Two issues here are commonly muddled together: migration and "immigration".
Migration is concerned with population movements: immigration with people
who are initially resident in other countries who come to be resident in the
UK. John Barker writes as if the two are equivalent: he refers to an
upward trend in net migration but goes on to write of the "immigration
component of population growth". The assumptions he's critical of,
however, are mainly concerned with migration, not with immigration.
If the purpose of the census is to give information about who is living
where, migration is crucially important. If a UK resident works abroad for
a couple of years, that person disappears from the population count for the
duration; when that person comes back, the population seems to increase.
Net migration depends on the balance of out-migration and in-migration.
Many out-migrants return; many in-migrants leave. At a local level,
migration (rather than fertility or mortality) is the main determinant of
population change, and the smaller the area we deal with, the more true this
becomes. Migration figures need to reflect all flows, and the important
figure for any census (and so for service delivery and resource allocation)
is the change since the last census. The main argument for levelling off
the projections is that the assumption of balance of in-migration and
out-migration is neutral about demands for services; any other assumption
implies an adjustment in resource allocation.
Immigration is rather more difficult to operationalise and to measure. It
demands some consideration of future status as well as past history: when,
for example, does a student from overseas or a European citizen become an
"immigrant"? The topic is politically sensitive, and bound up with "race".
I agree wholeheartedly with David Gordon on the general issues (David might
want to frame that statement, because he doesn't get many like that from
me!) However, from point of view of the things we need a census for, like
resource allocation and service delivery, it's rather less important than
migration, and it accordingly receives rather less attention in the
estimates.
There is one other point which we've made before on this list, but which I
think is worth repeating: many of the problems of the census come from the
determination to deliver a comprehensive ten-year count. If we moved to a
rolling census, we could have much more sensitive and accurate information,
and a much more precise description of population flows.
Paul Spicker
Professor of Public Policy
Centre for Public Policy and Management
The Robert Gordon University
Kepplestone Mansion
Aberdeen AB15 7AW
Scotland
Tel: + 44 (0) 1224 263120
Fax: + 44 (0) 1224 263112
Edinburgh Office:
The Robert Gordon University
Dolphin House
4 Hunter Square
Edinburgh EH1 1QW
Tel: + 44 (0) 131 226 7971
Website: http://www.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|