Dar RADSTATS members.
The below e-mail by Paul Spicker seems to me to get him more firmly engulfed
in the mire which he has created.
I make the following points.
a) He seems to want to hide from, or draw attention away from his initial
un-professional conduct in his e-mail of the 10th February which was an
answer to mine of the 8th of Feb. when he wrote (at the beginning of his
e-mail):
"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".
I have already pointed out ( my e-mail of 11th Feb) that in my e-mail of 8th
February I did not write "an upward trend in net migration". I wrote "upward
trend in net international in-migration".
Spicker's allegation against me, as given in his e-mail of 10th February is
therefore totally unfounded.
(NB. I know what I wrote in my e-mail of of the 8th as I have a copy. I
received by e-mail one copy of what I had sent addressed to me and one copy
addressed to me a member of the Radstats group. Both these contained the
passage as I had written it, i.e. they mentioned "upward trend in net
international in-migration". I am assuming then that all other radstats
memeber received the same unaltered version of what I had wrote. If anyone
got a different version saying "upward trend in net migration" then Spicker
could have got the same and my criticism falls to the ground. I mention
this because e-mailing and discussion groups are technical things which
still have an aura of magic to me. However, I think it unlikely that Spicker
got anything different to what I wrote)
b) I note that in his latest e-mial he does not mention this error of his!
c)The terms involved in this dispute are ordinary English language terms,
not technical statistical terms.
Migration is understood commonly as movement of peoples irrespective of
destination or origin. Immigration refers to what we may term a subset of
migration and is destination determined, i.e refers to a host country/area.
People do not ordinarily confuse the two. The terms have been taken up in
statistics and other technical studies simply because there was no need to
invent some new terms. Their meaning in such studies remains the same. To
sum up. these are ordinary English words which are clearly different and
generally understood as different. I have never been confused abvout the
meaning of the two words.
d) I wonder why Spicker started his original e-mail of 10th Feb. by this
attack on me ? I speculate that he did not like
EITHER that I was critical of the census people OR THAT I suggested
government statistitians might be down-playing the net immigration trend
because the government wants to clamp down this concern (of the public) OR
BOTH.
e) The result of Spicker's latest attempt to justify his position, apart
from causing me to spend a lot of time which could have been spent on more
important matters, may well be to lower his reputation amongst other
RADSTATS members.
f) His charge against me is entirely spurious. I would have been
justified to completely ignore it.
However, I will reply to each of his points in turn in his latest e-mail, as
I take his charge against me seriously. I give my response below
g) I really cannot afford to spend more time on this dispute.
*MY RESPONSE*
1) "The identification of "net international in-migration" and "net inflow"
with "the immigration component of population growth".
MY REPLY
I do not see how this demonstrates that I confuse migration and immigration,
whatever else it may demonstrate. The "immigration component of population
growth" simply refers to the fact that total population growth has two
components a) natural increase (excess of births over deaths) b) net
immigration = "net inward migration" = "net international in-migration" =
"net inflow"( the excess of gross immigration over gross emigration).
Also, the "net international in-migration" comes in a separate, earlier
paragraph to the other two quotes. Its context was "despite the very clear
upward trend in net international in-migration to the UK, the trend is
always assumes to level off to the horizontal...". In this paragraph I
don't identify it with either of the other quotes.
As far as the other two quotes their context was:
" Considering recent projections (1994-based, 1996-based, 1998- based and
now the new 2000-based projections released November 2001), the immigration
component of population growth in the immediate future has been successively
increased. For the UK as a whole, in the 1994 projections, as in previous
projections, it had been assumed that there would be a net inflow in the
immediate following years of 50,000 persons a year. The 1996-based
projections raised this to 65,000 per year. The 1998-based projections
raised the level to 95,000 per year. The new projections raise the level to
135,000 people".
As I said in my e-mail, this paragraph was taken from our web site and the
context was information about population growth. Consequently when I came
to report on immigration I referred to the "immigration component of
population growth". But whether present readers knew of this context fact or
not, and contrary to what Spicker implies, "immigration component of
population growth" = "net immigration" = "net-inward migration = "net
inflow" (as I said earlier).
How does what I wrote demonstrate I confuse immigration with migration?
2) "The treatment (in section 2(ii)) of assumptions about migration as
equivalent to assumptions about immigration"
MY REPLY.
I am unsure just how much of my e-mail he apportions to section 2(ii). But
lets assume it means the whole of the rest of my e-mail from where section 2
(ii) starts to the end.
"Assumptions about migration". This must refer to where I in turn refer to a
publication of OPCS:
Office of population censuses and surveys (1993). Occasional paper 42. I
wrote:
"National population projections: a new methodology for determining
migration assumptions" and they kindly sent me a copy".
I was not here giving my own comment on migration or immigration.
"Migration assumptions" are just part of the title of a paper (of which I
was not an author). I am not myself sayng anything about "migration
assumptions". I may also point out that "migration assumptions" is a set of
which immigration and emigration assumptions would be sub-sets The document
focuses on net migration. It deals with the observed upward trend of net
migration - "although it is possible that the trend of the 1980s of a
growing excess of inward over outward migrants will continue...". The
document uses the term "net migratioin" rather than "net immigration" for
the simple reason that both in theory, and in recent decades in fact, gross
emigration may exceed gross immigration, or the other way round, gross
immigration may exceed gross emigration. So if one plots a graph over a
period of time which includes both these possibilities, it is more
appropriate to call the graph "net migration" rather than "net immigration".
Presumably Spicker is now going to write to ONS and complain that government
statisticians confuse migration with immigration!
I do mention the word "assumption" at the end of my e-mail where I say:
"What do other members of the group think about this. Do you think the
projections should level off?
I even speculate if a fundamental reason why government statisticians make
the assumption that the trend will level off, might be that they consciously
or perhaps only unconsciously are anxious to "down-play" the net immigration
trend, either because of what Garret Hardin terms a psychological failing,
supposedly inherent in our psyche, that makes us unable to control our
population numbers, or because considerable concern has been expressed about
possible adverse effects of net inward migration in some quarters, and the
government wants to damp down this concern, and they want to fall in line".
*This is referring to the trend in net-immigration. I have not myself in
this section talked about my ideas on "MIGRATION assumptions". To accuse me
of regarding assumptions about migration as equivalent to assumptions
about immigration, finds no support at all in this section of my e-mail.
3) "The identification of "net migrants" with "the excess of immigrants over
emigrants".
MY REPLY.
This must refer to part of a late paragraph in my e-mail in which I refer
to the OPCS document I have already referred to:
"They also stated: "the official projections mostly improved in accuracy as
the period being projected neared, but remained below the actual annual
average gain of 18,000. The official projections were almost invariably for
lower numbers of net migrants than were actually observed in these years".
(my italics). Despite this, this publication, pointing to a) longevity will
not go on increasing for ever, b) the excess of immigrants over emigrants is
unlikley to go on for ever, finally seemed to me to plump for a method
which over a period of ten years brought things to a constant level
projection!".
*My Comment*
When this document (not me) refer to "lower numbers of net migrants" they
are referring to the whole period 1979 to 1987, during which gross
emigration was sometimes larger than gross immigration, sometimese the
reverse.In giving figures they use a negative (e.g. -40) for the net
migration in the former case, a positive (e.g.+45) for the latter case.
In corresponding graphs, zero net migration is shown as a line dividing the
graph into two horizontal areas. 'Below the line' we have net emigration
(minus figures). Above the line we have net immigration (plus figures).
Net migration, unless it be zero, will be either positive or negative. If
then one is talking just about a period where there has consistently been an
excess gross immigration over gross emigration, as I was, it is reasonable
to narrow down "net migration" or "net migrants" to "net immigration" or
"excess of immigrants over emigrants" .
4) "A switch from 'net immigration trend' to 'net inward migration'".
MY REPLY.
This refers to a paragraph almost at the end of my e-mail:
"I even speculate if a fundamental reason why government statisticians make
the assumption that the trend will level off, might be that they consciously
or perhaps only unconsciously are anxious to "down-play" the net immigration
trend, either because of what Garret Hardin terms a psychological failing,
supposedly inherent in our psyche, that makes us unable to control our
population numbers, or because considerable concern has been expressed about
possible adverse effects of net inward migration in some quarters, and the
government wants to damp down this concern, and they want to fall in line".
*My comment is this* .
Remember again the context and what I said under section 3 of this reply. We
are in a period where gross immigration exceeds gross emigration. This means
that net migration is positive and may be referred to as net immigration.
Furthermore, one would not use the term net immigration if outflows
exceeded inflows; it would be more approriate then to talk of net
emigration. In effect, net immigration = net-inward migration.
Once again, I do not see here any evidence that I confuse or treat as
equivalent MIGRATION and immigration
5) "His reply confirms the confusion, treating 'net in-migration' as if it
meant 'immigration'".
REPLY
This refers to my later e-mail of 11th February. Here is the relevant
section:
"B) I resent your totally unjustified implication that I muddle 'migration
and 'immigration'. I have never been, and am not, muddled at all about this.
I am perfectly aware of the difference. And I doubt if it is true that the
two are "commonly muddled together". You allege I write as if the two terms
were equivalent.
Your evidence that I write as if the two were equivalent is:
"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".
I have this morning checked what I wrote. What I actually wrote was:
"upward trend in net international in-migration" .
I did not say "upward trend in net migration".
It is a great pity you did not take the trouble to read carefully what I
actually wrote. Also starting off your whole reply with this accusation
seems to me to be an attempt to rubbish me so you do not need to consider
carefully what I wrote. You appear to be a person ready to throw accusations
around without carefully considering the evidence".
*My comment*
Once again, the "immigration component of population growth" is the net
inward migration.
There is nothing here to support Spickers allegation.
Yours sincerely,
John Barker
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Spicker" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 10:05 AM
Subject: Migration and the census
> John Barker's angry reply misses the point. In his initial note, there
are
> several places at which migration and imigration are muddled. They are:
> - the identification of "net international in-migration" and "net inflow"
> with "the immigration component of population growth";
> - the treatment (in section 2(ii)) of assumptions about migration as
> equivalent to assumptions
> about immigration;
> - the identification of "net migrants" with "the excess of immigrants
over
> emigrants"; and
> - a switch from "net immigration trend" to "net inward migration".
> His reply confirms the confusion, treating "net in-migration" as if it
meant
> "immigration". Immigration is only one element of in-migration, and one
> that is particularly difficult to measure.
> This is fundamental to the problem that he raises about the validity
of
> the assumptions. He takes it that the assumptions he is criticising are
> assumptions about immigration trends. They aren't, even if immigration
> trends could affect
> them. The assumptions are supposed to give indications of the net balance
> of the population after in- and out-migration, which is a different issue.
>
> That moves me to the second part of argument, which is about the purpose
of
> the census. We use the census for many things - probably more than the
> exercise can sustain or justify. The central purpose of the census is
> administrative: it provides the information on which we can base planning
> and service delivery throughout the UK. The census is used for resource
> allocation between authorities - witness the howls that have arisen from
> local authorities that believe their population has been underestimated.
Any
> calculations and assumptions which are applied to the census have to be
> judged by how they affect service planning.
>
> Prediction is always uncertain. Any errors in the prediction of trends
are
> likely to be magnified over time, because the policy implications are
> cumulative. This is the reason for (a) favouring assumptions which are
> neutral about resource allocation and (b) discounting on future trends.
> This approach is conservative, and it may mean that the figures go wrong:
> but if the assumptions were changed, there is more chance that they would
be
> spectacularly wrong instead.
>
> My final paragraph was a partial reply to John Barker's first question,
but
> it
> assumed some prior knowledge of the topic, for which I have to apologise.
> The national total is not necessarily what matters. Because the census
> provides baseline information for planning and resource allocation, the
> figures have to be capable of being broken down into very small areas.
This
> means that the census has to work to a very high degree of accuracy - if
not
> to the nearest person, not far off. This is, unfortunately, impossible,
> and that raises the question of whether there isn't some other way of
> getting the precise baseline data we need at small area level. This is
the
> argument for using a rolling census, constantly taking and adjusting
> locally-based figures across the country, rather than a national census
> which doesn't appear for years and starts to rust as soon as it has
> appeared.
>
> 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]
> *******************************************************
>
******************************************************
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]
*******************************************************
|
