1 / 29

Impacts of international migration methodology improvements

Impacts of international migration methodology improvements. Jonathan Swan. Effects of New International Migration Methodology by Methodological Change, 2002 to 2005. In-migration Estimates 2002 to 2005: London. In-migration Estimates 2002 to 2005: Yorkshire and the Humber.

meeker
Download Presentation

Impacts of international migration methodology improvements

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Impacts of international migration methodology improvements Jonathan Swan

  2. Effects of New International Migration Methodology by Methodological Change, 2002 to 2005

  3. In-migration Estimates 2002 to 2005: London

  4. In-migration Estimates 2002 to 2005: Yorkshire and the Humber

  5. In-migration Estimates 2002 to 2005: East

  6. Comparison of Flag 4’s vs Census

  7. Comparison of Existing Method and Flag 4’s vs Census

  8. Comparison of Improved & Existing Method and Flag 4’s vs Census

  9. Comparison of National Insurance Numbers (NINos) vs Census

  10. Comparison of Improved Method and National Insurance Numbers (NINos) vs Census

  11. Out-migration Impacts • Impacts are very small at regional level Broadly speaking: • Student areas have increased out-migrants • e.g. Cambridge • Large urban areas have fewer out-migrants • e.g. Manchester

  12. Switcher Assumptions Visitor Switchers: • Changes more or less even out at national level. Migrant Switchers: • Lower proportion of in-migrants who are switchers • Higher proportion of out-migrants who are switchers • Thus Migrant Switcher changes Increase total net- migrants • But … position can change from LA to LA • And data used for assumptions will change over time

  13. LAs with highest net-migration increases2002 to 2005

  14. LAs with highest net-migration increases2002 to 2005

  15. Leeds: an example of change, by cause In Migrants – Improved Regional Method 11,800 In Migrants – Improved LA Method 1,900 Visitor Switchers – In Migrants 700 Migrant Switcher* Proportion – In Migrants 200 Migrant Switcher* Interaction – In Migrants -600 IN-MIGRANTS TOTAL 13,900 Out Migrants – Improved Method -5,100 Visitor Switchers – Out Migrants 300 Migrant Switcher* Proportion – Out Migrants -200 Migrant Switcher* Interaction – Out Migrants 100 OUT-MIGRANTS TOTAL -4,900 NET-MIGRANTS TOTAL 18,800 (*Sign adjusted to show effect)

  16. LAs with biggest net-migration decreases2002 to 2005

  17. Bottom ten LAs with net-migration decreases2002 to 2005

  18. Westminster ‘Rolled Forward’ Estimate 254,000 Original Census Estimate 181,700 Implied MYE over estimate of 72,500 Estimate Following LA studies 203,200 Implies MYE over estimate during the 1990s of 50,800 Compare to revision for improved methodology (over four years) of -15,500

  19. In-migrants: Change as percent of 2005 population

  20. In-migrants: Change as percent of 2005 population

  21. Out-migrants: Change as percent of 2005 population

  22. Out-migrants: Change as percent of 2005 population

  23. Net-migrants : Change as percent of 2005 population

  24. Net-migrants : Change as percent of 2005 population

  25. Subnational Population Projections Rich Pereira

  26. Overview of Strategy • Revise 2004-based Subnational Population Projections (SNPPs) by: • Use revised 2004 MYE as a base • Use revised 2002-2003 MYEs in 5 year reference period for setting future assumptions • National assumptions and projected population remain the same

  27. What this means • Revised 2005 and new 2006 estimates and migration will not be used in revisions • The methodology improvement affects 2005 and 2006 most for many areas. Since these are not used in 2004-based projections, impact will be less • Impact at LA level is therefore dependent on revised MYE back series only

  28. Impact on Subnational Projections • Difficult to say at this stage how projected figures will change but they will be affected: • Change to absolute population levels • Change to age/sex distributions affects future population levels • Broadly, areas seeing a reduction in estimates for 2002-2004 will see a reduction in projections (though this will not always be the case especially where the change is small)

  29. Future Plans • Revised 2004-based SNPPs to be published in September • 2006-based National Projections to be published on October 23, 2007 • 2006-based SNPPs to be published in Summer 2008 • Will use 2006 MYE as base year • Reference period for assumptions will be 2001-2006

More Related