Dear Paul Spicker.
If you had read the Population Trends page at our web site, you would have
found the answer you require, and the reference.
Here is the relevant bit from our Population trends page.
www.gaiawatch.org.uk or www.population-growth-migration.info
"However, in considering population ageing we need to consider outward as
well as inward migration. And a recent report provides useful information.
This report focuses on an analysis of the overseas- born UK population
(R24). The investigation used various sources of information, including
information from the 2001 census.
The report notes that by no means all immigrants stay in the UK. Many
repatriate to country of origin or emigrate elsewhere. Overall, as many as
29 per cent of overseas-born immigrants emigrate within two years of
arrival, and 46 per cent within five years. This significant amount of
return migration coupled with continued immigration means, the authors
argue, that the overall overseas-born population ages more slowly than does
the UK-born population (remember that immigrants are concentrated in younger
age groups). They say that this implies "the currently observed processes of
immigration and emigration among UK's overseas-born immigrants will lower
the UK's old-age dependency ratio in the long run as well as in the short
run". The authors do not however go on to quantify this statement. And
although current migration may improve the support ratio, we should not
forget the basic fact that average net immigration into the UK in the last
decade has been of the order of 100,000 per year whereas the number needed
to maintain the earlier high support ratio would be about one million per
year, as mentioned earlier.
g) Changing ethnic composition of the UK population
1. Migration flows
The above report (R.24) shows that there are in fact complex interactions
between the composition of migrant streams in terms of nation of origin,
time of arrival and overall UK population ageing. We focus here just on
short term immigration and nation of origin.
The report shows that short-term immigration is commoner for people from
some countries than for others. A rough generalization is expressed by the
report's authors in terms of wealth: short term immigration is more
associated with 'higher-income' countries than with low-income countries. In
exploring these matters, the authors examined data for emigration between
1981 and 2000 and the proportion of immigrants who subsequently emigrated
during that period.
Immigrants from the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the
USA have relatively high rates of subsequent emigration (over 50 per cent
emigrating again within five years).These are the 'higher-income' countries.
In contrast, the corresponding figure for the Indian sub-continent is well
under twenty per cent. What the authors of the report do not draw our
attention to however, is the long term consequences in terms of changing
ethnic composition of our population. For instead of talking in terms of
income, we can talk in terms of ethnic groups and re-phrase the authors'
conclusion: Return migration is commoner from countries where White ethnic
groups predominate, groups all of which have their cultural roots in Europe.
In contrast, migrants from the Indian sub-continent have a greater tendency
to stay in the UK. These results have clear implications for the changing
relative size of different ethnic groups in the UK.
We now leave aside the distinction between short and long term migration,
and look at total migration flows into and from the UK. Two recent
publications provide basic information (R25; R17). The first publication
looks at the period 1981 to 1999. The second, the period 1991 to 2002. The
migrant flows are divided into the categories British and non-British. The
non-British are divided into the categories: European Union, Old
Commonwealth, New Commonwealth and 'Other Foreign' (the 'Old Commonwealth'
consists of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa; the 'New
Commonwealth' includes all other Commonwealth countries, notably the
countries of the Indian sub-continent, former British Africa and Caribbean
territories). We can find information on the non-British in terms of
citizenship in the first publication, country of birth in the second (both
publications also provide other classifications also).
A striking feature of the flows estimated is that throughout the period
1981-1999 (first publication) and the period 1991-2002 (second publication)
there has been a net outflow of British, and a net inflow of non-British
persons. In terms of the flows of the different non-British categories, both
reports demonstrate that the inflow of New Commonwealth persons had been
very substantial, but both reports also demonstrate what the first report
says: "one striking aspect was the very small size of the New Commonwealth
outflow throughout the period compared to other groups" (this ties in with
the results on short and long term migration mentioned earlier)".
Reference 24 is:
R.24. Rendall, M.S. & Ball, D.J. ( 2004). Immigration, emigration and the
ageing of the overseas-born population in the United Kingdom. Population
Trends 116: 18-27.
I hope this is helpful,
John Barker
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Spicker" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 9:06 AM
Subject: Mea culpa
>I misread a table, and was wrong in asserting that 13.2% of foreign-born
> residents had come post 1971; this figure refers only to older immigrants.
> My apologies to all, and thanks to Simon Briscoe for pointing out the
> mistake to me.
>
> I have tried to correct this myself, but have not been successful as yet.
> The indications I have are that post 1981 there were 3.3 million
> in-migrants
> (on the basis of the IPS) and that 46% of these leave after 5 years. This
> implies that roughly half of this group have re-emigrated, and that
> 1.6-1.8
> million remain; this would amount to immigration of about 90,000 per year
> in
> the period 1981-2001, which seems more or less to balance out-migration of
> people born in Britain. The true figures are not clear from the source I
> used, and if someone else has the answer I'd be grateful to know it.
>
> P.S.: I had prepared this note before the formal closure of the
> discussion,
> and beg people's forbearance for a late continuation. I think it's
> important to acknowledge mistakes.
>
> Paul Spicker
> Professor of Public Policy
> Centre for Public Policy and Management
> The Robert Gordon University
> Garthdee Road
> Aberdeen AB10 7QE
> Scotland
>
> Tel: +44 12243120
> Fax: + 44 12243434
>
> 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]
*******************************************************
|