born in carim-east: estimates of stocks of emigrants from...
TRANSCRIPT
ROBERT SCHUMAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES
CARIM EAst – ConsoRtIuM foR ApplIEd REsEARCh on IntERnAtIonAl MIgRAtIon
Co-financed by the European Union
© 2011. All rights reserved.No part of this paper may be distributed, quoted or reproduced in any form without permission from the CARIM East Project.
Born in CARIM-East: Estimates of Stocks of Emigrants from the CARIM-East Region
Stefan MarkowskiZuzanna Brunarska Joanna Nestorowicz
Methodological Workshop II
Warsaw, 27-28 October 2011
Born in CARIM-East: Estimates of Stocks of Emigrants from the CARIM-East Region
Stefan Markowski, Zuzanna Brunarska and Joanna NestorowiczCentre of Migration Research, University of Warsaw
First draft: not to be cited or reproduced without the authors permission
A briefing note prepared for the Economic Module of the CARIM-East Project Workshop organised jointly by the European University in Florence, Italy and the Centre of Migration Research, University of
WarsawWarsaw, 27-28 October 2011
The authors wish to acknowledge generous financial support provided by the European Commission and the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (MNiSW)
1
PreambleInternational migration involves the cross border movement of people for the purpose of residence or employment. Inevitably, descriptions of such movements are ambiguous. Borders are often poorly defined, thus, it is not always clear whether a border has actually been crossed. The movement of persons may take many forms. At one end of the spectrum, there are uni-directional and permanent departures of those keen to severe links with the country of their former residence. At the other, there are multiple, pendular border crossing by people, who move frequently between source and destination countries and, for all practical purposes, reside simultaneously in more than one country (e.g., the notorious chelnoki, or shuttle-traders, who supply bazaars in the countries of the former Soviet Union). Residence is also ambiguous as it involves very diverse forms of in-country presence such as legal, registered and permanent settlement; illegal stay; and all forms of short-term habitation that blur the conventional distinction between “visiting” and “residing”. Similarly, employment may take many forms; from those that necessitate continuous in-country presence to those involving frequent cross-border movements to perform work-related tasks at different international locations. Not surprisingly, as noted by Kupiszewska and Kupiszewski (2011), definitions of “international migrants” and “migration” differ considerably between countries and over time. Inevitably, cross-sectional, time-series and panel data on international migration are hard to make sense of as they are based on often ambiguous national definitions of migrants and migratory events.
Much has been written about informational asymmetries regarding the direction of movement in migratory events, in particular the poor quality and limited availability of data on emigration in contradistinction to data on immigration
most data on emigrants are derived from administrative records and therefore strongly reflect the policy approach of the country towards migration. Data on outflows are highly variable and their accuracy depends upon how complete the coverage of emigrants is. In general, fewer sources are available on stocks of emigrants (UNECE & EUROSTAT, 2010: 12 – our italics).
Why then is this an important issue? From a national perspective, outflows of emigrants matter in that emigration is often desirable as a vent for excessive population growth and un- or under-employment. Alternatively, in countries of declining population, emigration is undesirable as it leads to a further loss of population. But, even in countries of “excessive” population growth, emigrants leave behind communal, personal and economic voids as families are fragmented, communities hollowed out, and economic activities deprived of particularly productive and/or entrepreneurial individuals. It is therefore important to know what needs to be done to deter
2
“wrong” people from emigrating, or to ensure that “right people leave for right reasons”. Or, that the national door is left wide open for migrants to return at some future date. That said, why should a country of emigration be interested in stocks of emigrants that now reside abroad?
We can think of a number of reasons of which the following three are most apparent. First, as noted, emigration is reversible and emigrants or their descendants can be attracted back as immigrants. They may return with enriched human and social capital (knowledge, experience, skills, and contacts) and bring with them complementary assets such as physical or financial capital. Thus, returned migrants could become conduits for more effective social and economic engagement with the outside world. They normally return richer rather than poorer and contribute to their home country’s accumulation of wealth. Second, recent emigrants retain their family, social and economic ties with their home country and, thus, become an important source of reverse flows of money and goods. Over the past two decades, reverse flows of remittances have become a significant source of external income for many poorer nations. These inflows decrease and eventually cease as emigrants “go native” and merge into the economic and social fabric of their new hosts. But, in an increasingly globalised and affluent world, people often invest in retirement or holiday assets in their home or ancestral country so that remittance flows are replaced by direct foreign investment in residential housing or financial investment in assets producing old age pension streams. Third, as emigrants “go native” in their host countries, they form expatriate diasporas and social networks which become vehicles for re-engagement with their home or ancestral countries. Diasporas facilitate foreign trade and direct foreign investment. They also provide complementary assets, social networks and safety nets that pull in additional migrants from the “old country” at much lower “transaction cost”, in that more recent vintages of migrants are less impeded in their adaption to the new environment, incur lower search costs in housing and job markets, have access to communal social capital, and so on. Thus, the formation of expatriate diasporas could turn a vicious circle of poverty-driven emigration into a virtuous spiral of economic advancement for migrants and wealth-creating re-engagement with their home country.
Clearly, it is important for policy makers to keep track of emigrants and expatriates to facilitate their continuous, productive engagement with the home country. However, as noted by UNECE & EUROSTAT (2010), it is difficult to obtain information on stocks of emigrants (and expatriates). National sources of data can only be used to keep track of emigrant flows, national passport holders residing abroad, and people clustering around expatriate organizations linked to the home country. Data produced by agencies monitoring border crossings, residence and employment are potentially very useful if borders are not excessively porous and people crossing borders are required to describe their residential and employment status in their home country, the broad purpose of their travel as well as reveal their residential and employment intentions at
3
their destination. But revealed intentions provide only an indication of future residence and employment patterns. Short term stays are often “rolled into” long-term or permanent residence. Once footloose, people change their locational preferences and move on to take up residence in countries different from those initially revealed as their intended destinations. Many cross border movements and/or changes in residence and employment status are observed and recorded but not processed into migration data that could subsequently be used by policy makers or migration researchers. The reliability of data that is available is often difficult to ascertain as “raw information” may not be available in public domain and, thus, not open to verification by third parties.
In principle, movements between source and destination countries could be recorded at both ends, thereby enhancing the reliability of national data on flows, which could then be used to assess cumulative inflows emigrants into host countries. In practice, however, it is difficult to link international “departures” to “arrivals” unless such movements are monitored and matched under bilateral arrangements between countries. Given the poorly harmonized national definitions of migrants and migratory events and poorly aligned and synchronized systems of data collection and processing, it is very difficult to produce country-specific emigrant stock data from border crossings or deletions from population registers. As Kupiszewska and Kupiszewski (op. cit.) conclude, it is currently impossible to engage in internationally comparable (quantitative) research on migration flows in Europe.
However, there is another possibility of assessing stocks of national emigrants. Population censuses provide snapshots of in-country population stocks at the time of enumeration. In this respect, they capture cumulative changes in the stocks of foreign-born people and foreign citizens and, when census-based stock figures are compared over time, the differences between snapshots show net changes in total numbers of foreign-born people and foreign citizens between successive enumerations. Such data provide limited information on immigration into the census country and, by identifying countries of birth, on emigration from various source countries. Census-based data provide a very useful source of information on the cumulative effect of emigration, especially when used to validate the quality of data drawn from administrative sources such as population registers border crossings. Censuses provide a particularly useful basis for estimating stocks of emigrants when those born in a country of interest but enumerated in censuses of other countries as present in-country on the census date are aggregated across the entire population these “destination” countries and imputed as “emigrants” to the focal country. Arguably, for most countries, this is the best proxy for country-specific measures of emigration.
In this paper we are interested in emigrant stocks that have originated from six countries comprising the eastern neighbourhood of the European Union: Belarus, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan; the Russian Federation (hereafter Russia); and five
4
central Asian countries: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Unlike many other countries that have independently evolved into distinct national entities, these 12 countries share the common past as republics of the former USSR (FUSSR) and the common institutional legacy that goes back to the pre-revolutionary Russian Empire but was mostly shaped during their Soviet era. Following the dissolution of the USSR, all of these countries except, recently, Georgia have continued to maintain their close institutional links by forming the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).i This region, hereafter referred to as the CARIM-East regionii, hosts the dominant post-Soviet migration system comprising Russia, as the regional centre of gravity and a magnet for cross-border migrants seeking residence, employment or protection, and other countries listed above. It also hosts the east-west (eastern Europe-EU) migration system, and an outer fringe of the eastern Mediterranean migration system, i.e., it is a transit zone for south-north movements diverted or reticulated from eastern Mediterranean migratory routes. The importance of the CARIM-east region as one of the world’s main clusters of cross-border migratory events has been documented (HDR, 2009; Box 2.3: 2; WMR, 2010: 190-194). However, as noted by HDR (2009: 31), “it is difficult to construct comparable time series on international migrants” for these countries.
Nevertheless, the shared institutional legacy of these countries and continuing commonalities between statistical systems producing migration data provide an opportunity to examine the intra-and inter-regional migration of CARIM-East in somewhat greater depth. This is not to suggest that all migration data produced in the region are inherently comparable and based on similar definitions and generated by similar data collection and processing systems. However, while CARIM-East countries have started to diverge in their approaches to data specification, collection and processing, they continue to draw on the common institutional legacy, which ensures high degree of convergence between their statistical systems, collaboration between national statistical agencies, and reasonable compatibility and comparability of the available data (Chudinovskikh, 2005). In this respect, drawing inferences on migratory phenomena from the cross-section of CARIM-East nations is likely to be more informative than if similar inferences were to be drawn from more diverse set of nations such as member states of EU-27. The common legacy of the region presents problems for constructing time series of migratory events.
This common history of the region is important in that international migration was not seen as a significant phenomenon in the FUSSR. Each Soviet republic was a part of the same federal state and Soviet citizens had very limited opportunity to travel abroad or emigrate. There was no official interest in engaging with regional diasporas and emigrants were best forgotten rather than encouraged to re-engage with their home countries. Borders between Soviet republics were only significant in that they defined distinct territorial and administrative entities. While relatively small numbers of foreigners were allowed to seek residence in the USSR, they tended to be either temporary residents (e.g., those doing business in the USSR) or, predominantly, foreign
5
fellow-communists and political refugees granted asylum and, thus, permanent residence. No doubt, the re-drawn borders and territorial changes that followed the end of the World War II produced significant changes in foreign-born population of the FUSSR. However, these changes were deliberately concealed as the Soviet authorities were determined to project the country’s image as that of a multi-ethnic society unified by its common Soviet citizenship. Thus, the authorities saw no need to publish information on either foreign-born population or non-citizens. Dual nationals also kept a low profile fearing discrimination, if not repression, if they dared to signal their “foreignness”.
The 1985 demographic encyclopaedia defined the Soviet-style “migrant” as a person, who crosses “administrative borders of territories” and changes residence for a “longish” period (cited in Chudinovskikh, 2006). Generally, until the end of the 1980s, migration statistics were not published and access to raw data was restricted (Chudinovskikh, 2006 and 2010). The authorities’ interest in “migration” was mostly focused on rural-urban mobility associated with the country’s industrialisation. This involved impeding outflows from rural areas into congested cities and channelling people into priority economic sectors and designated development regions. Most of the information needed to track residence and mobility was available through the “propiska” system of compulsory of residential registration (Abazov, 2009: 7-8).
Under this system of impeded international mobility, data on spatial movements of population were derived (albeit not published) from the propiska system of administrative records of residence and periodic population censuses. The last Soviet census of population was conducted in 1989 (Antonova, 2006). It brought to an end of the Soviet era of restricted information on population mobility. However, with the available unpublished data, it has been possible to track migration between Soviet republics before the break-up of the USSR so that people enumerated in a particular republic but born elsewhere could be imputed the status of “foreign born” (HDR, 2009, Box 2.3: 31). “In this approach, anyone who moved between two republics that would later become independent nations would be considered an international migrant” (ibid). Thus, over 30 millions people could be assigned “foreign-born” status in the FUSSR at the time of its dissolution in 1991 and, using this approach, the share of “foreign-born” in the USSR population was estimated as ten percent in 1959 and 10.6 percent in 1989 (ibid: 31). Clearly, when such figures are used as measures of international migration they must be taken with more than the proverbial pinch of salt: many people born in the FUSSR became “statistical international migrants” in the post-Soviet space even though they have not changed residence after the dissolution of the FUSSR (ibid: 31).
The first post-Soviet census in the Russian Federation was carried out in 2002 although it was preceded by a five-percent sample census in 1994 (Antonova, op. cit.). Other countries in the region also embarked on a round of censuses around 2000. The 2002 Russian census included questions on place of birth, citizenship, ethnicity, languages spoken, previous place of residence,
6
and duration of residence. Thus, in Russia and in other countries in the region it was possible to define stocks of foreign-born people by their country of birth (defined in terms of the then national boundaries) as well stocks of foreign citizens by their country of citizenship. For example, in the Russian Federation nearly12 million people were enumerated as foreign-born (8.3% of population) and nearly 1.46 million as foreign citizens (1% of population). The corresponding numbers were, respectively, 10.7% and 0.4% in Ukraine, 11.5% and 1.1% in Belarus, and 14.1% and 0.6% in Kazakhstan (Chudinovskikh, 2006). Nevertheless, while “Census is the main source for migrant stock estimation”, the use of foreign-born data “is not very popular” among regional migration experts (Antonova, op. cit.: 4-5). Instead, both researchers and practitioners prefer to use flow estimates of migratory events derived from administrative data sources such as population registers and databases of border crossings. The weakness of that approach is the lack of data on emigrant stocks.
In this paper we try rectify this informational asymmetry by focusing on CARIM-born population in population censuses around the world. The necessary data sets have become accessible over the past few years as stocks of “foreign-born” persons in different countries have been used as metrics of international migration. Specifically, we consider cross-sectional and panel data sets placed in the public domain by the OECD Secretariat and the World Bank (as described in Dumont et al, 2010 – for the OECD; and Ratha and Shaw, 2007 – for the Wold Bank). These data are particularly useful as they allow us to identify and link countries of birth and countries of enumeration of foreign-born population within the CARIM-East region and, more generally, to identify stocks of CARIM-East-born in the rest of the world. While we stop short of identifying all foreign-born persons as “migrants”, these estimates provide useful measures of emigrant stocks and, if interpreted with due caution, could be used as measures of the relative importance of expatriate diasporas. Even more caution is needed if changes in stocks between consecutive censuses are to be used as proxies for those groups of emigrants that are the most likely source of reverse flows of remittances to countries of origin.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows: the next section focuses on the Extended Database on Immigrants (DIOC-E) developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). We use this cross-national database to draw information on countries of the CARIM-East region around 2000 both as countries of enumeration of foreign-born population and countries of birth. Another OECD database is limited to OECD member states as host countries (DIOC). This database uses more diverse source of information and provides data on inflows of migrants from the CARIM-East region in the 2000s as well as annual stocks of migrants in these countries during that period. We include data derived from DIOC to complement data drawn from the much broader but limited to a point in time DIOC-E. This is followed by the analysis of the global bilateral matrix of foreign-born population produced by the World Bank. This allows us to construct panel data on CARIM-East-born enumerated in the
7
region and elsewhere in the world at decennial intervals 1960-2010. Arguably, this construct is the most comprehensive picture CARIM-East emigrant stocks. We conclude with a brief comment on what these figures convey and, more importantly, what they obscure.
Extended Database on Immigrants in OECD Countries (DIOC-E)In 2008, the OECD released a comprehensive Database on Immigrants in OECD Countries (DIOC), which includes information on level of education, age, gender and labour market activity status for the foreign-born population aged 15 and above around the year 2000 for 28 OECD destination/residence countries (excluding Iceland and South Korea) and over 200 countries of birth (Dumont et al, 2010: 7). The database is drawn from population censuses of OECD countries as its main data source and, thus, captures the cumulative effect of cross-border population movements (as well as changes in international boundaries and the way foreign-born persons are defined and assigned to countries of birth by census statisticians of different countries).
Recently, the DIOC has been extended to include non-member countries to form an extended database (DIOC-E), which also includes 28 OECD member countries. DIOC-E (release 2.0) covers 61 non-OECD countries and 28 OECD countries as countries of enumeration/destination (ibid). It also lists 232 countries of birth/origin. Most of the data (81 countries) has been drawn from population censuses completed between 1995 and 2004. DIOC-E (2.0) includes data on 110 million foreign-born people (referred to as “migrants”) who were aged 15 and over around 2000. This population is differentiated by age groups (15-24, 25-64, 65 and over), gender, education (using the International Standard Classification of Education to differentiate between primary-, secondary- and tertiary-educated people), skill level/occupation and labour market activity status (employed, unemployed). About 68% of these foreign-born people resided in OECD countries and 32% in the non-OECD area. About 51% of them were women. In the OECD area, 24% of foreign-born were tertiary-educated while in the non-OECD area the corresponding figure was 15%. In nearly all countries of residence the share of tertiary-educated among migrants was higher than for the native-born (ibid: 9).
DIOC-E (2.0) facilitates comparisons of foreign-born populations in 89 countries of census enumeration, including the Russian Federation, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia and the Kyrgyz Republic.iii (The next release of the database is to include Ukraine and Kazakhstan.) Table 1 shows the number and countries of birth of people born in the CARIM-East region who were enumerated in the five CARIM-East “destination” countries around 2000. It also shows all those born in the CARIM-East region (16.6 million people) who enumerated in the DIOC-E data set. Those born in the CARIM-East region accounted for over 15% of all foreign-born people listed in the database.
8
As Dumont et al (2010: 18) observe “intraregional mobility dominates international migration for countries of the former USSR”. Although the DIOC-E database provides little information on “international migration” in a sense of movements of cross-border migrants, the foreign-born stock data do not appear to contradict this inference. Nearly 94% of all foreign-born enumerated in the Russian Federation in the census of 2002 were born in another CARIM-East country. The corresponding figures were 88% for Armenia, 97% for Belarus, 96% for Georgia and 95% for the Kyrgyz Republic. Most of those identified as foreign-born in Russia were born in Ukraine (31%), Kazakhstan (21%), Belarus (8%), Uzbekistan (7%) and Azerbaijan (nearly 7%). Russia-born persons account for the dominant share of all foreign-born in Belarus, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan.
Table 1 shows the Russian Federation to be the centre of gravity for CARIM-East-born population in the region hosting over 60% of all those born in the CARIM-East region but enumerated outside their country of birth in the 2000 round of censuses. Of the 16+plus million CARIM-East-born persons who were enumerated in the DIOC-E countries around 2000, 4.7 million were Ukraine-born (28%), 3.2 million Russia-born (19%), 2.9 million Kazakhstan-born (17%), 1.2 million in Belarus (7%), and nearly a million each in Azerbaijan (6%) and Uzbekistan (6%).
9
Table 1 Foreign-born population aged 15 and over in CARIM-East region by country of birth and country of residence circa 2000
Countries of birth
CARIM-East-born enumerated in:CARIM-East-born enumerated in:CARIM-East-born enumerated in:CARIM-East-born enumerated in:CARIM-East-born enumerated in: CARIM-East-born in DIOC-ECARIM-East-born in DIOC-ECARIM-East-born in DIOC-E
Countries of birth RussianFederation
(thou.)
Armeniaa
(thou.)
Belarus
(thou.)
Georgia
(thou.)
KyrgyzRepublic
(thou.)
persons
(thou.)d
women
(%)
tertiary-educated (%)
Former USSR - 22.8 - - - 114.0 - -Russian Federation - - 656.0 33.6 155.7 3,158.3 57.2 27.4Armenia 370.9 - 4.7 11.8 0.6 474.5 21.3Azerbaijan 728.1 139.8 12.6 5.5 1.9 951.7 20.3Belarus 894.1 0.5 - 1.0 2.5 1,242.2 56.1 23.2Georgia 547.5 64.4 7.6 - 3.6 758.2 24.2Moldovab 248.4 0.3 6.9 0.4 0.7 374.7 24.1Ukraine 3,348.4 3.5 217.2 9.1 13.5 4,730.8 53.2 26.2Kazakhstan 2,265.8 1.1 63.3 1.5 75.7 2,857.2 53.1 18.2Kyrgyz Republic 404.2 0.1 4.8 0.2 - 449.6 20.1Tajikistan 324.7 0.3 4.9 0.1 21.8 370.9 19.5Turkmenistan 152.6 1.2 4.9 0.2 2.0 169.7 26.9Uzbekistan 774.5 1.6 13.3 0.7 60.3 955.9 23.1Total CARIM-E-bornc
10,059.2 235.6 996.2 64.1 338.3 16,607.7
Total foreign-born 10,708.5 268.4 1,028.9 66.8 354.7 110,116.7CARIM-E-born as percent of all foreign-born
93.9% 87.8% 96.8% 96.0% 95.4% 15.1%
Source: Dumont et al (2010), based on DIOC-E 2000 (release 2.0), Tables 4, 6 and A.1: 18, 24, 44.Notes:
a. Only those born in the FUSSR are enumerated in Armenia (no Russia-born persons).b. This is mistakenly referred to in the source Table 4 as “Macedonia”.c. Total CARIM-East-born.d. There are small discrepancies in totals between Tables 4, A.1 and 6 in the OECD source and we use totals
from Tables 4, A.1.
10
Table 1 supports another general observation of Dumont et al (2010: 8) that “most destination countries receive mainly migrants born in the same region”. If the same region is defined as the territory of the FUSSR, it is clearly the case that most foreign-born persons enumerated in the Russian Federation, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia and the Kyrgyz Republic were born in countries that were once the FUSSR republics. Further, since Russia has common borders with most CARIM-East countries, it can also be inferred that most of its foreign-born population was born in areas, which are now Russia’s immediate neighbours. This is also true of three of the other four CARIM-East “destination” countries in the database. Most of Armenia’s foreign –born were born in Azerbaijan and Georgia; Belarus’ foreign-born in the Russian Federation and Ukraine; and Georgia’s in the Russian Federation and Armenia. Half of Kyrgyzstan’s foreign-born were born in areas that are today’s Russia and Ukraine that have no common border with the Kyrgyz Republic but are part of the same ex-USSR region. However, given the region’s history of intra-USSR mobility and the re-alignment of countries and borders that followed the implosion of the USSR, many of those enumerated as foreign-born in the CARIM-East region are likely to be “statistical” rather than international migrants.
Table 1 shows that well over half of those listed in the DIOC-E database as Russia-, Belarus-, Ukraine-, or Kazakhstan-born are women. This compares with the average figure of 51% for all DIOC-E countries of residence. The age structure of foreign-born differs significantly from that of the native-born: the former tend to be overrepresented in the working age group (25-64) and underrepresented in the other two age groups (-24 and 65+). However, a particular feature of the countries in eastern and central Europe is the higher (than average) share of those aged 65 and over but the lower share of those aged 15-24 (ibid: 19). Over 20% of CARIM-East-born enumerated in DIOC-E countries held a tertiary degree (18% for those Kazakhstan-born but 27% for Russia-born). This is relatively high as across all countries in the database, the share of tertiary-educated foreign-born is 24% for the OECD group and 15% for the non-OECD group. Generally, the foreign-born have a higher proportion of tertiary educated people than the native-born.
Nevertheless, the limitations of the DIOC-E database in the context of CARIM-East are apparent as not much can be inferred from data currently in the public domain given the lack of figures on changes in stocks over time and the still limited inclusion of CARIM-East countries in the database. As Dumont et al observe, “Due to historical reasons, determining migration patterns within this region (the former USSR) is not easy and interpretations have to be made with caution, since the country of birth does not necessarily reflect the country of nationality and origin of migrants in the former USSR” (op.cit., Box 3: 18). It is precisely for this reason that we regard “emigration rates by country of origin” (our italics) calculated by the OECD team for the former USSR republics (ibid, Table A.1: 44) as potentially misleading. These are not reproduced
11
in this paper. However, “A key feature of the DIOC-E database is the possibility to aggregate emigrants (foreign-born in countries of residence) and to examine their characteristics” across a number of countries (ibid: 21).
Database on Immigrants in OECD Countries (DIOC)The OECD immigration database, DIOC, includes data on flows and stocks of the immigrant population in each OECD country by nationality or place of birth of immigrants between 2000 and 2009.iv While the presentation of data follows a standard format, the data comes from a variety of sources and has not been fully standardised. Thus, its international comparability and dependability is limited.v There are also significant gaps in the coverage, which cast doubt on the reliability of (host) country-specific data.
Tables 2 and 3 show data for flows and stocks of CARIM-East nationals in the OECD area (all OECD countries combined) between 2000 and 2009. For both inflows and stocks of immigrants, we have aggregated the available data across the OECD area for each nationality (immigrant source country). Clearly, some bilateral measures are better than others as nationals from certain CARIM-East countries migrate to particular destination for ethnic, economic or historic reason (e.g. Azerbaijani nationals to Turkey). It is not clear whether the aggregation compounds the data problems by making it even less reliable or whether there are ”smoothing” effects that make the data less patchy and variable from year to year. As shown in Table 3, stock data for Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan are in certain years smaller than the corresponding inflows. This is likely to be an indication of the poor quality of data even if, in logic, it is possible for the inflows to be more than offset by the outflows. However, we would not expect this to be the case year after year as in the case of Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. Clearly, both the collection and the processing of data leave a lot of room for improvement.
While the aggregate inflows of CARIM-East nationals into the OECD area are relatively small each year (increasing from 203 thou. in 2000 to 313 thou. in 2007 but declining to 242 thou in 2009), the stock have grown over the decade from 561 thou. in 2000 to 1540 thou. in 2009.
World Bank Bilateral DatabaseThe World Bank data set on bilateral “migration stocks” worldwide is posted at www.worldbank.org/prospects/migrationandremittances. It mostly consist of data on foreign-born segments of population, drawn from population censuses, but for some countries foreign nationals are used instead.vi Thus, global totals are based on unknown mixes of both types of data, however, for countries where most CARIM-East-born have been enumerated census data were used. The database also contains bilateral matrices for decennial census rounds 1960-2010. The original data are scaled up or down to add up to the UNPD estimates of migrants stocks (for
12
details of the UNDP methodology see UN, 2005). The UN team also used Soviet census data to construct panel data on inter-republic “migration” in the FUSSR by defining as “foreign-born” all those persons who at some stage of their life moved between republics and, thus, were enumerated as born in another republic (HDR, 2009, Box 2.3: 31). Overall, in spite of the obvious weaknesses of the database as a source of information (i.e. mixed bag of data, omissions), this is the most comprehensive set of international data on foreign-born segments of population, including people in the CARIM-East region (Ratha and Shaw, 2007).
Table shows the numbers and percentages of people born in the CARIM-East region who were enumerated in Russia, the CARIM-East region (including Russia), the European Union (EU17, EU10 and EU27), the USA and the world as a whole in 2010. Of nearly 31 million people from the region who were enumerated as foreign-born in the rest of the world in 2010, most migrated to either another country within the CARIM-East region, i.e. 37 percent were enumerated in the Russian Federation and nearly 73 percent in either Russia or another CARIM country. Only 9 percent were listed in the European Union (EU27), but of those over 40 percent (1.2 million people) were enumerated in countries of EU10.vii Three percent of all region-born emigrants were enumerated in the USA. Clearly, the Russian Federation has acted as a magnet for intra-regional migration. Also, many people were recorded in Russia as ‘foreign born’ and, thus, attributed the migrant status even though they may not have moved countries in recent years.
Figure 1 shows the percentage distribution of people born in designated CARIM-East countries who were enumerated in other countries/regions in 2010.
13
Figure 1 Distribution of people born in designated source countries who were enumerated in other countries in 2010 (%)
Source: Table 4.
14
Table 2 Inflows of CARIM-East nationals into OECD countries (thou.)Table 2 Inflows of CARIM-East nationals into OECD countries (thou.)Table 2 Inflows of CARIM-East nationals into OECD countries (thou.)Table 2 Inflows of CARIM-East nationals into OECD countries (thou.)Table 2 Inflows of CARIM-East nationals into OECD countries (thou.)Table 2 Inflows of CARIM-East nationals into OECD countries (thou.)Table 2 Inflows of CARIM-East nationals into OECD countries (thou.)Country of nationalityCountry of nationalityCountry of nationality 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Russia 91.9291.92 109.39 111.81 96.41 105.00 94.28 80.58 74.61 78.86 74.82Armenia 3.763.76 4.22 6.27 5.92 8.49 9.26 13.10 10.83 10.10 9.59AzerbaijanAzerbaijan 11.9611.96 11.63 14.46 13.35 14.92 14.61 17.43 12.67 19.09 20.43Belarus 7.787.78 10.22 12.24 11.33 16.30 11.85 10.53 10.30 10.40 10.01Georgia 2.002.00 2.83 7.83 7.83 8.90 9.32 9.95 9.83 9.73 9.19
Moldova 5.465.46 15.08 12.80 9.53 17.05 20.54 24.26 38.94 33.91 13.42Ukraine 59.8259.82 122.29 107.73 79.29 94.54 99.00 98.82 120.29 98.19 60.02KazakhstanKazakhstan 6.316.31 7.38 19.00 16.27 14.44 12.97 11.25 9.63 12.68 14.37Kyrgyz RepublicKyrgyz Republic 2.662.66 2.42 4.05 4.4 4.76 5.19 5.51 6.57 6.4 7.39Tajikistan 0.540.54 0.57 0.71 0.56 0.64 0.86 1.00 1.13 1.15 1.22TurkmenistanTurkmenistan 2.652.65 2.38 2.18 2.01 2.14 2.59 3.12 4.56 4.12 4.71UzbekistanUzbekistan 8.568.56 7.31 9.36 12.09 5.89 7.20 8.78 14.16 22.25 16.38All CARIM-EastAll CARIM-East 203.42203.42 295.72 308.44 258.99 293.07 287.67 284.33 313.52 306.88 241.55Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).
15
Table 3 Stocks of CARIM-East nationals in OECD countries (thou)Table 3 Stocks of CARIM-East nationals in OECD countries (thou)Table 3 Stocks of CARIM-East nationals in OECD countries (thou)Table 3 Stocks of CARIM-East nationals in OECD countries (thou)Table 3 Stocks of CARIM-East nationals in OECD countries (thou)Table 3 Stocks of CARIM-East nationals in OECD countries (thou)
Country of nationalityCountry of nationality 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Russia 222.25 253.54 293.91 317.04 341.46 359.07 428.71 446.59 428.58 438.05Armenia 17.35 21.20 24.06 24.62 28.63 29.23 31.90 32.66 37.93 43.13Azerbaijan*Azerbaijan* 19.80 12.85 14.75 16.07 17.11 17.25 17.87 17.45 17.39 18.00Belarus 14.66 18.35 24.37 25.56 28.05 30.69 33.30 35.40 38.43 42.62Georgia 19.07 24.34 29.70 29.53 36.01 40.80 40.39 51.27 63.08 65.41Moldova 17.90 32.84 41.59 64.08 83.29 95.61 106.60 126.17 158.58 174.27Ukraine 181.26 268.13 338.94 403.87 474.89 483.82 533.85 582.60 625.00 650.96KazakhstanKazakhstan 44.95 48.89 56.82 62.07 64.45 64.31 62.42 63.44 62.47 62.34Kyrgyz RepublicKyrgyz Republic 7.32 7.42 8.3 9.2 9.72 10.04 10.37 10.56 11.51 11.96Tajikistan*Tajikistan* 1.14 1.07 1.07 1.04 0.92 0.88 0.94 0.98 1.03 1.17Turkmenistan*Turkmenistan* 1.48 1.23 1.40 1.53 1.55 1.56 1.57 1.62 1.65 1.72UzbekistanUzbekistan 13.69 11.39 12.45 20.1 21.53 21.91 23.9 23.76 28.2 30.04All CARIM-EastAll CARIM-East 560.87 701.25 847.36 974.71 1,107.61 1,155.17 1,291.82 1,392.50 1,473.85 1,539.67
Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).Source: OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).Notes: * In certain years, migrant stocks for Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan are smaller than corresponding annual inflows. .
Notes: * In certain years, migrant stocks for Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan are smaller than corresponding annual inflows. .
Notes: * In certain years, migrant stocks for Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan are smaller than corresponding annual inflows. .
Notes: * In certain years, migrant stocks for Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan are smaller than corresponding annual inflows. .
Notes: * In certain years, migrant stocks for Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan are smaller than corresponding annual inflows. .
Notes: * In certain years, migrant stocks for Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan are smaller than corresponding annual inflows. .
Notes: * In certain years, migrant stocks for Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan are smaller than corresponding annual inflows. .
Notes: * In certain years, migrant stocks for Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan are smaller than corresponding annual inflows. .
Notes: * In certain years, migrant stocks for Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan are smaller than corresponding annual inflows. .
Notes: * In certain years, migrant stocks for Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan are smaller than corresponding annual inflows. .
16
Table 4 People born in the CARIM-East region enumerated in designated countries and regions in 2010
Countries of birth (down)
Enumeration regions/countries (across)Enumeration regions/countries (across)Enumeration regions/countries (across)Enumeration regions/countries (across)Enumeration regions/countries (across)Enumeration regions/countries (across)Enumeration regions/countries (across)Countries of birth (down)
Russia CARIM-E EU-17a EU-10b EU-27c USA World
(persons)(persons)(persons)(persons)(persons)(persons)(persons)
Armenia 493.13 627.37 59.19 6.71 65.89 77.21 870.46
Azerbaijan 866.84 1,182.28 29.44 6.66 36.10 9.69 1,433.51
Belarus 958.72 1,293.35 47.09 171.51 218.60 32.01 1,765.88
Georgia 644.39 802.30 90.60 5.39 95.99 25.31 1,058.30
Moldova 284.33 465.05 142.88 44.43 187.31 25.28 770.53
Russia 0.00 7,680.52 608.77 487.91 1,096.69 421.46 11,034.68
Ukraine 3,647.23 4,285.23 570.82 459.88 1,030.70 332.16 6,525.15
Kazakhstan 2,648.32 3,123.64 84.15 21.43 105.58 11.91 3,719.77
Kyrgyz Rep 474.88 514.11 12.37 3.50 15.87 3.11 621.08
Tajikistan 392.45 672.64 2.13 3.97 6.10 3.55 791.62
Turkmenistan 179.55 207.50 2.47 2.75 5.21 1.15 260.95
Uzbekistan 940.54 1,577.60 15.27 24.56 39.83 21.08 1,954.46
Totals 11,530,372 22,431,566 1,238,708 1,665,157 2,903,865 963,908 30,806,376
(percent)(percent)(percent)(percent)(percent)(percent)(percent)
Armenia 56.65 72.07 6.80 0.77 7.57 8.87 100.00
Azerbaijan 60.47 82.47 2.05 0.47 2.52 0.68 100.00
Belarus 54.29 73.24 2.67 9.71 12.38 1.81 100.00
Georgia 60.89 75.81 8.56 0.51 9.07 2.39 100.00
Moldova 36.90 60.36 18.54 5.77 24.31 3.28 100.00
Russia 0.00 69.60 5.52 4.42 9.94 3.82 100.00
Ukraine 55.90 65.67 8.75 7.05 15.80 5.09 100.00
Kazakhstan 71.20 83.97 2.26 0.58 2.84 0.32 100.00
Kyrgyz Rep 76.46 82.78 1.99 0.56 2.55 0.50 100.00
Tajikistan 49.58 84.97 0.27 0.50 0.77 0.45 100.00
Turkmenistan 68.81 79.52 0.95 1.05 2.00 0.44 100.00 Uzbekistan 48.12 80.72 0.78 1.26 2.04 1.08 100.00
Source: World Bank (2011), Table T1 - ‘Estimates of Migrant Stocks 2010’, Washington DC: World Bank Group. http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTDECPROSPECTS/0,,contentMDK:21352016~pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165026~theSitePK:476883,00.html. (accessed 15 July 2011) – own calculations.
Notes:a. EU(17): Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg,
Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom.
b. EU(10): Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia.
c. EU(27) = EU(10)+EU(17).
17
The main two source countries of CARIM-East-born are the Russian Federation and Ukraine. Nearly 70 percent of Russia-born were enumerated in other countries of CARIM-East and less than ten percent in EU27. For Ukraine, about 56 percent of Ukraine-born people were recorded in Russia, 66 percent in the CARIM-East region as a whole, and 16 percent in the European Union. And 45 percent of all those recorded as Ukraine-born in the EU were enumerated in EU10. Another large source of CARIM-East-born is Kazakhstan although 71 percent of all Kazakhstan-born people were enumerated in the Russian Federation and 84 percent in the CARIM-East region as a whole.
While this is not shown in Table 4 but inferred from more detailed matrix on which it is based, countries that account for the largest proportion of Russia-born people in EU17 are Germany, Spain, France, Greece, UK, Belgium and Italy. For Ukraine-born the corresponding countries are Germany, Italy, Spain, UK and Greece; and Kazakhstan-born are also present in Germany in significant numbers. Of smaller CARIM-East countries, Moldova-born form a large group in Italy and Georgia-born in Greece. Germany acts as the main west European magnet for migrants from all countries in the CARIM-East region.
Figure 2 shows stocks of CARIM-East-born who were enumerated as or, during the Soviet era, designated “foreign-born” in the CARIM-East region as a whole, 1960-2010. Figure 3 shows people enumerated CARIM-East-born in the designated CARIM-East countries, 1960-2010. The figures are drawn using data form Tables A1 and A2 respectively in the statistical Annex. Two broad inferences can be drawn from these figures. First, the stocks of “foreign-born” or those born outside their republics of enumeration were large during the Soviet era and generally increased between 1960 and 1990. Clearly, there was considerable population mobility in the FUSSR (Figure 2 and Table A1). These intra-national migrants were subsequently designated as “statistical” international migrants.
Second, for the region as a whole, stocks of foreign-born peaked in 1990 and declined in 2000s. However, they continued to increase in the Russian Federation, which during the post-Soviet period continues to attract “foreign-born” people.
These two broad inferences are consistent with general observations made by others (Abazov, 2009; Ivanchuk, 2011). Whether they were intra- or inter-national migrants, people who moved to CARIM-East countries after the collapse of the USSR were mostly ethnic compatriots who sought residence in their titular homelands, e.g., ethnic Russians born outside Russia (ibid). Thus, stocks of foreign born are not very useful proxies for expatriate/ethnic diasporas in the CARIM-East region. Similarly, using these stocks as a basis for imputing intra-CARIM-East remittance flows to regional source countries could be misleading.
18
Figure 2 People born in the designated CARIM-East countries who were enumerated as foreign-born or assigned the foreign-born status in the CARIM-East region, 1960-2010 (thou.)
Source: Table A1 in Annex below
Figure 3 People enumerated as (or assigned) CARIM-East-born (status) in the listed CARIM-East countries, 1960-2010 (thou.)
Source: Table A2 in Annex below
19
However, stocks of foreign-born provide a reasonable indication of emigrant stocks even if many of these people are intra-regional migrants and international emigrants only in a statistical sense. These stocks of regional emigrants are relatively small outside the CARIM-East region (over eight million people in 2010). While they are cumulative totals of people who at some stage of their life moved to the focal area, they should not be regarded as expatriate diasporas. In many cases, they represent very diverse ethnic mixes. For example, an ethnically Polish person born in 1939 in the then Polish city of Lvov/Lviv in today’s Ukraine would be classified as a USSR-born person in Australia in 1990 but as a Ukraine-born person in 2010. What is shown in Table 4 is a product of many pull and push factors that have been at work over the decades.
Finally, Table A3 in the statistical Annex presents a matrix of foreign-born people numerated in countries of the CARIM-East region in 2010. This type of matrix has been used by the World Bank team to generate weights needed to impute remittance inflows to different source countries. This is rather misleading in the specific context of CARIM-East where many (if not most) migrants are statistical emigrants who are the most unlikely source of remittances. However, a similar matrix could be constructed to capture differences in bilateral estimates of foreign-born people in the region after the implosion of the USSR. This would capture net changes in stocks from the previous enumeration date, which would provide a potentially more useful set of weights to calculate remittance flows. (This has not been attempted in this paper.)
Concluding CommentOur aim in this paper was to use the two major sources of data on stocks of foreign-born people – the OECD and the World Bank - to calculate stocks of emigrants, albeit some statistical emigrants, from and within the CARIM-East region. The derived estimates are not free of ambiguity as they reflect the cumulative impact of various migratory events that occurred before and after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The utility of such data is limited at present. However, when combined with other data source, these estimates could be more revealing. To paraphrase Dumont et al (2010: 39), the availability of “more and internationally comparable data is a first, albeit crucial, step towards better understanding of the nature and the scope of migration movements and towards evidence-based policy making”.
The next step is to calculate first differences in bilateral stocks between successive enumeration dates, especially between 2000 and 2010 estimates. This should provide a better indication of recent changes in stocks, which could potentially be used to recalculate flows of remittances between countries.
20
ReferencesAbazov, R. (2009) Current Trends in Migration in the Commonwealth of Independent States, Human Development Research Paper 2009/36, Human Development Reports, United Nations Development Programme, August.
Antonova, O. (2006) “Data sources on international migration: Case of the Russian Federation”, United Nations Expert Group Meeting on Measuring International Migration: Concepts and Methods, New York: United Nations Secretariat, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, ESA/STAT/AC.119/17, November.
Chudinovskikh, O. (2006) “Statistics of international migration in the CIS countries”, Paper ESA/STAT/AC.119.6, November, Statistics Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York: United Nations Secretariat.
Chudinovskikh, O. (2006) “Measuring Migrant Stock in the Russian Federation (and selected CIS countries)”, paper presented at United Nations Expert Group Meeting on Measuring International Migration: Concepts and Methods, 4 - 7 December 2006, New York, mimeo.
Chudinovskikh, O. (2010) “International migration; The Russian Federation Perspective”, Paper presented at xxxxxx, mimeo
Dumont, J-C., Spielvogel, G. and Widmaier, S. (2010) “International Migrants in Developed, Emerging and Develpoing Countries: An Extended Profile”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers No. 114, www.oecd.org/els/workingpapers (accessed August 2011).
HDR (2009) Human Development Report 2009, Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development, New York: United Nations Development Programme.
Ivanchuk, I. (2011) “Immigration and its Impact on the Russian Federation”, paper presented at VII Summer School on International Migration: Challenges and Opportunities for the EU and its Neighbourhood, June, Florence: The European University Institute, mimeo.
Kupiszewska, D. and Kupiszewski, M. (2011) “Harmonization of international migration data”, paper presented at the CARIM-East workshop in Warsaw, Poland: Centre of Migration Research, University of Warsaw, 27 October.
OECD.Stat (2011), On-line Migration Statistics, Demography and Population (accessed September 2011).
OECD (2011) International Migration Outlook 2011, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
21
Parsons, C. R., Skeldon, R., Walmsley, T. L. and Winters, A. (2005) ”Quantifying the International Bilateral Movements of Migrants”, Globalisation and Poverty WorkingPaperT13, Development Research Centre on Migration, University of Sussex.
Ratha, D. K. and Shaw, W. (2007) South-South Migration and Remittances, World Bank Working Paper No. 102, Washington DC: The World Bank.
UNECE & EUROSTAT (2010) Guidelines for exchanging data to improve emigration statistics, prepared by the Task Force on Measuring Emigration Using Data Collected by the Receiving Country, Geneva: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and Statistical Office of the European Union (EUROSTAT).
UN (2005) Trends in Total Migrant Stock: The 2005 Revision, New York: United Nations Population Division.
WMR (2010) World Migration Report 2010, The Future of Migration: Building Capacities for Change, Geneva: IOM International Organization for Migration.
22
Statistical AnnexTable A1 People born in the listed CARIM-East countries who were enumerated as foreign-bornor assigned the foreign-born status in the CARIM-East region, 1960-2010 (thou.)
Countries of birth (down)
Enumeration years (across)Enumeration years (across)Enumeration years (across)Enumeration years (across)Enumeration years (across)Enumeration years (across)Countries of birth (down)
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Armenia 284.52 335.22 358.90 398.46 674.33 627.37
Azerbaijan 293.47 452.26 591.43 814.92 1147.68 1182.28
Belarus 1358.64 1696.94 1812.49 2054.86 1392.69 1293.35
Georgia 12.80 380.18 508.05 701.91 870.66 802.30
Moldova 230.22 293.26 322.89 468.44 484.88 465.05
Russia 6806.21 8987.35 10093.75 10778.78 7773.36 7680.52
Ukraine 4436.21 4766.01 5143.74 6081.41 4667.86 4285.23
Kazakhstan 1275.25 1801.47 2009.24 2657.45 3194.93 3123.64
Kyrgyz Rep 5.99 122.75 183.34 501.40 654.77 514.11
Tajikistan 33.14 61.86 150.26 321.41 543.91 672.64
Turkmenistan 205.72 104.55 126.92 295.55 295.15 207.50
Uzbekistan 131.81 518.89 670.66 1033.36 1453.93 1577.60Source: Source: World Bank (2011), Table T1 - ‘Estimates of Migrant Stocks 2010’, Washington DC: World Bank Group. http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTDECPROSPECTS/0,,contentMDK:21352016~pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165026~theSitePK:476883,00.html. (accessed 15 July 2011) – own calculations.
Note: a. For census years 1960-1990, people born on in the republics of the FUSSR other than those in which they were enumerated were imputed the “foreign-born” status.
Table A2 People enumerated or assigneda as “CARIM-East-born” in the listed CARIM-East countries, 1960-2010 (thou.)
CensusYears
Countries of enumeration (across)Countries of enumeration (across)Countries of enumeration (across)Countries of enumeration (across)Countries of enumeration (across)Countries of enumeration (across)Countries of enumeration (across)Countries of enumeration (across)Countries of enumeration (across)Countries of enumeration (across)Countries of enumeration (across)Countries of enumeration (across)Countries of enumeration (across)CensusYears
Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Georgia Moldova Russia Ukraine Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan Turkmenistan Uzbekistan All CARIM
1960 223.86 375.82 508.88 343.89 320.46 6040.72 3668.47 2110.99 396.48 245.42 189.75 649.24 15073.98
1970 82.84 219.96 727.81 284.02 407.37 5297.75 4600.54 2844.75 500.41 314.87 234.29 1141.53 19520.74
1980 396.40 389.88 877.50 323.97 483.66 7816.69 5784.08 3244.50 564.36 379.08 283.57 1427.98 21971.67
1990 266.45 396.83 1182.31 346.69 576.06 10196.46 6606.83 3518.18 636.45 431.45 308.60 1641.64 26107.95
2000 244.86 260.33 826.21 217.48 472.36 11254.52 4837.32 2773.95 378.44 324.51 226.20 1337.97 23154.15
2010 283.32 108.10 837.66 145.16 340.34 11530.38 4932.34 2816.19 204.26 212.57 191.15 830.12 22431.59
Source: Source: World Bank (2011), Table T1 - ‘Estimates of Migrant Stocks 2010’, Washington DC: World Bank Group. http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTDECPROSPECTS/0,,contentMDK:21352016~pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165026~theSitePK:476883,00.html. (accessed 15 July 2011) – own calculations.
Note: a. For census years 1960-1990, people born on in the republics of the FUSSR other than those in which they were enumerated were imputed the “foreign-born” status.
23
Table A3: Matrix of bilateral stocks of foreign-born people numerated in the CARIM-East region in 2010
24
Cou
ntry
of
bir
th
(dow
n)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Des
tinat
ion
coun
try
(acr
oss)
Cou
ntry
of
bir
th
(dow
n)
Arm
enia
Aze
rbai
jan
Bel
arus
Geo
rgia
Mol
dova
Rus
sian
Fe
dera
tion
Ukr
aine
Kaz
akhs
tan
Kaz
akhs
tanK
yrgy
z R
epub
licK
yrgy
z R
epub
licK
yrgy
z R
epub
licTa
jikis
tan
Tajik
ista
nTu
rkm
enis
tan
Turk
men
ista
nTu
rkm
enis
tanU
zbek
ista
nU
zbek
ista
nU
zbek
ista
nTO
TAL
TOTA
LTO
TAL
TOTA
L
Arm
enia
042
,596
6,07
417
,769
049
3,12
653
,193
7,35
77,
357
00000
7,24
87,
248
7,24
8000
627,
363
627,
363
627,
363
627,
363
Aze
rbai
jan
164,
483
03,
792
7,81
90
866,
843
92,5
3638
,921
38,9
21000
007,
895
7,89
57,
895
0001,
182,
289
1,18
2,28
91,
182,
289
1,18
2,28
9
Bel
arus
00
031
02,
631
958,
719
276,
070
55,6
2355
,623
00000
000000
1,29
3,35
31,
293,
353
1,29
3,35
31,
293,
353
Geo
rgia
75,7
925,
258
1,80
70
064
4,39
072
,410
2,63
52,
635
00000
000000
802,
291
802,
291
802,
291
802,
291
Mol
dova
00
2,54
312
40
284,
330
168,
370
9,69
39,
693
00000
000000
465,
060
465,
060
465,
060
465,
060
Rus
sia
32,9
9350
,007
680,
497
109,
968
147,
802
03,
684,
217
2,22
6,70
62,
226,
706
87,7
6287
,762
87,7
6219
1,75
419
1,75
464
,452
64,4
5264
,452
404,
356
404,
356
404,
356
7,68
0,51
47,
680,
514
7,68
0,51
47,
680,
514
Ukr
aine
4,87
310
,234
141,
266
7,44
718
9,90
63,
647,
234
027
1,95
127
1,95
17,
339
7,33
97,
339
004,
983
4,98
34,
983
0004,
285,
233
4,28
5,23
34,
285,
233
4,28
5,23
3
Kaz
akhs
tan
1,48
00
738
455
02,
648,
315
249,
886
006,
206
6,20
66,
206
0018
,766
18,7
6618
,766
197,
773
197,
773
197,
773
3,12
3,62
03,
123,
620
3,12
3,62
03,
123,
620
Kyr
gyz
Rep
ublic
00
014
50
474,
882
30,0
555,
418
5,41
8000
3,61
13,
611
000000
514,
112
514,
112
514,
112
514,
112
Tajik
ista
n0
00
207
039
2,44
633
,022
12,7
7512
,775
6,20
36,
203
6,20
300
00022
7,98
822
7,98
822
7,98
867
2,64
167
2,64
167
2,64
167
2,64
1
Turk
men
ista
n1,
543
00
145
017
9,54
825
,416
845
845
00000
000000
207,
496
207,
496
207,
496
207,
496
Uzb
ekis
tan
2,16
30
936
765
094
0,53
924
7,15
118
4,26
618
4,26
696
,746
96,7
4696
,746
17,2
1317
,213
87,8
1387
,813
87,8
13000
1,57
7,59
41,
577,
594
1,57
7,59
41,
577,
594
TOTA
L28
3,32
810
8,09
683
7,65
314
5,15
534
0,33
911
,530
,372
4,93
2,32
52,
816,
189
2,81
6,18
920
4,25
720
4,25
720
4,25
721
2,57
921
2,57
919
1,15
619
1,15
619
1,15
683
0,11
683
0,11
683
0,11
622
,431
,566
22,4
31,5
6622
,431
,566
22,4
31,5
66
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Sour
ces:
Rat
ha a
nd S
haw
(200
7) u
pdat
ed w
ith a
dditi
onal
dat
a fo
r 71
dest
inat
ion
coun
tries
as d
escr
ibed
in th
e M
igra
tion
and
Rem
ittan
ces
Fact
book
201
1.N
otes
: (1)
Bila
tera
l mig
ratio
n da
ta w
ere
crea
ted
by a
pply
ing
wei
ghts
bas
ed o
n bi
late
ral m
igra
nt st
ocks
(fro
m p
opul
atio
n ce
nsus
es o
f in
divi
dual
cou
ntrie
s)
to th
e U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion'
s est
imat
es o
f tot
al m
igra
nt st
ocks
in 2
005.
Endnotes
25
i Turkmenistan is an associate member of CIS. Georgia left the CIS in 2008.
ii Named after the Consortium for Applied Research on International Migration (CARIM) led by the European University Institute in Florence, Italy that has focused on migration patterns in the southern neighbourhood of Europe. To support the EU and regional policy makers in the South and East Mediterranean, the consortium developed an “observatory” of migration patterns in the region (CARIM-South). In 2011, this concept has been extended to cover the eastern neighbourhood of EU and the newly established eastern “observatory”, a joint venture between the EUI and the Centre of Migration Research at the University of Warsaw, Poland has been labelled “CARIM-East”.
iii Data for the Russian Federation are drawn from its 2002 census of population, for Armenia 2001 census, Belarus 2002 census, Georgia 2002 census, and the Kyrgyz Republic 1999 census (Dumont et al, 2010, Table A.2: 45-46. The young age group for the Kyrgyz Republic refers to those aged 16-24.
iv Information published in the OECD Migration Outlook includes data on the Russian Federation which is the only CARIM-East country accorded the status of an (OECD) “accession state”. These OECD data cover OECD states and the Russian Federation. They are sourced through a network of official correspondents, collated by the OECD Secretariat under the SOPEMI system of data integration and reporting (Systeme d’observation permanente des migrations), and published as OECD Migration Outlooks (OECD, 2011: 5). The data provided from national sources are not based on common definitions and SOPEMI’s role is that of an observer, using the available statistics but having no authority to demand changes in data collection and formatting procedures (ibid: 5-16 and 338).
v As the OECD observes, because of the great variety of sources used, different populations are likely to be measured and the criteria for registering immigrant population and the conditions for granting residence permits vary considerably across OECD host countries.
vi The World Bank dataset is the updated version of the bilateral migration matrix originally developed at the University of Sussex (see Parsons et al, 2005).
vii In EU27 area, migrants from the region account for only six percent of all people enumerated as foreign-born. However, in EU10, they account for nearly 44 percent of all migrants while in EU17 for less than four percent.