866 | 674 | 288 | 289 | 525 | 929 | 1 331 | 909 | 922 | 52
United Kingdom | 248 | 240 | 150 | 211 | 208 | 207 | 198 | 165 | 162 | 166 | 636 | 13
Suriname | 1 636 | 1 285 | 1 006 | 1 142 | 967 | 934 | 875 | 659 | 828 | 594 | 601 | 62
India | 214 | 214 | 153 | 263 | 193 | 292 | 406 | 415 | 794 | 638 | 574 | 46
Ghana | 296 | 314 | 283 | 411 | 367 | 519 | 540 | 435 | 575 | 503 | 507 | 59
China | 799 | 638 | 539 | 559 | 490 | .. | 437 | 494 | 628 | 745 | 499 | 92
Afghanistan | 562 | 662 | 584 | 596 | 402 | 371 | 567 | 1 341 | 1 027 | 510 | 477 | 63
Iran | 225 | 221 | 273 | 279 | 217 | 281 | 361 | 848 | 690 | 464 | 449 | 57
Somalia | 128 | 96 | 76 | 73 | 69 | 108 | 105 | 64 | 86 | 249 | 440 | 25
Thailand | 171 | 195 | 220 | 383 | 413 | 571 | 602 | 371 | 534 | 443 | 414 | 91
Russia | 466 | 413 | 436 | 400 | 275 | .. | 427 | 291 | 446 | 355 | 403 | 69
Philippines | 209 | 226 | 209 | 308 | 263 | 330 | 381 | 263 | 457 | 319 | 331 | 78
Poland | 238 | 268 | 237 | 271 | 202 | 296 | 360 | 237 | 421 | 313 | 329 | 65
Other countries | 13 263 | 14 898 | 15 016 | 14 509 | 11 140 | 12 547 | 14 641 | 12 612 | 17 229 | 15 573 | 15 824 |
Total | 29 089 | 30 653 | 28 229 | 29 754 | 26 275 | 28 598 | 30 955 | 25 882 | 32 578 | 27 877 | 28 534 | 53
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
NEW ZEALAND
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
United Kingdom | 3 275 | 4 023 | 3 847 | 3 254 | 2 814 | 4 808 | 6 039 | 5 299 | 4 883 | 4 382 | 5 405 | 36
South Africa | 2 865 | 3 200 | 2 462 | 1 829 | 1 375 | 2 156 | 2 910 | 3 389 | 3 871 | 3 713 | 3 819 | 48
India | 4 401 | 5 241 | 3 519 | 2 283 | 1 573 | 1 664 | 2 249 | 2 225 | 2 235 | 2 429 | 3 412 | 33
Samoa | 1 393 | 1 463 | 1 456 | 1 583 | 1 946 | 2 074 | 3 018 | 2 988 | 2 647 | 2 776 | 3 086 | 42
Philippines | 1 130 | 1 178 | 727 | 697 | 852 | 676 | 2 240 | 2 822 | 2 757 | 3 048 | 3 060 | 53
Fiji | 1 724 | 1 765 | 1 969 | 1 553 | 1 309 | 1 219 | 2 097 | 2 124 | 2 270 | 2 422 | 2 752 | 46
China | 3 911 | 3 113 | 1 946 | 1 137 | 693 | 852 | 1 158 | 1 190 | 1 239 | 922 | 1 138 | 47
Tonga | 189 | 259 | 282 | 314 | 384 | 328 | 466 | 531 | 500 | 516 | 783 | 34
United States | 391 | 420 | 414 | 340 | 324 | 448 | 587 | 605 | 602 | 558 | 659 | 42
Australia | 137 | 142 | 113 | 111 | 118 | 116 | 179 | 232 | 287 | 317 | 564 | 28
Sri Lanka | 445 | 487 | 406 | 300 | 242 | 164 | 204 | 271 | 350 | 445 | 537 | 37
Malaysia | 334 | 445 | 412 | 445 | 464 | 398 | 467 | 398 | 392 | 386 | 477 | 46
Korea | 1 639 | 1 453 | 887 | 588 | 459 | 445 | 564 | 406 | 374 | 349 | 437 | 36
New Zealand | 46 | 59 | 121 | 103 | 147 | 105 | 168 | 235 | 408 | 489 | 389 | 29
Zimbabwe | 722 | 786 | 556 | 288 | 196 | 547 | 570 | 503 | 457 | 363 | 349 | 68
Other countries | 6 563 | 5 883 | 4 664 | 3 315 | 2 435 | 3 513 | 4 691 | 5 250 | 5 487 | 5 353 | 5 995 |
Total | 29 165 | 29 917 | 23 781 | 18 140 | 15 331 | 19 513 | 27 607 | 28 468 | 28 759 | 28 468 | 32 862 | 43
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
NORWAY
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Eritrea | 60 | 88 | 67 | 63 | 248 | 254 | 199 | 323 | 563 | 1 114 | 1 911 | 30
Somalia | 1 281 | 2 196 | 1 315 | 1 737 | 1 528 | 2 131 | 1 571 | 1 667 | 1 138 | 451 | 1 250 | 19
Afghanistan | 194 | 674 | 877 | 857 | 1 054 | 1 281 | 1 013 | 1 005 | 1 371 | 1 088 | 1 004 | 32
Iraq | 2 142 | 2 577 | 1 072 | 1 267 | 1 338 | 947 | 1 642 | 1 663 | 1 418 | 817 | 833 | 44
Thailand | 263 | 427 | 247 | 483 | 267 | 380 | 265 | 346 | 547 | 683 | 707 | 82
Philippines | 246 | 421 | 233 | 445 | 322 | 421 | 341 | 479 | 851 | 704 | 603 | 86
Sweden | 376 | 241 | 211 | 184 | 248 | 300 | 213 | 229 | 253 | 300 | 483 | 29
Russia | 458 | 436 | 515 | 622 | 673 | 644 | 629 | 418 | 401 | 444 | 482 | 59
Pakistan | 590 | 544 | 773 | 469 | 430 | 526 | 478 | 424 | 503 | 714 | 482 | 78
Myanmar | 0 | 5 | 4 | 33 | 103 | 260 | 325 | 533 | 838 | 378 | 440 | 42
Ethiopia | 140 | 313 | 341 | 216 | 225 | 341 | 236 | 195 | 362 | 336 | 440 | 35
Iran | 535 | 740 | 495 | 785 | 554 | 539 | 297 | 307 | 336 | 353 | 420 | 43
India | 187 | 235 | 141 | 185 | 152 | 209 | 130 | 132 | 313 | 382 | 391 | 40
Poland | 112 | 31 | 74 | 77 | 50 | 96 | 138 | 166 | 324 | 241 | 330 | 41
Ukraine | 84 | 106 | 86 | 75 | 68 | 119 | 112 | 107 | 243 | 171 | 233 | 58
Other countries | 5 287 | 5 843 | 3 861 | 3 944 | 4 643 | 6 189 | 4 795 | 5 229 | 5 875 | 4 256 | 4 667 |
Total | 11 955 | 14 877 | 10 312 | 11 442 | 11 903 | 14 637 | 12 384 | 13 223 | 15 336 | 12 432 | 14 676 | 45
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
POLAND
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Ukraine | 417 | 662 | 369 | 877 | 992 | 800 | 1 196 | 908 | 1 911 | 2 010 | 1 432 | 79
Belarus | 101 | 126 | 152 | 357 | 418 | 320 | 456 | 390 | 741 | 527 | 512 | 64
Armenia | 27 | 30 | 16 | 79 | 101 | 103 | 163 | 111 | 367 | 285 | 160 | 97
Russia | 129 | 114 | 64 | 162 | 215 | 200 | 244 | 171 | 370 | 251 | 112 | 163
Viet Nam | 29 | 47 | 12 | 64 | 97 | 104 | 150 | 105 | 289 | 222 | 68 | 168
Turkey | 36 | 11 | 1 | 35 | 33 | 12 | 72 | 17 | 33 | 36 | 34 | 18
Germany | 1 | 39 | 37 | 47 | 92 | 106 | 171 | 389 | 38 | 17 | 31 | 26
Serbia | 8 | 14 | 15 | 33 | 18 | 16 | 17 | 14 | 15 | 28 | 28 | 43
United States | 8 | 23 | 27 | 47 | 50 | 53 | 75 | 86 | 26 | 22 | 23 | 26
Italy | 4 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 5 | 17 | 11 | 21 | 8 | 19 | 5
Nigeria | 7 | 17 | 2 | 35 | 45 | 4 | 68 | 8 | 8 | 26 | 18 | 11
Bulgaria | 8 | 16 | 8 | 21 | 21 | 38 | 29 | 25 | 27 | 36 | 18 | 44
Kazakhstan | 10 | 10 | 18 | 41 | 38 | 42 | 44 | 41 | 36 | 36 | 17 | 124
Former Yugoslavia | .. | .. | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 8 | 10 | 15 | 17 | 35
Romania | 4 | 7 | 5 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 17 | 11 | 25 | 22 | 15 | 67
Other countries | 200 | 404 | 326 | 693 | 789 | 511 | 1 073 | 1 167 | 601 | 507 | 1 582 |
Total | 989 | 1 528 | 1 054 | 2 503 | 2 926 | 2 325 | 3 792 | 3 462 | 4 518 | 4 048 | 4 086 | 54
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
PORTUGAL
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Brazil | 491 | 415 | 4 080 | 3 993 | 4 007 | 5 352 | 4 596 | 5 102 | 4 656 | 6 394 | 7 804 | 47
Cabo Verde | 1 047 | 2 189 | 6 013 | 5 368 | 3 982 | 3 502 | 3 230 | 3 821 | 3 200 | 2 854 | 3 607 | 44
Ukraine | 12 | .. | 484 | 978 | 1 358 | 2 336 | 3 322 | 4 007 | 3 310 | 2 895 | 3 240 | 42
Guinea-Bissau | 873 | 1 602 | 2 754 | 2 442 | 1 847 | 1 815 | 1 753 | 2 082 | 1 915 | 1 676 | 1 884 | 41
Angola | 336 | 738 | 2 075 | 2 113 | 1 953 | 1 870 | 1 857 | 2 131 | 1 630 | 1 316 | 1 507 | 50
Sao Tome and Principe | 134 | 448 | 1 391 | 1 289 | 1 097 | 1 156 | 869 | 1 027 | 938 | 809 | 1 061 | 43
India | 25 | 32 | 417 | 1 055 | 919 | 860 | 628 | 539 | 490 | 454 | 1 002 | 15
Moldova | 6 | .. | 2 230 | 2 896 | 2 675 | 2 324 | 2 043 | 1 816 | 1 363 | 964 | 815 | 62
Romania | 20 | .. | 209 | 258 | 303 | 469 | 492 | 796 | 687 | 515 | 621 | 43
Pakistan | 21 | 32 | 74 | 200 | 388 | 476 | 443 | 346 | 333 | 189 | 407 | 17
Russia | 21 | 31 | 259 | 535 | 580 | 590 | 506 | 515 | 395 | 327 | 359 | 56
Nepal | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 51 | 36 | 33 | 53 | 102 | 293 | 5
Bangladesh | .. | 31 | 316 | 404 | 340 | 193 | 110 | 93 | 71 | 98 | 230 | 10
Senegal | .. | .. | 111 | 120 | 193 | 163 | 145 | 188 | 174 | 222 | 215 | 27
Mozambique | 57 | 155 | 262 | 253 | 208 | 204 | 193 | 199 | 148 | 148 | 206 | 40
Other countries | 584 | 347 | 1 733 | 2 278 | 1 900 | 1 877 | 1 596 | 1 781 | 1 761 | 1 433 | 1 853 |
Total | 3 627 | 6 020 | 22 408 | 24 182 | 21 750 | 23 238 | 21 819 | 24 476 | 21 124 | 20 396 | 25 104 | 42
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
RUSSIA
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Ukraine | 66 502 | 55 424 | 58 500 | 62 025 | 5 715 | 7 783 | 12 803 | 15 646 | 22 167 | 67 400 | 100 696 | ..
Kazakhstan | 68 087 | 64 831 | 58 736 | 50 628 | 27 130 | 29 986 | 14 585 | 20 582 | 28 350 | 32 070 | 37 837 | ..
Uzbekistan | 67 021 | 53 109 | 43 982 | 49 784 | 4 788 | 7 906 | 13 409 | 17 937 | 20 385 | 22 557 | 23 216 | ..
Tajikistan | 12 198 | 16 444 | 21 891 | 39 214 | 4 393 | 6 152 | 9 773 | 12 476 | 13 743 | 16 758 | 23 012 | ..
Armenia | 34 860 | 39 328 | 45 253 | 54 828 | 6 261 | 7 847 | 13 176 | 16 550 | 17 894 | 18 653 | 22 264 | ..
Moldova | 12 809 | 13 876 | 15 782 | 20 429 | 1 992 | 2 802 | 5 252 | 8 878 | 9 953 | 14 086 | 17 397 | ..
Azerbaijan | 22 045 | 24 885 | 29 643 | 34 627 | 5 265 | 5 635 | 6 440 | 6 856 | 7 513 | 7 177 | 9 885 | ..
Kyrgyzstan | 33 166 | 61 239 | 51 210 | 48 720 | 37 348 | 52 362 | 8 415 | 7 177 | 9 037 | 9 041 | 9 316 | ..
Belarus | 7 919 | 6 572 | 7 099 | 6 062 | 3 888 | 3 993 | 1 547 | 2 559 | 3 346 | 3 257 | 3 582 | ..
Georgia | 14 008 | 12 156 | 11 110 | 9 876 | 2 513 | 2 405 | 3 082 | 2 849 | 2 347 | 2 239 | 2 623 | ..
Turkmenistan | 5 577 | 4 737 | 4 444 | 4 026 | 482 | 544 | 753 | 825 | 817 | 950 | 774 | ..
Turkey | 51 | 60 | 105 | 129 | 144 | 146 | 201 | 218 | 252 | 292 | 500 | ..
Syria | 59 | 45 | 62 | 53 | 79 | 90 | 130 | 170 | 145 | 271 | 334 | ..
Afghanistan | 101 | 109 | 153 | 124 | 188 | 153 | 135 | 204 | 173 | 272 | 300 | ..
Viet Nam | 58 | 77 | 94 | 75 | 90 | 112 | 105 | 170 | 240 | 265 | 287 | ..
Other countries | 2 397 | 1 995 | 2 179 | 2 094 | 1 855 | 1 886 | 2 109 | 1 830 | 2 216 | 2 091 | 2 260 |
Total | 346 858 | 354 887 | 350 243 | 382 694 | 102 131 | 129 802 | 91 915 | 114 927 | 138 578 | 197 379 | 254 283 | ..
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Czech Republic | 121 | 158 | 90 | 48 | 45 | 45 | 36 | 24 | 37 | 70 | 106 | 34
Ukraine | 377 | 704 | 181 | 77 | 44 | 61 | 60 | 63 | 62 | 73 | 66 | 89
Germany | 13 | 16 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 37 | 16
United States | 113 | 110 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 31 | 33 | 24
Viet Nam | 40 | 62 | 37 | 11 | 15 | 5 | 11 | 15 | 49 | 20 | 26 | 58
Romania | 147 | 100 | 19 | 14 | 10 | 18 | 25 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 26 | 12
United Kingdom | .. | 1 | .. | 1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2 | 15 | 13
Serbia | 42 | 112 | 72 | 50 | 57 | 53 | 56 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 13 | 223
Hungary | 9 | 6 | 13 | 17 | 12 | 9 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 12
Russia | 35 | 42 | 26 | 11 | 8 | 8 | 3 | 20 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 57
Italy | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | .. | 1 | .. | 1 | .. | .. | 5 | ..
Australia | 4 | 5 | 3 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 5 | ..
Poland | 20 | 18 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 100
Israel | 5 | .. | 1 | .. | 5 | 3 | .. | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 50
Colombia | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1 | .. | .. | .. | 1 | 3 | 4 | ..
Other countries | 195 | 143 | 18 | 19 | 27 | 56 | 44 | 52 | 57 | 72 | 50 |
Total | 1 125 | 1 478 | 478 | 262 | 239 | 272 | 255 | 207 | 234 | 309 | 409 | 46
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
SLOVENIA
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Bosnia and Herzegovina | .. | 368 | 445 | 467 | 556 | 622 | 305 | 545 | 579 | 744 | 724 | 43
Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia | .. | 45 | .. | 140 | 194 | 177 | 59 | 122 | 122 | 157 | 166 | 41
Croatia | .. | 56 | 203 | 181 | 115 | 162 | 52 | 93 | 47 | 41 | 30 | 73
Ukraine | .. | .. | 6 | 13 | 23 | 31 | 14 | 35 | 17 | 22 | 29 | 69
Italy | .. | 72 | 116 | 179 | 206 | 205 | 97 | 186 | 92 | 106 | 18 | 272
Russia | .. | 5 | 7 | 19 | 6 | 17 | 6 | 12 | 25 | 8 | 11 | 45
China | .. | .. | 11 | 1 | 11 | 7 | .. | 1 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 57
Moldova | .. | .. | 1 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 6 | 7 | 10 | 6 | 6 | 50
Slovak Republic | .. | .. | 6 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 75
United States | .. | .. | 11 | 14 | 19 | 19 | 14 | 29 | 8 | 7 | 3 | ..
Romania | .. | .. | 2 | 4 | 6 | 3 | .. | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 67
Poland | .. | .. | .. | 2 | 2 | 2 | .. | .. | .. | 1 | 3 | 33
Iran | .. | 3 | .. | .. | 1 | 1 | .. | .. | 1 | .. | 3 | ..
Germany | .. | 8 | 12 | 3 | 10 | 12 | 7 | 14 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 67
Brazil | .. | 3 | 4 | 5 | 25 | 36 | 5 | 17 | 9 | 3 | 3 | ..
Other countries | .. | 281 | 644 | 675 | 648 | 507 | 202 | 405 | 333 | 314 | 341 |
Total | .. | 841 | 1 468 | 1 706 | 1 829 | 1 812 | 768 | 1 470 | 1 262 | 1 423 | 1 354 | 47
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
SPAIN
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Morocco | 5 690 | 7 864 | 8 615 | 6 683 | 10 703 | 14 427 | 16 163 | 46 547 | 19 730 | 19 904 | 25 333 | 32
Bolivia | 648 | 709 | 1 103 | 1 813 | 4 778 | 5 333 | 7 424 | 23 414 | 9 130 | 8 181 | 9 619 | 58
Colombia | 12 720 | 13 852 | 15 409 | 16 527 | 23 995 | 19 803 | 19 396 | 38 215 | 10 945 | 8 207 | 8 495 | 60
Ecuador | 19 477 | 21 371 | 25 536 | 25 769 | 43 091 | 32 026 | 23 763 | 41 612 | 10 783 | 8 291 | 8 305 | 58
Peru | 4 713 | 6 490 | 8 206 | 6 368 | 8 291 | 9 255 | 12 008 | 20 788 | 6 131 | 3 896 | 4 487 | 51
Dominican Republic | 2 805 | 2 800 | 3 496 | 2 766 | 3 801 | 4 985 | 6 028 | 13 985 | 5 260 | 3 649 | 4 324 | 54
Cuba | 2 703 | 2 466 | 2 870 | 2 696 | 3 546 | 3 088 | 2 921 | 6 843 | 2 894 | 2 401 | 2 877 | 49
Argentina | 3 536 | 4 810 | 5 188 | 4 629 | 6 395 | 5 482 | 5 217 | 9 880 | 2 760 | 1 929 | 2 603 | 42
Brazil | 782 | 779 | 1 049 | 943 | 1 738 | 1 854 | 2 540 | 5 572 | 2 178 | 1 650 | 2 515 | 48
Paraguay | 87 | 78 | 179 | 298 | 766 | 864 | 1 297 | 3 799 | 1 643 | 1 850 | 2 421 | 62
Venezuela | 908 | 1 324 | 1 581 | 1 744 | 2 730 | 2 596 | 2 823 | 6 347 | 2 055 | 1 808 | 1 906 | 59
Honduras | 148 | 151 | 185 | 241 | 473 | 440 | 578 | 2 135 | 1 217 | 1 115 | 1 491 | 58
Algeria | 198 | 310 | 320 | 235 | 372 | 544 | 684 | 2 342 | 1 187 | 1 059 | 1 340 | 27
Nigeria | 147 | 262 | 234 | 264 | 461 | 670 | 711 | 2 487 | 1 157 | 1 271 | 1 247 | 46
Uruguay | 624 | 839 | 1 201 | 1 451 | 2 219 | 1 978 | 1 819 | 3 362 | 1 229 | 862 | 1 234 | 38
Other countries | 7 153 | 7 705 | 8 998 | 7 170 | 10 362 | 11 254 | 12 185 | 33 967 | 15 415 | 11 927 | 15 563 |
Total | 62 339 | 71 810 | 84 170 | 79 597 | 123 721 | 114 599 | 115 557 | 261 295 | 93 714 | 78 000 | 93 760 | 46
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
SWEDEN
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Somalia | 930 | 652 | 783 | 882 | 1 075 | 1 087 | 1 547 | 2 482 | 2 925 | 4 776 | 9 069 | 27
Syria | 1 307 | 592 | 504 | 498 | 418 | 675 | 666 | 540 | 495 | 1 370 | 4 479 | 14
Iraq | 12 869 | 5 942 | 4 211 | 3 170 | 4 354 | 6 164 | 16 582 | 14 317 | 7 271 | 4 955 | 3 694 | 73
Poland | 995 | 761 | 679 | 819 | 1 477 | 1 787 | 1 645 | 2 473 | 2 417 | 2 333 | 2 702 | 47
Thailand | 873 | 1 005 | 1 255 | 1 307 | 1 426 | 1 537 | 1 903 | 2 038 | 2 070 | 2 928 | 2 675 | 90
Afghanistan | 1 062 | 775 | 811 | 1 180 | 848 | 636 | 851 | 776 | 785 | 1 198 | 2 330 | 24
Finland | 2 972 | 2 753 | 2 535 | 2 429 | 2 966 | 2 227 | 2 245 | 2 255 | 3 023 | 2 133 | 2 182 | 62
Denmark | 431 | 385 | 404 | 409 | 483 | 391 | 475 | 564 | 603 | 1 510 | 1 942 | 35
Eritrea | 294 | 199 | 251 | 350 | 326 | 396 | 743 | 836 | 997 | 1 113 | 1 451 | 44
Iran | 2 782 | 1 449 | 1 103 | 1 097 | 958 | 1 021 | 1 392 | 1 305 | 1 128 | 1 331 | 1 420 | 50
Turkey | 2 905 | 1 439 | 1 117 | 1 179 | 1 036 | 1 322 | 1 303 | 1 124 | 1 005 | 1 182 | 1 320 | 36
Serbia | 3 065 | 27 | 60 | 132 | 359 | 820 | 1 170 | 959 | 961 | 1 224 | 1 317 | 44
United Kingdom | 204 | 149 | 165 | 212 | 392 | 277 | 296 | 288 | 424 | 444 | 960 | 17
Romania | 387 | 275 | 261 | 260 | 237 | 195 | 350 | 744 | 781 | 736 | 886 | 43
Germany | 450 | 376 | 597 | 681 | 912 | 770 | 654 | 837 | 920 | 918 | 858 | 54
Other countries | 19 371 | 16 657 | 15 518 | 14 713 | 14 930 | 17 023 | 17 924 | 18 094 | 17 113 | 20 098 | 23 058 |
Total | 50 897 | 33 436 | 30 254 | 29 318 | 32 197 | 36 328 | 49 746 | 49 632 | 42 918 | 48 249 | 60 343 | 43
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
SWITZERLAND
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Italy | 4 502 | 4 629 | 4 921 | 4 804 | 4 111 | 4 109 | 4 045 | 4 401 | 4 495 | 5 496 | 5 134 | 46
Germany | 1 144 | 1 361 | 3 022 | 4 035 | 3 617 | 3 544 | 3 401 | 3 835 | 4 120 | 5 255 | 4 658 | 59
Portugal | 2 383 | 2 201 | 1 761 | 2 336 | 2 217 | 2 298 | 2 110 | 2 201 | 2 458 | 3 626 | 3 941 | 49
France | 1 260 | 1 218 | 1 110 | 1 314 | 1 084 | 1 325 | 1 229 | 1 580 | 1 750 | 2 598 | 3 134 | 41
Turkey | 3 457 | 3 044 | 2 866 | 2 593 | 2 091 | 1 886 | 1 662 | 1 628 | 1 399 | 1 808 | 1 729 | 50
Serbia | 11 721 | 10 441 | 10 252 | 8 453 | 6 859 | 4 359 | 3 463 | 2 611 | 1 913 | 1 765 | 1 621 | 57
Spain | 1 283 | 1 246 | 1 096 | 1 245 | 1 120 | 1 091 | 1 055 | 1 054 | 1 071 | 1 501 | 1 564 | 48
Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia | 2 596 | 2 210 | 2 287 | 1 831 | 1 586 | 1 337 | 1 223 | 1 272 | 1 288 | 1 306 | 1 554 | 41
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 3 149 | 3 008 | 2 855 | 2 408 | 1 924 | 1 628 | 1 163 | 1 173 | 966 | 1 103 | 965 | 60
Sri Lanka | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 781 | 768 | 761 | 52
Croatia | 1 837 | 1 660 | 2 046 | 1 599 | 1 483 | 1 273 | 1 201 | 1 126 | 838 | 904 | 737 | 69
United Kingdom | 323 | 353 | 319 | 365 | 298 | 351 | 396 | 328 | 449 | 617 | 665 | 41
Russia | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 397 | 397 | 562 | 614 | 67
Brazil | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 455 | 596 | 538 | 88
United States | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 364 | 390 | 436 | 45
Other countries | 13 056 | 12 518 | 11 830 | 12 457 | 12 924 | 13 556 | 13 173 | 12 726 | 10 581 | 12 593 | 13 536 |
Total | 46 711 | 43 889 | 44 365 | 43 440 | 39 314 | 36 757 | 34 121 | 34 332 | 33 325 | 40 888 | 41 587 | 51
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
TURKEY
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Bulgaria | 1 769 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Azerbaijan | 563 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Russia | 287 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Afghanistan | 245 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Kazakhstan | 195 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Syria | 175 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Iraq | 143 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Iran | 137 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Greece | 107 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
United Kingdom | 93 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Kyrgyzstan | 88 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Uzbekistan | 87 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Ukraine | 85 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia | 80 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Romania | 76 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Other countries | 942 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
Total | 5 072 | 4 359 | 5 968 | 8 141 | 9 488 | 9 216 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | ..
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
UNITED KINGDOM
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
India | 15 134 | 14 507 | 11 835 | 26 541 | 29 405 | 26 290 | 28 352 | 36 351 | 22 425 | 18 399 | 24 656 | ..
Pakistan | 10 260 | 8 143 | 9 442 | 20 945 | 22 054 | 17 641 | 18 445 | 21 655 | 13 000 | 13 090 | 16 774 | ..
Nigeria | 5 874 | 6 031 | 4 531 | 6 953 | 7 873 | 7 932 | 8 881 | 9 275 | 8 076 | 8 069 | 9 883 | ..
South Africa | 7 665 | 8 149 | 5 266 | 8 367 | 7 446 | 6 351 | 6 924 | 6 448 | 5 289 | 4 788 | 5 047 | ..
Bangladesh | 3 724 | 2 257 | 3 633 | 12 041 | 7 966 | 5 149 | 5 702 | 8 902 | 3 892 | 3 613 | 4 622 | ..
Zimbabwe | 2 556 | 5 592 | 5 707 | 7 703 | 6 301 | 4 877 | 5 647 | 4 412 | 3 103 | 3 378 | 4 441 | ..
Poland | 580 | 562 | 251 | 458 | 1 419 | 1 863 | 3 043 | 6 066 | 3 166 | 3 763 | 4 391 | ..
Philippines | 8 839 | 10 844 | 5 382 | 11 751 | 9 429 | 7 133 | 8 122 | 10 374 | 3 095 | 2 971 | 4 250 | ..
United States | 3 021 | 2 792 | 2 205 | 3 116 | 2 926 | 2 591 | 3 350 | 3 119 | 3 761 | 2 908 | 3 812 | ..
Ghana | 2 989 | 3 373 | 3 134 | 4 662 | 4 551 | 3 931 | 4 744 | 4 675 | 3 134 | 2 973 | 3 554 | ..
Sri Lanka | 5 717 | 6 496 | 3 284 | 4 762 | 4 944 | 5 886 | 6 163 | 3 855 | 2 335 | 2 294 | 3 463 | ..
Nepal | 916 | 1 047 | 929 | 1 551 | 2 118 | 3 468 | 4 282 | 7 447 | 2 667 | 2 316 | 3 204 | ..
China | 2 601 | 3 117 | 2 677 | 6 041 | 7 581 | 6 966 | 7 198 | 7 289 | 3 530 | 2 519 | 2 904 | ..
Somalia | 9 029 | 7 450 | 7 163 | 8 139 | 5 817 | 4 664 | 5 143 | 5 688 | 2 106 | 2 218 | 2 658 | ..
Australia | 3 377 | 2 836 | 1 990 | 2 890 | 2 593 | 2 449 | 2 792 | 2 683 | 3 054 | 2 188 | 2 611 | ..
Other countries | 71 736 | 81 441 | 61 948 | 77 869 | 72 623 | 70 594 | 75 421 | 69 750 | 43 020 | 42 566 | 53 187 |
Total | 154 018 | 164 637 | 129 377 | 203 789 | 195 046 | 177 785 | 194 209 | 207 989 | 125 653 | 118 053 | 149 457 | 40
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Table B.6. Acquisitions of nationality by country of former nationality
UNITED STATES
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Of which: Women 2016 (%)
Mexico | 83 979 | 122 258 | 231 815 | 111 630 | 67 062 | 94 783 | 102 181 | 99 385 | 94 889 | 105 958 | 103 550 | 56
India | 47 542 | 46 871 | 65 971 | 52 889 | 61 142 | 45 985 | 42 928 | 49 897 | 37 854 | 42 213 | 46 188 | 47
Philippines | 40 500 | 38 830 | 58 792 | 38 934 | 35 465 | 42 520 | 44 958 | 43 489 | 34 591 | 40 815 | 41 285 | 65
China | 35 387 | 33 134 | 40 017 | 37 130 | 33 969 | 32 864 | 31 868 | 35 387 | 30 284 | 31 241 | 35 794 | 52
Cuba | 21 481 | 15 394 | 39 871 | 24 891 | 14 050 | 21 071 | 31 244 | 30 482 | 24 092 | 25 770 | 32 101 | 45
Dominican Republic | 22 165 | 20 645 | 35 251 | 20 778 | 15 451 | 20 508 | 33 351 | 39 590 | 23 775 | 26 665 | 31 320 | 50
Viet Nam | 29 917 | 27 921 | 39 584 | 31 168 | 19 313 | 20 922 | 23 490 | 24 277 | 18 837 | 21 976 | 24 848 | 56
Colombia | 15 698 | 12 089 | 22 926 | 16 593 | 18 417 | 22 693 | 23 972 | 22 196 | 16 478 | 17 207 | 18 601 | 58
El Salvador | 13 430 | 17 157 | 35 796 | 18 927 | 10 343 | 13 834 | 16 685 | 18 401 | 15 598 | 16 930 | 17 213 | 55
Jamaica | 18 953 | 12 314 | 21 324 | 15 098 | 12 070 | 14 591 | 15 531 | 16 442 | 13 547 | 16 566 | 16 772 | 59
Haiti | 15 979 | 11 552 | 21 229 | 13 290 | 12 291 | 14 191 | 19 114 | 23 480 | 13 676 | 14 053 | 15 276 | 52
Korea | 17 668 | 17 628 | 22 759 | 17 576 | 11 170 | 12 664 | 13 790 | 15 786 | 13 587 | 14 230 | 14 347 | 57
Iraq | 3 614 | 2 967 | 5 057 | 4 197 | 3 489 | 3 360 | 3 523 | 7 771 | 12 377 | 14 899 | 12 130 | 60
Pakistan | 10 411 | 9 147 | 11 813 | 12 528 | 11 601 | 10 655 | 11 150 | 12 948 | 11 210 | 11 912 | 11 729 | 53
Peru | 10 063 | 7 965 | 15 016 | 10 349 | 8 551 | 10 266 | 11 814 | 11 782 | 9 572 | 10 701 | 11 319 | 56
Other countries | 315 802 | 264 605 | 379 318 | 317 737 | 285 529 | 313 286 | 331 835 | 328 616 | 283 049 | 319 123 | 320 587 |
Total | 702 589 | 660 477 | 1 046 539 | 743 715 | 619 913 | 694 193 | 757 434 | 779 929 | 653 416 | 730 259 | 753 060 | 54
Note: For details on definitions and sources, refer to the metadata at the end of the tables.
StatLink  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933752258

Metadata related to Tables A.6. and B.6. Acquisitions of nationality
Country | Comments | Source
Australia | Data from 2006 to 2010 are based on the former Reporting Assurance Section. Data from 2011 are sourced from Citizenship Programme Management. From 2014, figures inferior to 5 individuals are not shown. | Department of Immigration and Border Protection.
Austria | Data refer to persons living in Austria at the time of acquisition. | Statistics Austria and BMI (Ministry of the Interior).
Belgium | Data refer to all acquisitions of Belgian nationality, irrespective of the type of procedure. Data only take into account those residing in Belgium at the time of the acquisition. | Directorate for Statistics and Economic Information (DGSEI) and Ministry of Justice.
Canada | Data refer to country of birth, not to country of previous nationality. Persons who acquire Canadian citizenship may also hold other citizenships at the same time if allowed by the country of previous nationality. | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
Chile | Register of residence permits. | Department of Foreigners and Migration, Ministry of the Interior.
Czech Republic | Acquisitions of nationality by declaration or by naturalisation. | Ministry of the Interior.
Denmark | The decrease in 2013 can be explained by the change in the naturalisation conditions that year. | Statistics Denmark.
Estonia | Acquisitions of citizenship by naturalisation. | Police and Border Guard Board.
Finland | Includes naturalisations of persons of Finnish origin. | Central Population Register, Statistics Finland.
France | Data by former nationality for naturalisations by “anticipated declaration” is unknown for the years 2006 and 2007. | Ministry of the Interior and Ministry of Justice.
Germany | Figures do not include ethnic Germans (Aussiedler). | Federal Office of Statistics.
Greece | Data refer to all possible types of citizenship acquisition: naturalisation, declaration (for Greek descents), adoption by a Greek, etc. | Ministry of Interior and Administrative Reconstruction.

Hungary

Person naturalised in Hungary: naturalisation (the person was born foreign) or renaturalisation (his/her former Hungarian citizenship was abolished). The rules of naturalisation in Hungary were modified by the Act XLIV of 2010. The act introduced the simplified naturalisation procedure from 1 January 2011, and made it possible to obtain citizenship without residence in Hungary for the foreign citizens who have Hungarian ancestors. This data refer only to those new Hungarian citizens who have an address in Hungary.

Central Office Administrative and Electronic Public Services (Central Population Register), Central Statistical Office.

Iceland | Includes children who receive Icelandic citizenship with their parents. | Statistics Iceland.
Ireland | From 2006 on, figures include naturalisations and Post nuptial citizenship figures. | Department of Justice and Equality.
Italy |  | Ministry of the Interior.
Japan |  | Ministry of Justice, Civil Affairs Bureau.
Korea |  | Ministry of Justice.
Latvia | Acquisition of citizenship by naturalisation including children who receive Latvian citizenship with their parents. | Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs.
Luxembourg | Excludes children acquiring nationality as a consequence of the naturalisation of their parents. | Ministry of Justice.
Mexico |  | Ministry of Foreign Affairs (SRE).
Netherlands |  | Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS).
New Zealand | Before 2016, the country of origin refers to the country of birth if birth documentation is available (if not, the country of origin is the country of citizenship as shown on the person's passport). | Department of Internal Affairs.
Norway | The statistics are based on population register data. | Statistics Norway.
Poland | Data include naturalisations by marriage and acknowledgment of persons of Polish descent, in addition to naturalisation by ordinary procedure. | Office for Repatriation and Aliens.
Portugal | Acquisition of nationality by foreigners living in Portugal. Until 2007, data exclude acquisitions of nationality due to marriage or adoption. | Institute of registers and notarial regulations, Directorate General for Justice Policy (DGPJ).

Russia

Naturalisations obtained through various simplified procedures benefiting mainly to participants to the Repatriation Programme of Compatriots; to persons who married a Russian citizen; to citizens from Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, countries which signed a bilateral agreement on naturalisations with Russia); plus a few persons who got their Russian citizenship restored (less than a thousand per year). Excludes citizenship acquired through consulates.

Federal Migration Service.

Slovak Republic | Data refer to persons living in Slovak Republic at the time of acquisition. | Ministry of the Interior.
Slovenia | Include all grounds on which the citizenship was obtained. | Internal Administrative Affairs, Migration and Naturalisation Directorate, Ministry of the Interior.

Spain

Includes only naturalisations on the ground of residence in Spain. Excludes individuals recovering their former (Spanish) nationality. The large increase in the number of naturalisations in 2013 is due to the Intensive File Processing Nationality Plan (Plan Intensivo de tramitación de expedientes de Nacionalidad) carried out by the Ministry of Justice.

Ministry of Employment and Social Security, based on naturalisations registered by the Ministry of Justice.

Sweden |  | Statistics Sweden.
Switzerland |  | Federal Office of Migration.
Turkey |  | Ministry of Interior, General Directorate of Population and Citizenship Affairs.
United Kingdom | The increase in 2009 is partly due to the processing of a backlog of applications filled prior to 2009. | Home Office.
United States | Data by country of birth refer to fiscal years (October to September of the year indicated). | Department of Homeland Security.
Note: Data for Serbia include persons from Serbia, Montenegro and Serbia and Montenegro. Some statements may refer to nationalities/countries of birth not shown in this annex but available on line at: http://stats.oecd.org/.

List of the members of the OECD Expert Group on Migration

AUSTRALIA | Michelle PEARCE, Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Canberra
AUSTRIA | Gudrun BIFFL, Danube University, Krems
BELGIUM | Frédéric POUPINEL de VALENCÉ, Belgian Federal Public Service Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue, Brussels
BULGARIA | Daniela BOBEVA, Academy of Sciences, Sofia
CANADA | Ümit KIZILTAN, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Ottawa Xiaoyi YAN, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Canada, Ottawa
CHILE | Claudia SILVA DITTBORN, Ministry of the Interior, Santiago
CZECH REPUBLIC | Jarmila MAREŠOVÁ, Czech Statistical Office, Prague
DENMARK | Natalia Pischur KJAER, Ministry of Immigration and Integration, Copenhagen
ESTONIA | Mari NELJAS, Police and Border Guard Board, Tallinn
FINLAND | Anna RUNDGREN, Ministry of the Interior, Helsinki
FRANCE | Jean-Baptiste HERBET, Ministry of the Interior
GERMANY | Farid EL KHOLY, Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, Berlin
GREECE | Anna TRIANDAFYLLIDOU, Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy, Athens
HUNGARY | Orsolya KISGYÖRGY, Ministry of National Economy, Budapest
IRELAND | Philip O’CONNELL, The Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin
ISRAEL | Gilad NATHAN, Ruppin Academic Center, Jerusalem
ITALY | Ugo MELCHIONDA, Study and Research Centre IDOS, Rome
JAPAN | Shunji KUCHIRA, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Tokyo Noriko SUGANO, Ministry of Justice, Tokyo
KOREA | Yongjin NHO, Seoul National University of Science and Technology, Seoul
LATVIA | Ilze SILIŅA-OSMANE, Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs, Riga
LITHUANIA | Audra SIPAVIČIENE, International Organization for Migration, Vilnius Office
LUXEMBOURG | Véronique PIQUARD, Luxembourg Reception and Integration Agency, Luxembourg Adolfo Jose SOMMARRIBAS ARIAS, University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg
MEXICO | Rafael FERNÁNDEZ DE CASTRO, Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology, Mexico
NETHERLANDS | Arend ODÉ, Jeanine KLAVER and Bertine WITKAMP, Regioplan Policy Research, Amsterdam Marjoleine HENNIS, Permanent Delegation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the OECD, Paris
NEW ZEALAND | Robert HEYES, Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, Wellington
NORWAY | Espen THORUD, Ministry of Justice and Public Security, Oslo
POLAND | Pawel KACZMARCZYK, University of Warsaw, Warsaw
PORTUGAL | Jorge MALHEIROS, University of Lisbon, Lisbon
ROMANIA | Mihaela MATEI, Bucharest
RUSSIAN FEDERATION | Olga CHUDINOVSKIKH, Centre for Population Studies, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow
SLOVAK REPUBLIC | Lubica GAJDOSOVÁ, Centre of Social and Psychological Sciences SAS, Bratislava
SLOVENIA | Sonja MALEC, Ministry of Labour, Family, and Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Ljubljana
SPAIN | Carmen BLANCO, Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Co-operation, Madrid
SWEDEN | Oscar BERGER, Ministry of Justice, Stockholm Eric HELLSING, Ministry of Employment, Stockholm
SWITZERLAND | Clovis VOISARD and Kathrin GÄUMANN, Federal Office of State Secretary for Migration, Bern
TURKEY | Ahmet ICDUYGU, Koç University, Istanbul
UNITED KINGDOM | John SALT, University College London, Department of Geography, London
UNITED STATES | Marc ROSENBLUM, Department of Homeland Security, Washington

List of OECD Secretariat members involved in the preparation of this publication

International Migration Division

Yves BREEM, Administrator

Sandrine CAZES, Principal Administrator

Jonathan CHALOFF, Principal Administrator

Ana DAMAS DE MATOS, Administrator

Eva DEGLER, Junior Analyst

Maria Vincenza DESIDERIO, Administrator

Jean-Christophe DUMONT, Head of Division

Joanne DUNDON, Assistant

Emily FARCHY, Administrator

Véronique GINDREY, Statistician

Philippe HERVÉ, Statistician

Charlotte LEVIONNOIS, Junior Analyst

Thomas LIEBIG, Principal Administrator

Friedrich POESCHEL, Administrator

Claire ROSSI-DE VRIES, Statistician

Rhea Ravenna SOHST, Intern

Gilles SPIELVOGEL, Administrator

Anna TARUTINA, Assistant

Cécile THOREAU, Administrator

Michele TUCCIO, Administrator

Erik VICKSTROM, Administrator

Ines ZEBDI, Junior Analyst

This work is published on the OECD iLibrary, which gathers all OECD books, periodicals and statistical databases.

Visit www.oecd-ilibrary.org for more information.

Contact Us • Alerts

Follow us on:

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

The OECD is a unique forum where governments work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies.

The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Union takes part in the work of the OECD.

OECD PUBLISHING, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16